D600 vs D800 for my uses
I took a hiatus from the world of FF DSLRs last year, largely due to financial reasons - I sold my 5D Mark II and a bunch of lenses to help pay for a move and house purchase. I've replaced it with an Olympus OM-D which I do love. However, I miss the large, bright FF viewfinder, fast auto-focus, and stellar low-light performance. Finances are at a point now where buying new gear is now an option. :thumb
I could buy another 5D Mark II (or Mark III), but I'm contemplating switching it up and trying the Nikon side this time. I also like the sensors in Nikon's current models. I'm thinking of buying either a D800 or D600 but am having a hard time deciding between them... Current prices put them about $800 apart (new). My artistic photography is primarly landscape stuff and so I'm drawn to the D800 for that. Both seem to have similar excellent dynamic range and comparable low-light performance. However, for more day-to-day photography, I think the D600 might be more practical due to the smaller physical size as well as smaller file-size (don't really need 36mp for casual shots of my kids).
I occasionally print big (20x30) and I would imagine the D800 would yield slightly better results due to the 36 megapixels. This assumes, of course, that I use the best glass, take the photo with optimal technique, etc...
From what I've read it seems the D800 has superior autofocus but that BOTH are superior to what I had with the 5D Mark II.
I know the D800 is better built, but I don't forsee this being a deciding factor.
The rumors of dust / oil splattered D600 sensors scares me a bit, but it's hard to know how wide-spread or problematic this issue truly is - things tend to get blown out of proportion on forums.
I do need to go handle both of them some more to see if there are differences in control layout and handling that would be a deal-breaker as well. Both will feel a bit foreign at first due to the long history I have with Canon.
I'd appreciate feedback from people who have used either both of these cameras!
I could buy another 5D Mark II (or Mark III), but I'm contemplating switching it up and trying the Nikon side this time. I also like the sensors in Nikon's current models. I'm thinking of buying either a D800 or D600 but am having a hard time deciding between them... Current prices put them about $800 apart (new). My artistic photography is primarly landscape stuff and so I'm drawn to the D800 for that. Both seem to have similar excellent dynamic range and comparable low-light performance. However, for more day-to-day photography, I think the D600 might be more practical due to the smaller physical size as well as smaller file-size (don't really need 36mp for casual shots of my kids).
I occasionally print big (20x30) and I would imagine the D800 would yield slightly better results due to the 36 megapixels. This assumes, of course, that I use the best glass, take the photo with optimal technique, etc...
From what I've read it seems the D800 has superior autofocus but that BOTH are superior to what I had with the 5D Mark II.
I know the D800 is better built, but I don't forsee this being a deciding factor.
The rumors of dust / oil splattered D600 sensors scares me a bit, but it's hard to know how wide-spread or problematic this issue truly is - things tend to get blown out of proportion on forums.
I do need to go handle both of them some more to see if there are differences in control layout and handling that would be a deal-breaker as well. Both will feel a bit foreign at first due to the long history I have with Canon.
I'd appreciate feedback from people who have used either both of these cameras!
0
Comments
If you make the switch to Nikon, you will be unfamiliar with all the menu's and controls on the camera. I prefer Nikon's setup, but everyone I talk to seems to prefer Canon, so that may take a bit of getting used to. Pick up the MkIII and I bet you'll feel right at home again.
All in all, I think I'd lean towards the D600 unless you need the additional capabilities on a regular basis of the D800. Put the extra savings towards another lens.
www.zblackwood.com
Okay honestly, here's my assessment: If you're on a budget or if your'e concerned about weight, don't bother with the D600, just get the AMAZING crop-sensor D7100. It's got the same resolution, but without an AA filter so it actually captures as much or MORE detail than its full-frame brother!
Having said that, if you're ready to lug around a hefty full-frame camera again, the D800 is indeed the current champ for landscapes. However honestly I wouldn't put it that far above the D7100 or D600 for any aspect of image quality other than resolution. Because the dynamic range and high ISO performance are almost the same on all three; you really only see an advantage past ISO 3200 IMO. (For star trails etc.)
Also, speaking of star trails, one awesome thing that the D7100 has is true "bulb" mode! Meaning none of that stupid "hold down the shutter constantly" nonsense- you click the shutter once to open it, and click the shutter again to close it. This is awesome if you spend a lot of time doing 1-2-4 minute exposures at twilight or night time, although I can't recommend going much longer than that unless you are in sub-freezing conditions because sensor noise gets too nasty beyond ~4 min exposures.
Speaking of annoyances about the D600, I really hate that it doesn't have "one-click 100% playback zoom" like the D800 and D7100 have. This is a feature you're not used to on the 5D mk2, however once you get used to it you will LOATHE having to use anything else! Essentially, this feeature allows you to zoom in to 100% with a single click, immediately after clicking a photo. None of that "gotta hit play first even though the image is already displayed" nonsense as was Canon's previous design. And even if you use an off-center focus point, it knows to zoom in to that focus point! (As long as it can get a lock and confirm) BTW, if you're thinking of sticking with Canon, the 5D mk3 and 6D are currently two of the ONLY cameras to also offer this feature.)
So there you have it. If you're still spoiled by the portability and affordability of your OM system, then consider a D7100 for more "adventurous" use such as long hikes, backpacking trips, general "traveling light" type trips, etc. With new lenses coming out for the crop sensor format such as the Rokinon 16mm f/2 and the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, I honestly am seeing crop-sensor as a very, very formidable setup for landscape / nature photography. However if you don't care about portability and you've got a LOT of money to burn, then yeah a D800 and the 16-35 f/4 VR or 14-24 f/2.8 are going to be your absolute champs.
I wrote an article "buying guide" for landscape photography cameras for SLR Lounge, by the way, you can read that here:
http://www.slrlounge.com/school/nature-landscape-photography-camera-bodies-the-complete-guide
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I frequently use my father-in-law's 5DMKIII and I do feel right at home. However, I've used a fair number of Nikons and am sure I could get used to it.
Matt -
You're right I'm not used to having the 100% preview button but I've long wished I had one once I knew it existed!
I honestly hadn't considered the D7100 but I'll add that to the list and make sure I handle one next time I'm in the local shop. I'm not against considering a crop camera - I used the 20D, 30D, and 40D for years with great results and with Nikon's new sensor tech I'm sure the D7100 would run circles around any other APS-C camera I've used and all 3 of the cameras you mentioned have better dynamic range than the 5D MK II I was used to.
Off to check out the link to your guide..
As for the $$$, I had originally planned on the 5D Mark III as an upgrade from my old MK III - since it's pricier than even the D800, I'm not ruling out the D800 based on price... Still, the value of the D600 or D7100 is tough to ignore.
The downside for me with the 7100 is only no pc sync (so my old remotes and my Bowens system no longer work) so now I have to start buying pocket wizards which annoys me. Annoys me because 'they' are forcing me to buy something!) Anyway, you know there are tons of info out there/here.
If you watch Nikon's commercial video (shot entirely with the 800) you could be sold on that. It makes one want to make movies -it's that good.
Good Luck,
Charles
Brampton, Canada
www.charlesdalyphotography.com
I have the D7000, D600, and D800. Your notions on AF are accurate. Printing either at 20x30 should be just fine if your technique is good. I've done one 20x30, but normally only print up to 16x24. In regards to ISO performance, both will be quite a lot better than the Mk2, but the D600 has about a stop better performance than the D800. It's really VERY close between my D600 and D3s. About half a stop. Given the difference in price (not to mention the 24MP vs 12MP) I find that utterly remarkable. I have very large hands so find the D600 a bit uncomfortable after half an hour or so. The D800 is good for 45 minutes. My full frame bodies I can easily work with for over an hour. The D7000/D7100 literally make my hand go numb after about 20 minutes. But few people have hands as large as mine.
I bought my D600 about 3 weeks after release. I've not seen the first oil or dust spot. I'm sure the problem is out there, but people act like it's the end of the WORLD.
Best of luck, and feel free to send me private mail if you have specific questions. I migrated from Canon many years ago after the lens mount debacle. I do have a T2i, but rarely use it.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
This is THE most useful tool to confirm focus.
I hate that my D7000 does not have it.
The D800 is a resolution beast and without it, would've been a pain to confirm accurate focus/sharpness.
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
The 7100 would run rings around my 40D, thats for sure.
How do you engage this on the D7100? I haven't found it yet.
p.s. I found it. In the detailed settings menu, under "Controls", choose the "ok button" and scroll right.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
It looks like you go into the Custom Settings Menu
Then choose from one of the three options:
Low mag.
Medium mag.
High mag.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I see this sentiment expressed regularly and it always baffles me. It's as if 36MP was some "out there" number. The beginner medium format backs are at 33MP. Typical are the 40MP Leaf/Phase Ones, and the 50MP back on the Hassy. But you can move up to the 60MP Leaf/P.O. or the 80MP Leaf/Credo back for larger commercial use. In Large Format, the scanning backs are over 400MP last I saw, but you'd have to use those on static subjects.
It's fairly commonplace these days to be shooting 50-60MP portraits or fashion.
So really, it's just a matter of perspective on what is "overkill" or what is "starter". I'd take 100MP tomorrow if I could get them and shoot it at a reasonable speed. 10 years from now, that will probably be commonplace.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I am surprised you prefer Canon 6D over D600 for landscape/nature. The Nikon sensor has significantly better dynamic range - more than 2 stops. This is a key parameter for this application, I feel.
I also think that the DX mode on the Nikon FFs is a valuable feature too and something Canon does not match.
For me these differences go beyond pixel peeping, to the extent I am on the verge of switching brands. I would love to hear your opinion - perhaps I have got this completely wrong....
I don't believe I've ever seen this alleged 2 stop advantage demonstrated in a real-life image. My 5D3 seems to have gobs of highlight headroom. If you just shoot to the right of the histogram, there is plenty of DR. For example, ALL of the snow in this image (except for the shadow of the girl) was *blinking* on the LCD, and it was pure white on initial import, but it recovered nicely in Lightroom:
I really don't get the value of this "feature". Just crop in post...?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I immediately noticed the differences in focus point arrangement. On the D600 they aren't as spread out as I'm used to using, but I imagine I could get used to that. I don't think the extra megapixels is a must-have for most of the shots I'll be taking. So the selling points of the D800 for me come down to ergonomics and the added features. Features aside, the layout differences are less of a deal as I'm not used to ANY Nikon system. For those who are moving up from a D700 I imagine the control layout differences would be a bigger deal.
One curious difference is in the bracketing modes - the D800 allows up to 9 bracketed shots but with a maximum of 1 EV steps whereas the D600 only allows 3 bracketed shots but with up to 2 EV steps. So, you could get +-2 EV with 3 shots on the D600 but that would require 5 shots on the D800.
Yeah, it really is, however the ONE missing feature on the D600 that ruins it all for me is the 1-click zooming. I really, really hate having to live without it...
...Again, the main reason I love the 6D as an "adventure" camera is the 1-click zooming, plus the GPS, plus the incredible high ISO performance. As someone who shoots a lot of night time photography, I have fallen in love with the ability to shoot the 6D at ISO 12800 / 25600 for star timelapse footage.
Again, yeah the Nikon dynamic range is just nuts right now. I was blown away by the D600, D7100, and D800's dynamic range. With those cameras I slash my need for bracketing by like 75%! However, as I said, the "adventure photographer" in me loves the 6D's functionality and high ISO quality which I mentioned above.
IMO it's not worth switching over- both Canon and Nikon are offering incredible options for both types of landscape / nightscape photography these days!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Still, as a landscape photographer I absolutely would not consider the D800 overkill at all, and I would agree with your general sentiment- You can never have too many megapixels if you're shooting wide angle landscapes and planning to print big and/or sell your images!
The only other aspect is weight and price. The D800 is indeed overkill in these respects, if you're an "adventure photographer" like myself who values portability and affordability almost as equally as image quality. In this case, the D7100 makes the most sense of all three, and the D600 makes the next-most sense especially if they could add 1-click 100% zooming with a firmware update. :-D
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
You see, on Nikon, DX crop mode frequently gives us a boost in FPS, and always a boost in buffer capacity.
...It's kinda like Canon's mRAW, only without the horrible loss of image quality. ;-) (Reference)
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://www.slrlounge.com/top-ten-nikon-customizations-you-must-know
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
To give you an idea, my contract basically has me deliver 5-10 printable images no more than 20 minutes post game. If I take that long, the other guys beat me. So I am usually submitting my photos 15 minutes post game.
That evening, I provide 25 or so publishable photos that I've taken through LR. That's cropped, noise reduced, white balanced, and fully ready images. Same night.
Yes I have a nice laptop and a nice machine at the house. But I do not find it any more difficult to shoot and edit my D800 photos than I do the D3s.
In terms of weight, I am very used to having 2 D3s bodies on me at all times (with a 300/2.8 and a 70-200) and a third body with a 24-70 or something similar. The D800 weighs less than most of my glass. So from my perspective, it's ALL light! I'd rather be shooting a 645. At least I could get a good grip on the thing!
But as an adventure guy, your needs are very different.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Hahaha. But you see, the D800's DX mode only gets you 6fps, and I believe only with the vertical grip. I'm already at 6fps. If DX mode bought you 10 or 12fps, you might have a point. :smooch
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yeah, shooting sports I'm sure a full-size body is the norm. And for sports, also, high-volume isn't exactly the same thing as other industries. Delivering just a half-dozen images quickly is not that much of a problem at any resolution on any computer; however fully color-correcting 1,000-5,000 images per week is a very, very daunting task. (As a high-volume wedding photo studio, for example.)
There is also the issue of simply not what is possible, but what is NECESSARY for the average shooter. Just because hard disks are cheap and computers are fast, doesn't mean it's a good idea to shoot every moment of your life 36 MP RAW... In fact for casual shooting, I really like the simplicity and low-consumption of 12 MP...
Either way... Different workflows work for different people. I was just responding to your initial statement that you were always baffled by people saying that the D800 is a beast / overkill.
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
And yes, the average shooter most certainly doesn't need 36MP. But 10 years ago we would have said the average shooter doesn't need 12MP. That was medium format territory. Time changes perspectives a great deal. I remember when cameras like the D1 were new and photographers were in AWE of a card that could hold 100 photos. The naysayers said they would NEVER risk putting 100 photos on a single card... suppose something happened. They were used to the 36 exposures of film. Now we routinely shoot 2 hours onto a single card.. thousands of photos.
Give it time.... 36MP will seem like noting in 10 years.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
There's another issue that comes up....it can be overkill for your computer.
I just put a deposit on a new body (D7100) and the reason I didn't try and save up a little more for the 800 is not only would I need to buy the camera, but I'd also need a new computer which is another 1,500 even harvesting some parts from my current workstation.
Cameron, could you tell me your current computer's specs? I can look them up and see where it rates, just especially important is the CPU model number so not just i7 @XXX speed but like mine is a Intel Xeon W3540 @ 2.93 GHz (you can get this by right clicking computer and going to properties in a PC, and for Mac click the apple symbol then about this Mac, then click more info) and while 36 MP can work it's just painfully slow. 24MP I see some lag in Lightroom 4 but it wasn't too bad.
I can give you a rough estimate with that and if it's close or below the speed of mine you definitely should look at a new computer as well.....but of course before buying take some sample images and bring them home/run them through your normal editing process. Since you had a 5D mkII your current computer should be fine for the D600 as long as there were no major issues there.
As to the D600/D800 the 600 was on my list early since I do need a camera with more than 12 MP for my studio work, but the lack of features became a big issue, for me it just didn't have as many possibly uses as the D7100 but that's for my specific work (and I needed the resolution most around base ISO for studio work) and it sounds like it wouldn't be as big of an issue for you. There's no doubt compared to the D800 the D600 definitely is lacking in some of the "camera" (everything but the sensor) features, but compared to your old 5D mkII maybe not so much. I haven't spent much time with the 5D but some friends have it and they have griped about the AF so that might not be a huge step back for you. Build quality I know wasn't to D700/800 levels so again the 600 is pretty solid and might be close. And the big thing as a landscape photographer is you will have a good chunk more dynamic range.
This post might be a bit rambling but I'm writing it first thing....but I finally got to the questions I'd ask in your position:
Did the 5D mkII's AF frustrate you a lot?
Did you wish the 5D mkII was better built so you could take it in more adverse conditions?
Did you ever find yourself in a situation where the 5D mkII's resolution wasn't enough?
If your answer is no to all of these the D600 could be a great fit for you.
My current CPU is an Intel Core I7 860 (not overclocked). I'm running Windows 7 (64-bit) with 8GB of RAM. OS & Apps are on a SSD and I have 3 additional 1TB drives for photos, documents, etc. It's not the latest machine, but it still works well and seemed to deal with the 5D MK II files without too much of a hiccup.
As for your other questions:
Did the 5D mkII's AF frustrate you a lot? Not a lot - occasionally I wished for better off-center focus point performance. I think the D800 would clearly be the winner here, but I'm thinking the D600 would do at least as well as the older 5D MK II or perhaps better. Still, the position of the peripheral focus points seems preferable on the D800 and 5D MK II (and III).
Did you wish the 5D mkII was better built so you could take it in more adverse conditions? No, build quality was never an issue for me.
Did you ever find yourself in a situation where the 5D mkII's resolution wasn't enough? On the occasions I felt I wanted more I planned on stitching multiple shots. For 99% of what I have done or plan to do I doubt I'd be limited by 24 megapixels.
If your answer is no to all of these the D600 could be a great fit for you.
That's just a hair slower than mine so I'd definitely go try out some D800 images through your normal processing set up.
I just bought one camera today that's enough