Looking at various sources on the internet, they list the various FX bodies Nikon has produced. The D3 seems to be the first FX DSLR, this still sells new for about $7000. The D600, which is one of the newest FX DSLRs sells for roughly $2500. My question is, why is there such a difference in price? Without looking at a specs list, one would assume the newer D600 is much more advanced and a better body, so why does the price vary so much?
Understand FX Bodies...
- Thread starter Samsonite
- Start date
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I wonder the same thing also. Here is a comparison of the two
Nikon D600 vs D3 - Our Analysis
They say the D600 is the winner.
the D3 did win in a few areas like
Nikon D600 vs D3 - Our Analysis
They say the D600 is the winner.
the D3 did win in a few areas like
- Much longer battery life
- Much less shutter lag
- Shoots faster
- More focus points
- More cross-type focus points
- Significantly faster max shutter speed
D700 and D800 are semi pro models...
D600 entry level consumer is a "new" tier...
IMHO.
The build quality between the D700 vs D3 or vs D800 are about identical, while the D600/7000/7100 while nice are definitely a slight notch below.
I personally, love the size of the 7000/600 I don't mind the size of the D700/800, but I find the size of the D3/D4 to be to bulky, ok for studio work, but hauling around all day,, no thanks.
One could always add the battery extender and get the horizantal and verical control along with the extended battery life.
maybe 2-4 years from now, would be fun to pick up a used D3x,
If you can get a clean D600 with no oil issues, then it is an awesome camera.
or... I still think the D800 is the best camera for the money.
I personally, love the size of the 7000/600 I don't mind the size of the D700/800, but I find the size of the D3/D4 to be to bulky, ok for studio work, but hauling around all day,, no thanks.
One could always add the battery extender and get the horizantal and verical control along with the extended battery life.
maybe 2-4 years from now, would be fun to pick up a used D3x,
If you can get a clean D600 with no oil issues, then it is an awesome camera.
or... I still think the D800 is the best camera for the money.
wud
Senior Member
I got the D3 and I'm really happy about it. I wanted fastness and good iso (which I think D3 has, but I havent tried D600), something that was built solid (I'm a bit clumsy and I often get my camera dirty) and then I didn't really want movie or flash - flash I would like to get separately.
Its a little heavy yes, but I got used to it really fast and now our old camera seems SOOO tiny, lol. Im a standard slim girl, and I dont really mind walking around with this D3.
Im glad the files dont take up to much space, as I remember D600 is much larger, is that right? I am horrible at deleting pictures, for some reason I save way to many of them.
One thing is the lack of self cleaning sensor, I would have loved that, but oh well.
And I agree with Eye-Level. I still make loads of bad pictures but I get good ones too - but only because I've been photographing for several years. Its not just click and hurray because my camera are a pro, sometimes I think that the more I learn, the harder it gets. But you probably know that.
Oh and I love the full frame
Its a little heavy yes, but I got used to it really fast and now our old camera seems SOOO tiny, lol. Im a standard slim girl, and I dont really mind walking around with this D3.
Im glad the files dont take up to much space, as I remember D600 is much larger, is that right? I am horrible at deleting pictures, for some reason I save way to many of them.
One thing is the lack of self cleaning sensor, I would have loved that, but oh well.
And I agree with Eye-Level. I still make loads of bad pictures but I get good ones too - but only because I've been photographing for several years. Its not just click and hurray because my camera are a pro, sometimes I think that the more I learn, the harder it gets. But you probably know that.
Oh and I love the full frame
The real difference is in the build. So-called "pro" cameras are built to withstand a great deal of punishment compared to a consumer level camera, not simply FX vs DX. The D300 is considered a "pro" camera due to its build not its sensor size. These cameras come with better moisture seals, stronger bodies and more durable connections. That is really what a "pro" vs. non-pro camera is about. And just like Nikon lenses, Nikon does not state definitively which is a "pro" and which is not a pro camera, for good reason. Professional photographers use various cameras for a number of reasons. People should avoid semantics and concentrate on their personal wants and needs in a camera rather than what someone else may think of them. A D3000 can be a "pro" camera if you're making money with it, just as much as a D4 can be. The "pro" designation is all in the mind.
Perhaps this article by Nasim Mansurov will be helpful in a better understanding of FX and Nikon FX bodies: (Even though it is not *specifically* about bodies...)
Nikon DX vs FX
Nikon DX vs FX
wud
Senior Member
Sadly I got a terrible shot!
Whiskeyman
Senior Member
Officially, Nikon says yes in that the D3 has a rated shutter life of 300,000 actuations while the D600 is rated to 150,000.
Then there's the issues with some of the sensors being fouled by contaminants...
Then there's the issues with some of the sensors being fouled by contaminants...