D800/E or D600
- Thread starter GuessBoy
- Start date
george671
New Member
sorry, I am on Guam right now...I should be back in Bangkok in a month or so...
Clarenze
New Member
I would really love to know your decision.
As I am in the exact same situation as you.
I have the money to buy the D800, it is THE camera to get with such a great DR and built. It is meant to last me 3-5 years at least.
However, since Nikon came out with the D600. I could be looking at saving ~$1,000 and spend that money buying a 16-35 or even consider investing in a 14-24.
I travel a lot, and I rock/mountain climb and may be heading to Nepal soon.
Would really love some inputs.
Alan Chan
Senior Member
if you dont need video or 24MP, D700 can save you even more money for lens.
La Fontaine
New Member
Since the time when D700 was launched, I was considering going for FX. But, now that this D600 is already the 3rd FX camera for hobbyist, I am still considering.
The question is why go for FX? One of the reason for FX used to be for wide-angles lens not wide enough in DX, but now, we have zooms starting from as wide as 10mm. Another reason used to be FX has got better high ISO noise control, but these days, even at ISO3200, DX turns out to be good enough for me. And one more reason used to be that FX has got higher Mp count, but this is no longer an issue as DX can go for as much as one need already.
I have been using a D300s for the last 3years. I need a few good reason why I should go for FX, given that FX is now pretty affordable.
Thinking of replacing the D300s with this new D600 and get a D3100 for travel and casual shoot.
The question is why go for FX? One of the reason for FX used to be for wide-angles lens not wide enough in DX, but now, we have zooms starting from as wide as 10mm. Another reason used to be FX has got better high ISO noise control, but these days, even at ISO3200, DX turns out to be good enough for me. And one more reason used to be that FX has got higher Mp count, but this is no longer an issue as DX can go for as much as one need already.
I have been using a D300s for the last 3years. I need a few good reason why I should go for FX, given that FX is now pretty affordable.
Thinking of replacing the D300s with this new D600 and get a D3100 for travel and casual shoot.
sf_kang
Senior Member
La Fontaine said:
This thread is for discussion between D800 or D600 ( not specifically for discussing DX or FX ) but since you asked, I'd share my own journey.
Some 30 yrs ago, I started shooting with 35mm film cameras. Later I progressed to medium format (6X6). Reason was better image quality, better details. The trade off was bigger, heavier bodies n lenses. The 50mm was the standard lens on 35mm while with MF, the standard lens was 80 mm to produce a similar angle of view. DoF also became shallower. But when image quality or the medium format look was top priority, I shot w MF equipment.
Now the DX FX discussion is no different. FX sensors are larger than DX ones. All things being equal, the FX sensor will produce better quality images under similar conditions. FX sensors can handle noise better in high ISO situations. If a FX and DX sensor have the same number of megapixels, the FX sensor will handle noise better and produce better details and image quality. If you go for the same maximum megapixels, the FX sensor will still outperform the DX one.
Key factors in your decision making.
1. If you need high image quality at high ISO conditions, go with FX.
2. If min weight and lower cost of equipment is your priority, then go DX.
3. If you shoot action and events, go FX because you will need higher ISO to get the higher shutter speeds.
I m currently using a D700 and D3s some I use only FX lens. Keep it simple. Thinking of acquiring a D600 at the appropriate time. Not interested in the D800 (don't need so high megapixels) and have to sacrifice too much ISO (I often shoot at 6400 or higher) as I do children action portraits.
Hope the points help you in deciding.
Cheers.
wondering anyone considered TCO? come up with something quantifiable,
if was to get the D600, i will need to get new memory cards in the form of SD, a minimum of 2.
i hv already owned a few CF cards, thus i will at most get 1 more SD card for D800.
fr the table, that's is what i will considered buying.
what's holding me up in getting the D800 was i dun really need the high MP and this is high high in my list! my ideal MP count is between 16-24MP. but a difference of just $300-$600 between getting either is simply bothering me.
it's reminding me 20+ yrs ago, when im getting my 1st computer, a 386dx-33 or 486sx-20; i chose the former...
example, by paying extra $400, i will be getting the much better performance/built or whatever D800. if only D600 has a native ISO up to 12800, it will swayed me to this!
my heart want the D600 but my brain ask me get the D800... of cos this is after "evaluating" the non-quantifiable variables.
if was to get the D600, i will need to get new memory cards in the form of SD, a minimum of 2.
i hv already owned a few CF cards, thus i will at most get 1 more SD card for D800.
fr the table, that's is what i will considered buying.
what's holding me up in getting the D800 was i dun really need the high MP and this is high high in my list! my ideal MP count is between 16-24MP. but a difference of just $300-$600 between getting either is simply bothering me.
it's reminding me 20+ yrs ago, when im getting my 1st computer, a 386dx-33 or 486sx-20; i chose the former...
example, by paying extra $400, i will be getting the much better performance/built or whatever D800. if only D600 has a native ISO up to 12800, it will swayed me to this!
my heart want the D600 but my brain ask me get the D800... of cos this is after "evaluating" the non-quantifiable variables.
rain5533
Senior Member
wondering anyone considered TCO? come up with something quantifiable,
if was to get the D600, i will need to get new memory cards in the form of SD, a minimum of 2.
i hv already owned a few CF cards, thus i will at most get 1 more SD card for D800.
fr the table, that's is what i will considered buying.
what's holding me up in getting the D800 was i dun really need the high MP and this is high high in my list! my ideal MP count is between 16-24MP. but a difference of just $300-$600 between getting either is simply bothering me.
it's reminding me 20+ yrs ago, when im getting my 1st computer, a 386dx-33 or 486sx-20; i chose the former...
example, by paying extra $400, i will be getting the much better performance/built or whatever D800. if only D600 has a native ISO up to 12800, it will swayed me to this!
my heart want the D600 but my brain ask me get the D800... of cos this is after "evaluating" the non-quantifiable variables.
Hi, from your pointed, you should consider as D600 in the right time for you...
cause after you see my DX vs FX comparison here and got idea from D600 also not that bad...
the SD card, for me i would buy both, for spare or use in backup.
hmmm for me i wouldn't buy the battery grip at same time, unless i really need it to shot in vertical portrait shoot.
DX 16Mp vs FX 36Mp - VintagePhotography
Thanks
Alan Chan
Senior Member
there will always be pros and cons between DX and FX, but if you dont need the pros of FX then stick to DX. absolutely fine.
you shouldn't need to ask yourself why you need to go for FX, when your photo taking habit do not signal you the need of FX then dont even bother thinking about it.
La Fontaine
New Member
Thank you very much, SF for taking the time to give your opinion.
I started a long time ago, with a Yashica GSN donkey years ago. Then, moved on to Pentax K1000.
As a hobbyist, I am pretty satisfied with the kind of pic quality I get from the D300s. And I prefer to use long lens, and DX gives me the advantage of a 1.5x factor.
I am still considering going for FX is becos fingers itchy to try something new, for fun. I know that I do not expect a big jump in picture quality, or in other aspects
I hardly shoot in the dark, nor need for crazily high ISO like 6400 or so.
But, in rare occasion like the coming F1, when you need both high shutter speed and high ISO at the same time, FX should have a slight edge.
Last edited:
Same sentiments here. There will always be another hardware to upgrade to around the next corner.
After so many donkey years, I, too, use my Electro 35 whenever I want to remind myself that while many things have changed, nothing much has really changed.
Time to get back on thread.
La Fontaine
New Member
Well, it looks like there ain't any hurry to plunge into FX. In terms of lenses, I already have a full range from 12-24zoom all the way to 100-300zoom with a few primes in between. FX means get new lenses. My dry-cab is almost full now.
I might wanna to borrow or rent a FX cam to see for myself how much better it is compared with a DX.
Here is what i am doing now, instead of getting a FX cam straight away, i took a step back(or forward) and started to shoot with an old Nikon F4 since my lenses are all full frame lenses. I started to feel what it is like shooting full frame, the slightly better DOF, beautiful large and bright viewfinder etc. The best thing is, it is cheaper than renting a FX body, and you get to enjoy quality pictures even if your lenses are not the "pro" grade lenses. I am currently having so much fun, I don't even think of going back to digital format anymore.
D600 has 1 stop lower ISO than D700 & D3/X/S, so they're basically the same.
D700 => 1/8000, Base ISO 200
D600 => 1/4000, Base ISO 100
They are not the same...
Base ISO is a separate thing from having a lower max shutter speed.
Just think of it this way, that an exposure of ISO200, 1/100s, F2.8 on D700 will also expose at ISO200, 1/100s. F2.8 on D600.
The advantage a lower base native ISO gives you, is that you can shoot at the best quality (lowest base native ISO) and get a longer exposure on a D600 than a D700. This advantage is best when shooting landscapes.
No doubt when shooting very bright scenes, you can go down to ISO100, but in a pinch D700 can also go down to ISO100... But you can never go 1/8000 on a D600.
But seriously, I have more of an issue with the max sync speed of D600 than its max shutter speed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
