D600 vs. D800

sb in ak · 11-21-2012, 01:53 PM

OK, I need help deciding here. I'm stuck between getting a new D600 and refurb D800. There's currently around $500 US separating these. I currently shoot a 5DII (and K5 but don't currently plan on selling it) and plan on moving to Nikon for the long haul. I estimate that if I sell my 5DII setup/lenses I'll have around $4k to work with.

I am looking to sell the 5DII as I've gotten frustrated that while it takes cleaner photos than the K5, it can't match it in shadow lifiting, which I run into a lot with the things I shoot. I'm looking for one great camera that combines the strengths of those two cameras.

There isn't a camera store within 250 miles of me, otherwise I think this would be easier.

I am mostly a landscape shooter and avid hiker. I live in Alaska, so it must be able to take the cold and some amount of moisture. I also have pretty big hands....my 5DII fits me about perfectly (though a little heavy) and though I like the K5, it's a little small without a grip. I am starting to sell a few of my shots and am in the process of selling one of them as a 20x30. I recently got a business license and hope to grow a small business in the future (nothing big but selling at holiday bazaars, etc.)

From the paper specs here are the pros and cons I can see:

D600 Pros:

Lighter/more compact (better for hiking)
Very good DR
Pretty good res.
Leaves more money for lenses

D600 cons

-1/4000 shutterspeed (not a big deal)
-No aperture adjustment in Live View (I am starting to use live view in conjunction w/ ND filters with my 5DII and am loving it, so this is a bit of a backwards step)
-Possible dust issues
-Plastic build/WR up to the rigors of the mountains?
-A little less res. for massive prints...maybe not as futureproofed (though what is these days)

D800 solves some of these problems, but it's heavier and buying into the lenses (probably a 24-70 to start with) begins cutting into my travel budget. I can cash out some savings to get it, but that's not really ideal. Based on my reading, it would probably fit my hands better than the D600. Also, I'd probably need to upgrade my computer (2008 macbook that is OK with the 5DII but I wouldn't want to push it tons further). However, it seems better "futureproofed" and the 36 MP would be nice for super large prints.

I'd probably get the Tamron or Nikkor 24-70 and 50 1.8G with either camera for starters. The 24-70 seems like a beast to hike with but probably worth it based on the shots I've seen. (Plus it seems suited to take full advantage of the D800 sensor if I ever do get that camera). I have also looked into the 24-120 but reviews seem pretty mixed, esp. when paired with the D800 and the diffraction concerns.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Last edited by sb in ak; 11-21-2012 at 01:59 PM.

Adam · 11-21-2012, 01:58 PM

The D800 will get you better IQ, no questions there.

The 24-120 is very sharp, I've found, but it has a lot of distortion and vignetting. I don't think diffraction is a major issue, and as long as you have ACR to do lens corrections for you, you'll be fine.

The D800 has huge raw files, though, so you'll definitely need a new computer (with 8gb of ram) to be able to multitask while processing them. Given your budget, therefore, I'm inclined to recommend the D600, though the 800 is worth much more than the 3k it costs, IMO

Also, if you're a tripod shooter, the 24-70 is fine, but remember that it's not stabilized, unlike the 24-120.

sb in ak · 11-21-2012, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Adam

The D800 has huge raw files, though, so you'll definitely need a new computer (with 8gb of ram) to be able to multitask while processing them. Given your budget, therefore, I'm inclined to recommend the D600, though the 800 is worth much more than the 3k it costs, IMO

Wow, thanks for the fast reply, Adam. I am leaning more toward the D600 at this point. Leaves me with more cash for glass and traveling. Anyone using the D600 w/ nikkor 24-70? I'm a bit worried it might be pretty front-heavy and somewhat painful for hiking.

**apisto** · 11-21-2012, 04:30 PM

I have shot with the D600, D800 and D700, and while I am not a landscape shooter, and my priorities are probably a bit diffrent, I will make some comparrisons and you can decide what applies to your situation. Also keep in mind I am not as experienced as many photographers on this forum.

Build: Although sturdy, the D600 is less sturdy than the D800, as expected. However I would have no hesitation taking a D600 anywhere I would take a D800.

Handling: I am not shooting Nikons for the handling. If that were my sole requirement, I would still be shooting my K-5 as my main camera. However I prefer the handling of the D600 to the D800 and D700. The slight reduction in size and weight for the D600 makes a big difference for me in practice. In regards to both portability and fatigue. Also, it is a pretty minor thing, but I prefer how the D600 handles storing user settings.

IQ: Both the D600 and D800 to me are stunning. The detail and DR are so much fun. I see little difference in properly taken photographs between the two. Perhaps the resolution diffrence would be more noticeable for you when taking landscape shots. I am not sure. Another handling/IQ thing I should mention is the D600 is MUCH more forgiving than the D800 of less than perfect hand held technique. This is important to me because I am often on the move, or taking pictures of subjects on the move.

Bottom line, I prefer the D600, even if both were the same price. But I can also respect the opposite decision, they are both great cameras.

A couple thoughts:

1. The D600 dust/oil problem is real, at least on the one body I can speak of.

2. Would a 17-35 type lens make a better mate for your 50 than a 24-70 for landscape shooting?

wildweasel · 11-21-2012, 07:04 PM

I bought a D800 a few weeks ago and it's stunningly good, and coming from Pentax completely intuitive to use. I bought three lenses to go with it; a 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8D (it's screwdriven and no WR seal, but it does has an aperture ring so can be reversed for macro) and the Tamron 24-70. I can say that the Tamron is great and the VR on it works extremely well. The 85 really is a fantastic portrait lens' it renders skin tones beautifully - as does the sensor itself.

I decided on the '800 over the '600 as I wanted the full magnesium body and better af, and the difference in price is so small over here that I didn't mind paying the few hundred extra for a camera I'm planning on having for a few years as well as using for a photography degree. Though I was a little concerned with the file sizes I'm not having any problems with my laptop, though I did add another 4GB of ram to bring it up to its max of 8GB. It's also not much bigger at all than a K5 - I've got small hands and a finger or two still hang off under the grip for example.

I love the high iso performance as well; the shots below were taken at 6400 (with the Tamron) and the noise, whilst present, isn't distracting - I think it looks quite like film grain. The NR was set to low, and I've not used any reduction on them in PP.

nickthetasmaniac · 11-21-2012, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by sb in ak

I'm stuck between getting a new D600 and refurb D800. There's currently around $500 US separating these. I currently shoot a 5DII (and K5 but don't currently plan on selling it) and plan on moving to Nikon for the long haul. I estimate that if I sell my 5DII setup/lenses I'll have around $4k to work with.

How many weeks of overtime would net you an extra $500?

Given your requirements, I'd be inclined to aim at the D800 for a few reasons. You shoot landscape semi-professionally and want the resolution and general sensor awesomeness of the 36mp chip, you're out and about in the mountains a lot and (from personal experience) it'd be nice to have the additional ruggedness and sealing, and perhaps most importantly, I'd say that if you get the D600, in 6 months you're going to want the D800 anyway.

sb in ak · 11-21-2012, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by apisto

2. Would a 17-35 type lens make a better mate for your 50 than a 24-70 for landscape shooting?

Apisto, thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I'm currently leaning toward a D600 for a lot of these reasons. I've been looking at the 16-35 f/4 but all of those purchases at once are pretty painful. Still, it might be a better bet to go for the 16-35 and 50 (I always like having a fast 50 around) first. Though I find I don't really like the superwides as much for landscapes as I thought I would when I started getting more serious a year ago. Some of my favorite landscape shots are at 200mm due to compression. I find I like UWAs for things that are right in front of me (like a few feet).

Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac

How many weeks of overtime would net you an extra $500?

Given your requirements, I'd be inclined to aim at the D800 for a few reasons. You shoot landscape semi-professionally and want the resolution and general sensor awesomeness of the 36mp chip, you're out and about in the mountains a lot and (from personal experience) it'd be nice to have the additional ruggedness and sealing, and perhaps most importantly, I'd say that if you get the D600, in 6 months you're going to want the D800 anyway.

This has definitely crossed my mind a few times. From what I've read the sealing on the D600 is supposed to be comparable with the D800 but who knows. I'd certainly trust a mag body more in the outdoors. Another consideration is the need for a backup body if I really started generating some revenue or felt the need doing it semi-professionally, and then it wouldn't be a bad thing to grab a D800 in 6 mos. to a year and move the D600 to backup status. I still have my K5 as a backup of sorts but it can't use the same lenses.

Originally posted by wildweasel

I bought a D800 a few weeks ago and it's stunningly good, and coming from Pentax completely intuitive to use. I bought three lenses to go with it; a 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8D (it's screwdriven and no WR seal, but it does has an aperture ring so can be reversed for macro) and the Tamron 24-70. I can say that the Tamron is great and the VR on it works extremely well. The 85 really is a fantastic portrait lens' it renders skin tones beautifully - as does the sensor itself.

I decided on the '800 over the '600 as I wanted the full magnesium body and better af, and the difference in price is so small over here that I didn't mind paying the few hundred extra for a camera I'm planning on having for a few years as well as using for a photography degree. Though I was a little concerned with the file sizes I'm not having any problems with my laptop, though I did add another 4GB of ram to bring it up to its max of 8GB. It's also not much bigger at all than a K5 - I've got small hands and a finger or two still hang off under the grip for example.

I love the high iso performance as well; the shots below were taken at 6400 (with the Tamron) and the noise, whilst present, isn't distracting - I think it looks quite like film grain. The NR was set to low, and I've not used any reduction on them in PP.

The lowlight performance is certainly good!

Are you currently taking classes? I'm not necessarily interested in a photo degree per se but there are a few classes I'd really like to take (portraits and printing to name a few.). Just curious.

I really appreciate the feedback, everyone!

wildweasel · 11-21-2012, 10:00 PM

I'm starting a couple of courses at the local art college in January, covering portraiture and lighting, both as an end in themselves and to help me get onto the degree. Can't give any feedback yet (obviously) but I'm expecting them to be good; I've just stopped working there after four years and know the lecturers and have already had a few plays in the coves, which are lightly converted studios from when the building was a TV station. Below are links to the courses I'm taking to give you a possible overview of what you might expect, though I have no idea of how typical they are.

http://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/prospectus/Part-Time/Intermediate-Digital-Photo...)/CBS0561213/0

http://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/prospectus/Part-Time/Intermediate-Portrait-and-...)/CBS0701213/0

sb in ak · 11-22-2012, 03:11 PM

They look like decent classes. I'm going to look into a few classes like that stateside.

tuco · 11-23-2012, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by sb in ak

Wow, thanks for the fast reply, Adam. I am leaning more toward the D600 at this point. Leaves me with more cash for glass and traveling. Anyone using the D600 w/ nikkor 24-70? I'm a bit worried it might be pretty front-heavy and somewhat painful for hiking.

It is very front heavy. Mine only comes out when I'm shooting at some kind of event where I don't care about size/weight and need a zoom. Otherwise, for everything else, I use primes. You can buy an array of used D primes for the price of that 24-70/2.8.

sb in ak · 11-23-2012, 09:42 PM

OK, went for the D600 with the 50 1.8G and 16-35 f/4 for starters. I'll add a normal zoom later after I sell off my 5D equipment....maybe the 24-120 or the Tamron 24-70. Thanks for the input everyone!

memo90061 · 11-24-2012, 10:43 AM

I've been debating on two different cameras that are completely different. I've been thinking of full frame to get clean high ISO pictures, and love how bokeh looks. If I were to get full frame I'd have to sell all my gear, and other things to be able to afford it. I would buy the D600 with the 50mm F/1.8 G lens. I've also thought of the Olympus OM-D for the small size, weather sealed, and has the lenses I want at a price I think is good. I like to carry my camera everywhere. I don't know what to do as both cameras are completely different.

sb in ak · 11-24-2012, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by memo90061

I've been debating on two different cameras that are completely different. I've been thinking of full frame to get clean high ISO pictures, and love how bokeh looks. If I were to get full frame I'd have to sell all my gear, and other things to be able to afford it. I would buy the D600 with the 50mm F/1.8 G lens. I've also thought of the Olympus OM-D for the small size, weather sealed, and has the lenses I want at a price I think is good. I like to carry my camera everywhere. I don't know what to do as both cameras are completely different.

I don't have experience with the two (D600 is on its way though). What do you mostly shoot? For what it's worth, I find myself hauling around my big 5DII instead of my K5 on some of my hikes as I'm addicted to the large res. files (and maybe it's just me but the 5D files are cleaner and sharper). Also, I have more of a glass investment for the FF so that's part of it. While the K5 is smaller, it is not profoundly smaller and lighter than my FF setup. But it does come in handy for the WR.

For these reasons I've found myself wanting a lighter FF body and a pocket camera (though I may still hold onto the K5 as it is a fantastic camera) so I'm currently reworking my setup. So I'm moving to a D600 for my FF setup, as it's smaller and lighter and trounces my 5D for landscape work (at least in the larger headroom for photo editing). I may replace the K5 with a pocket camera or heck, a iPhone 4S with a lifeproof case. I know that sounds a bit blasphemous.

Anyways, that was a ramble. The best camera is the one you take with you and the FF cameras are still quite beastly compared to some of the other options out there. I see that the OM-D is 50% lighter than the D600 (and 40% lighter than the K5) according to Compare camera dimensions side by side. That's pretty significant for a camera that has pretty good IQ. I don't know if I'd like the electronic view finder.

Another option is picking up a K-01, but I say that mostly because of the big drop in price. Much heavier than the OM-D but you get a killer APS-C sensor and you can use your current Pentax glass (what are you currently shooting?)

memo90061 · 11-24-2012, 12:27 PM

I'm not a professional photographer. I just like to capture what I see everyday. I love low light photography though, and I love taking pictures at concerts.

Here are some pictures I've taken in the past months.

Guanajuato solo de noche | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Yeshija! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Los Arcos de Guadalajara | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

IMG_1502 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

JotDog | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Johnny Vatos' Boingo Dance Party | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

That is why I'm nervous about the Olympus. I'm not sure if I'll like the EVF. They don't have the Olympus OM-D anywhere, and I tried the EVF on the Sony NEX cameras at Best Buy and I didn't like it much.

I actually don't have any Pentax cameras. haha. I was thinking of the K-30 for a long time because it's weather sealed, and because of IBIS.

I currently have a Canon T2i, and I think it's good. I only wish it had cleaner high iso pictures.

I'm so indecisive.

sb in ak · 11-24-2012, 01:32 PM

Cool shots! I didn't pixel peep there but the shots look very crisp and contrasty to me. Pentax isn't really known for its accuracy for lowlight focusing, so that might factor into your decision. Otherwise, the K30 or K5 Classic are pretty good values IMO and should be an improvement on the T2i as far as cleaner high ISO photos.

Something like the D600 or D700 look like very solid bets though if you can afford it. If I didn't need the res. or the dynamic range, i'd have probably gone for the D700. I'd also consider the D600's little brother, the APS-C D7000 (some good deals there as it's likely to be replaced somewhat soon). Same awesome sensor as the K5.

I really can't comment on the Oly as I don't have much experience with m4/3.

Choices, choices.....you could also rent a few setups from lensrentals.com but the cost adds up pretty fast.

11-21-2012, 01:53 PM	#1
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612	D600 vs. D800 OK, I need help deciding here. I'm stuck between getting a new D600 and refurb D800. There's currently around $500 US separating these. I currently shoot a 5DII (and K5 but don't currently plan on selling it) and plan on moving to Nikon for the long haul. I estimate that if I sell my 5DII setup/lenses I'll have around $4k to work with. I am looking to sell the 5DII as I've gotten frustrated that while it takes cleaner photos than the K5, it can't match it in shadow lifiting, which I run into a lot with the things I shoot. I'm looking for one great camera that combines the strengths of those two cameras. There isn't a camera store within 250 miles of me, otherwise I think this would be easier. I am mostly a landscape shooter and avid hiker. I live in Alaska, so it must be able to take the cold and some amount of moisture. I also have pretty big hands....my 5DII fits me about perfectly (though a little heavy) and though I like the K5, it's a little small without a grip. I am starting to sell a few of my shots and am in the process of selling one of them as a 20x30. I recently got a business license and hope to grow a small business in the future (nothing big but selling at holiday bazaars, etc.) From the paper specs here are the pros and cons I can see: D600 Pros: Lighter/more compact (better for hiking) Very good DR Pretty good res. Leaves more money for lenses D600 cons -1/4000 shutterspeed (not a big deal) -No aperture adjustment in Live View (I am starting to use live view in conjunction w/ ND filters with my 5DII and am loving it, so this is a bit of a backwards step) -Possible dust issues -Plastic build/WR up to the rigors of the mountains? -A little less res. for massive prints...maybe not as futureproofed (though what is these days) D800 solves some of these problems, but it's heavier and buying into the lenses (probably a 24-70 to start with) begins cutting into my travel budget. I can cash out some savings to get it, but that's not really ideal. Based on my reading, it would probably fit my hands better than the D600. Also, I'd probably need to upgrade my computer (2008 macbook that is OK with the 5DII but I wouldn't want to push it tons further). However, it seems better "futureproofed" and the 36 MP would be nice for super large prints. I'd probably get the Tamron or Nikkor 24-70 and 50 1.8G with either camera for starters. The 24-70 seems like a beast to hike with but probably worth it based on the shots I've seen. (Plus it seems suited to take full advantage of the D800 sensor if I ever do get that camera). I have also looked into the 24-120 but reviews seem pretty mixed, esp. when paired with the D800 and the diffraction concerns. Thanks for your thoughts. Last edited by sb in ak; 11-21-2012 at 01:59 PM.

11-21-2012, 01:58 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	The D800 will get you better IQ, no questions there. The 24-120 is very sharp, I've found, but it has a lot of distortion and vignetting. I don't think diffraction is a major issue, and as long as you have ACR to do lens corrections for you, you'll be fine. The D800 has huge raw files, though, so you'll definitely need a new computer (with 8gb of ram) to be able to multitask while processing them. Given your budget, therefore, I'm inclined to recommend the D600, though the 800 is worth much more than the 3k it costs, IMO Also, if you're a tripod shooter, the 24-70 is fine, but remember that it's not stabilized, unlike the 24-120. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

11-21-2012, 07:04 PM	#5
wildweasel Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Plymouth Posts: 359	I bought a D800 a few weeks ago and it's stunningly good, and coming from Pentax completely intuitive to use. I bought three lenses to go with it; a 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8D (it's screwdriven and no WR seal, but it does has an aperture ring so can be reversed for macro) and the Tamron 24-70. I can say that the Tamron is great and the VR on it works extremely well. The 85 really is a fantastic portrait lens' it renders skin tones beautifully - as does the sensor itself. I decided on the '800 over the '600 as I wanted the full magnesium body and better af, and the difference in price is so small over here that I didn't mind paying the few hundred extra for a camera I'm planning on having for a few years as well as using for a photography degree. Though I was a little concerned with the file sizes I'm not having any problems with my laptop, though I did add another 4GB of ram to bring it up to its max of 8GB. It's also not much bigger at all than a K5 - I've got small hands and a finger or two still hang off under the grip for example. I love the high iso performance as well; the shots below were taken at 6400 (with the Tamron) and the noise, whilst present, isn't distracting - I think it looks quite like film grain. The NR was set to low, and I've not used any reduction on them in PP. Attached Images Last edited by wildweasel; 11-21-2012 at 07:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People K200D VS K5...vs D800...	D4rknezz	Post Your Photos!	15	08-14-2013 03:29 PM
The K-5, the 6D, D600 , D800 saturday morning ruminations	normhead	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	30	02-17-2013 09:32 PM
D800 vs 645D	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	84	04-22-2012 06:00 AM
D800 vs 5DmkIII shoot out	TOUGEFC	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	04-05-2012 11:14 PM
5D Mk 3 Vs D800	D4rknezz	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	03-02-2012 10:42 PM

11-21-2012, 02:06 PM	#3
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam The D800 has huge raw files, though, so you'll definitely need a new computer (with 8gb of ram) to be able to multitask while processing them. Given your budget, therefore, I'm inclined to recommend the D600, though the 800 is worth much more than the 3k it costs, IMO Wow, thanks for the fast reply, Adam. I am leaning more toward the D600 at this point. Leaves me with more cash for glass and traveling. Anyone using the D600 w/ nikkor 24-70? I'm a bit worried it might be pretty front-heavy and somewhat painful for hiking.

11-21-2012, 04:30 PM	#4
apisto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 588	I have shot with the D600, D800 and D700, and while I am not a landscape shooter, and my priorities are probably a bit diffrent, I will make some comparrisons and you can decide what applies to your situation. Also keep in mind I am not as experienced as many photographers on this forum. Build: Although sturdy, the D600 is less sturdy than the D800, as expected. However I would have no hesitation taking a D600 anywhere I would take a D800. Handling: I am not shooting Nikons for the handling. If that were my sole requirement, I would still be shooting my K-5 as my main camera. However I prefer the handling of the D600 to the D800 and D700. The slight reduction in size and weight for the D600 makes a big difference for me in practice. In regards to both portability and fatigue. Also, it is a pretty minor thing, but I prefer how the D600 handles storing user settings. IQ: Both the D600 and D800 to me are stunning. The detail and DR are so much fun. I see little difference in properly taken photographs between the two. Perhaps the resolution diffrence would be more noticeable for you when taking landscape shots. I am not sure. Another handling/IQ thing I should mention is the D600 is MUCH more forgiving than the D800 of less than perfect hand held technique. This is important to me because I am often on the move, or taking pictures of subjects on the move. Bottom line, I prefer the D600, even if both were the same price. But I can also respect the opposite decision, they are both great cameras. A couple thoughts: 1. The D600 dust/oil problem is real, at least on the one body I can speak of. 2. Would a 17-35 type lens make a better mate for your 50 than a 24-70 for landscape shooting?

11-21-2012, 07:48 PM	#6
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	Originally posted by sb in ak I'm stuck between getting a new D600 and refurb D800. There's currently around $500 US separating these. I currently shoot a 5DII (and K5 but don't currently plan on selling it) and plan on moving to Nikon for the long haul. I estimate that if I sell my 5DII setup/lenses I'll have around $4k to work with. How many weeks of overtime would net you an extra $500? Given your requirements, I'd be inclined to aim at the D800 for a few reasons. You shoot landscape semi-professionally and want the resolution and general sensor awesomeness of the 36mp chip, you're out and about in the mountains a lot and (from personal experience) it'd be nice to have the additional ruggedness and sealing, and perhaps most importantly, I'd say that if you get the D600, in 6 months you're going to want the D800 anyway.

11-21-2012, 09:04 PM	#7
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612 Original Poster	Originally posted by apisto 2. Would a 17-35 type lens make a better mate for your 50 than a 24-70 for landscape shooting? Apisto, thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I'm currently leaning toward a D600 for a lot of these reasons. I've been looking at the 16-35 f/4 but all of those purchases at once are pretty painful. Still, it might be a better bet to go for the 16-35 and 50 (I always like having a fast 50 around) first. Though I find I don't really like the superwides as much for landscapes as I thought I would when I started getting more serious a year ago. Some of my favorite landscape shots are at 200mm due to compression. I find I like UWAs for things that are right in front of me (like a few feet). Originally posted by nickthetasmaniac How many weeks of overtime would net you an extra $500? Given your requirements, I'd be inclined to aim at the D800 for a few reasons. You shoot landscape semi-professionally and want the resolution and general sensor awesomeness of the 36mp chip, you're out and about in the mountains a lot and (from personal experience) it'd be nice to have the additional ruggedness and sealing, and perhaps most importantly, I'd say that if you get the D600, in 6 months you're going to want the D800 anyway. This has definitely crossed my mind a few times. From what I've read the sealing on the D600 is supposed to be comparable with the D800 but who knows. I'd certainly trust a mag body more in the outdoors. Another consideration is the need for a backup body if I really started generating some revenue or felt the need doing it semi-professionally, and then it wouldn't be a bad thing to grab a D800 in 6 mos. to a year and move the D600 to backup status. I still have my K5 as a backup of sorts but it can't use the same lenses. Originally posted by wildweasel I bought a D800 a few weeks ago and it's stunningly good, and coming from Pentax completely intuitive to use. I bought three lenses to go with it; a 50mm 1.8G, 85mm 1.8D (it's screwdriven and no WR seal, but it does has an aperture ring so can be reversed for macro) and the Tamron 24-70. I can say that the Tamron is great and the VR on it works extremely well. The 85 really is a fantastic portrait lens' it renders skin tones beautifully - as does the sensor itself. I decided on the '800 over the '600 as I wanted the full magnesium body and better af, and the difference in price is so small over here that I didn't mind paying the few hundred extra for a camera I'm planning on having for a few years as well as using for a photography degree. Though I was a little concerned with the file sizes I'm not having any problems with my laptop, though I did add another 4GB of ram to bring it up to its max of 8GB. It's also not much bigger at all than a K5 - I've got small hands and a finger or two still hang off under the grip for example. I love the high iso performance as well; the shots below were taken at 6400 (with the Tamron) and the noise, whilst present, isn't distracting - I think it looks quite like film grain. The NR was set to low, and I've not used any reduction on them in PP. The lowlight performance is certainly good! Are you currently taking classes? I'm not necessarily interested in a photo degree per se but there are a few classes I'd really like to take (portraits and printing to name a few.). Just curious. I really appreciate the feedback, everyone!

11-21-2012, 10:00 PM	#8
wildweasel Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Plymouth Posts: 359	I'm starting a couple of courses at the local art college in January, covering portraiture and lighting, both as an end in themselves and to help me get onto the degree. Can't give any feedback yet (obviously) but I'm expecting them to be good; I've just stopped working there after four years and know the lecturers and have already had a few plays in the coves, which are lightly converted studios from when the building was a TV station. Below are links to the courses I'm taking to give you a possible overview of what you might expect, though I have no idea of how typical they are. http://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/prospectus/Part-Time/Intermediate-Digital-Photo...)/CBS0561213/0 http://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/prospectus/Part-Time/Intermediate-Portrait-and-...)/CBS0701213/0

11-22-2012, 03:11 PM	#9
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612 Original Poster	They look like decent classes. I'm going to look into a few classes like that stateside.

11-23-2012, 05:37 PM	#10
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by sb in ak Wow, thanks for the fast reply, Adam. I am leaning more toward the D600 at this point. Leaves me with more cash for glass and traveling. Anyone using the D600 w/ nikkor 24-70? I'm a bit worried it might be pretty front-heavy and somewhat painful for hiking. It is very front heavy. Mine only comes out when I'm shooting at some kind of event where I don't care about size/weight and need a zoom. Otherwise, for everything else, I use primes. You can buy an array of used D primes for the price of that 24-70/2.8.

11-23-2012, 09:42 PM	#11
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612 Original Poster	OK, went for the D600 with the 50 1.8G and 16-35 f/4 for starters. I'll add a normal zoom later after I sell off my 5D equipment....maybe the 24-120 or the Tamron 24-70. Thanks for the input everyone!

11-24-2012, 10:43 AM	#12
memo90061 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 218	I've been debating on two different cameras that are completely different. I've been thinking of full frame to get clean high ISO pictures, and love how bokeh looks. If I were to get full frame I'd have to sell all my gear, and other things to be able to afford it. I would buy the D600 with the 50mm F/1.8 G lens. I've also thought of the Olympus OM-D for the small size, weather sealed, and has the lenses I want at a price I think is good. I like to carry my camera everywhere. I don't know what to do as both cameras are completely different.

11-24-2012, 11:54 AM	#13
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612 Original Poster	Originally posted by memo90061 I've been debating on two different cameras that are completely different. I've been thinking of full frame to get clean high ISO pictures, and love how bokeh looks. If I were to get full frame I'd have to sell all my gear, and other things to be able to afford it. I would buy the D600 with the 50mm F/1.8 G lens. I've also thought of the Olympus OM-D for the small size, weather sealed, and has the lenses I want at a price I think is good. I like to carry my camera everywhere. I don't know what to do as both cameras are completely different. I don't have experience with the two (D600 is on its way though). What do you mostly shoot? For what it's worth, I find myself hauling around my big 5DII instead of my K5 on some of my hikes as I'm addicted to the large res. files (and maybe it's just me but the 5D files are cleaner and sharper). Also, I have more of a glass investment for the FF so that's part of it. While the K5 is smaller, it is not profoundly smaller and lighter than my FF setup. But it does come in handy for the WR. For these reasons I've found myself wanting a lighter FF body and a pocket camera (though I may still hold onto the K5 as it is a fantastic camera) so I'm currently reworking my setup. So I'm moving to a D600 for my FF setup, as it's smaller and lighter and trounces my 5D for landscape work (at least in the larger headroom for photo editing). I may replace the K5 with a pocket camera or heck, a iPhone 4S with a lifeproof case. I know that sounds a bit blasphemous. Anyways, that was a ramble. The best camera is the one you take with you and the FF cameras are still quite beastly compared to some of the other options out there. I see that the OM-D is 50% lighter than the D600 (and 40% lighter than the K5) according to Compare camera dimensions side by side. That's pretty significant for a camera that has pretty good IQ. I don't know if I'd like the electronic view finder. Another option is picking up a K-01, but I say that mostly because of the big drop in price. Much heavier than the OM-D but you get a killer APS-C sensor and you can use your current Pentax glass (what are you currently shooting?)

11-24-2012, 12:27 PM	#14
memo90061 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 218	I'm not a professional photographer. I just like to capture what I see everyday. I love low light photography though, and I love taking pictures at concerts. Here are some pictures I've taken in the past months. Guanajuato solo de noche \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Yeshija! \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Los Arcos de Guadalajara \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! IMG_1502 \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! JotDog \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Johnny Vatos' Boingo Dance Party \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! That is why I'm nervous about the Olympus. I'm not sure if I'll like the EVF. They don't have the Olympus OM-D anywhere, and I tried the EVF on the Sony NEX cameras at Best Buy and I didn't like it much. I actually don't have any Pentax cameras. haha. I was thinking of the K-30 for a long time because it's weather sealed, and because of IBIS. I currently have a Canon T2i, and I think it's good. I only wish it had cleaner high iso pictures. I'm so indecisive.

11-24-2012, 01:32 PM	#15
sb in ak Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Omaha, NE Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 612 Original Poster	Cool shots! I didn't pixel peep there but the shots look very crisp and contrasty to me. Pentax isn't really known for its accuracy for lowlight focusing, so that might factor into your decision. Otherwise, the K30 or K5 Classic are pretty good values IMO and should be an improvement on the T2i as far as cleaner high ISO photos. Something like the D600 or D700 look like very solid bets though if you can afford it. If I didn't need the res. or the dynamic range, i'd have probably gone for the D700. I'd also consider the D600's little brother, the APS-C D7000 (some good deals there as it's likely to be replaced somewhat soon). Same awesome sensor as the K5. I really can't comment on the Oly as I don't have much experience with m4/3. Choices, choices.....you could also rent a few setups from lensrentals.com but the cost adds up pretty fast.