NIkon D600 or D700 ?
Discussion
Has anyone experience of the D600 in comparison to the D700 ?
I have had a D200 and two D300s - but am now looking at FF.
I have tried / borrowed a D700 a couple of years ago -- it was fab - nothing more to say.
But - it's a few years old now though - does the D600 offer anything else? (D610 not an option at the moment)
I am interested in ergonomics and high ISO capability - the D700 felt just "right" - like the D300
The D600 looks less easy to use with fewer of the external controls that I am used to.
Am I daft to buy a D700 rather than a newer D600 ?
(also - is the D600 sensor issue a problem?)
I have had a D200 and two D300s - but am now looking at FF.
I have tried / borrowed a D700 a couple of years ago -- it was fab - nothing more to say.
But - it's a few years old now though - does the D600 offer anything else? (D610 not an option at the moment)
I am interested in ergonomics and high ISO capability - the D700 felt just "right" - like the D300
The D600 looks less easy to use with fewer of the external controls that I am used to.
Am I daft to buy a D700 rather than a newer D600 ?
(also - is the D600 sensor issue a problem?)
I haven't used the D700 much, but I've not had any issues with controls on the D600. It has dual purpose rear buttons so you don't need to dive into menus to configure things. I've not had the dust issue yet so not sure if the later ones suffered with it.
D600 has more megapixels, D700 has full magnesium body so probably a bit more rugged. I don't think you're crazy to consider both, personally I was going to get a D700 but Nikon cash back talked me into the D600.
D600 has more megapixels, D700 has full magnesium body so probably a bit more rugged. I don't think you're crazy to consider both, personally I was going to get a D700 but Nikon cash back talked me into the D600.
The D300/D300s and the D700 are more or less identical in layout and menu options - I run both cameras. I looked at the D600 but I was put off by fewer focus points and the oil issue. I considered the D800 but file size, slow frame rate and narrow ISO range put me off. I went for a second hand D3x instead (essentially a hi-res D700). I have a D3 too (un-missable bargain) but that is a D700 in a ruff-tuff body. Yes it has insane frame rates but so does the D700 with the same battery. Anyway, my vote is buy D700, they are insanely cheap and a fantastic camera and more than anyone really needs! PS it will also have same batts, batt grip as your D300 so economies there too.
I shot a couple of hundred frames on a D610 at high ISO, rate it a little cleaner than my own D700. Maybe 1/2 stop better or even a little more, so the 610's 3200 is like the 700's 2000. Given the 700 runs out of breath circa ISO3200, if you think you want to shoot that high or higher with any regularity, 600 is prob better choice on ISO alone (AIUI the 600- 610 transition didn't involve sensor changes.)
However, I doubt it'll be that simple a choice. The D700 is a very effective tool and the chaps above make solid points re AF & interchangability of batteries. Worth handling both if you can.
However, I doubt it'll be that simple a choice. The D700 is a very effective tool and the chaps above make solid points re AF & interchangability of batteries. Worth handling both if you can.
One thing you'll find when going from D300 to D700 is that all 51 focus points are now in the middle 
and personally I found the D700 didn't acquire focus as well as my D200. Your lenses will all be wrong as well, so if you stay with FX you'll probably want to change them. Moving to FX is not a panacea, it just brings other issues and the answers are more expensive 
and personally I found the D700 didn't acquire focus as well as my D200. Your lenses will all be wrong as well, so if you stay with FX you'll probably want to change them. Moving to FX is not a panacea, it just brings other issues and the answers are more expensive I used both cameras and my vote goes out to the D600. It has more functions, better low light, much better dynamic range, more megapixels( I know it doesn't really matter, but twice as much really makes a difference, especially if you want to crop it). I have to admit, the D700 feels way more professional. Better materials, bigger body so it feels more ergonomically. The D600 is basically a full frame Nikon D7000, the button layout is almost the same I don't like the settings dial on the d600, I much prefer the ISO/ WB/ Qual buttons. But to honest, it's just a matter of getting used to it. You can access those settings just as easy on a d600. In short the d700 is a little bit outdated and the d600 uses great technology.
Mind you, the d600 was replaced within a year... Nikon doesn't confirm this but there were a lot of complaints about oil spots on the sensor. It had to do with the shutter mechanism. They replaced it on the D610 .
Mind you, the d600 was replaced within a year... Nikon doesn't confirm this but there were a lot of complaints about oil spots on the sensor. It had to do with the shutter mechanism. They replaced it on the D610 .
I had a D600 and had dust issues. Swapped the camera and 34,000 clicks in it's fine. I've had it cleaned once (Nikon are, or were, doing it for free).
Apparently, if you take a D600 in to a proper Nikon place to be cleaned twice, they offer to send it to Nikon to swap the shutter FOC. Not done that yet.
I've not had a D700 so can't compare, but I can say that the D600 is an awesome camera. I have the F2.8 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 combo and the results are spectacular.
I think it is an amazing bit of kit for the money.
I've added a grip to mine too, which improves the ergonomics as well as improving battery life of course (useful for filming, which it's also extremely good at).
Apparently, if you take a D600 in to a proper Nikon place to be cleaned twice, they offer to send it to Nikon to swap the shutter FOC. Not done that yet.
I've not had a D700 so can't compare, but I can say that the D600 is an awesome camera. I have the F2.8 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 combo and the results are spectacular.
I think it is an amazing bit of kit for the money.
I've added a grip to mine too, which improves the ergonomics as well as improving battery life of course (useful for filming, which it's also extremely good at).
Just to add that there's something about using the D700 that just feels better than the D7000 (and probably therefore the D600). It's probably just the solidity of the pro body, but to me it makes a big difference.
When I shoot the 700 it just inspires confidence and it feels like you're using a proper tool for the job. The 7000 on the other hand still feels a bit amateur, and as such I haven't grown to love it anywhere near as much.
When I shoot the 700 it just inspires confidence and it feels like you're using a proper tool for the job. The 7000 on the other hand still feels a bit amateur, and as such I haven't grown to love it anywhere near as much.
Looks like I'm probably a bit late to the party but seeing as this is a subject close to my heart, I may as well chuck in my ten penneth.
The D700 was my first full frame DSLR. I was used to a D300 so had already grown fond of the size, heft and control layout. The D700 was a natural progression and the IQ in low light just blew me away. When a D3 came up at a too good to miss price last year, I went for that. Obviously IQ similar/identical to a D700 but with that bigger body and even more controls.
Up until that point I'd been a little dismissive of the D600 for a couple of reasons. Firstly the size of the thing, feeling a little fiddly to use and also the ridiculously centralised focal points.
And then we come to last week when I realised there were times when I simply wasn't taking the D3 out because it was almost embarrassingly bulky. The wife hates it because there are no idiot modes and its too heavy. So I started thinking about a D600 and then noticed that I could more or less do a straight swap price wise. So that's what I did.
Been using the D600 for only 500 shots or so up until now but I have to say I really like it. The control layout and size is both good and bad. I do miss the chunkiness of the D3 and D700 but it is really nice to have a camera that is actually quite compact with a modest prime on. Feels like a breath of fresh air.
The IQ is stunning. Low light seems surprisingly better than the D3/700 which I wasn't particularly expecting but it seems noticeably cleaner at 6400. The resolution is very impressive though clearly asks a lot of questions of some lenses. The focal points remain a frustration but I can live with it. I like the fact it carries two cards and has decent video capability. And its nice that the wife can pick it up and use it whenever she fancies (some may view this as a drawback). The one big test still to come is how it handles motor sport. The D700 and D3 were just a dream for that stuff rarely missing focus even in falling light.
So to summarise my ramblings, you can't really go wrong with a D700 as it does everything so well but if you're prepared to compromise a little in some areas, there is quite a bit to gained from going for the D600 and I'm over the moon with mine.
The D700 was my first full frame DSLR. I was used to a D300 so had already grown fond of the size, heft and control layout. The D700 was a natural progression and the IQ in low light just blew me away. When a D3 came up at a too good to miss price last year, I went for that. Obviously IQ similar/identical to a D700 but with that bigger body and even more controls.
Up until that point I'd been a little dismissive of the D600 for a couple of reasons. Firstly the size of the thing, feeling a little fiddly to use and also the ridiculously centralised focal points.
And then we come to last week when I realised there were times when I simply wasn't taking the D3 out because it was almost embarrassingly bulky. The wife hates it because there are no idiot modes and its too heavy. So I started thinking about a D600 and then noticed that I could more or less do a straight swap price wise. So that's what I did.
Been using the D600 for only 500 shots or so up until now but I have to say I really like it. The control layout and size is both good and bad. I do miss the chunkiness of the D3 and D700 but it is really nice to have a camera that is actually quite compact with a modest prime on. Feels like a breath of fresh air.
The IQ is stunning. Low light seems surprisingly better than the D3/700 which I wasn't particularly expecting but it seems noticeably cleaner at 6400. The resolution is very impressive though clearly asks a lot of questions of some lenses. The focal points remain a frustration but I can live with it. I like the fact it carries two cards and has decent video capability. And its nice that the wife can pick it up and use it whenever she fancies (some may view this as a drawback). The one big test still to come is how it handles motor sport. The D700 and D3 were just a dream for that stuff rarely missing focus even in falling light.
So to summarise my ramblings, you can't really go wrong with a D700 as it does everything so well but if you're prepared to compromise a little in some areas, there is quite a bit to gained from going for the D600 and I'm over the moon with mine.
Ari said:
So what did you get?
I was offered a virtually unused D7000 (unwanted xmas present) for very little money --I also tried a D610 --
I bought the D7k and will probably buy the D610 when 2nd hand prices fall a bit -
Very happy with the D7k - a step up in performance in the relevant areas for me and it gives me time to upgrade some lenses.
Performance of the 610 was fab though....
Ari said:
Very good camera. 
Bear in mind that if you buy DX lenses they won't work on an FX camera, but FX will work on a DX camera. So if you're thinking of upgrading to full frame in due course, it might be worth spending a bit more and getting FX lenses.
Hence my comment about upgrading lenses!Bear in mind that if you buy DX lenses they won't work on an FX camera, but FX will work on a DX camera. So if you're thinking of upgrading to full frame in due course, it might be worth spending a bit more and getting FX lenses.
Simpo Two said:
Another reason you will have to change lenses is because the focal lengths will be 'wrong' on FX. 17-55 is great on DX, but now you need a 24-70. And your 70-300? Well now it only 'goes' to 200...
Cheers - I know about the FX format - I was only wondering about the camera bodies.Wouldn't those focal lengths be regarded as being "correct" on FX -- like a film SLR...
Lucas CAV said:
Wouldn't those focal lengths be regarded as being "correct" on FX -- like a film SLR...
True, the focal lengths will be correct on FX. But when using DX you become accustomed to the '50% extra' crop factor and the angles of view it gives you with each lens. Pop your favourite lens onto an FX body and, even if it's suitable for FX, it will seem 33% shorter and may therefore be unsuitable for your needs.Hence what you need to do is effectively start again. If that's what you had in mind, fine - but, all things being equal, you will end up with bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses for - in my opinion - little gain. I guess the point is - don't get dazzled by FX, be objective. Buying the body is the easy bit
Simpo Two said:
Lucas CAV said:
Wouldn't those focal lengths be regarded as being "correct" on FX -- like a film SLR...
True, the focal lengths will be correct on FX. But when using DX you become accustomed to the '50% extra' crop factor and the angles of view it gives you with each lens. Pop your favourite lens onto an FX body and, even if it's suitable for FX, it will seem 33% shorter and may therefore be unsuitable for your needs.Hence what you need to do is effectively start again. If that's what you had in mind, fine - but, all things being equal, you will end up with bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses for - in my opinion - little gain. I guess the point is - don't get dazzled by FX, be objective. Buying the body is the easy bit
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff