Is adding a D800 to my D600 the right thing to do?

G

Geoffc

Senior Member
Jake, as you know I went from D600 to D800 recently. My main reasons were that I prefer the D800 body / functions and AF as its more like the D300s that I was used to.

In terms of the image quality the D600 was great and I'm not seeing a benefit there, but then again I don't do big prints. The ability to crop is impressive though, however you need a very good shot in the first place. I've had to tighten up my technique a lot to get images that are consistently good, whereas the D600 just took great images.

If you run in DX mode or simply crop an FX image ( it's effectively the same thing) you end up with an image just slightly smaller than the D7000.

The thing that would bother me if you're doing this a lot is the way DX mode works through the viewfinder, as it's the same as the D600. I'd end up missing things because I would be looking at the whole viewfinder rather than the box in the middle. I will probably not use DX mode on the D800 and just crop the FX images.

If you're going to spend money why not get the 24mp DX that's due out soon? That will give you more than the D800 for wildlife, be at least as functional as the D7000 and probably cost half as much.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Great insight, Geoff, thanks. Outside of a Sigma 8-16mm and a Rokinon Fisheye I have no DX lenses, so would shoot in FX mode almost exclusively. I'd rather be given the option to crop as I see fit in every case, and as you mentioned I don't like the idea of a viewfinder restriction.

I am strongly considering the idea of the D7x00 given the new sensor size. I only wish that there were more specifics, and particularly that there was the opportunity to see some images and get some IQ reviews. Ultimately if the quality matches the D600 I'm ahead of the game. Then last night I see that B&H has knocked another $100 of their factory refurbs and a D800 is $2399, and a second D600 would be $1599 (a couple hundred more than the new D7x00), and I have that feeding me. Given the soft market I suspect that Nikon will continue to offer deals like this moving forward, so while these prices run through the end of next week I have no reason to believe that something like the Xmas deal of last November won't happen again.

I have no real need to rush into the decision, which is why I wanted some opinions to chew on. I took a closer look at the functional differences of the D800 and it's definitely a different beast. That the new D7x00 follows the form of the D600 (God, I hope they keep the +/- buttons consistent) is another pro in that column. Maybe I'll just wait and see if they change the battery again and use that as a deciding factor. LOL
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
BackdoorHippie said:
Great insight, Geoff, thanks. Outside of a Sigma 8-16mm and a Rokinon Fisheye I have no DX lenses, so would shoot in FX mode almost exclusively. I'd rather be given the option to crop as I see fit in every case, and as you mentioned I don't like the idea of a viewfinder restriction.

I am strongly considering the idea of the D7x00 given the new sensor size. I only wish that there were more specifics, and particularly that there was the opportunity to see some images and get some IQ reviews. Ultimately if the quality matches the D600 I'm ahead of the game. Then last night I see that B&H has knocked another $100 of their factory refurbs and a D800 is $2399, and a second D600 would be $1599 (a couple hundred more than the new D7x00), and I have that feeding me. Given the soft market I suspect that Nikon will continue to offer deals like this moving forward, so while these prices run through the end of next week I have no reason to believe that something like the Xmas deal of last November won't happen again.

I have no real need to rush into the decision, which is why I wanted some opinions to chew on. I took a closer look at the functional differences of the D800 and it's definitely a different beast. That the new D7x00 follows the form of the D600 (God, I hope they keep the +/- buttons consistent) is another pro in that column. Maybe I'll just wait and see if they change the battery again and use that as a deciding factor. LOL
Click to expand...


It's usually very wise to wait and see when a new product has been rumored for "soon". Either it will have the little something more that will make it worthwhile and/or the older model gets heavily discounted.

As you wrote, there is no rush.
 
S

STM

Senior Member
I agree that you should probably switch to FX for the higher image quality and especially depth of field control, which is miserable with DX, but honestly, I think people need to consider how large they plan to print their images and use that as a guide for camera selection. The one thing that really dismays and baffles me about digital photography over film is that people tend to get so wrapped around the axle about megapixels and other techie stuff. If you are going to print at most 11 x 14, then 12 MP is plenty. I still use a D700 and will for the foreseeable future and honestly, for both personal and commercial work I do, some of which has been turned into billboards, for up to 16 x 20, it is more than sufficient. Is switching to a 36 MP D800 over the 12 MP D700 I am using now going to make me a better photographer? The answer is a resounding HELL NO. If I want to blow the doors off digital, and I can, I can just use my Hasselblad and Kodak T-Max 100 or Ektar 100 film. When scanning 120 film, I find I actually have to BLUR it slightly for portraiture because the client does not want to see the individual hairs of peach fuzz on their chin. 120 film and my 150mm f/4 Sonnar is BRUTALLY sharp. When I print portaiture stuff in 120, I actually use a Cokin softening filter under the enlarging lens so it is not as sharp.
 
Last edited:
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
OK, so the D7100 specs are definitely giving me something to consider. Saving $1000+ means my pocket still has lens money too, if I want - though not deep pocket lens money!!

"Win-win"? We shall see.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Don't know about "better", but there's a distinct advantage to having more MP's in the DX crop for me with birding. I was 99% sold on the D7100 when it was announced because it seemed to plug that hole and then some at less than 1/2 the price. Alas, the 1% I was unsold about turned on me violently when I learned that the D7100 buffer is incapable of handling more than 1 sec of continuous raw images shot at 6 fps. So, I'll spend more than twice as much on what I need rather than cursing at my camera every time it fails me when I need it most (any camera can take one shot at a time - when something is flying at me I don't want my camera to quit after 1 second).
 
B

bigal1000

Senior Member
Sounds like you know what you need to me,I'd love to get a D800,but I'm retired now and money is at premium for a lot of other expenses,good luck with your final choise.
 
Last edited:
D

Dave_W

The Dude
To be honest Jake, knowing how awesome the IQ of a D800 is, I would urge you to scrap your D7100 order and get what is IMO the best camera Nikon has ever made. I'm sure there will be an upcoming camera that knocks the D800 off this top spot but until then, the D800 is it. And don't take my word for it, just look at the many posts we've seen here on the board from seasoned photographers acting like little kids they got their first look at the images it produces. I can't even count the number of people who said they thought it was all hype until they started using one and then suddenly they understood why we all went bananas over this camera.

Not only that but if history is any indication of the future, the D7100 will have an issue that is yet to be flushed out. It could be a minor issue and of no consequence or it could be a major issue and one that might entangle you for a lot longer than you would like. So on a very pragmatic basis, I would opt for a known entity like the D800 that produces amazing images despite the potential left focus issue (that seems to be a non-issue judging from the dropping level of complaints) rather than gamble on an unknown (or a yet to be known) entity like the D7100.

But hey, that's just my 2 cents and truth be told, it's worth about half that much. :)
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Jake, your posts got me thinking about the D800 choice. From what I understand, you want to have a fast auto-focus with great buffer to shoot birds. You know, I'm not sure that going full frame is then a great solution for you. You probably want as much reach as possible and FX will not give you this. If you want to benefit FX for birding, you'll have to spend a great amount of money to get the appropriate great lens. You might be better sticking with DX and getting a very good 300 2.8 with a 2X adapter than going FX with a so so lens.There is a 300 2.8 in Sherbrooke for 1800$.

Here's my food for thoughts, if you need it now, why not a pre-owned D300? It has what you're after (I think). Great bird shots are more dependent on time spent chasing the shots than the quality of the camera taking it. So, it's all a question of choice, but beware of all the hype about MP and the NAS that is so well promoted on our forums...

So, think wise before spending that hard earned money and try to balance the benefits of your different options. I've seen plenty of Great bird photos taken with the D300 and a great lens.

Happy deciding, but don't rush it. Maybe rent a d300 to see how it performs with birds in flight...
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Along the lines of Marcel's thinking, you could also rent all those bodies first (D800 and D300 now and the D7100 when it comes out) before you buy something you will hopefully have for many years. Might cost $100-200 to do that, but it's better than buying the wrong body now.

To throw in the wrench of speculation.., it's only February, I can't believe Nikon will not announce at least 1 more DSLR this year! :)
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Thanks for the thoughts, guys. This is not so much a camera for birding as it is the desire (need?) for a second camera that has increased IQ over my D7000 (which is fine, but not what I get from my D600) that has the flexibility to handle the bird shots. My D600 did just fine when I was using it for birding in FL, and my initial thought was that the D800 could act as a great FX camera that could spell DX when I needed it to thanks to the sensor resolution (giving me about what my D7000 did in cropped mode). Not that I will shoot there as I can always crop down. The D7100 entered into the equation because of two things: cost and the additional 1.3X crop on top. That would give me D7000 resolution at an increase zoom factor - but alas only for one second bursts at a time.

So, I'm back to my original thought, which is adding the D800 to the fold. The way I shoot I like having two cameras with me at all times, so having it paired with the D600 seems to be ideal as I could outfit the D800 with whatever lens best complements the D600 for what I'm shooting that day (and vice versa). The different forms may drive me nuts at first, but I've always been able to adapt. Going wholly FX made sense to me when I first pondered it, and the D7100 exercise made for good mental gymnastics. I believe I was trying to talk myself into that one on the basis of a single argument knowing that I would continue to rely on the D600 as my main camera. But having a 1A and 1B instead of a 1 & 2 is a nice option to have. Sort of like having a Telecaster and a Les Paul as a guitar player. Both are great guitars, each has it's own strengths, and you could easily get away with either one by itself - but how much more fun is it to have a choice?!

Unfortunately, I don't have any dealers local, and only one within 40 miles that might have a D800 to play with first. I plan on calling them tomorrow and taking a drive out to check it out again over lunch. But I did play with one in NYC last October, so I have some feel for what I'm getting into.

And heck, the D7000 isn't going anywhere but the car, so I still have that to stick a birding lens on in a pinch until my wife decides she really wants to shoot.
 
Last edited:
Johnathan Aulabaugh

Johnathan Aulabaugh

Senior Member
So I have a question. I have actually played with the D4 more than I have a D800 so my question is, as far as Action shots, once you click that shutter how many shots in a row can you take? At 4fps your buffer MIGHT fill up to quick. I did watch a little video by DigitalRev on youtube that mentions a long wait once that buffer is filled...
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Saw this post in Nikon Rumors this morning. More food for thought. I may just settle down and wait for the dust to settle on what is and is not coming out in the DX world and when. Maybe I'll just be happier with a 120-300mm f2.8 and a 2x instead? Even more money, but glass is forever, right?
 
Johnathan Aulabaugh

Johnathan Aulabaugh

Senior Member
I hate to put a negative spin on this but I really do not see a D400 ish in Nikons future. The D7100 has the works and is outfitted much better than the D600 imo. Now I am still waiting for the D90 replacement... you know the one that is not the D7000. Also interested where you heard the buffer was that small. That is crazy to make a camera shoot 6 fps and then have it lag to 1 shot per second, specially as it has the expeed 3 processor.
 
Top