Hawks Photography wrote: Well I purchased the d800 (haven't received it yet) then I got this birdie in my ear telling me the D600 is actually a better camera over the D800. I also read Ken Rockwells review on the comparison of both and he sides with the d600 as well. Citing "36 MP is worse than 24 MP. No pro I know shoots above 10 MP" and "the biggest reason I prefer the D600 over my D800E is that it's easy to reconfigure the D600 to what I'm trying to do with its U1 and U2 modes, while my D800 takes too long to reconfigure between shots". link http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d600/vs-d800.htm So I am torn and looking for advice. If anyone has these cameras and can provide input that would be helpful.
Thanks guys!
No pro you know shoots above 10mp???? If you got the D800, I would say that you got the better camera and can always shoot smaller file sizes if that is too much for you. I can't believe the D600 is easier to customize than the D800. Just my opinion though.
I have a 600. Money was part of the decision. Have shot with both. 800 has obvious technical superiorities but... I often hike 3 miles or more with my equipment. The weight difference does matter. Unlike many of you, I have small hands and like the 600 feel. Finally, at the end of a long night at an event at Portland Art Museum, I was glad I carried my 600 with a prime compared to companion with an 800 plus zoom. Not recommending 600, just saying it works well for some people.
out of curiosity I picked up a D600 to test as a backup or knock around camera and because of the supposed ISO performance
I like them both.
The D800:
heavier and larger - a smidge smaller than the D700 or at least if feels that way
*can lock the shutter speed so you do not inadvertently move it
and has more megapixels
focuses *much* faster in low light
the D600
is smaller and lighter - about 1/2 way in size between D7000 and D700
*cannot lock the shutter speed
has fewer megapixels, but still a tonne
has significantly superior high ISO performance
*it may depend on how you handle the camera, but if I can't lock the aperture setting (as on all Nikon pro and semi-pro cameras) my thumb often moves it to a setting too high resulting in black bars.....
I use a rubber band around the D600 to add some resistance to movement to the shutter speed wheel....
Phil Drinkwater wrote: D600 focussing in low light isn't amazing so I'd take the d800..
Actually it IS amazing... shot these (banana eating) burlesque dancing hotties a few nights ago with my D600 in some pretty low light... worked like a champ...
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,233
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Select Models wrote: Actually it IS amazing... shot these (banana eating) burlesque dancing hotties a few nights ago with my D600 in some pretty low light... worked like a champ...
Not compared with the d800 (or 5d3) performance, as noted in the video. It was struggling significantly, especially with movement.
Which is what the OP was asking about.
If you want to do your own test compared to the d800 and post the results, go for it.
(I know you're very pro everything Nikon and especially everything you own, but be fair .. it might not be perfect for someone else)
I have the D800 and love it. The learning curve has been steep...especially with choosing the right approach to white balance...but I wouldn't part with it now. Given the choice of a FX backup...I would choose a D600 for its light weight.
This headshot is slightly cropped from a 36.2 MP jpeg. It was shot at 30 feet with a 70-200 2.8. The lower image is less than 1% of the original, and "peach fuzz" is still visible on the woman's cheek. There is also great detail with individual hair strands.
To me...the ability to take a 36 MP frame, and then crop the hell out of it and still get a sharp image, is what makes the D800 what it is. I've salvaged a lot of great head shots from lousy body shots.
The D800 has slightly better build quality and autofocus. I agree with Ken that most people would be just fine with the D600, but if you need that extra 1% you already know who you are and why you need it.
Hawks Photography wrote: If you had the choice between a Nikon D600 or the Nikon D800 without cost being a factor, which would you choose? If you could follow up with why you'd choose a model that would be wonderful!
Thanks Guys.... begin!
The main selling point of the D600 is the price so if you take that away then for me it's the D800. If I only had $2K to spend then the D600 would make sense. Get the body that still allows you to get the best glass you can. GL
If you are looking for Nikon FX quality on a budget that shoots 1080p full frame.
The D600 is the one. The $100.00 holiday discounts make it a very enticing introduction to Nikon full frame. Add a battery grip, and that will take care of any body size issues you may have if you feel the camera is too small.
If you are shooting for money I would think that it would pay for itself quickly
(at $1996.95 US) and if you upgrade in the future it would be a good back up camera (IMHO).
Sorry can't help but consider money in the equation.
If you need the proven benefits of the D800.. more pixels, build, button layout, and autofocus then you need the D800. Simple. If you aren't sure you need them.. you likely don't but this thread and bit of research should help.
If you don't then you can pick up a D600 and have enough left over for a lens. Or you could travel somewhere and shoot with the model(s) you've dreamed of shooting. Add to your lighting kit? Buy some software? Order takeout for a year to free up time for editing haha. To me the only way money is never a factor is when it's limitless.. which is not my case.
Personally I have a couple D700s and I'm considering my next upgrade will be lenses. 2-3k can get you some pretty nice glass.
has anyone mentioned the fact that the D600 FASTEST sync speed is 1/200th? This would be a major drawback for me if I were considering a switch to Nikon FF country. Pay the extra and get the D800e Nikon body.
Currently very happy with my FF Sony A850 and Carl Zeiss glass but have been reviewing Nikon FF cameras because of the substandard ISO performance of the Sony A850.
I took the D600 to Cozumel for a bikini shoot and was really happy with its performance. i did have to make some camera adjustments to focus with my Sigma 70-200 but other then that no complaints. after the shoot i returned it and decided to upgrade to the D800, even though im concerned about the large files. reason is im worried about the build quality. it feels sturdy and im sure its a great camera but its only rated to 150k shutter count, nikon doesnt feel its a pro camera and therefore will compromise on quality parts and i need the reliability. I have a D200 thats gone past the 250 and its built like a brick. I have a D7000 that needed a new shutter after 45k plus the first memory card slots doesnt always work. seeing that im a full time photographer and i cant risk my camera being away for 6 weeks for a repair, under warranty or not. So for ease of mind im upgrading. No complaints, if i was a casual user I would have stuck with it.
Tonal scale on the d800e is off the charts for me. One can manipulate the curves to suit your visual ideas. Besides, the camera can shoot down to 15mp if you don't want/need all 36! It's the camera that provides the most options for 80% of what needs to be shot.
I went with the d600. The 1/200th sync speed doesn't affect me much in the studio. THe only things that bother me about the camera is the inability to lock the shutter speed and the fact that pushing the ok button doesn't zoom into the focus point at 100% and brings up the retouch menu instead. Are those 2 features worth a 1000$ to me, no. If the 2 cameras were the same price I'd go for d800 though
I agree about 1/200th not being an issue. I have some YongNuo flashes that only go to 1/200th and that's plenty for most work I do. I'd still go for the D800 though for several other reasons. Cheers
You can't go wrong with either one. I prefer the D600 but would be perfectly happy with the D800. To some degree, it depends on what you intend to shoot.
I picked up a 600 last week after several agonizing weeks of internet research. I chose to save to grand on the body and put it, (and several more) into quality glass. I had a six model shoot on Sunday and I could not be happier. The raws were very sharp, great color saturation, and I was able to pick up on the menu system and workings quickly. Unfortunately had to travel on business right away so I have been unable to post any images. I shot strobe and natural light wide open. I can not imagine what the 800 can do that I personally have to have. Also love my N coated glass.
David L Schneider wrote: has anyone mentioned the fact that the D600 FASTEST sync speed is 1/200th? This would be a major drawback for me if I were considering a switch to Nikon FF country. Pay the extra and get the D800e Nikon body.
Currently very happy with my FF Sony A850 and Carl Zeiss glass but have been reviewing Nikon FF cameras because of the substandard ISO performance of the Sony A850.
Use HyperSync and you can get up to 1/4000th with the D600. I am able to get up to 1/8000th with strobes on the D800.
JSVeselka wrote: I picked up a 600 last week after several agonizing weeks of internet research. I chose to save to grand on the body and put it, (and several more) into quality glass. The raws were very sharp, great color saturation, and I was able to pick up on the menu system and workings quickly. I shot strobe and natural light wide open. Also love my N coated glass.
Mirroring this response... super happy with my D600... ROCKS in low light... majorly sharp with both N glass and ED lenses. I dialed in the menu system for amazing JPEGs...
London Fog wrote: Lastly, the ergonomics and general feel of this camera is like the most amazing sex ever; I have honestly never felt anything so good in my hands, well almost never!
i felt the D800 and the wife today. the wife won but the D800 wasn't that far behind! i think the D600 feels good, too. certainly better than the 6D.
London Fog wrote: Lastly, the ergonomics and general feel of this camera is like the most amazing sex ever; I have honestly never felt anything so good in my hands, well almost never!
Hawks Photography wrote: Well I purchased the D800 (haven't received it yet) then I got this birdie in my ear telling me the D600 is actually a better camera over the D800. I also read Ken Rockwell's review on the comparison of both and he sides with the d600 as well. Citing "36 MP is worse than 24 MP. No pro I know shoots above 10 MP" and "the biggest reason I prefer the D600 over my D800E is that it's easy to reconfigure the D600 to what I'm trying to do with its U1 and U2 modes, while my D800 takes too long to reconfigure between shots". link http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d600/vs-d800.htm So I am torn and looking for advice. If anyone has these cameras and can provide input that would be helpful.
Thanks guys!
It's Ken just proving once again why he bloggs instead of shoots. The AF on the D600 is so sluggish especially in low light when compared to the D800 that alone will be reason enough to toss it unless you are really strapped for $$. Less well sealed, 2 SD and no CF slots. It's an excellent unit when not compared to the D800. There is the oil problem but it seems to go away after a few hundred articulations. But then several claim there are focal point issues with the D800 and on the 2 I've used (own one borrowed a second) neither had that problem. I wouldn't trade mine for anything out currently. But be warned, previously great glass will find it's limit on the D800. Most lenses just don't measure up and so they look soft on it. Less of that on the D600 from what I've read.
PS..here is Ken Rockwell's absurd quote about the two cameras:
"The biggest things I see comparing the Nikon D600 to the Nikon D800 are smaller size, optimum resolution (D800 has too much!), a smaller sea of AF sensors, faster frame rate, less weight, and a much lower price. (OK..He's not so off here I guess)
The biggest annoyance is that the size of the region seen by the sea of AF sensors is smaller in the D600. Personally, I always seem to need to focus on something just outside the area covered by AF sensors with my existing cameras, so the D600 will bug me more. So what? Half the time all I use is the center sensor anyway; I'll take the U1 and U2 modes in exchange for a smaller AF region any day.
As time goes on, I can offer more, but as a shooter as opposed to a tweaker, the biggest reason I prefer the D600 over my D800E is that it's easy to reconfigure the D600 to what I'm trying to do with its U1 and U2 modes, while my D800 takes too long to reconfigure between shots. (Of course you have 4 presets to chose from on the D800 as opposed to 2)
I've owned the D800 and D800E for over five months, and the D300 and D3 with the same foolish "Menu Banks" system since 2007, and they make the cameras a mess to set and reconfigure for each kind of subject.
I greatly prefer the U1 and U2 modes of the D600 and D7000. With them, everything I need for one kind of shot or another I can preprogram, and I'm always ready to shoot.
36 MP is worse than 24 MP. No pro I know shoots above 10 MP; above 10 MP, all it does is slow your workflow so you can't get anything done. For most of my own work, I shoot at 6 MP." ..>Explains a lot doesn't it!
It's Ken just proving once again why he bloggs instead of shoots. The AF on the D600 is so sluggish especially in low light when compared to the D800 that alone will be reason enough to toss it unless you are really strapped for $$. Less well sealed, 2 SD and no CF slots. It's an excellent unit when not compared to the D800. There is the oil problem but it seems to go away after a few hundred articulations. But then several claim there are focal point issues with the D800 and on the 2 I've used (own one borrowed a second) neither had that problem. I wouldn't trade mine for anything out currently. But be warned, previously great glass will find it's limit on the D800. Most lenses just don't measure up and so they look soft on it. Lees of that on the D600 from what I've read.
I think you've said it all perfectly. It seems like both cameras have their quirks, but overall the D800 is way out in front of the D600.
as someone who rarely shoots in low truly low light, i haven't noticed the focus doing anything but being perfect. it's super nice to be able to crank the ISO though and not really worry about it, when needed.
i also can't stand the ergonomics of the d800. i was super off-put when playing with it for a bit. the d600, while smaller, has enough grip for me (not huge hands, but decidedly man sized). neither camera lives up to the d700 in that regard. i think it was about flawless. i also like the reduced weight, since a reasonable chunk of my paid shooting involves hefting the thing all day.
i really like the output of the d600 as well. i'm just amazed every time i sit at the computer for post.
money REALLY no object, i take the d800e though. maybe. lol.
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
Sam Cantu wrote: I took the D600 to Cozumel for a bikini shoot and was really happy with its performance. i did have to make some camera adjustments to focus with my Sigma 70-200 but other then that no complaints. after the shoot i returned it and decided to upgrade to the D800, even though im concerned about the large files. reason is im worried about the build quality. it feels sturdy and im sure its a great camera but its only rated to 150k shutter count, nikon doesnt feel its a pro camera and therefore will compromise on quality parts and i need the reliability. I have a D200 thats gone past the 250 and its built like a brick. I have a D7000 that needed a new shutter after 45k plus the first memory card slots doesnt always work. seeing that im a full time photographer and i cant risk my camera being away for 6 weeks for a repair, under warranty or not. So for ease of mind im upgrading. No complaints, if i was a casual user I would have stuck with it.
You are a full time photographer who relies on his kit? So why count on a consumer grade camera, which the D600 is. Seems a bit risky, especially going to places like Cozumel with a non weather sealed body!
according to the nikon web site the weather sealing is substantially similar on D800 and D600? when i held both the D600 didn't feel cheap (unlike the canon 6D). or are you saying the D800 isn't sealed well enough either?
London Fog wrote: You are a full time photographer who relies on his kit? So why count on a consumer grade camera, which the D600 is. Seems a bit risky, especially going to places like Cozumel with a non weather sealed body!
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
twoharts wrote: according to the nikon web site the weather sealing is substantially similar on D800 and D600? when i held both the D600 didn't feel cheap (unlike the canon 6D). or are you saying the D800 isn't sealed well enough either?
I'll be really honest, and stick my neck out here, the D800 feels great but it doesn't feel as substantial or as tough as my D300s, that thing could actually be used as a deadly weapon or a spare part for a tank!
Maybe, metal and plastic prices have gone up in Japan, who knows!
And, yes the 6D feels like a toy, and from the specs looks hopelessly inadequate, even the 7D feels better and is way better spec'd! No idea why Canon released that thing!
Instead of pissing about with crappy waste of time video those clever Canon guys should release the 3D already!
My path was Nikkormat EL, D200 and D800E. My next Nikon will be D9s. I am so glad that Nikon does not rely on my business to survive.
| 
| 
| edu