D610 vs D800 question

[SkvLTD]

I'm definitely blown away by 600's quality thus far, and I've barely dabbled into really pushing its envelope. 800 must truly be amazing, but that FPS limit will surely croak with wildlife unless you're just that good of a hunter.

 

[gqtuazon]

I've watched the thread with interest as I'm facing a similar dilemma.

My main topic is orchid photography, as well as the odd wildlife, family, or other shot. However, orchids are my focus. To that end, my D7000 generally only wears the Nikon 105mm F2.8 MicroNikkor. However, the DX 18-55mm is also very useful, and I can see the Nikkor 24-85mm as a quick purchase when I move to FX.

Thoughts about the D610 or D800 given my interest and older lens selection?

Thanks

Honestly for your intended purpose, the D7000 gives almost equally satisfying results as my D800E as far as macro is concerned. Not enough reason for me to tell you to go full frame which I normally do suggest to go that route.

Are there any other reasons why you might still benefit from a FX?

 

[Marcel]

Re: Just oooone more little question on 6/800

I'd be really curious to see the same picture done with a D610 and a D7100 with the equivalent field of view. The lack of anti-aliasing filter of the D7100 could give it a sharpness edge over the 610? And I agree with Glenn that for close-ups, FX doesn't have much advantage. You could save a new lens if you were going that route.

 

[TOPHER5]

I own both the D600 and D800.
There is now real difference except the file size.
I love both cameras.
But the focus points might bother some.

I like to use the focus and recompose method with the smaller pack of focus points of the D600.
More focus points packed into a smaller area than the D800 is not all bad. 39 points with 9 cross type is great still.
As photographers we a re spoiled with both of these cameras. They are both beasts.
Just different.

Compare the abysmal Canon 6D focus system 11 points with 1 cross type.

 

[SkvLTD]

I'd frankly compare, at least the 6/10 to 5dIII if anything, not anything less as far as overall IQ goes.

 

[Orchidman]

I'm also looking for expanded dynamic range that seems missing in DX. In the film metaphor, its like the difference between slide and print exposure latitude. "In the day" I was an F64 Kodachrome 25 guy, but always appreciated the increased exposure detail available in print film. Shadow detail, dynamic range, and increased depth of field are what I hope FX provides beyond the DX format.

Honestly for your intended purpose, the D7000 gives almost equally satisfying results as my D800E as far as macro is concerned. Not enough reason for me to tell you to go full frame which I normally do suggest to go that route.

Are there any other reasons why you might still benefit from a FX?