D700 vs D600/800

B

Bailey81

Messages
28
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening,

Am looking to upgrade to FX from D90 and can't decide on going for D700 or newer nikon models?

Help greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
Every one of them is a good camera, I'm sure you wouldn't be disappointed.

You haven't mentioned budget, or what Fx lenses you either have or plan to pick up - there's a huge disparity in price between the three bodies you mention.
Personally, I'd rather have the D700 with some great glass than cripple the very high resolution 800 with lesser quality, hence the budget question - but thats just my opinion - and one based on a lot of low/natural light shooting. Your usage may differ and make that less relevant.

A s/h D700 is staggering value for money. The new bodies will have a 2yr warranty though, and higher resolution if thats important to you, hugely so in the case of the 800.

Can you clarify more? All the opinions (including mine) will be largely random without knowing how you shoot etc..
 
Budget can stretch to all 3 of the bodies but glass would have to compromise at the D800. Was hoping for 50mm 1.8 & 24-70mm lens wise.

Shooting is mainly landscape / natural with a fair amount of family work as well.
 
I think that's an excellent choice of lenses - the 24-70 is my default lens on the 700, for family / weddings etc and is great at both ends, though not wide enough angle for many landscape shooters. Trouble is, decent WA on Fx bodies gets very expensive, and is less suitable for other work. The 24-70 is an excellent compromise.

I think I'd stand by the earlier comment - make the glass (especially if its the 24-70) your priority, as that will last you through several more body upgrades, as well as help you get the very best from whichever body you end up being able to get! then just get the best body you still can. The 24-70 + D700 is a fabulous combination, you wouldn't be disappointed at all if that's all that could be covered at this stage.

Just my 2p worth!
 
id say if you have the money now get the 800, you might not have the money for it in 12 months or whenever and you can get it for under 2k now i think which is a steal.

I wouldnt say either of those lenses is a compromise. The 50 is a little soft wide open but stop it down a bit and its sharp enough to shave with. The 24-70 is as good as its ever been. Unless you want to go UWA 24 is wide enough for landscaping. Always nice to have a bit of zoom for landscapes as well, compresses perspective nicely when you need it.
 
If you have the budget I'd go for the d600/800 over the d700. Coming from a d90 I'd be inclined to go the d600 route, just because it'd be closest to what you're used to and is a beast of a body.

The d700 is wonderful, but it is 6 year old tech now....and is outclassed in sheer image quality terms by either of those two now.
 
You won't be disappointed with a D700 but if you are doing mainly landscapes/portrait type work then you may well find the extra MP an advantage ... as long as you've got the glass!
 
If cash is tight, but you want FX, the D600 is the way to go if you ask me. Paying all that for a used 12mp, 6 year old camera seems crazy... no matter how great it's reputation. The used price on Ebay seems to be around £900. For around £200 more you could have a brand new D600. The cash you'll save over the D800 is also most of what you'll need for a Nikkor 24-70 2.8.
 
+1 for D600 + 24-70, you may be able to find this lens used somewhere even - to suit your budget.

If I ever decide I want or need aback up body, I'd go D600 over the D700, for the reasons stated by others above. Great camera for it's time, but it's time has passed.
 
Last edited:
Thoughts were towards for D600 + 24-70 but looking at 600 wasn't sure if the 800 was worth the extra stretch!
 
If you need really big prints, yes, it's worth it, but you need the very best lenses. The D800 really shows up the flaws in lenses. Even the 24-70 at the 24mm end will look a bit rough at the edges if you print big from a D800.
 
Well I've been in the same boat as you and the other 50,000 people out there having the same thoughts! :)


I've 100% decided on the d800, just putting the last few pennies aside, and not thinking about rushing in to get a d600 at all.

I shoot wide angle landscapes and wildlife for pleasure, both extremes, but would like to earn a bit from my landscapes in the near future, so big prints is gonna be great.

I shoot portraits in a semi-pro manner and have a few weddings booked in too. People say the d800 files are stupid for wedding toggers that shoot 2000 pics a wedding. Personally I think people that shoot 2000 pics at a wedding are stupid! (Joke)
But I'm happy with the focal length of my 24-70 on my d300, so for weddings and portraits, I will happily choose dx mode at 15mp, which will be perfect! The 10mp on the d600 is on the edge of being small.

So the d800 gives me the best for landscapes, easily. More pixels in dx mode which will be great for birds and wildlife, and decent size dx mode pics for printing the average 12-10s ish that people seem to order for portraits.

With decent glass which both cameras need, your talking 2 and a half grand or 3 grand, both are loads.
Both need great technique to make the most out of.
Both take huge files, just one is more huge than the other.

So look at the other points, slightly more pro feel, focusing slightly better, slightly more options bracketing and video etc eat the d800 has become a no brainier for me.

How they feel in your hand is hugely important too, I prefer the slightly larger feel.

Yes 500 quid is 500 quid. I'll just have to do an extra wedding or something :)
 
I would say it really depends on your end product. If it's only for your own personal enjoyment then I would say a D700 would be fine.

Would you really benefit from the extra resolution of the 600/800 ? Only you can say.

And I don't just say that as a D700 user ;)

Old tech yes, but still extremely capable. Try not to get hung up on the latest and greatest.

Just my opinion of course.
 
Bailey81 said:
Evening,

Am looking to upgrade to FX from D90 and can't decide on going for D700 or newer nikon models?

Help greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Difficult call to make everyone will have there own opinion. I was in a similar situation and after a bit of thought decided to keep my D700 and upgrade to better glass. I got a 24-70 the other week and am waiting on delivery of my 70-200 vr2. I am more than happy with my decision. The D700 is still a suberb camera and I am reluctant to upgrade to a D800 when it only offers the extra resolution as an advantage and has a few disadvantages for me. The D600 was never an option for me I could not go back to a consumer body especially one with the poor af system from the D7000 and especially considering the layout of the af points. So for now I am happier to invest in better glass and waituntill I have the £'s for a D4 or a D3S which at the moment as far as I am concerned is the only real upgrade path for the D700.

I have had prints from my D700 at A1 size and been more than happy with them the D800 holds no attraction for me although I flirted with it for a while. Whatever you decide to choose they are all great cameras and you can't really go wrong.

As for your lens choice the 24-70 is a superb piece of glass that I am delighted with. Going from a crop camera you will be shocked at just how wide 24mm is on full frame.
 
Last edited:
This post is likely to be no help whatsoever but I'm not sure it's as clear cut as just dismissing the D700 as old hat. I'm not just saying this as biased owner but as somebody who has considered the same options with a view to upgrading and never really reaching a definitive conclusion.

The D600 is undoubtably a fine camera but has two big drawbacks for me. The first, and the big one is that I just plain don't like the (small) size of the body. Now I admit that this is very subjective and almost certainly a result of me being used to D200's, 300's and the odd D2X, but nowadays it is just what I'm comfortable using. I guess this will not be the case for the OP if coming from a D90 but it is a very significant difference that makes the D600 stand out from the other two in this comparison so worth highlighting. The other lesser drawback is the spread of the AF points. When I upgraded to full frame with a D700 one of the things that was really annoying was the fairly central congregation of the AF points, the D600 appears to be on another level again, they look really bunched up to me. Again this will come to shooting style. If you're a focus + re-composer it's likely an irrelevance.

So once I dismissed the D600, it became just about the D700 vs. D800. At first I was pretty sceptical about the D800 but having had a chance to try one recently, I can honestly say that I think it is better in every way than the D700. I'm struggling to think of anything that the D700 has up it's sleeve. I suppose continuos shooting speed is the main one but I think if that were a real concern, a D3 would be a better choice (in fact maybe it should be a consideration anyway?) so maybe a moot point. File size was one of my initial concerns with the D800 but having played around with some files on a fairly ordinary iMac and with memory being pretty cheap these days, I don't see that as a real concern. So for me it came down to is a D800 worth twice the price of a D700? Erm probably not, but then nothing is that simple in photography terms. Is a hasselblad worth ten times as much as a D4? Of course not but I bet we all still want one.

So in conclusion, for me personally it would be D800 if I could spend that sort of money with no remorse or D700 if I was on a 'budget'.

By the way in the end, I bought none of them. Just about to sell my D700 as we're in the process of buying a house and every penny counts right now.
 
Even comparing against the D600 and D800 though the D700 holds up. Although the D800 produces images that show more detail zoomed in in photoshop I honestly dont think your getting much change in the final print.
I dont think the extra ££££ are worth it, id go D700 + good glass personally.
 
I upgraded the d90 to a d800. Initially took a bit of getting used to (size/weight/all those mp) but it is a glorious camera. I was seriously thinking about the d600 but the d800 was 1800 new at the time I got it so plumped for thy having tried it at a Nikon stand. The other main reason was the focus points and the flash sync speed.

S
 
The oldest D700 might be 6 years old but there will be plenty around that are a lot younger and with low mileage. As pointed out above, the D800 is rather fussy about lenses and will show up any flaws, whereas the lower pixel count of the D700 will let you get away with less expensive options.

If you're planning on using Dx mode on any of the options, you'll do just as well by keeping the D90, although its high ISO/low light performance won't be as good as the newer options.

Massive (over A3+) prints might benefit from the extra MP an 800 delivers but the 800's files (especially raw) will eat into HDD space quite rapidly.
 
Thank you all for the advice.

Sir SR did you upgrade lens at same time / what do you use!
 
The tech will still be 6 years old, no matter the condition of the camera.

I only ever see non D800 users go on about the file sizes tbh. And its not as fussy with lenses as people like to say either. The humble 50mm is ace on it.
 
Bailey81 said:
Thank you all for the advice.

Sir SR did you upgrade lens at same time / what do you use!
Click to expand...

I already had a fifty f1.8, samyang 85f1.4, nikkor 105 micro f2.8 and sigma 70-200 f2.8

I bought a tamron 28-75 f2.8 non BIM after trying it on my d800 - seems pretty good value for the price.

In terms of the lenses I'd upgrade first- I'm hoping to get a better 70-200 first and then I might think about upgrading to the Nikon 24-70.

Pretty happy with what I've got at the mo though.

There's a set on Flickr with a mixture of different lenses on the d800

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63852338@N07/

Hope that helps

Shaheed
 
Sir SR said:
I already had a fifty f1.8, samyang 85f1.4, nikkor 105 micro f2.8 and sigma 70-200 f2.8

I bought a tamron 28-75 f2.8 non BIM after trying it on my d800 - seems pretty good value for the price.

In terms of the lenses I'd upgrade first- I'm hoping to get a better 70-200 first and then I might think about upgrading to the Nikon 24-70.

Pretty happy with what I've got at the mo though.

There's a set on Flickr with a mixture of different lenses on the d800

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63852338@N07/

Hope that helps

Shaheed
Click to expand...

Youre welcome to borrow my brand new 70-200mm VRII for a few days mate if it'll help you decide. :thumbs:
 
Cagey75 said:
The tech will still be 6 years old, no matter the condition of the camera.

I only ever see non D800 users go on about the file sizes tbh. And its not as fussy with lenses as people like to say either. The humble 50mm is ace on it.
Click to expand...

As it is on every camera, so that hardly proves anything. The point is valid though a D800 will show up any issues with glass much more so than with other camera's. Not that should be a reason not to buy one, but certainly something to bear in mind when buying glass for it.
 
Cagey75 said:
The tech will still be 6 years old, no matter the condition of the camera.

I only ever see non D800 users go on about the file sizes tbh. And its not as fussy with lenses as people like to say either. The humble 50mm is ace on it.
Click to expand...

Ahh.. but the "humble" 50mm is actually optically brilliant. There's nothing humble about it. A 50mm 1.8D or G will comfortably outperform a 24-70 2.8.

The D800 is fussy with lenses. It shows up the edge performance of the 24-70 at the wide end.

I agree with file sizes. Who cares if it gives 45mb RAWs. What's 45MB these days? Nothing.. that's what.
 
Soda Farl said:
As it is on every camera, so that hardly proves anything. The point is valid though a D800 will show up any issues with glass much more so than with other camera's. Not that should be a reason not to buy one, but certainly something to bear in mind when buying glass for it.
Click to expand...

Picked myself up a D800 and it certainally makes you think about what youre doing, it shows up massive flaws in my technique with hand holding, i really struggled at 36mp to get a decent sharp shot even at highish shutter speeds so experimented shooting at 20mp and everything was superbly sharp, 36mp using flash is stunning.

Results with the 70-200mm VRII are superb at full res 36mp, i can get sharp results with VR down to 1/50th, same goes for my VR 16-35mm f/4 VR but im struggling with my non VR lenses without using flash unless im at high shutter speeds, its gonna take some taming but sure it'll be worth it in the long run
 
Gary Coyle said:
Picked myself up a D800 and it certainally makes you think about what youre doing, it shows up massive flaws in my technique with hand holding, i really struggled at 36mp to get a decent sharp shot even at highish shutter speeds so experimented shooting at 20mp and everything was superbly sharp, 36mp using flash is stunning.

Results with the 70-200mm VRII are superb at full res 36mp, i can get sharp results with VR down to 1/50th, same goes for my VR 16-35mm f/4 VR but im struggling with my non VR lenses without using flash unless im at high shutter speeds, its gonna take some taming but sure it'll be worth it in the long run
Click to expand...

So having owned all 3 cameras that the o.p is interested in Gary what would your suggestion be. D700 with better glass or D600/D800 with cheap glass?

I take it your loving the vr2 hopefully mine is coming tomorrow.
 
How come no one has mentioned the Nikkor 16-35. Surely for landscape shooters on FF this would be a viable option. I'm considering a D600 with a 50mm 1.8 and a 16 to 35....

That'll cover most of the focal ranges I use. Landscapes and buildings
 
ST4 said:
How come no one has mentioned the Nikkor 16-35. Surely for landscape shooters on FF this would be a viable option. I'm considering a D600 with a 50mm 1.8 and a 16 to 35....

That'll cover most of the focal ranges I use. Landscapes and buildings
Click to expand...

The o.p said he also does family stuff as well the 16-35 isn't great for portraits nor is the 50 on full frame.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Ahh.. but the "humble" 50mm is actually optically brilliant. There's nothing humble about it. A 50mm 1.8D or G will comfortably outperform a 24-70 2.8.

The D800 is fussy with lenses. It shows up the edge performance of the 24-70 at the wide end.

I agree with file sizes. Who cares if it gives 45mb RAWs. What's 45MB these days? Nothing.. that's what.
Click to expand...

I've seen some on here say they bought some old lenses, like the old Nikon 70-210, and pair it with the D800 with good results. I think most primes,even old manual ones, will be fine on it too.

I really don't get why some say they can't get sharp shots with the D800 though, what are they doing? taking pictures from a trampoline??
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
So having owned all 3 cameras that the o.p is interested in Gary what would your suggestion be. D700 with better glass or D600/D800 with cheap glass?

I take it your loving the vr2 hopefully mine is coming tomorrow.
Click to expand...
In all honesty and if i were on a budget of say £2000 i would go for a used D700 and good glass everyday of the week
 
Cagey75 said:
I really don't get why some say they can't get sharp shots with the D800 though, what are they doing? taking pictures from a trampoline??
Click to expand...
Well me personally i have always shot 99% of my stuff with a 400mm prime on a Monopod or a 70-200mm and usually at very high shutter speeds as i shoot field sports, i have always struggled to take handheld photos at slower shutter speeds, im 53 and have mild arthiritis in my hands and quite severe in my right thumb, so much so i can no longer use the back button focus method, i shake like a pooing dog, im OK with VR lenses at slower speeds.

My hand holding technique needs to be worked on
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
Well me personally i have always shot 99% of my stuff with a 400mm prime on a Monopod or a 70-200mm and usually at very high shutter speeds as i shoot field sports, i have always struggled to take handheld photos at slower shutter speeds, im 53 and have mild arthiritis in my hands and quite severe in my right thumb, so much so i can no longer use the back button focus method, i shake like a pooing dog, im OK with VR lenses at slower speeds.

My hand holding technique needs to be worked on
Click to expand...

I can understand to a certain extent, I have a bad back - had a discectomy on my lower back a few years ago,and not quite as stable and strong as I once was. But a lot of D800 users, who have no health issues, say they find it more punishing. I think it's just the initial awareness that you're using so many more pixels .. maybe?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I think it's just the initial awareness that you're using so many more pixels .. maybe?
Click to expand...
Without a shadow of a doubt, i started with 10d at 6mp, went to IDMKII with 10mp and during that transition (an increase of about 60%) there were hollers of image softness then to D3/S at 12mp (20% increase) and from that to a whopping 36mp (almost 200% increase) thats a seriously gigantic leap in anyones book.

I dont need the 36mp, 20-24 is way enough for me so i think ill stick with running it at 20mp for a while, get used to that increase then gradually make the transition to the full 36mp

i said before on another thread that the D600 would have been an ideal increase for me but the body is such a lightweight toy like camera and way too small (for me) that i sent it back, the D800 body with grip just feels right and the AF is more like what im used to as well.

Just need to get out with some decent weather and shoot.
 
The D700 would be worth considering if you don't print large or crop much but the other two bodies seem better suited to landscape.

D600 Advantages - Smaller, cheaper, higher FPS.

D800 Advanatges - Higher resolution, better build, better autofocus.

To me alot of it would come down to your future budget, if this is going to be "it" for your camera spending I'd consider the D600 and a better lens/lenses, if your looking to spend more in the future the D800 will make more of those lenses.
 
Just seen there is a D800 in the classified section here, going for £1500 - If it were me asking this question atm, I would jump on that.
 
Gary Coyle said:
I dont need the 36mp, 20-24 is way enough for me so i think ill stick with running it at 20mp for a while, get used to that increase then gradually make the transition to the full 36mp
Click to expand...

My research when I bought the D600 led me to believe that this wasn't possible on the D800, it was either 36MP or about 15MP in crop mode and that's it. I stand to be corrected mind.
 
Cagey75 said:
Just seen there is a D800 in the classified section here, going for £1500 - If it were me asking this question atm, I would jump on that.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Not a lot more than you'd have had to pay for a D700 only a year or so ago. Looks something of a bargain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top