Nikon D600 vs D800
Discussion
I recently picked up a D600 as my first FX camera, as an upgrade from a D300 (DX). I had invested in a few FX lenses already (24-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8) which were used with the D300, so I felt the time to upgrade the body was due in the pursuit of better high ISO performance and a generally 'wider' perspective without the DX magnification.
The sensor on the D600 offers a huge improvement over the aging D300, and it provides superb low light performance at high ISOs with wonderful dynamic range. But after less than 2 weeks of trying to get to grips with the camera, I decided the D600 was deficient in several other important areas - especially after being used to the semi-pro-oriented physical handling and layout of the D300.
The relatively light weight of the D600 is welcome when carrying it all day, but it poses a problem when trying to balance with a 24-70 or longer lens. The grip is a touch short and thin, at least in comparison to the D300 making the handling less than ideal unless shooting with the additional battery grip. Button layout and access to several frequently used functions is also poor in comparison to the D300.
Two other aspects of the D600 were also poor in the particular version I had:
1) the AF seemed to be slightly out, and although you can fine tune against each lens, it was out by more than what I would consider acceptable as a 'default'.
2) the (39) AF sensor was a noticeable compromise when used against the more advanced D800/D4. There were times you look through the [excellent] viewfinder, and just realised the focus zones were a bit neither here nor there. The AF also hunted a couple of times back and forth.
So after less than 2 weeks, I have since exchanged the D600 and bit the bullet on a D800. Despite the £500 premium, I think it is wholly worthwhile given the button layout improvement (that is more akin to the D300) and the overall handling is far more intuitive given the refined ergonomics and direct access to controls. You can pick up the D800 and just shoot, rapidly switching through key functions using top mounted buttons (metering/ISO) without resorting to software menus or the awkward rear buttons of the D600. The additional size and heft lends perfect balance to the larger lenses, and height of the grip is perfect for my chubby hands.
The improved 51 point AF sensor is noticeably more decisive in picking out key focal points, and it does not hunt in the same way the D600 did. Maybe my D600 was a faulty example, but regardless the D800 instills real confidence. On the D300, I used to shoot using a fixed central AF zone, but for the first time I feel comfortable using the multizone AF of the D800 as it seems to know (the majority of the time) what I am looking to focus on. For the times I want to switch to a single zone focus area, the control is easier to manage than on the D600 (which has the additional AF-A mode to confuse matters).
There are numerous other improvements the D800 offers over the D600, but I won't go into them here as there are plenty of online reviews that cover off those details better than I can. Overall, if you're thinking of upgrading to FX format in Nikon's range and was tempted by the D600, I would strongly recommend giving it a trial alongside the D800. If you are coming from a D7000, the D600 may feel like a natural fit, AF issues aside. But if you're coming from a D300/D300S you may find the D800's handling an advantage worth paying the premium for.
The sensor on the D600 offers a huge improvement over the aging D300, and it provides superb low light performance at high ISOs with wonderful dynamic range. But after less than 2 weeks of trying to get to grips with the camera, I decided the D600 was deficient in several other important areas - especially after being used to the semi-pro-oriented physical handling and layout of the D300.
The relatively light weight of the D600 is welcome when carrying it all day, but it poses a problem when trying to balance with a 24-70 or longer lens. The grip is a touch short and thin, at least in comparison to the D300 making the handling less than ideal unless shooting with the additional battery grip. Button layout and access to several frequently used functions is also poor in comparison to the D300.
Two other aspects of the D600 were also poor in the particular version I had:
1) the AF seemed to be slightly out, and although you can fine tune against each lens, it was out by more than what I would consider acceptable as a 'default'.
2) the (39) AF sensor was a noticeable compromise when used against the more advanced D800/D4. There were times you look through the [excellent] viewfinder, and just realised the focus zones were a bit neither here nor there. The AF also hunted a couple of times back and forth.
So after less than 2 weeks, I have since exchanged the D600 and bit the bullet on a D800. Despite the £500 premium, I think it is wholly worthwhile given the button layout improvement (that is more akin to the D300) and the overall handling is far more intuitive given the refined ergonomics and direct access to controls. You can pick up the D800 and just shoot, rapidly switching through key functions using top mounted buttons (metering/ISO) without resorting to software menus or the awkward rear buttons of the D600. The additional size and heft lends perfect balance to the larger lenses, and height of the grip is perfect for my chubby hands.
The improved 51 point AF sensor is noticeably more decisive in picking out key focal points, and it does not hunt in the same way the D600 did. Maybe my D600 was a faulty example, but regardless the D800 instills real confidence. On the D300, I used to shoot using a fixed central AF zone, but for the first time I feel comfortable using the multizone AF of the D800 as it seems to know (the majority of the time) what I am looking to focus on. For the times I want to switch to a single zone focus area, the control is easier to manage than on the D600 (which has the additional AF-A mode to confuse matters).
There are numerous other improvements the D800 offers over the D600, but I won't go into them here as there are plenty of online reviews that cover off those details better than I can. Overall, if you're thinking of upgrading to FX format in Nikon's range and was tempted by the D600, I would strongly recommend giving it a trial alongside the D800. If you are coming from a D7000, the D600 may feel like a natural fit, AF issues aside. But if you're coming from a D300/D300S you may find the D800's handling an advantage worth paying the premium for.
- I can only think so they could use the same module for DX sensors. The D700 was the same and I suspect all their FX cameras are. What a waste.Interesting experience. Thanks for sharing.
As a D800 user who came "down" from a D2x and had previously used F100 and F90x models, I would be very wary of where Nikon has compromised and cut corners which make the handling less user-friendly. It's not great as it is with the shooting banks tucked too deeply in the menu system (just as the D2x was).
For what I use it for I find the AF reasonably good, but as Simpo says, there's no option to get a wider coverage (except by switching to DX format!). But when opening lenses right up, the option to manually focus and zoom right in on the screen is a useful compromise. Otherwise I don't expect 100% accuracy wider than f/2.8 - that way I'm not disappointed!
As a D800 user who came "down" from a D2x and had previously used F100 and F90x models, I would be very wary of where Nikon has compromised and cut corners which make the handling less user-friendly. It's not great as it is with the shooting banks tucked too deeply in the menu system (just as the D2x was).
spareparts said:
Two other aspects of the D600 were also poor in the particular version I had:
1) the AF seemed to be slightly out, and although you can fine tune against each lens, it was out by more than what I would consider acceptable as a 'default'.
2) the (39) AF sensor was a noticeable compromise when used against the more advanced D800/D4. There were times you look through the [excellent] viewfinder, and just realised the focus zones were a bit neither here nor there. The AF also hunted a couple of times back and forth.
On bullet 1) that is kinda the point. I forget which one, but one of my lenses had to be set to about +/- 17 and they were definitely needing some to be + and some to be -1) the AF seemed to be slightly out, and although you can fine tune against each lens, it was out by more than what I would consider acceptable as a 'default'.
2) the (39) AF sensor was a noticeable compromise when used against the more advanced D800/D4. There were times you look through the [excellent] viewfinder, and just realised the focus zones were a bit neither here nor there. The AF also hunted a couple of times back and forth.
For what I use it for I find the AF reasonably good, but as Simpo says, there's no option to get a wider coverage (except by switching to DX format!). But when opening lenses right up, the option to manually focus and zoom right in on the screen is a useful compromise. Otherwise I don't expect 100% accuracy wider than f/2.8 - that way I'm not disappointed!
K12beano said:
Interesting experience. Thanks for sharing.
As a D800 user who came "down" from a D2x and had previously used F100 and F90x models, I would be very wary of where Nikon has compromised and cut corners which make the handling less user-friendly. It's not great as it is with the shooting banks tucked too deeply in the menu system (just as the D2x was).
For what I use it for I find the AF reasonably good, but as Simpo says, there's no option to get a wider coverage (except by switching to DX format!). But when opening lenses right up, the option to manually focus and zoom right in on the screen is a useful compromise. Otherwise I don't expect 100% accuracy wider than f/2.8 - that way I'm not disappointed!
I don't mind doing fine tuning of the AF for specific lenses, but the D600 was 'out' by enough to make me concerned that there was something more fundamental. Regardless, it was very sub-par performance expected of a £1500 Nikon body.As a D800 user who came "down" from a D2x and had previously used F100 and F90x models, I would be very wary of where Nikon has compromised and cut corners which make the handling less user-friendly. It's not great as it is with the shooting banks tucked too deeply in the menu system (just as the D2x was).
spareparts said:
Two other aspects of the D600 were also poor in the particular version I had:
1) the AF seemed to be slightly out, and although you can fine tune against each lens, it was out by more than what I would consider acceptable as a 'default'.
2) the (39) AF sensor was a noticeable compromise when used against the more advanced D800/D4. There were times you look through the [excellent] viewfinder, and just realised the focus zones were a bit neither here nor there. The AF also hunted a couple of times back and forth.
On bullet 1) that is kinda the point. I forget which one, but one of my lenses had to be set to about +/- 17 and they were definitely needing some to be + and some to be -1) the AF seemed to be slightly out, and although you can fine tune against each lens, it was out by more than what I would consider acceptable as a 'default'.
2) the (39) AF sensor was a noticeable compromise when used against the more advanced D800/D4. There were times you look through the [excellent] viewfinder, and just realised the focus zones were a bit neither here nor there. The AF also hunted a couple of times back and forth.
For what I use it for I find the AF reasonably good, but as Simpo says, there's no option to get a wider coverage (except by switching to DX format!). But when opening lenses right up, the option to manually focus and zoom right in on the screen is a useful compromise. Otherwise I don't expect 100% accuracy wider than f/2.8 - that way I'm not disappointed!
Regarding the AF of the D800, certainly no complaints so far and noticeably more accurate focus than the D600. Yes, it does not cover as wide an area as might be ideal, but it is not a problem for me who is used to reframing with only a single AF point.
One last thing to point out: the reported issues of D600 sensor dust weren't confidence inspiring either, although I had not shot enough frames to notice it before handing it back.
I too have had issues with the 51-point AF, on a D700 I used for a few weddings. There were instances, nothing too difficult, when it refused to find/lock focus, such that I had to switch to the D200 to get the shot. The 11-point AF on that is fine for what I do; don't need any more points. Just a few good ones!
Simpo Two said:
I too have had issues with the 51-point AF, on a D700 I used for a few weddings. There were instances, nothing too difficult, when it refused to find/lock focus, such that I had to switch to the D200 to get the shot. The 11-point AF on that is fine for what I do; don't need any more points. Just a few good ones!
I was tempted by getting a used D700 as it is a great camera by all accounts! But then got swayed by the tremendous dynamic range of the new sensors and monster pixel count which is great to crop against with the loss of focal length vs DX...
spareparts said:
I was tempted by getting a used D700 as it is a great camera by all accounts! But then got swayed by the tremendous dynamic range of the new sensors and monster pixel count which is great to crop against with the loss of focal length vs DX...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff