# Going FX. D600 or D800



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

I shoot newborn, child, family. Natural light, outside weather permitting. I want to upgrade to FX.
I went from a D90 (which I loved) to a D7000 (that I want to love). The D7000 has the improved ISO I was seeking, but for me the oil/dust/whatever on the sensor is a very real problem...and it is very frustrating.
I think the D600 is probably a good fit for me, but the oil splatter issues reported with it are making me very hesitant to buy it. I completely understand that issues seem worse than they are because the unhappy people tend to be the most vocal...but coming off my experiences with the D7000 is really making me a little worried about the D600.

The file sizes on the D800 are probably overkill for me, and I appreciate the smaller and lighter build of the D600...but I wonder if the D800 might be a better option.
I have never shot at anything other than the highest resolution my cameras have been capable of...but if the file size is my biggest concern with the D800, would shooting it not maxed out be an option? Or is that just silly?

Sorry for the potentially ignorant sounding question...and thank you for any input on the D600


----------



## O'Rork (Apr 4, 2013)

I have the D600 and it fits the bill just fine. It lacks huge files, 51 AF points and 1/8000 shutter speed. D600 is suitable for nearly every photo need for nearly every photog. The oil spots on the sensor are real. Don't let that hamper your decision to consider it. I just researched cleaning the spots, acquired the kit to clean them and did it myself without issue. Should spots return, no big deal. 

Should you relentlessly research the D600 on the web, you should find there isn't a thing close to it in it's price range and it is in print that it takes IQ to a level in the top 4 cameras available period.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

Here's another thread on the same subject.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

Thanks!
I agree with the poster in that thread that a D800 with 24mp and the D600 fps would make it a no brainer.
But, there is no such camera that I am aware of.
I know you will laugh...but would shooting the D800 at lower resolution make a difference? Do the RAW files stay the same size if I do that?
Thanks


----------



## O'Rork (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> Thanks!
> I agree with the poster in that thread that a D800 with 24mp and the D600 fps would make it a no brainer.
> But, there is no such camera that I am aware of.
> I know you will laugh...but would shooting the D800 at lower resolution make a difference? Do the RAW files stay the same size if I do that?
> Thanks


 
In regard to the D800, 16.2MB for a 14 bit NEF compressed file in DX according to the manual.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 4, 2013)

Raw files are the same.

If you get it right then jpegs are fine, and you still have the option to use the raw files should you get that 'great shot' that you want to baby.

I too considered the D600 but since getting the D800 my medium format and large format cameras stay at home.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2013)

It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.

By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.

But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 4, 2013)

I haven't held either or but a plus is the size and weight. I sometimes take my d90 and love how light and small it is compared to my d700. If you don't need the features the d800 has, then I would go for a d600 but wait till the oil issue is cleared up or learn how to clean a sensor. As Derrel mentioned, the d3x is an option too but I think the d600 low light performance should be significantly better. Don't let the max shutter speed or flash sync speed deter you. You probably aren't going be shooting at that fast of a shutter speed anyway. 

All in all its really about what you need and want. I happen to be a fan of the build of the d800 and its AF system but I never print that large. On the same token, all of my gear is in great condition and I don't put it through crappy environmental. 
Just take a moment and decide what you need and see what fits the bill.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 4, 2013)

Harddrive/SD/CF card memory is so cheap and plentiful nowadays, and the Apple iMac rocks at processing it.  I like the 36, actually 56 would suit me fine too....step it up, NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 4, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells



That made me LOL


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Harddrive/SD/CF card memory is so cheap and plentiful nowadays, and the Apple iMac rocks at processing it.  I like the 36, actually 56 would suit me fine too....step it up, NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells



models have brain cells? 
I kid I kid!

I guess I was confused. I was hoping there was some way to shoot at lower resolution without shooting in DX mode. This is an area I am completely uneducated because I have never encountered this situation.

I have a D7000 and have become pretty good at cleaning the sensor. It's not the end of the world, but there is nothing more annoying than noticing spots in the sky half way through an outdoor session. I can hear the clock ticking when I imagine all the extra time in post processing :/ 

The only reason I am not considering the D7100 is that I shoot pretty much only primes. I do all the newborn and small child session inside and on location during the cold months (which are plentiful in Chicago). I LOVE my 50mm and 85mm. Many times I really wish I had the extra room the FX would give me! 

I am still undecided. I do some large prints, but nothing that requires 36mp...but it would be lovely to be able to crop...
And without the potential spatter issues I really think the D600 would be a great fit for me...

Blah! When are we due for a new FX? I would love a lower mp d800


----------



## cgw (Apr 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.
> 
> By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.
> 
> But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.



There's also some concern that the D7100 uses the D5200 sensor minus an AA filter. There's also the Expeed 3 processor on the D7100. Need to see more, better reviews of the D7100 to judge if it's really worth 50% more than the D7000.

What were the OP's issues with the D7000??? Never heard of a widespread cruddy sensor problem with the D7000.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

cgw said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > What were the OP's issues with the D7000??? Never heard of a widespread cruddy sensor problem with the D7000.
> ...


----------



## kendalltristan (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> This is my issue with the D7000. Every couple hundred shots. I am over 5000 now and it is not going away as I had hoped
> Pic of sensor is only smeared because I tried dry cleaning/blowing it before wet cleaning.


If that's the case, then you may have a malfunctioning camera. I've never seen any SLR get that dirty in only a couple hundred shots without the user changing lenses in a sandstorm. This is the first I've heard of it on a D7000 as well.

Honestly the D600 sensor dust/dirt issue isn't terrible. I sent mine in to Nikon Service for cleaning after about 1500 shutter actuations and it's only developed a single spot since then (which is common enough on any interchangeable lens camera). Overall I'm extremely pleased with the camera and am glad to have not spent the extra thousand bucks on the D800, but I totally understand different use/case scenarios where people would want the D800.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

kendalltristan said:


> pony said:
> 
> 
> > This is my issue with the D7000. Every couple hundred shots. I am over 5000 now and it is not going away as I had hoped
> ...



Since finding my spots I have read a lot about the D7000. I always take it with a grain of salt though. Unfortunately it is way out of warranty and cleaning is just something I am stuck doing.
My D90 was 4 years and nearing 100K and the sensor was spotless. The D7000 (mine anyway) definitely has an issue.

I am extremely happy to hear that your issues with the D600 have gone away!
Thanks


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells



Ummmmm...you are likely to meet with extreme disappointment dude...


----------



## amolitor (Apr 4, 2013)

Models HAVE brain cells. They're just not connected together very well.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 4, 2013)

> D600 is suitable for nearly every photo need for nearly every photog.



Yeah, if you alter your shooting style to work around all of the compromises. 
The D800 is about $800 more than the D600. I shoot 14 bit lossless compressed RAW, and I get about 200 shots on an 8gb card (41MB avg)
So the file sizes are really a non-issue. Even in the uncrompressed raw (I would assume 75MB/file), storage is cheap and if you are paying 3k for a camera, 
the extra $150 for a new 1TB HD shouldn't really matter. 

The 1/4000 shutter speed is a big hit for those that shoot @ f/2.8 or wider outside in the sun.
In certain conditions you're going to need that 1/8000.

The flash sync speed is another head scratcher. Weakens strobes by a third.

If video is your thing (I'm just getting into it), the fact that the aperture is controllable DURING a video shoot is huge.   

The size of the focus area is what turned me away. I was willing to workaround the other things, but then I saw a demonstration
of the focus in action, I couldn't imagine using it. D800 is smaller than the D7000, but the D600 is sooo tiny. I like to ride the outside of the frame
with my focus points, and the D600 would kill my shooting style completely.

They both take photos, and the outcome is excellent on both sides. However, there are some strong limitations when buying a D600, and if you can live with them,
then I would definitely advise going with the D600. I almost bought it. Sooo close to buying it. But that damn focus area...


----------



## Chad (Apr 4, 2013)

Derrel said:


> It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.
> 
> By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.
> 
> But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.



I to have been battling between the D600 and D800. I wanted an FX sensor and if the D800 had a 24MP sensor I would have bought one weeks ago. Instead, since I was not 100% on either I decided to purchase the D7100 (currently have a D90) and wait a couple years to see what happens with Nikon FX bodies. Plus I have the new 80-400mm and with the Dx body it becomes a 'cheaper' 600mm lens. 

 I also have met two other photographers who also bought the D7100 and will wait a couple years to see what happens.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 4, 2013)

Chad said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.
> ...



Don't forget that there's a DX mode on both FX bodies.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 4, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Yeah, if you alter your shooting style to work around all of the compromises.
> The D800 is about $800 more than the D600. I shoot 14 bit lossless compressed RAW, and I get about 200 shots on an 8gb card (41MB avg)
> So the file sizes are really a non-issue. Even in the uncrompressed raw (I would assume 75MB/file), storage is cheap and if you are paying 3k for a camera,
> the extra $150 for a new 1TB HD shouldn't really matter.
> ...



D800 smaller than d7000?


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 4, 2013)

Yes. The actual area is smaller.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> > D600 is suitable for nearly every photo need for nearly every photog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Is 14bit as good as straight up RAW?
I shoot primes, as wide open as possible, and outside as much as possible...mildly concerned about SS.

I am thinking I should rent the 2 bodies and see what I think. I am having a VERY difficult time deciding. I know what I want but neither fits the bill 100%


ETA: I don't use a flash, and video is not important.

And Ballistics, my understanding is that the focus area is the same, but takes up less room on FX. I played with both bodies at the big box and I agree the focus could be awkward on the D600. I frequently focus and recompose....so not sure if that would drive me nuts or not


----------



## cosmonaut (Apr 4, 2013)

I would go with the D800. It could possibly last you a lifetime with the image quality you would get. Memory is cheap, computers are getting faster and in ten years the 36 mpix files will seem small. My computer handles them fine unless I am working on panos.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> Is 14bit as good as straight up RAW?
> ......



14 bit IS raw.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

480sparky said:


> pony said:
> 
> 
> > Is 14bit as good as straight up RAW?
> ...



Right. But it's as good as uncompressed, etc?
It's truly lossless?
Thanks!


----------



## Chad (Apr 4, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Chad said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



I understand there is a crop mode on FX bodies, I didn't buy one because the D600 has major oil issues and the D800 files IMO are to big


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> Right. But it's as good as uncompressed, etc?
> It's truly lossless?
> Thanks!



There's 14bit compressed and 14 bit uncompressed. Most of the time you'll never notice the difference.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

480sparky said:


> There's 14bit compressed and 14 bit uncompressed. Most of the time you'll never notice the difference.



Interesting. This makes the D800 a bit more appealing.
Can I be a real pest and ask, in which cases *might* you notice a difference?


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> Interesting. This makes the D800 a bit more appealing.



Why?  14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.



pony said:


> Can I be a real pest and ask, in which cases *might* you notice a difference?



If you do a lot of heavy-handed editing.  If all you do is slight adjustments and changes, you'll never know the difference.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Why?  14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.



Smaller! Right? Or am I still not getting it?

Thank you for your patience


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  14 bit is 14 bit, whether it comes from a D600 or a D800. Bit depth is the same for both.
> ...



The D600 will have smaller files_ in terms of memory requirements_.  This is simply due to the pixel count of the two. But it's not like D600 14-bit images are somehow inferior to D800 14-bit images when it comes to bit depth.  The D800 will simply have more 14-bit _pixels._


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 4, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Yes. The actual area is smaller.



Ohh ok the AF points in the frame. I was thinking body size lol.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 4, 2013)

480sparky said:


> pony said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. This makes the D800 a bit more appealing.
> ...



I don't think that you would notice a difference in any real world scenario. I've tried to find a difference and I really can't. 
Taking the same image in both uncompressed and lossless compressed 14bit, there's nothing that sticks out that says uncompressed
has a higher image quality.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

480sparky said:


> The D600 will have smaller files_ in terms of memory requirements_.  This is simply due to the pixel count of the two. But it's not like D600 14-bit images are somehow inferior to D800 14-bit images when it comes to bit depth.  The D800 will simply have more 14-bit _pixels._



I'm in 16bit for my D7000 (16mp), 14 bit D800 would be smaller than 16 bit D800?
I have a good computer and don't mind filling up some externals. The 36mp just sounds overwhelming in terms of SPACE.

I guess I just want to know if there is a way to use it (not in DX mode) that will eat up less space but not cripple the image quality


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> I'm in 16bit for my D7000 (16mp), 14 bit D800 would be smaller than 16 bit D800?
> I have a good computer and don't mind filling up some externals. The 36mp just sounds overwhelming in terms of SPACE.
> 
> I guess I just want to know if there is a way to use it (not in DX mode) that will eat up less space but not cripple the image quality



You have two choices: 14 bit and 12 bit.  16 bit is not an option.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

My RAW files say "Bit depth 16"
???


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> My RAW files say "Bit depth 16"
> ???



In photoshop it is, but not in camera. Go into your cameras settings and look for your raw settings. 14bit is the max.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

Oy....OK, that is why I was having such a hard time communicating!
OK, so you are saying you just use lossless compressed RAW.
And that, for all practical purposes, is as good as uncompressed?
And it takes up less space.....where? On your cards *and* computer?

I feel like such a bozo, I totally did not get what you were saying. I'm sorry :/


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> Oy....OK, that is why I was having such a hard time communicating!
> OK, so you are saying you just use lossless compressed RAW.
> And that, for all practical purposes, is as good as uncompressed?
> And it takes up less space.....where? On your cards *and* computer?
> ...



The encoding algorithm is different. Lossless compressed will show you no difference in image quality and will have a smaller file size.
The theoretical drawback, is that it writes slower because it has to be compressed first then written, but I haven't experienced
any issues with that.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

pony said:


> Oy....OK, that is why I was having such a hard time communicating!
> OK, so you are saying you just use lossless compressed RAW.
> And that, for all practical purposes, is as good as uncompressed?
> And it takes up less space.....where? On your cards *and* computer?
> ...



The more you edit your images, the more data you need to keep the IQ acceptable.  Raw files have a bit depth of either 12 or 14 bits, while JPEGS are 8-bit.  If your editing consists of straightening, cropping and some cloning,  you may not need to shoot raw at all and can take JEPGs to your heart's  content.  For the vast majority of people, compressed is more than enough data.


----------



## pony (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't think I could go back to jpeg, I have been 100% RAW for a couple years now and I have my ACR flow down and I love it 

Thank you both for your IMMENSE patience. I'm going to go drink a bunch of coffee, try to wake up, and then attempt to make a decision


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 4, 2013)

I shoot the occasional JPEG, but it's for a quick and simple purpose.... post on the forum, email, etc.  The image will have no use after that.

But for my 'serious' work, its raw all day long.


----------



## pony (Apr 5, 2013)

I don't ever switch mine anymore. Gave my hubby the D90 a while back because we could not find the P&S. Switched it to jpeg and auto.
Forgot to switch it back to RAW and was bummed 

Gave it much thought last night and think I am going to go D600.
The extra $1000 I would love to put toward a lens. I have an old skool manual focus 55mm/2.8 micro and would love an AF macro lens. 
And I am going to go through B&H so hopefully if the 600 has issues it will not be a problem to exchange.
I want FX now but I am going to wait and see what is up next and hope it is my dream body. For now I definitely think the D600 is a step up

Thanks again for all the advice


----------



## sandollars (Apr 14, 2013)

good choice.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Here's another thread on the same subject.



Yeah this appears to be the next thread that will appear at least 2x a week...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 14, 2013)

pony said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Harddrive/SD/CF card memory is so cheap and plentiful nowadays, and the Apple iMac rocks at processing it. I like the 36, actually 56 would suit me fine too....step it up, NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells
> ...



That's the thing with the D800.  It is NOT a camera you use casually.  For example, YES, hard drive space is cheap, but I just took 250GIG of pictures over three days and was like "Whoa, where did all my hard drive space go?  Oh... right.  Stupid camera!"

When I bought my D800, I wound up replacing my desktop system, buying SSD, putting a local 2TB FAST hard disk in the system, and have been considering ways to amp up my server (where I store all my images). and even considering replacing my switch so I can trunc ports and get more bandwidth.

The D800 is an incredible camera.  I'm pleased with it, but every time I pick it up I feel like I've picked up a loaded weapon.

To this day I wish they had come out with a D700 replacement at like 18MP... MAYBE 24.  The D600 is SORT of that, but not quite.  There really still is a gap there, IMO.  That said, if the D600 had come out before the D800, I probably would have purchased that.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 14, 2013)

manaheim said:


> ........  For example, YES, hard drive space is cheap, but I just took 250GIG of pictures over three days and was like "Whoa, where did all my hard drive space go?  Oh... right.  Stupid camera!"..........



One big reason I didn't go with the D800.


----------



## pony (Apr 14, 2013)

Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see

I am IN LOVE with FX. I can see the whole picture, it is amazing! And I can use my 50 and 85 indoors without feeling like I'm backed into a corner or all up in people's faces. Love love love!
Thanks again for everything. So far I am quite happy


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 14, 2013)

pony said:


> Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
> Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
> So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see
> 
> ...



Congrats!


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 14, 2013)

pony said:


> Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
> Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
> So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see
> 
> ...



Ah, c'mon.... open up and tell us how you_ really _feel!


----------



## pony (Apr 14, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Ah, c'mon.... open up and tell us how you_ really _feel!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2013)

pony said:


> Yep and yep. I *can* manage the space, but really didn't want to. I really wanted the D700 replacement to be perfect. Instead they split it into 2 not-so-perfect cameras...
> Anyhow, I am 1000 shots into the new D600 and no spots. Hopefully I got a good one. Focuses nicely, even in low light. I focus/recompose, so the smaller AF area doesn't bother me. Gripped with an 85mm it is a manageable size for me.
> So far so good. Hoping the weather gets better here some day so I can get out and really put it to the test. My last concern is the max shutter speed of 4000...we shall see
> 
> ...



You can buy the perfect D700 replacement for $3,000 to $3,500...it's called the D3x.


----------



## pony (Apr 14, 2013)

Derrel said:


> You can buy the perfect D700 replacement for $3,000 to $3,500...it's called the D3x.



???
Last I checked all the D3 and the D4 were WAAYYYYY out of my budget


----------



## Derrel (Apr 14, 2013)

pony said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Harddrive/SD/CF card memory is so cheap and plentiful nowadays, and the Apple iMac rocks at processing it.  I like the 36, actually 56 would suit me fine too....step it up, NIKON I want to be able to crop way into models pupil and clearly see her brain cells
> ...



Well, crack open the wallet. What you want costs $2,000 or more. It's unlikely we will see a LOWER-MP count D800 series body...you seem to be wishing for something that actually does exist, but which you just do not want to pay for. 24 MP is available in FX in two bodies from Nikon. D600 and D3x.


----------



## pony (Apr 14, 2013)

If I had $7000 to spare I would absolutely do it!
I actually shot a friends D4 and that was pretty sweet. In my price range it was the 600 or the 800


----------



## dwswager (Apr 25, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Yes. The actual area is smaller.



Theoretically, this is the issue for me between the D600 and D800. I shoot a lot of softball (basketball and soccer) with a D300. I'm usually on the last 3 columns of AF sensors for batting photos so the AF sensor coverage of either body is really inadequate! Maybe, I'll learn how to use the focus lock button now! Crappy Facebook Photo Attached.




In the real world, however, it will probably turn out to be a non issue. I will either be forced to crop heavily with a FX body or put it in DX mode to get what I want. I normally shoot with an AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII (w/ and w/o a TC-14EIII Teleconverter). Hence either the subject will be smaller and moved closer to the middle of the frame anyway on FX or in DX mode, I suspect the sensors will cover just about what the D300 does, at least on the D800.

BTW, the goal for the camera designers should be at least 80% coverage of the imaging sensor with the AF sensor in both vertical and horizontal directions. IMHO!

Oh, and before everyone goes ape telling me to just use a DX body, I also do landscape, close up and portraiture. I also want to be able to control DOF better. I so miss the ability to pop a subject easily with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 at f2.8 - f/4 I got from the larger imaging area of 35mm. You just can do it as well or easy on the DX size sensors. I can blur a background pretty well, but not make it melt away!


----------



## dwswager (Apr 25, 2013)

I'm a D300 shooter since it was introduced. My Lenses include (20mm f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8 VRII (TC-14E, TC-20E), 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6). I'm in the D600 or D800 penalty box with a lot of other people. The super small AF Sensor coverage of the D600 is what has me holding back on jumping all over it. Here is my take on the choice.

D800 is SLOW...4fps vs 5fps, but in processing it is slightly faster than D600, but with a much larger pixel count it ends up being slower to get the job done.

D800 is much more demanding camera. It is going to want better lenses, better technique and better thought. This is releated to the high pixel count creating diffraction and moire and generally taxing the lens resolving power and highlighting lens flaws like bad edge to edge sharpness or light falloff in the corners.

D800 has mixed media. 2 CF slots would have been preferable because they are faster generally than SD. If you shoot with them in anything other than 'overflow', the SD will slow the camera down. The D600 has consistent media, but SD. But there will usually be less data to write anyway.

36MP is overkill for anyone not making posters or billboards. Or if you shoot controlled situations that require exceptional detail and fine edge sharpness. That said, D800 is basically the first DSLR that gives you everthing film did and more.

D600 has tiny AF sensor coverage, especially if you are coming from a DX format camera like the D300s. All FX cameras have small coverage compared to a comparable DX because the AF sensors are covering the same physical area, but with a bigger sensor to cover it just doesn't cover as much.

Both cameras seem to have some QC issues. The D800's look like it can/has been fixed with firmware updates. The D600 has the oil throwing issue that seems to be unfixable at this point.

The D600 has the two U1 and U2 programmable settings dial positions making it easy to go back and forth between a complete set of settings. The D800 is saddled with the same 'settings banks' as other Pro/ProSumer cameras.

D800 has pro options for remote release and flash (and pro prices for those assessories) while D600 has the consumer options and a different wired release terminal.

Video is not my thing, but the D800 has better video functions like controllable apeture and raw HDMI though it seems to lack a 720p 30fps option. Not sure why.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 25, 2013)

dwswager, there is so much misinformation in your post, I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 25, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> dwswager, there is so much misinformation in your post, I don't even know where to begin.



Well, why not take a bit of time to refute or reply to his comments? I myself understood all of his points, except the first one, which was a bit unclear [unclear RE the term 'processing'--not sure if he meant in-camera buffer and image processing or computer processing time?], and I thought that MOST ALL of what dswagger said made perfect sense...but then, I have 12 years of Nikon D-slr use under my belt, and have owned a lot of different camera, both crop-sensor and full-frame. I'm pretty aware of the differences in having a 51-point AF system that covers the smaller APS-C frame, or a 12-point wide-area system like the D2-series had on 1.5x and 2.0x, and also am familiar with "centrally-weighted" AF systems that were MIGRATED FROM CROP bodies, like the Canon 5D I and II were. ANd I am familiar with the 51-point AF array in the D3x...it still leaves a LOT of frame area un-covered by AF. The D600 is even worse!!!

I dunno...dswagger's points were those of a D300 user who moved to the D600...I'm not sure how his  "*D300 user's take*" can be filled with so much misinformation that it's just simply too much for a young, energetic poster like you to take on and rip him a new a&&hole over...I mean, c'mon....let's see you pound him into a blood spot on the pavement...


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > dwswager, there is so much misinformation in your post, I don't even know where to begin.
> ...



Yeah... I really ripped him a new one. You're so melodramatic.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 25, 2013)

> D800 is SLOW...4fps vs 5fps, but in processing it is slightly faster than D600, but with a much larger pixel count it ends up being slower to get the job done.



Kind of a contradiction here. 

I shoot 14bit Lossless compressed RAW files. If you are talking about processing in post, there's no time difference in processing. 
If you are talking about processing in camera, I shot with a D600 a few nights ago, and it never occured to me that the D600 was "faster". 



> D800 has mixed media. 2 CF slots would have been preferable because they are faster generally than SD. If you shoot with them in anything other than 'overflow', the SD will slow the camera down. The D600 has consistent media, but SD. But there will usually be less data to write anyway.



If you match the speeds of the cards, you will not have a bottleneck. 
I use CF cards that are 60MB/s - The SD equivalent is 95MB/s - They both read and write at nearly identical speeds on the D800. In fact, here's a chart of where SD and CF cards fall:

Rob Galbraith DPI: Nikon D800/D800E

The SD 95MB/s is slightly faster, and cheaper. 



> 36MP is overkill for anyone not making posters or billboards. Or if you shoot controlled situations that require exceptional detail and fine edge sharpness. That said, D800 is basically the first DSLR that gives you everthing film did and more.



36MP is not just about printing size. Think about resolution in the terms of cropping. The ability to crop in at 36MP is immense. In fact, you are extremely capable of cropping in @ 100% with a very sharp image.


----------



## dwswager (Apr 26, 2013)

Loving the hate since most of what I posted was just fact.

*Processing*: This point was poorly worded. Both cameras use EXPEED 3 and only due to some system design differences, the D800 has about an 8-10% faster processing rate than the D600 in terms of pixels per second that the cameras can process. However, the D600 has a lot less data per image to actually process (D600 *24MP, 29.2MB *14bit RAW verus the D800 *36.2MP, 41.3MB *14bit RAW). Not only does a camera have to process data, it has to collect it, transfer it and store it! Doesn't matter how fast your processor or memory is if you don't have the pipelines to move the data to keep it fed.


*CF verus SD Speed:* There is not currently an SD card with any letter combination (HC, XC, UHS-1, etc.) on it that is as fast as the fastest CF cards. It does not matter what MB/s numbers Sandisk or Lexar puts on the face of the card. We are talking actual ability to write data onto the card. And for the friend that quoted Rob Galbraith, he agrees with me. Looking in the CF/SD speed database for the D800, the fastest CF card writes JPGs and NEFs at 62.5MB and 69MB respectively (*Lexar Professional 1000X 32GB*). The fastest SD card tested in this camera, coming in 24th place on the list behind 23 CF cards is the *SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 8GB*, performs at 37.8 MB/s and 42MB/s respectively.

Since we're name dropping, let's add Thom Hogan to the list of folks that agree (From his D800/D800E review)


> *Writing to Card *
> Not bad, with a caveat or two. With some of my more recent high-end [CF] cards I can squeak 60MBs+ out of the D800 models. That's better performance than I've gotten from my D3 cameras, which tend to top out at about 40MBs. Clearly Nikon continues to make progress here, and considering we have so much more data to move from sensor to card, that's much needed progress.
> 
> The caveats are these: (1) If you shoot Raw Primary JPEG Secondary or Backup for the second slot, the SD card is going to determine your camera's performance, and there the news ain't so hot. The fastest SD card I've got barely hits 40MBs...Solution: buy fast cards, use only Overflow.



Raise your hand if you are a D800 owner and prefer having to deal with 2 different media in your camera as opposed to just one (CF or SD). [Opinion Alert] The only thing I like about SD is that my laptop has a built in slot for it. I much prefer the speed, physical size, handling and durability of CF over SD.

*AF Sensor Coverage:* I stole this graphic somewhere and would like to give atribution, but can't. Anyway, does anyone really want to argue that the 51 point AF senor on the D300 doesn't cover more (higher percentage) of the smaller DX imaging sensor than the almost identical 51 point AF sensor on the D800 covers of the larger FX imaging sensor? The AF Sensors cover the same total area! Simple subtraction folks. More of a bigger imaging sensor is going to be left uncovered.
View attachment 43267



> 36MP is not just about printing size. Think about resolution in the terms of cropping. The ability to crop in at 36MP is immense. In fact, you are extremely capable of cropping in @ 100% with a very sharp image.



Concur and I do crop, especially sports images. But you will get better results if you move closer to the subject or use a higher magnification lens. If you only need a 10MP image and you are getting it by cropping it out of a 36MP image, that is a hell of a processing and storage penalty you are paying. Very nice to have that ability when needed, but would not recommend it as standard operating practice. 

Ya know, I tell people all the time that being the smartest guy in the room isn't near as much fun as you would think it would be or as it should be, mainly because the stupid among us tend to be in charge.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 26, 2013)

I haven't tested or researched the SD vs. CF speeds, though I can't say I'd be surprised if CF cards were faster.

That said, I have VERY rarely exceeded my buffer on the camera and found myself waiting for the cam to catch up.  Probably once or twice total. The simple fact is that the camera isn't that fast anyway, and it's not exactly meant for sports photography if you know what I mean. 

Would I have preferred to have one or the other?  Yeah, probably.  However, if you forced me to pick I probably would have chosen the SD card because it is SO much easier to work with and SO much less alarming to remove from the camera compared to CF (bent pins, anyone?)  I had my D300 for years and basically NEVER removed the CF card for fear of pulling or bending a pin.  With the D800 I'm popping the SD card in and out all the time.  It's like blissful freedom. 

Still- very interesting discussion.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2013)

*Some observations*: The D600 is the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 5D Mark II; a lower-cost, lower-spec'd camera body with an AF system that's designed for people whose work does not demand wide-area AF. The 5D-II was widely,widely acclaimed for its blend of price and capability. It had plenty of megapixel count, and excellent imaging capabilities, but it WAS a lower-spec'd body, and it was missing some features. Same with today's D600...it has a highly centrally-weighted AF system, with virtually no peripheral AF points, and 39 instead of 51 AF points. The Nikon D600 is very close to Nikon's "equivalent offering" as the 5D-II, a few years later, and aimed at almost the same,exact market segment, and optimized for the same types of uses and users.

People who are unfamiliar with sports/action photography are probably unaware of the uses for off-center AF points on high speed action, but for those who do a lot of sports or action work, there are some very real advantages to having AF points that cover "most" of the frame. Buuuuut.....for people whose work is basically slow-speed stuff, where focus-and-recompose will work, then, sure, there are no issues with having only more-centrally located AF coverage. 

There's not much sense in arguing with the people who just plop everything in the middle of the frame and put the camera on single-point AF. Their experience tells them that that is all they need, so that is all ANYBODY else would need. Some of those same people cannot seem to get their heads around why Nikon's top camera, the D4, has only 16MP, and why it shoots so FAST. They cannot seem to understand that different tools actually are optimized for different users, and for different "types" of shooting. They seem to think that "their" specific camera is the be-all,end-all of cameras. And that any camera that differs from "their" pet camera is somehow, inferior, and that there is no need for anything "different" than what "their" camera has.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 26, 2013)

Nobody will ever need more than 1 AF point. Or more than 64K of RAM.


----------



## TruckerDave (Apr 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Nobody will ever need more than 1 AF point. Or more than 64K of RAM.



Or a hard drive over 500mb.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 26, 2013)

You know one thing I hate about the D800... the sound of the damned shutter.

CLANG

CLANG 

CLANG

!!!


----------



## deutsh (Apr 26, 2013)

D800E D800E D800 if  you can't... then D600
 And thats all.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 26, 2013)

Shoot more worry less.

Analyze your needs, arrange them in order of importance, match as best you can the camera that will cover those needs then buy it.

Shoot more, worry less then save the internet angst for arguing about the meaning and definition of art because a camera is going to do a job -or not- and could care less what anyone thinks about it.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2013)

manaheim said:


> You know one thing I hate about the D800... the sound of the damned shutter.
> 
> CLANG
> 
> ...



Well then, you would have absolutely HATED the Canon 20D....the loudest, tinniest-sounding shutter ever!

TING!
TING!
TING!

With the TING! sound similar to that produced by an NCAA women's softball player belting a home run with an aluminum bat...


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 26, 2013)

dwswager said:


> Loving the hate since most of what I posted was just fact.



No. Actually you didn't. Saying that you don't need 36MP unless you are printing billboards is not a fact. Saying that an SD card will bottleneck write speeds is not a fact. 



> *Processing*: This point was poorly worded. Both cameras use EXPEED 3 and only due to some system design differences, the D800 has about an 8-10% faster processing rate than the D600 in terms of pixels per second that the cameras can process. However, the D600 has a lot less data per image to actually process (D600 *24MP, 29.2MB *14bit RAW verus the D800 *36.2MP, 41.3MB *14bit RAW). Not only does a camera have to process data, it has to collect it, transfer it and store it! Doesn't matter how fast your processor or memory is if you don't have the pipelines to move the data to keep it fed.



Long story short, if your computer can't handle a 40MB raw file, it's not going to handle a 30MB raw file either.  




> *CF verus SD Speed:* There is not currently an SD card with any letter combination (HC, XC, UHS-1, etc.) on it that is as fast as the fastest CF cards.


Yeah no kidding, but that's not what you initially said. 



> It does not matter what MB/s numbers Sandisk or Lexar puts on the face of the card. We are talking actual ability to write data onto the card. And for the friend that quoted Rob Galbraith, he agrees with me. Looking in the CF/SD speed database for the D800, the fastest CF card writes JPGs and NEFs at 62.5MB and 69MB respectively (*Lexar Professional 1000X 32GB*). The fastest SD card tested in this camera, coming in 24th place on the list behind 23 CF cards is the *SanDisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s 8GB*, performs at 37.8 MB/s and 42MB/s respectively.



And no one argued any of this. And Rob Galbraith doesn't agree with your initial post. You didn't say the fastest CF card ever. Let's backpedal more. 



> Since we're name dropping, let's add Thom Hogan to the list of folks that agree (From his D800/D800E review)
> 
> 
> > *Writing to Card *
> ...



I linked empirical data, not an opinion. Here's my anecdote... an owner of the D800: With a 60MB/s CF card, I've never hit the buffer once. 
So in a sense, your post from Hogan agrees with my point:



> _If you shoot Raw Primary JPEG Secondary or Backup for the second slot, the SD card is going to determine your camera's performance_



You can match the CF cards performance with an SD card up to 42 MB/s. Which is the 60MB/s CF cards. So can the SD card bottleneck performance? Absolutely, because they don't make 1000x SD cards in the first place. So pairing a 1000x CF card with a 400x anything, whether it's a CF card or SD is going to bottleneck your performance. That's just how these things work.     



> *AF Sensor Coverage:* I stole this graphic somewhere and would like to give atribution, but can't. Anyway, does anyone really want to argue that the 51 point AF senor on the D300 doesn't cover more (higher percentage) of the smaller DX imaging sensor than the almost identical 51 point AF sensor on the D800 covers of the larger FX imaging sensor? The AF Sensors cover the same total area! Simple subtraction folks. More of a bigger imaging sensor is going to be left uncovered.



That's what I said.  




> 36MP is not just about printing size. Think about resolution in the terms of cropping. The ability to crop in at 36MP is immense. In fact, you are extremely capable of cropping in @ 100% with a very sharp image.





> Concur and I do crop, especially sports images. But you will get better results if you move closer to the subject or use a higher magnification lens.


You're introducing new (and irrelevant) arguments neither of which has anything to do with FX vs DX. This goes for any camera of any sensor size.  



> If you only need a 10MP image and you are getting it by cropping it out of a 36MP image, that is a hell of a processing and storage penalty you are paying.


Not really. 



> Ya know, I tell people all the time that being the smartest guy in the room isn't near as much fun as you would think it would be or as it should be, mainly because the stupid among us tend to be in charge.



No one is calling you stupid, don't beat yourself up about it.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> It's too bad Nikon didn't see fit to copy Canon's concept of sRAW and mRAW, or small, and medium-sized raw files as an option in the D800. If you want 24MP full-frame raws from a Nikon, your choices are the D600 or the D3x. I do not see the logic behind buying the D800, and shooting it in DX crop mode just to get a 16-megapixel image.
> 
> By all accounts, the new D7100 and its 24MP sensor have excellent,excellent imaging performance. According to people who have owned BOTH the D7000 and the new D7100, the D7100 is really a step-UP, and not just an iteration of the D7000. The D7100 is,as I understand it, uses an entirely new, different generation of sensor than the one used in the D7000. That is to say, the D7100's sensor is of the same generation as the ones used in the D600 and D800. I dunno...I have been looking at some D7100 tests lately,and it seems like a REALLY good imager.
> 
> But, back to the D600 vs D800 connundrum...I'd be tempted to say that either would do the job for you. Either body.




I'm guessing a used D700 would be the right choice at the end of the day.  Great quality.  12 mp.  Around $1,300-$1,700 used.


But who knows, maybe you can distinguish the difference between images created with any of the cameras written about so far.  


I sure couldn't.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2013)

12MP full frame images versus 24 MP full-frame images....VERY easy to tell just by looking....look at a D700 portrait image and a D3x or D600 portrait file...there's very little comparison.

I shot the Canon 5D, a 12.8 MP camera for several years...the first few files I made with the D3x blew me away....HUGE difference in acuity and detail.

Greater acuity...more detail...more fine detail...the 24MP sensor size is decidedly,decidely better than the 12MP sensor. It's pretty easy to see the differences.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 12MP full frame images versus 24 MP full-frame images....VERY easy to tell just by looking....look at a D700 portrait image and a D3x or D600 portrait file...there's very little comparison.
> 
> I shot the Canon 5D, a 12.8 MP camera for several years...the first few files I made with the D3x blew me away....HUGE difference in acuity and detail.
> 
> Greater acuity...more detail...more fine detail...the 24MP sensor size is decidedly,decidely better than the 12MP sensor. It's pretty easy to see the differences.




In equal print sizes standing 5-10 feet?  I'm just wondering.  Can you tell by just looking at a monitor or at 100%?


----------



## deutsh (Apr 27, 2013)

D800E


----------



## dwswager (Apr 29, 2013)

> You can match the CF cards performance with an SD card up to 42 MB/s. Which is the 60MB/s CF cards. So can the SD card bottleneck performance? Absolutely, because they don't make 1000x SD cards in the first place. So pairing a 1000x CF card with a 400x anything, whether it's a CF card or SD is going to bottleneck your performance. That's just how these things work.



Understood that you can match the 2 cards (albeit at the lower SD card speeds). I also understand that we have crossed over the price curves for CF and SD because of dwindling CF sales. I also understand that the buffer on both the D600 and D800 are better than that on my D300. I rarely shoot boosts of more than 6 frames. Note that other settings, specifically Active D Lighting on the D300 have a significant degradation on the FPS or continous frames the D300 can actually complete.

Note that apparently Live View and Image Preview is also affected by the slowest card in the system. So it is just not a flush the buffer thing. In real world, will you notice this as a problem? Depends how you work. I will likely use an 8GB Sandisk Extreme Pro SD card as OVERFLOW or not have an SD Card in the system. I already have plenty of fast CF.



I'm in the D600 versus D800 penalty box will lots of other folks in choosing a replacement for my D300. Both have some negatives relative to the D300 and both have some big positives, especially a lower noise sensor. 

With repsect to the D800, I will most likely shoot sports in DX mode and get a 15MP JPG image and 5FPS (theoretical) out of the camera as compared to the D300 12MP image and 6FPS. I'm not a professional, so while I might miss some shots, it's not a killer. This also gives me the option of switching to FX mode when the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II w/o or w/ mated TC-14E 1.4x or TC-20E 2.0x teleconverter is 'too much lens'. Then I will get 36MP JPG at 4FPS. For all other work, it will be FX mode in either RAW or JPG images.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 29, 2013)

> albeit at the lower SD card speeds



It's not slower if you match the speeds. Again, they don't make 1000x SD cards.



> With repsect to the D800, I will most likely shoot sports in DX mode and get a 15MP JPG image and 5FPS (theoretical) out of the camera as compared to the D300 12MP image and 6FPS. I'm not a professional, so while I might miss some shots, it's not a killer. This also gives me the option of switching to FX mode when the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II w/o or w/ mated TC-14E 1.4x or TC-20E 2.0x teleconverter is 'too much lens'. Then I will get 36MP JPG at 4FPS. For all other work, it will be FX mode in either RAW or JPG images.



All this card speed moaning, and you plan on shooting in JPEG? Are you serious?


----------



## dwswager (Apr 29, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> It's not slower if you match the speeds. Again, they don't make 1000x SD cards.



If one matches the fastest SD Card (42Mbs) to a 42Mbs CF card, that WILL be slower than a 69Mbs CF card alone! 



> All this card speed moaning, and you plan on shooting in JPEG? Are you serious?



I'm not moaning, just clarifying facts about media speeds. And yes, media speed affects even JPG shooting. My current shooting is probably 70% JPG and 30% RAW. For a significant number of applications, RAW files just aren't needed. I shoot RAW when I have possible multiple target uses in mind or just don't know. There are specific occasions when I switch to RAW even when the intended image doesn't demand it if I can't control the contrast and/or color balance. Hence, when there will a significant amount of post processing on the image because I can't or don't have the facility to fix it in the shot itself.

"If the only tool you use is a hammer [RAW]; every problem looks like a nail!" Sometimes there are screws and staples to be dealt with.

I'm reminded of the people that think $10/ft speaker cable makes a difference in a 10ft run versus 18ga zip cord. Of course, these were the same people that thought using a green magic marker around the edge of their CDs made them sound better! ROTFLMAO


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 29, 2013)

You have a habit of altering arguments and making assumptions. I didn't say anything about RAW vs Jpeg. 
If JPEG is your file format of choice, then you will experience 0 issues with a 400x card.
You are talking about the speed difference of a honda civic vs a formula one car, both @ highway speeds. 

In otherwords, you talk about these $500+ 1000x cards, when your file format is jpeg. It's an irrelevant argument and 1000x becomes unnecessary and overkill.
I shoot in ALL raw, and have never hit the buffer. Even in RAW, the D800 shoots at 4fps. That means, that the 1000x speed gets you an extra 3 or 4 frames over the 400x. 
People will say "Oh those extra 3 frames can make the difference of getting the shot and not getting the shot". For those people, the D800 and 4fps is not for you.
If you need to motor drive for sports, then you need more than 4fps. Not to mention, when you do hit the buffer, it's about 30-40 seconds with 1000x.

Theoretically, you get an extra frame every 2 seconds in compressed raw and 2 extra frames total until you hit the buffer.


----------



## dwswager (Apr 29, 2013)

I do not own a D600 or D800.  I shoot with a D300 and I have hit the limits because of less processing power and the buffer limit.

Oddly enough, the most appropriate _upgrade _from a D300 is probably the D7100.  If you assume MP count and lower noise as a technilogical breakthrough that comes with increasing development then the 24MP lower noise sensor of the D7100 is the upgrade.  Unfortunately, I loose the 51 point AF focus sensor system and the durable body with real 10 pin PC terminal connection (Wired MC-20 Remote Release) that the Nikon bodies they designate as _consumer _all lack, including the D600.  That is a hell of a Deal though since the D7100 is $1199 while the D300 when it was released was $2499!

Going FX then, the D600 or D800 come into play.  Both give me a higher MP (and larger) lower noise sensor, but neither give me everything I already have.  I loose the 51 point AF in the D600 and the 6FPS (at full resolution) in the D800.  Tradeoffs suck!


Assuming all things being equal (they are not.  D300 older technology and system sensor and system design differences), then this is an important specification.  Not only for S/N ratiios, but also difraction limits.  See all the stupid **** we can worry about. 

D300 = 3.03154e-5 Sq mm per pixel
D7100 = 1.5275e-5 Sq mm per pixel
D600 = 3.68205e-5
D800 = 2.37355e-5


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 29, 2013)

Get a D4 or a D3s then and call it a day.


----------



## Mach0 (Apr 29, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Get a D4 or a D3s then and call it a day.




I would love a d3s.


----------



## greybeard (Apr 29, 2013)

File size should not be an issue with todays modern computers.  If you HD isn't up to it, get on of these
Amazon.com: WD Elements 2 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive: Electronics


----------



## manaheim (Apr 30, 2013)

greybeard said:


> File size should not be an issue with todays modern computers. If you HD isn't up to it, get on of these
> Amazon.com: WD Elements 2 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive: Electronics



The file size also means more processing power required, though. And it's not that modern computers can't handle it... it's a question of whether or not YOUR machine is modern.


----------



## dwswager (Apr 30, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Get a D4 or a D3s then and call it a day.



Actually, now that you mention it, I'm thinking a D7100 (Wonder if Really Right Stuff makes an L Plate for it) now and adding a D800s or D600s later. Considering the D7000 to D7100 step went from 39 point AF to 51 point AF sensor, maybe the D600 will grow up to be the camera I need. A D3 12.1 MP FX sensor would just not do it.


I have 3 Western Digital Red 3 TB Hard Drives in a DrivePool on a Windows 2011 Home Server. Go big or go home! Amazon.com: WD Red 3 TB NAS Hard Drive: 3.5 Inch, SATA III, 64 MB Cache - WD30EFRX: Computers & Accessories


----------



## sandollars (Apr 30, 2013)

What I would do: Get the D600 and take the extra money and invest in a good piece of glass. The glass will last forever. The camera is a very nice camera, but will eventually age. Based on what you said you do with it, the D600 will do all that and more. JMHO..


----------



## dwswager (May 1, 2013)

sandollars said:


> What I would do: Get the D600 and take the extra money and invest in a good piece of glass. The glass will last forever. The camera is a very nice camera, but will eventually age. Based on what you said you do with it, the D600 will do all that and more. JMHO..



I generally agree Glass over Camera, but in this age with the film built into the camera that isn't always true. I'm already shooting the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. On a DX body that is getting the sweet center and 105 - 300mm. I don't see a 200-400mm f/4 anywhere in my future. I might eventually be able to saddle up to an AF-S 80-400mm even though it is slower. And a DX mode of 10MP is a small step down in resolution from the D300 though the pixels will be of better quality. Plus, I loose AF Sensor coverage with the 39 point system versus the 51 point system in the D300 and D7100.

My real decision at this point is A) Keep Shooting the D300 and see what pops up next, B) Get the D800 now and shoot sports in DX mode living with slower frame rate or C) Get the D7100 now and add to it the D800, D800s or something else later. I just might find that the D7100 is good enough for a reasonable amount of time. Hate loosing the build quality and changing camera operation paradigms going from D300 to D7100, but it is a relatively inexpensive option.

The knock on the D7100 verus D300 is the slower total burst (buffer size) of 33 versus 43 (JPEG Fine, Large). But considering I shoot sports in JPEG Fine Large, Active D-Lighting on and JPEG Compression set to Quality, I only get a total burst out of the D300 of 6 shots now, even though it has a theoretical maximum of 43! That is usually enough. I guess the question for the D7100 guys is with those options set, what does the viewfinder state is the maximum total burst? I'm expecting the much faster processor in the D7100 might actually make it faster. As I said, my D300 reports [r06]


----------

