I just recently posted my field test / review on the new Nikon D600, with an answer to one burning question that I'm sure many of you have: ...Is the D600 qualified for wedding duty?

http://www.slrlounge.com/nikon-d600-...ound-dslr-ever

While the image quality sure is more than enough for any job, certainly weddings; I found other limitations in autofocus and flash versatility to be the show-stoppers I feared they would be.

Your thoughts? I'm curious to hear from other photographers who may be more hobbyists and part-time wedding shooters, because my only perspective right now is that of a full-time wedding shooter with extremely demanding standards. I felt like the D600 was very close to being usable for me during weddings, and I would have loved to get the image quality, but I just couldn't let go of my D700's versatile controls / customizability, and speed / accuracy.

=Matt=

excellent review matt

bummer.. I suppose i'm going back to saving for a d800 :(

one question, focusing in the dark..I know you liek to use natual light a lot but did you see focusing issues with the speed light focus assist?

Originally Posted by Foques bummer.. I suppose i'm going back to saving for a d800 :(

...Or, if you don't care about video and megapixels, a D700. That's what I'm gonna stick with for the foreseeable future!

Originally Posted by Qarik one question, focusing in the dark..I know you liek to use natual light a lot but did you see focusing issues with the speed light focus assist?

With the AF assist beam it does okay, but then again I like to use continuous focus a lot. Either way, I need more AF reliability in low light than the D600 could offer.

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville ...Or, if you don't care about video and megapixels, a D700. That's what I'm gonna stick with for the foreseeable future!

Really nice review, Matt.
You've nailed every reason I jumped on the D700 as soon as the D800 was announced!
(Not to mention the complete compatibility with my D300 inventory...)
Thanks for reassuring my decision!

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville ...Or, if you don't care about video and megapixels, a D700. That's what I'm gonna stick with for the foreseeable future!

from what I gather, d800 has better High ISO performance.. no?

I really could care less about the video - I have a d300s, but I need as good of ISO performance as I can get.. without breaking into the d3s range.

I'm happy with my d800, but the two are different beasts, d600 is a lightweight champ, whereas d800 would be middleweight champ :P

Originally Posted by Foques from what I gather, d800 has better High ISO performance.. no? I really could care less about the video - I have a d300s, but I need as good of ISO performance as I can get.. without breaking into the d3s range.

The bottom line for me has been this: The D800 may be slightly better, but 36 megapixels is more of a drawback than the slight, slight difference in ISO 6400 usability. On the D700, ISO 3200 is totally usable and 6400 is usable in a pinch. And that, to me, is why the D700 is worth it for just $1700 compared to the D800. Immense file size savings for my high-volume workflow, and still the best deal out there even with the D800 showing up at $2500 refurbished...

=Matt=

that's a very good point.

very nice for a Nikon.

I shoot my D7000 at ISO 1600 and find the noise to be more than acceptable and at 3200 still acceptable with a little more luminance tweeking in ACR. I bought the D7000 to last for five years barring some incredible technological breakthrough, but your review reveals that while there are some nice tricks out there, for a hobbyist like myself, I still have a good three years left in my D7000. I do like your style of review. Thanks!

Originally Posted by joshhuntnm very nice for a Nikon.

...You might find my latest SLR Lounge article just a little depressing... (Or it could mean nothing at all to you, but that's the point of the article haha...)

http://www.slrlounge.com/dxomark-sen...ions-for-dslrs

=Matt=