Nikon d600/d800?

[Fullmoon 0]

Does anyone have experience with Nikon d600 and/or d800? I am considering both for non-skydiving photography. The d600 on paper looks best due to ease of use, weight, 2 SD cards and price. But there are so many reviews about dust/oil on mirror. The d800 looks great, but the file sizes will be huge, it costs a lot and has a bigger learning curve. I had bought the new d7100, but Adobe probably won’t update Lightroom before I need it. I have to stick with Nikon since I have good Nikkor glass. Does anyone have experience with either of these bodies? I’m really curious to find out if there truly is a huge issue with the 600 or if things are blown out of proportion on the internet. The timing stinks, I’d love to keep the d7100 just for the magnification factor alone. Thanks for any info you can share.

-Lisa

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I’m really curious to find out if there truly is a huge issue with the 600 or if things are blown out of proportion on the internet

Supposedly Nikon addressed the mirror/oil issue that was flinging oil onto the sensor and there is a serial number range to avoid (very first production run).

What kind of photography are you doing?

If I was doing landscape, portraits or fine art photography, I'd go with the 800. If I was shooting anything with a bunch of movement (sports, etc) I'd lean towards the 600 due to shot rate and overall file size. The wireless support on the 600 is really cool and a cheap accessory. For the D800, not so much. So if you want wireless tethered shooting, the 600 has it for now.

If you already bought the 7100 and have Nikkor glass, is all of that glass DX? If it's all DX glass then I would go with the 800 if for no other reason that with the sensor and MP crop to fit the DX glass, you're still basically shooting at the resolution of a 7000. Unless you need the addition of 1.5 fps burst rate.

As for the LR support, you know that it won't be long until an update to ACR is released. Until then you could use ViewNX or shoot in Jpg. I'm a big fan of LR4 and understand the problem, but I wouldn't base a camera body purchase on software (especially when in a few weeks it'll be a non-issue).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Fullmoon 0]

Thank you, AggieDave. I do mostly wildlife photography. I have a Nikkor 70 - 200 2.8 VR and the 17 - 55 2.8, the latter being a DX. So far I have been only shooting JPEG and do OK, but I'm trying to take the next step. Most of my better shots are because I tend to get very, very close to the animals I photograph and I am trying to improve my skills and not compensate by getter close.

The next trip is very soon and probably before the LR update. I won't be able to get as close to most animals in Africa as I have on past trips to AK, BC or MN with bears. What do you shoot?

-Lisa

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Thank you, AggieDave. I do mostly wildlife photography. I have a Nikkor 70 - 200 2.8 VR and the 17 - 55 2.8, the latter being a DX. So far I have been only shooting JPEG and do OK, but I'm trying to take the next step. Most of my better shots are because I tend to get very, very close to the animals I photograph and I am trying to improve my skills and not compensate by getter close.

The next trip is very soon and probably before the LR update. I won't be able to get as close to most animals in Africa as I have on past trips to AK, BC or MN with bears. What do you shoot?

-Lisa

I'm still burning down a well loved D7000, shoot full RAW and use LR4 for my organization and the majority of the post-processing. If I was going to buy a body tomorrow, I would buy a 600 due to the frame rate, wireless tethering and a few other reasons including the need to increase my harddisk space significantly (which I already use up at a high rate even with chimping). The debate between those 2 camera bodies has been waging war since the 600 was released, but I need a few more speedlights and a couple of lenses before I buy another body, so that's on hold.

The 70-200 F/2.8 is a rock star, but if you have good light/conditions, you may want to look at the 70-300 VRII as a "throwdown" lens for your trip. You can get it for just under $600. It's a cheap lens compared to the 2.8 glass, but you might like the little extra reach on your trip to Africa. You could always do a camera body rental for a trip.


Wildlife is something I'm just starting to play with, having done mostly landscape, cars/planes/trains and portraits. I'm cheap, cheat and have kids, so the zoo it is:
http://f8industries.net/photoblog/wp-content/gallery/houston-zoo/f8industries-zoo-03-2013-29.jpg

That's with the above mentioned 70-300.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Fullmoon 0]

Quote

Wildlife is something I'm just starting to play with, having done mostly landscape, cars/planes/trains and portraits. I'm cheap, cheat and have kids, so the zoo it isLaugh:
http://f8industries.net/...s-zoo-03-2013-29.jpg

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/myshot/search?keywords=lisabearsitall

[AggieDave 6]

If you have a 7000 I really don't feel like the 7100 is enough of a jump to justify dropping the money. I'm with you, if I was going to spend that money it would be on a FX body like the 600.

LR can make good shots look better and great shots look awesome, bad shots still look like bad shots. Contrary to some of the film snobs, it isn't the midas touch to photography.

I like those bear shots and would love to have the opportunity to get that close. A big part of the excitement of photography for me is taking the shot and it would be a lot of fun to take those shots!

A buddy of mine bought the Sigma 150-500 on a trip to Canada to shoot bald eagles and loved it. He came away with some really nice tight shots.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-150-500mm-Telephoto-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001542X64

Looks like you're going to have a fun trip!

Also, this book helped me wrap my head around how to use LR well. I have been running some form of photoshop since the late 90s, but had never run LR until last year. Once I understood how to use LR to import and organize, my workflow is MUCH faster and post processing takes a fraction of the time it once did.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321819586/ref=wms_ohs_product?ie=UTF8&psc=1

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Fullmoon 0]

Thanks for your hep, AggieDave. I bought the D600 and the book on LR you suggested. Took some photos on Sunday and comparing them to previous shots, there seems to be a good difference. Need to read the book and learn a whole lot. The lens will have to wait.

There are some great places in British Columbia, Alaska and MN that you can have close experiences with wild bears on their terms. Sometimes I lost great shots just because I put the camera down and enjoyed the moment. The photography part is just an offshoot of sharing space with wildlife.

Thanks again!

-Lisa

[AggieDave 6]

Well, I'm super jealous!

Rock that new (camera) body and e-mail me some links when you get back from your expedition!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[fincher 0]

Might look at renting the new 80-400 for your trip if its available then. Or you could buy a 1.4x TC for the 70-200. I shoot that combo alot on a D800.

i'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your packing tent down

[Fullmoon 0]

That's funny, I just ordered the 1.7x TC this morning. Weight restrictions make it hard to travel with the big cameras. But will look into the lenses you and AggieDave suggested for Eagle season in the fall. Thanks a lot for your suggestions, I really appreciate it.

-Lisa

[fincher 0]

good move. shooting wildlife you will want some TC's in your bag. I almost always have my 1.4 mounted. Just a l little info. the 80-400 is the same dimensions as the 70-200. Its a slower lens (4.5-5.6) but with the ISO performance on your new nikon Its not a huge issue ( most of time)

i'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your packing tent down