# D600 or D800?



## mergetrio (Dec 12, 2012)

I'm an amateur photographer who took photography in college and learned to do prints in the dark room, etc.  Then, about 10 years ago I bought a Nikon D1x and used it quite extensively for business and personal use.  I also bought Nikkor AF Micro 60mm/ 1:2.8D and 24-120mm/ 1:3.5-5.6D lenses (which I'm assuming can be used on either D600 or D800).  I decided to convert the D1x to be a dedicated infrared camera.  Since then, I've been on a photography hiatus.

So, I've been saving a pretty penny to get back into photography (I'm really tired of seeing low quality iPhone images, though very convenient ) and am in the position of buying either D600 or D800.  I've done some research and saw a few good YouTube videos on them as well.

Still, I'd love to hear from folks here, especially those who have owned or contemplated a similar decision.  My main interest in photography is landscapes, portraits and occasional sports activities.  Please chime in.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 12, 2012)

I have the D800.. great body. But you need the best lenses Nikon makes to take advantage of the resolution it is capable of. I have gotten rid of several lenses that gave wonderful results on a D7000... but did not cut it on the D800. Keep that in mind if you decide to go the D800 route. (Nikon has a recommended acceptable lens list on their site)

The D600 won't be as picky.... 

it really depends on what you want to shoot, and what you want to do with the images....


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 12, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> I have the D800.. great body. But you need the best lenses Nikon makes to take advantage of the resolution it is capable of. I have gotten rid of several lenses that gave wonderful results on a D7000... but did not cut it on the D800. Keep that in mind if you decide to go the D800 route. (Nikon has a recommended acceptable lens list on their site)
> 
> The D600 won't be as picky....
> 
> it really depends on what you want to shoot, and what you want to do with the images....



I really have only one lens that's useful for general shooting at the moment:  24-120mm/ 1:35-5.6D, but will be investing in lenses as well.


----------



## Rhoads238 (Dec 12, 2012)

I contemplated the same decision and ended up with the d600. Cost was the primary factor in the decision for me. I upgraded from a dx body and knew that I needed to spend some money on fx glass. Besides the d800's astonishing megapixel count it doesn't have that many advantages over the d600. It has a slightly faster flash sync speed but its not really the end of the world for me. It also has a faster shutter speed of 8000/s. I do like the button layout on the d800 better as well. The d800 is also superior for video because you are able to change the aperture in live view. 

That said. I love my d600 it does everything that I need it to do. It has awesome noise performance. The dynamic range is also stunning and actually leads the pack at certain ISOs in comparison tests that I've seen. And with the money I saved, i invested in glass. But since it sounds like you could get the d800 and glass you could always get 3 sb-700 speedlights for the difference in price. Or you could get one of those fancy singh ray nd filters and a beast of a tripod for landscape work. There is a lot of things you can do with that extra 1000 dollars. 

The d800 is a better camera. It is also considerably more expensive and you will need the best glass to make the most of it. Which really goes for just about any camera. My advice is get the d600 and extra extra equipment.


----------



## Vautrin (Dec 12, 2012)

If you HAVE to ask, go for the cheaper version


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 12, 2012)

Thanks for the sound advice!  Makes a lot of sense to me.  Just wondering why D600 didn't incorporate aperture change while recording.


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 12, 2012)

.


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 12, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> If you HAVE to ask, go for the cheaper version



Information paralysis is my middle name!


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 12, 2012)

I suppose only the people at Nikon know that one. Personally I would get the D600. As fast as my computer is 36mp images would slow it down more than I would like.

My wife has this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis -- literally if I do not make the decision it will not get made. To be more precise it is the Casual (Personal) Analysis Paralysis because if she is making a decision for someone else it isn't a problem.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Dec 12, 2012)

mergetrio said:


> I'm an amateur photographer





mergetrio said:


> So, I've been saving a pretty penny



The D600 is perfect for you. If you don't have pro-grade FX glass, the D800's resolution will make everything look really soft and OOF.


----------



## bhop (Dec 12, 2012)

Personally, i'd get a used d700.  They're averaging around $1500 around my part of the world anyway...  You get a full frame sensor, but with the build quality and control layout of a professional grade camera.  Tests i've seen on the web, seems it's not a 'huge' difference in image quality between it and a d600.  Use the leftover cash you would've dropped on the new camera for nice lenses.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Dec 12, 2012)

Rhoads238 said:


> Besides the d800's astonishing megapixel count it doesn't have that many advantages over the d600.



Says you. The D600 is an artificially gimped product aimed at entry level buyers who are gaga for FX. There's no explanation for Nikon limiting the sync speed, shutter speed, variable aperture during video, auto-bracketed set to 3 exposures rather than 9 like every other FX body, and other differences that currently escape me...other than they needed to have some clear distinction between the D600 and its big brother who costs a full grand more. There are a great many people (myself included) who won't even consider the D600 because of how Nikon decided to forcibly limit its features.

That said, if you're just an amateur or enthusiast who wants a nice camera, it's probably the best bang for the buck. Certainly better than the comparable options available from the other major brands.


----------



## kns (Dec 12, 2012)

The D800 shoots very well using the relatively cheap 50 and 85mm 1.8 AFD lenses as it does with the also relatively cheap 70-300 AFS VR G IF ED. it is a myth that you need to dump your glass and buy new to use it. The D800 is a truly ground breaking camera, and we've found no-one who actually owns one that has anything but good things to say about  it. As to the Nikon lens list - what in all honesty would you expect Nikon to do  they want your money....


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 12, 2012)

Some great thoughts and "honest" opinions so far to consider.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Dec 12, 2012)

kns said:


> The D800 shoots very well using the relatively cheap 50 and 85mm 1.8 AFD lenses as it does with the also relatively cheap 70-300 AFS VR G IF ED. it is a myth that you need to dump your glass and buy new to use it. The D800 is a truly ground breaking camera, and we've found no-one who actually owns one that has anything but good things to say about  it. As to the Nikon lens list - what in all honesty would you expect Nikon to do  they want your money....



This is a pretty ridiculous argument to make. Both the 50 and 85 1.8 AFD lenses are among the very sharpest Nikon has ever made, when stopped down past f/2.8. They work extremely well on every DSLR Nikon currently makes.

As for the 70-300 AF-S, you and I must have different definitions of "very well" if you think it works well on the D800. 

It most certainly isn't a myth that it takes the best glass to fully utilize the D800. It's simple physics. If the design of a lens doesn't provide the resolving power and sharpness, the sensor acts in a way akin to downsampling in post production. The camera doesn't have data for every pixel of the sensor, so it makes a best guess that results in a soft looking image.


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 12, 2012)

bhop said:


> Personally, i'd get a used d700.  They're averaging around $1500 around my part of the world anyway...  You get a full frame sensor, but with the build quality and control layout of a professional grade camera.  Tests i've seen on the web, seems it's not a 'huge' difference in image quality between it and a d600.  Use the leftover cash you would've dropped on the new camera for nice lenses.



I disagree. I have a D700, and for landscape and portrait wise like the OP mentioned as his primary purpose, the 12mp resolution isn't good enough. Not saying that he cannot make big prints out of it, but in my experience(and I shoot a lot of landscape), the 12mp size just doesn't give me the level of details I want in many cases. I'd think the D800 will be a landscape photographer's wet dream. Even the D600 will probably help pick up a ton more details.

Otherwise, the D700 is probably the most versatile and affordable FX body if you exclude video. If there's anything that is stopping me from going for a D600 now, it will be the auto bracketing option and the overall usability of the camera.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 12, 2012)

kns said:


> The D800 shoots very well using the relatively cheap 50 and 85mm 1.8 AFD lenses as it does with the also relatively cheap 70-300 AFS VR G IF ED. it is a myth that you need to dump your glass and buy new to use it. The D800 is a truly ground breaking camera, and we've found no-one who actually owns one that has anything but good things to say about  it. As to the Nikon lens list - what in all honesty would you expect Nikon to do  they want your money....



hahaha... you must not be as picky as I am about IQ! Primes are Primes... yes, it will shoot those pretty well! The 70-300? Great lens for the money!! But I wasn't happy with it on the D800... not even close to my 70-200!  

So do you actually own a D800? Or are you just Hearsaying?


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 12, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Rhoads238 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides the d800's astonishing megapixel count it doesn't have that many advantages over the d600.
> ...



yep.. D600 is a nice camera, but it is aimed at entry level FX users.... they left out a lot of the goodies, to keep the price low (most of which Noobs would never use anyway!).


----------



## MK3Brent (Dec 12, 2012)

I don't know about others, but the shooting mode selector wheel drives me insane on the D600. 
If you're not used to the legacy selector wheels, this may not even bother you. 

If it were between the 800 and 600, I'd go 800 and never look back.


----------



## Lipoly (Dec 12, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> As for the 70-300 AF-S, you and I must have different definitions of "very well" if you think it works well on the D800.
> 
> It most certainly isn't a myth that it takes the best glass to fully  utilize the D800. It's simple physics. If the design of a lens doesn't  provide the resolving power and sharpness, the sensor acts in a way akin  to downsampling in post production. The camera doesn't have data for  every pixel of the sensor, so it makes a best guess that results in a  soft looking image.



Can you explain this a bit more?  Under what circumstances do you see this issue...is it only when tightly cropped, or printing very large prints?

It makes sense that to take full advantage of the D800's resolution you will need a very sharp lens (just like anything, you need to minimize the "bottleneck"...in the case of a high resolution sensor it would be the lens), but I don't see how it could be worse than on a lower MP sensor...only that you are not realizing the full benefit of the sensor. Are the images actually inherently worse on the D800 w/a lens like the 70-300?

To put it another way, if you take a picture w/a D600 and D800 and crop to where they display the same framed image (so the D800 image would contain far more pixels)...are you saying the D800 would have be less sharp/have less detail?  Or are you just saying that the D800 image is not living up to it's potential vs. the D600 w/that lens?


----------



## kns (Dec 13, 2012)

Yes we own a D800 - and our opinions stand....


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 13, 2012)

kns said:


> Yes we own a D800 - and our opinions stand....



Well... if you ever try a 70-200 2.8 VRII, you will see an obvious difference..... and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Lipoly (Dec 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> kns said:
> 
> 
> > Yes we own a D800 - and our opinions stand....
> ...



I don't think anyone doubts that, but wouldn't the same be true if using the D600?  The way this thread reads is using a lens like the 70-300 on the D800 would produce pictures inferior to the D600 using the same lens...I just don't understand how that would be true.


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 13, 2012)

BTW, I'm in no position to buy 70-200 2.8 VRII to really appreciate D800's prowess.  Still, the discussion around this is intriguing.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Dec 13, 2012)

*cgipson1* you get better pictures with the 70-200 then the 70-300 because its a better lens, NOT because of the body its on...i'm almost sure that the lens 'not good enough' thing is a well made marketing trick of Nikon that folks will spend much more money when they buy the D800...i would get the D800 but if you don't know the difference and your asking us i don't you'll use the extra features...but its a future proof camera, as well as a fine peace of machinery.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 13, 2012)

StandingBear1983 said:


> *cgipson1* you get better pictures with the 70-200 then the 70-300 because its a better lens, NOT because of the body its on...i'm almost sure that the lens 'not good enough' thing is a well made marketing trick of Nikon that folks will spend much more money when they buy the D800...i would get the D800 but if you don't know the difference and your asking us i don't you'll use the extra features...but its a future proof camera, as well as a fine peace of machinery.



The difference is this: I consider the images from the 70-200 acceptable on the D800.... whereas the images from the 70-300 and some other lenses I have used had less than acceptable IQ on the D800 just due to the resolution. This did not occur on bodies that had fewer megapixels. This is based on visual comparison of the images....

The 70-200 IQ is acceptable on every body I have used it on.... (To me... someone else might not be as picky)
the 70-300 IQ is acceptable on my D7000... but not the D800... there is a noticeable difference in the quality (yes..  mostly when pixel peeping, or printing large)

It is a very subjective thing, I suspect... since I lack the tools to actually measure it in a way that would give hard data. I have does massive crops on D800 images shot with the 70-200.... that were not possible with the other lenses, as they lacked the ability to give the same detail. This was not as noticeable a difference on the D7000.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...l-size-100-crop-70-200-2-8-vrii-handheld.html


----------



## amolitor (Dec 13, 2012)

Any imaging system will have a weakest link. Each component degrades the image to a greater or lesser degree.

If you use a less-good lens on a D800, you will still get better images than they will produce on a lesser sensor, they just won't be much better. They will also be substantially less good than the D800 could produce. These new very high pixel count sensors mostly ensure that something else in the system will be the weakest link -- probably the lens. Previous generations of sensors were generally the weakest link when paired with anything but the cheapest lenses from the manufacturer.

Thus, the D800 is a substantial change in DSLR-format digital work -- the sensor has for the first time of any importance, ceased to be the weakest link in the imaging chain.

You should still get (slightly) better images with a crap lens and a D800 than the same crap lens and a previous generation body/sensor.


----------



## Lipoly (Dec 13, 2012)

amolitor said:


> You should still get (slightly) better images with a crap lens and a D800 than the same crap lens and a previous generation body/sensor.



That is what I was thinking, thanks.

cgipson1, that is a pretty fantastic crop!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/members/101937.html


----------



## slow231 (Dec 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Rhoads238 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides the d800's astonishing megapixel count it doesn't have that many advantages over the d600.
> ...



dunno what's up with the aperture during video, but (and correct me if i'm wrong) doesn't sync speed and shutter speed have everything to do with curtain speed? on the d600 with the larger sensor in the small body, i can definitely see there being a slower curtain speed (with respect to the sensor size).  especially if they are using the same/similar curtain mechanism as in the d7000.  the curtain speed may also be limited due to the higher rated shutter actuation numbers that nikon went for.  In any case, slower curtain speed most definitely affects your fastest flash sync speed.  and if for instance there is a limit on the smallest possible front vs. rear curtain distance (which for various reasons would make a lot of sense), the curtain speed definitely directly affects the fastest shutter speed. so I wouldn't be so quick to cry purposeful marketing handicap, there seem to be some very plausible physical explanations for these limitations on the D600.

as far bracketing, with the dynamic range of these newer sensors you have to push pretty far in the +/- EV to really require a separate exposure (shooting raw). in my experience when doing HDR shots, you really need to go +/- ~2.0 EV before you start to pick up a significant amount of info that you couldn't pull from a 0 EV shot (again talking raw).  5 bracket exposure puts you at +/- 4 EV, which for 99.9% of scenes is probably not too useful, and/or would start to run into other limitations (like min shutter speed hand-held).  but I do agree that this seems like just a software issue that they could have included.

As far as the OP, i'm in the same boat.  I actually prefer the smaller body of the d600 (it fits in my bag better lol) and the files don't bog down my computer. but i've put a few k shots through a d600, and i'm not a big fan of the AF. for the money I would hope for something much more accurate than what I have on my d7000. I also have the glass to support the d800, and the crop that cgipson posted is oh so tempting!


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> StandingBear1983 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...l-size-100-crop-70-200-2-8-vrii-handheld.html
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2012)

Here are some screen captures I just made, with the two lenses tested on the same camera, the 24 MP Nikon D3x.
Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report
"The Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR delivers very good to excellent sharpness in the image center combined with good to very good resolution at the borders and corners. Vignetting is well controlled, but CAs are quite high (though easy to remove in post processing) and distortion is above average for this lens class. We did not formally test it, but noticed in our field tests that the quality of the bokeh can be rough in critical situations specifically regarding the highlight rendering."


70-200 VR-II test begins at
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff

And now, the comparisons of the results.

147848120.aKR3HntF.70300VRvs7_0MK2_A.png

147848121.NfAr4q8L.70300VRvs7_0MK2_B.png

147848122.xvaRiXeW.70300VRvs7_0MK2_C.png

147848123.e35h6vFN.70300VRvs7_0MK2_D.png


----------



## panblue (Dec 13, 2012)

i guess the edge/corner sharpness of the 70-300 isn't such an issue if used for portrait or similar isolated subjects with b/g separation. The CA results aren't so great though. How does this compare to other 70-300 alternatives?


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 13, 2012)

panblue said:
			
		

> i guess the edge/corner sharpness of the 70-300 isn't such an issue if used for portrait or similar isolated subjects with b/g separation.



Um, yeah it is. I need my bokeh to be SHARP.


----------



## owlxxx (Dec 14, 2012)

Well, the D600 is on sale right now at B&H. $1996.95 with the kit lens and extra battery, bag, memory card, monopod.  I don't know if that would influence anyones purchasing decisions.


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 14, 2012)

owlxxx said:


> Well, the D600 is on sale right now at B&H. $1996.95 with the kit lens and extra battery, bag, memory card, monopod.  I don't know if that would influence anyones purchasing decisions.



HOLY CRAP that sounds like a real steal!


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 14, 2012)

What are your thoughts with D800 and these lenses I currently own (bought w/ D1x)?:  Nikkor AF Micro 60mm/ 1:2.8D and 24-120mm/ 1:3.5-5.6D lenses


B&H Sale:  $2,796.95

*Nikon*




[h=2]D800 Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)[/h]
*INCLUDES FREE* Lowepro Rezo 170 AW Camera Shoulder BagVello FreeWave Wireless Remote Shutter Release for Nikon w/10-Pin ConnectionSanDisk 32GB CompactFlash Memory Card Extreme 400x UDMAPearstone EN-EL15 Lithium-Ion Battery Pack (7.0V 1800mAh)Pearstone Duo Battery Charger for Nikon EN-EL15


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 14, 2012)

mergetrio said:


> What are your thoughts with D800 and these lenses I currently own (bought w/ D1x)?:  Nikkor AF Micro 60mm/ 1:2.8D and 24-120mm/ 1:3.5-5.6D lenses



The 24-120 VR is on the Approved lens list... but there are a lot of D800 owners that say the lens doesn't cut it! The 28-300 is on the list too... and I just sold mine, because while it was wonderful on the D7000, it absolutely SUCKED on the D800! Noticeable difference in IQ compared to my 70-200 or 24-70. But if you don't have a 70-200 to compare it to.... you might be happy with it.

The 60mm macro... well, it is a prime.. and a macro lens. They are SHARP by definition, lol! Although the 60mm is not one I would choose for macro because of the very small minimum focus distance. Would scare bugs, and throw shadows. Makes subjects harder to light with flash also...


Check this out:  LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection

and this:  And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance)


----------



## mergetrio (Dec 14, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> mergetrio said:
> 
> 
> > What are your thoughts with D800 and these lenses I currently own (bought w/ D1x)?:  Nikkor AF Micro 60mm/ 1:2.8D and 24-120mm/ 1:3.5-5.6D lenses
> ...



Thanks for the quick and helpful response and resources!

Question:  Is the focus problem on the earlier D800s?


----------



## Chaosstar (Dec 17, 2012)

How can a cheaper D600 body trounce a premium D800 by that much? The iso noise performance is significantly better than D800 in all ranges.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 17, 2012)

Chaosstar said:
			
		

> How can a cheaper D600 body trounce a premium D800 by that much? The iso noise performance is significantly better than D800 in all ranges.



The 6D also has better ISO noise than the 5DIII. 

I think with the 6D it has to do with better pixel pitch and sensor architecture but I'm not sure about the D600. Maybe it's because of how it has less MP?


----------



## O'Rork (Dec 18, 2012)

After A lot of reading I selected the D600 and got it today from my local Nikon dealer. I traded in my D300 and grip on it for a substantial $425.00 off and an instant rebate. Out the door for $1445.00, with 2 batteries and 2 8gb cards. So far I've been acquainting myself with it, with my 24-70 2.8. I see a substantial improvement when cropping tight and the low light ISO is very much improved. Being a hobbyist, I don't really need the speed features I've given up. Getting the 3 kings while I was shooting the D300, are really going to show their worth now. Color me happy.

Frank


----------

