# D600 or D800?



## tevo (Jun 1, 2013)

Finally upgrading to a FF, and I'm considering buying one of Nikon's new FF SLRs as opposed to an older D700 or D3. If I had to choose between a D600 and a D800, would the 800 be worth the extra stretch? With that being said, would the 800E be worth the even further stretch? I shoot a wide variety of things, so I want a very flexible camera. Continuous rate isn't as important to me for sports (although at some point I may buy a D3 for a sports dedicated body as well), but low light and AF performance is.


----------



## jaomul (Jun 1, 2013)

The thing here is that probably not to many people owned both (few but not many) so most will likely advise you based on pictures they see and reviews they read. One thing you can be sure of is both models help produce top class images. All the reviews and owner feedback almost guarantees it. The specs other than image quality are what you will need help you decide here. You say you are looking at these models over the d700 and d3. I use canon but got a "go" off a d700 and it is a fab camera


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

Having shot with both, the D800 is the clear and obvious winner in just about all categories.
 36MP is actually more useful than I thought it would be, and ISO6400 cleaned up looks pretty awesome. 

The disadvantages that really swayed me from the D600, is the sync speed, the small focus area in the view finder, and the max shutter speed.
Those 3 things were deal breakers.

Of course the D600 is capable of taking great photos, but it has too many limitations for my way of shooting.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 1, 2013)

D800 is by far the better choice... MP, Usability, Focus system, etc..

D600 is a grand cheaper... with some limitations that may be overcome by the price.

Both are capable of great images!


----------



## kja6 (Jun 1, 2013)

Canadians gave the D600 3.5/5 and the D800 4.5/5 on the nikon.ca website. The 150+ reviews of each camera, from Nikon Canada's website, may be very helpful to you:

D600:
D600 Nikon Digital Camera | Digital SLR Camera from Nikon

D800:
Nikon D800 D-SLR Camera | High Dynamic Range Camera Nikon D800 D-SLR Camera | High Dynamic Range Camera


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 1, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> .........Of course the D600 is capable of taking great photos, but it has too many limitations for my way of shooting.



I'm exactly the opposite.  The D800 had nothing over the D600 that I could use... so why spend the money on gear that won't help me?  I'd rather get glass with the difference.


----------



## KmH (Jun 1, 2013)

As Ken points out, for some the D600 is sufficient. For some, only the D800 will do.

The Multi-CAM 4800 auto focus module in the D600 is an issue when compared to the Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX AF module in the D800.

Also the D600 has the 2,016 pixel metering sensor, while the D800 has the 91,000 pixel metering sensor.
The D600 can only do 3 Auto Exposure Brackets (AEB), while the D800 can do 9 AEB.
The D600 does not have the 10 pin connector and PC flash cable ports that the D800 has.
Another difference is shutter flash sync speeds: 1/200 for the D600, 1/250 for the D800.
The D600 has a max shutter speed of 1/4000 (150,000 actuation rating), the D800 is 1/8000 (200,000 actuation rating).
The D600 has a magnesium alloy top and back plate. The D800 has a complete magnesium alloy chassis and better weather sealing.

The D600 has all the features and functions that Nikon's consumer grade cameras have and is essentially a D7000 with a FX image sensor in it. The D800 is Nikon's prosumer grade FX camera.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 1, 2013)

KmH said:


> ...........The D600 has all the features and functions that Nikon's consumer grade cameras have and is essentially a D7000 with a FX image sensor in it........



When I first put my paws on a D600, I said, "This is a D7000 on steroids!"


----------



## runnah (Jun 1, 2013)

Honestly the 600 feels flimsy in my hands. I like the solid construction and feel of the 800.

Also the button layout on the 800 suits my "button for everything" mentality.


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 1, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > .........Of course the D600 is capable of taking great photos, but it has too many limitations for my way of shooting.
> ...



Preference is ultimately the deciding factor.


----------



## tevo (Jun 2, 2013)

Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 2, 2013)

I've noticed a difference between the 800 and 800E, but the level of noticeable differences depends on how you're using it. if you're using a large portion of the frame, and downsizing for web use then you won't see much of a difference between the D800/D800E, however if you're cropping a good amount, the difference with the E is noticeable and worth it IMO. FWIW, I use the E for wildlife stuff where I'm shooting at wide open or close to it, and higher crops may be required.

also remember though that at a point, depending on the lens and how much you're stopping down, diffraction can and will negate the differences in sharpness. 

so, it kindof depends on your uses, style, and preferences as to if the E is worth it.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 2, 2013)

tevo said:


> Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.



The night before I got my D600, I printed out the specs of both the D600 and D800.  I crossed out all the stuff that's the same, and looked hard and close at what the differences were.  And to be truthful, none of the difference were of any use to me.  Long story short: The D800 did _nothing_ for me the D600 couldn't.  In fact, given the D800 has 36mp and two different card types was a _huge ding against it_.

I really tried to convince myself to keep my powder dry until I could secure the difference (in dollars) to get a D800, but it just wasn't gonna happen.  And truth be told, there's a lot of stuff on the D600 I wish would either disappear, or was different.  But Nikon won't listen to me.

At the end of the day, only YOU can decide which camera is best for you.  All the rest of us can do is give you advice based on our needs and experiences.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 2, 2013)

I have the D800 and wish I had picked up the 800E. With 36MP on tap and really good glass in front of it, having that staggering sharpness and being able to dial in the amount of AA you want post-processing is a huge win in my book. I would go the 800E, personally.

I've never used a 600, but my understanding is that it's an entry level FF camera... and has entry-level characteristics. The D800 is not entry-level. In fact, the D800 is sort of daunting. I've been a photographer for about ten years now, and I'm not afraid of much, but I'll tell you that whenever I pick that thing up, I have to be very serious about what I'm doing. It is NOT a toy.

Oh and 50 meg raw files are painful.  Plan to upgrade your hardware and storage to compensate.  24MP isn't anything to sneeze at either... but 36?!  Jeez.


----------



## KmH (Jun 2, 2013)

tevo said:


> Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? .


That can only be a personal decision based on *your *wants and needs.

The D800 outperforms the D600 in many ways. So on a performance basis the additional cost of the D800 is justified on that basis alone.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 2, 2013)

tevo said:


> Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.



I haven't shot the D800E but from what I could find the difference isn't really usable unless you're really printing huge or cropping the bejesus out of it.  And then proper edge sharpening brought it right up there with the E.

Anti-aliasing was important to me so I got the D800.

If you get the D800 read the manual two or three times with the camera in hand and you'll be good to go.

If you want the most out of this camera a tripod helps as much if not more than uber sharp lenses.  (you still need good glass but you don't have to have the absolute top of the line)


----------



## manaheim (Jun 2, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you all for the replies. Can anyone attest for whether or not the D800E is worth the extra money? It's my understanding that Nikon has corrected the desharpening caused by an AA filter on the sensor, but it does not result in noticeably sharper images like you would find with a Leica M8 or M9, comparatively.
> ...



I'm really confused.  The D800E isn't usable unless you're printing big or cropping?

The D800E is just the D800 without the AA filter.  The only difference is the lack of blending between the pixels to make a smoother image, which you can do easily in post processing.  In every other respect they're the same, and therefore anything that would be a challenge (printing or otherwise) would be the same on both... and there's nothing unusable about either that would restrict it's usability to large prints or heavily cropped images.


----------



## greybeard (Jun 2, 2013)

Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis
Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis

This analysis says it all.  It really depends on your needs.  If you have a particular need of some of the D800's unique features then it is worth the extra money.


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 3, 2013)

I don't like snapsort, their ratings system is so wonky, its nice to look at the specs side to side, but as far as their 'which is better' ratings system, its so flawed with what it looks at, and for what it doesn't look at. it only takes into account at raw numbers, nothing else...for example, they factor in their own ranking of 'popularity' into their score, what use is that? and how does popularity indicate a better functioning camera? they also rank one body higher for a fractional ISO noise rating, but no change in the fractional dynamic range, or color depth, (not saying that its really needed, just seems odd that they'd change ratings for one and not the others), and I believe these numbers are only pulled from one source (DXOmark), which is okay, DXOMark has good info, but its only ONE source. They also weight things oddly, they have a high weight of ISO performance, and """popularity""", but no weighting for AF functionality/performance/area, nothing weighted for resolution, nothing weighted for button layout (granted, thats a personal preference, but VERY important non-the-less)...Score - Nikon D600 vs Nikon D800

really both the D600 and D800/D800E are exceptional camera bodies. I really think you'd be happy with either one. If *I* were choosing one, I'd take the D800/E...the AF gains, AF area, resolution, and button setup, etc are worth the price difference for me and what I do, and if I had to choose the standard 800 vs the E, I'd choose the E, since the benefits of the E are useful for some things that I do, I would rather have that benefit than not (I haven't noticed much of a difference in moire for what I shoot, but you may if yo have alot of things like fabric patterns, etc, so take that into account if you shoot things like that)....however, all that said, I'm not about wasting money, so although I do prefer the more expensive body, I'd buy good used or refurbished on whatever body you end up getting for the price savings. If you can, go hold each one and see which feels better to you (if you haven't already). I really don't think you'd be disappointed in the performance of either one...


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 3, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > tevo said:
> ...



I believe he's saying the difference between having the AA vs not isn't really noticeable unless you're printing big or cropping...not that it isn't usable.

which I tend to agree with...to a point...though IMO how noticeable the difference is will depend a lot more on what and how you're shooting, but the crop amount and printing size does play into it.....

however I have noticed that regardless of crop or print size, I have noticed that I have had to change my processing a little bit between the E vs non-E, I am applying less 'sharpening' to the E raw files to achieve the same level of final result than I am with the non-E files. which is really saying something because I don't typically apply much sharpening to begin with. but there is definitely a difference between them.


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 3, 2013)

greybeard said:


> Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis
> Nikon D600 vs D800 - Our Analysis
> 
> This analysis says it all.  It really depends on your needs.  If you have a particular need of some of the D800's unique features then it is worth the extra money.



Some how the camera with the inferior features and image quality is better? Makes sense.

Snapsorts analysis is probably the last thing that "says it all".


----------



## greybeard (Jun 3, 2013)

It is real easy to write things like "Snapsorts analysis is probably the last thing that "says it all""  and quite another to really back it up.  I have found their comparisons to be pretty spot on most of the time.  But, like poor old Ken Rockwell, who gets blasted constantly on this forum, get no respect either.  I think  both of these fine bodies have their place and the D600 is better suited to certain types of users than the d800.  Much like using a bulldozer were a rototiller will do.  (jmho)


----------



## Ballistics (Jun 3, 2013)

greybeard said:


> It is real easy to write things like "Snapsorts analysis is probably the last thing that "says it all""  and quite another to really back it up.



It's just as easy to say "snapsorts analysis says it all". I don't get what your point is. You gave your opinion of snapsort, and I gave mine. Don't know how you really back up subjectivity. 

The D800 has better/more features, has better image quality, but the D600 has better ISO by a tenth of a stop. Meanwhile, noise reduction software takes care of that tenth of a stop.
The D600 is $800 less. But you sacrifice a lot of features for that $800.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 3, 2013)

Anti-aliasing isn't something you can really do right in post. In general, aliasing isn't that big of an issue for cameras at the level of a D800, the rest of the optical system will do enough low-pass filtering for you, and it's only problematic at very very specific spatial frequencies.

High frequency moire you can just turn into moosh in post, which is probably a good enough solution for those rare cases when it turns up. If you get very unlucky, though, you can wind up (in theory) with a quite low frequency moire pattern generated by a image with spatial frequencies very very close to the sampling frequency of the sensor. This won't get picked up by a "touch of softening". It's possible that Nikon has left sufficient AA in the mix to keep this from ever being an issue.

If they have NOT, however, if you truly have a completely unfiltered image placed on the sensor, the world of super-sampling opens up. In theory, again. This is something I have long been curious to find out if the newer AA-less cameras truly let you do, or if they're just doing less anti-aliasing but still enough to thwart super-sampling.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 3, 2013)

I own both D800 and D600, shot a wedding with both over the weekend, enjoyed both.  Each has its own strength and weaknesses.  It comes down to your shooting style.  For me it's hard to decide but I prefer the ergonomic on my heavy D800.


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 3, 2013)

yeah, fixing moire in post and optical aliasing are quite different...but as far as what body should be considered, it really comes down to what is being shot...if you're doing alot of fabric/fashion shots where the spacial frequencies can tend towards moire, then although you can work with moire in post, its much easier and faster to have the optical aliasing in play to begin with....

as far as the D800/e/600 goes, regardless on how many people you ask, you'll probably get a fairly even split between them since different people will have different needs. If you ask a landscape photographer, portrait photographer, and sports photographer what the most important aspect of a sensor's performance is as far as ISO, DR, or Color Depth, you'll get 3 different answers. any review or comparison (ie. snapsort, KR, DP, Thom Hogan, Cameralabs, and the list goes on) will only give you one point of view, one person's experience, one set of *completely subjective results *even places like snapsort that attempt to make an objective result, don't obtain really any objectivity, for the reasons I stated earlier, and more (but I don't think this is the place to derail the OP's thread about why x site is better than Y site), you need to collect them all and see them for what they each are, a piece of the review puzzle, not the whole enchilada...As you probably well know, the best way to decide is to try them each out and see what works best for you in regards to every aspect from price, to ergonomics, to functionality, etc...take a memory card to your camera store and see if they'll let you fire off a few shots with their floor models, and compare them when you get home...

as far as the 800 vs 800E, that is another topic of debate that will lead to a fairly split poll between them....since I have both the 800 and 800E, I'd be happy to take a few test pics if that is something that people would be interested in....


----------



## sandollars (Jun 3, 2013)

I would advise you read everything here and everything else you can get your hands on.  Read every review and make up your own mind.  All 3 are great cameras and all 3 will give you superior results with the right lenses and talent which you can't buy.  Practice, practice, practice.

Good luck on your journey!


----------



## tevo (Jun 4, 2013)

I shoot sports as my job, but the D7000 is sufficient for what the company asks. However, I enjoy shooting sports independently as well, so a sports oriented body would be very useful. Ideally I would get a D4 but that is much too expensive, and the 600/800 have the same low light performance; I can do without the continuous frame rate. I know the D800 supposedly has a better AF system, but how would it compare to the AF of a D3 / D700?

At this point I'm leaning towards a D800 because it seems to be a more versatile camera.


----------



## Aloicious (Jun 4, 2013)

tevo said:


> I shoot sports as my job, but the D7000 is sufficient for what the company asks. However, I enjoy shooting sports independently as well, so a sports oriented body would be very useful. Ideally I would get a D4 but that is much too expensive, and the 600/800 have the same low light performance; I can do without the continuous frame rate. I know the D800 supposedly has a better AF system, but how would it compare to the AF of a D3 / D700?
> 
> At this point I'm leaning towards a D800 because it seems to be a more versatile camera.



I never ran into a wall with the AF on my D3s, or 800's, but the 800 does have some nice AF perks (more cross type points, being able to AF down to f8, and an edge in lower light af performance), but in all reality, I never had an issue with either IME. I suspect the D3s was improved slightly from the D3/D700, and the D800/D4 is improved from there.


----------



## acollamat (Jun 5, 2013)

I am a D600 user but if you can stretch to D800 then go for D800, both camera is capable of capturing great image.


----------



## Centropolis (Jun 5, 2013)

I just want to add that you need to pick up the D600 in your hand to know how it feels.  I was at a Photography Show this past weekend and picked up the D600 and D7100, they feel really weird and not stable in the hand.  I prefer the way they made the grip for the D800 and even the D300s much better.

You'd think that the grip is something to get used to but trust me, after a while it will bug the heck out of you.  Two weeks ago I shot an event with a Panasonic GH3 with a grip (mounted grip not the body grip) and the AE-L button on the grip is placed in a weird place, my thumb cramped.


----------



## roxanadiaz057 (Jun 13, 2013)

The D7100 is definitely an improvement on the D7000 but how significant the improvements are to you will depend on what you photograph and probably more importantly what you use the photographs for.


----------



## tevo (Jul 30, 2013)

So I've run into a great deal on a D700.. for *$1000.* Worth it? I figure I can always re sell it for more should I decide I want a D600.


----------



## GaryT (Jul 31, 2013)

I am the same boat as you and looking at D700/D3 and D800 bodies. I had looked at the D600 but I'm a biker and I think the better weather sealing and build of the 'pro' bodies would be an advantage if and when it rains. And it will rain, a lot!! 

As has been said it comes down to the fact weather you feel you need the extra resolution of the newer bodies. If you do go for a 12mp machine and find its not up to what you want just sell it and move up the food chain. 
We all have seen the great files the 800 throws out, detailed to the extreme and the ability to crop the life out of your images while still producing a usable image, it is a force to be reckoned with that's for sure.

I'm still not sure what way to go myself, for the price of a D800 you could have a D700/D3 and a lump of change towards a 24-70 2.8 and that's what I'm swayed to at the minute. I still have more saving to do so prices could come down even more by the time I am ready to buy. 

What is the shutter count on the D700 you found?


----------



## sashbar (Jul 31, 2013)

All the specs for both D600 and D800 are available, there is lots of all possible  information about both cameras on the net, you can hardly find anything new. So if with all this info you are asking other photographers which camera would suit you better, probably, maybe you need to hold your fire and wait until you know exactly what you need ? Just my 2 p.


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 31, 2013)

tevo said:


> So I've run into a great deal on a D700.. for $1000. Worth it? I figure I can always re sell it for more should I decide I want a D600.



That's a good price if its in good condition.


----------



## ranson (Jul 31, 2013)

Hey. Im a d600 owner for 2 weeks and from the very first moment i got it i can't get my hands off it, this camera is addicting like no other way. A friend if mine got the d800 and you can tell the difference a slight bigger body redicules high MP the bottons organization is different its like a semi pro FF body that similar to the single letter series and the d600 is like a semi pro FF body that similar to the three letter series. 
As i was saying the d600 is not the d800 but isn't dropong very far behind ( and maybe in low light performance slightly better ) the d600 is an AMAZING camera!!  
If you can afford the d800 go get it, but if you want to save a thousand bucks get the d600 and you wont be less happy. 

Hope i gave you points to think about have a wonderful day!!


----------



## tevo (Jul 31, 2013)

I ended up with the D700. Oh my god the low light performance. Oh my god the detail retention. Brb 10 minutes.


----------



## ranson (Aug 1, 2013)

Haha.. Have fun.

Welcome to the FX club.  now you need to get kickass lenses


----------



## Solarflare (Aug 1, 2013)

ranson said:


> Hey. Im a d600 owner for 2 weeks and from the very first moment i got it i can't get my hands off it,


 Well, it took me full 2 months before I went "meh, I have good light today, I dont need the low light performance and maximum resolution of the D600, I'd rather have the lower weight and the flipscreen" and instead took my D5100 with me.


----------



## tevo (Aug 1, 2013)

ranson said:


> Haha.. Have fun.
> 
> Welcome to the FX club.  now you need to get kickass lenses



I have a 70-200 VRII and a 24-70, I'm off to a good start


----------



## Derrel (Aug 1, 2013)

tevo said:


> I ended up with the D700. Oh my god the low light performance. Oh my god the detail retention. Brb 10 minutes.



From the movie, Shouting of the Hams: "_It rubs the lotion on Its camera...It rubs the lotion on Its camera...It rubs the lotion on Its camera..._"

OMG, you are too funny Tevo!


----------



## sandollars (Aug 1, 2013)

tevo said:


> ranson said:
> 
> 
> > Haha.. Have fun.
> ...



A VERY good start.....


----------



## tevo (Aug 3, 2013)

Picked up a like new in box MBD10 (with trays!) with the EnEl4a battery, battery cover, and mh21 charger for $250.


----------



## Juga (Aug 3, 2013)

tevo said:


> I ended up with the D700. Oh my god the low light performance. Oh my god the detail retention. Brb 10 minutes.



I know I am in the Nikon forum but this how I felt after experienced the 6D in low light...

:heart:

PS...Congrats!


----------



## sandollars (Aug 4, 2013)

Juga said:


> tevo said:
> 
> 
> > I ended up with the D700. Oh my god the low light performance. Oh my god the detail retention. Brb 10 minutes.
> ...




There is an ENEMY in the camp!!!! LOL!


----------

