Thanks Davey and all,

Since my last visit here I had a friend in another part of the country email me a dozen shots he'd taken using his new D600. Just test shots out and about, mainly in his garden. To my eyes they look like they have been taken by a hugely boosted D7000 (great colours, loved being able to zoom right in on my monitor here and pixel-peep etc etc) but different from those i would expect from my D700 had that been turbo-charged with extra mega-pixels. So happy with what I've got.

Having photographed with the D7000 and the D600 my reaction is the D600 has a very weird set of focus grids, feels about the same, has better video partly due to EXpeed 3 processor speed, and the most measurable difference in normal daylight is greater depth of field on the D7000. I set the focus grids in the same place, used as much the same in my outdoor tests and used the same lens in some of my shootout photos. My conclusion is there is a significant difference in depth of field. If you WANT to isolate a subject then the D600 is superior to the D7000 from what I could tell. Since I always try to get maximum depth of field and pay pretty close attention to a whole host of tried and true rules of thumb about diffraction, hyperfocal lengths, etc. I was to put it mildly prompted not to just buy the D600 right there on the spot. The more I look at the two sets of images in fact the more I become convinced I am going to hold. The D800 however I have not been able to test drive but I am pretty sure I would think it a way better value! So that is my current take and I have read already reviews that seemed to agree with my results. I should also add I owned a D700, agree it is a classic! We decided to SELL it as it was getting used the least of all of our cameras and required that a different and bigger set of lens went out to shoot that day. We did get a very good sale. I think it retrospect if it had the video on board the D600 has......we'd still own it!

Christina said:
D800 it will be then. One day!

Also, plan on a new computer and a few more terabytes of hard drive space...

Thanks for making things clear for me. You are being a real help. D800 it will be then. One day!

Christina said:
"Why have two cameras when one new one might give me better image quality and will lose less worth over the coming years than the two I already have.?"

...people will realise that the D700 is something of a classic.

It is impossible to foresee the future value of a mass produced camera, especially as big discounts are currently available on so many products

You have mention the big improve in IQ when going from a D7000 to a D700 the next step up for you is a D800 not a D600

Thanks all...

I'm not one to want the latest camera (or computer for that matter) and I even listen to music on a record player! Just thought "Why have two cameras when one new one might give me better image quality and will lose less worth over the coming years than the two I already have.?"

So will enjoy what I have. Especially the D700. I am sure once the hullabaloo over the D600 has died down people will realise that the D700 is something of a classic.

I'm going to ask what you could possibly gain by going from a D7000 and a D700 to a D600? Do you need the resolution and slightly better high ISO capability?

Unless your D700 is worn out or above maybe 125k shutter clicks, what's to worry about? If you like the images, keep shooting.

You're just enamoured with a full frame sensor, Christina, so moving to any other FX camera offered from Nikon will please you in the exact same way that you're finding right now with the D700. If I were you and I was thinking about buying a new FX Nikon I wouldn't think twice about getting a D800 over the D600. The only thing that you'll miss from the D700 is the FPS, but to be honest, Im not that displeased with the 5fps with the grip that the D800 can do. Sure, its only in DX, but that almost doubles the file capacity on my cards and produces stunning shots. Unless Nikon actually makes a new high FPS DX camera I don't see my self bothering with a DX camera for birding since the D800 should prove more than adequate to the task. When the light is nice and ISO can be set close to or at 100 it should make for really stunning wildlife imagery.

Christina: This is the first time I heard anyone say that and I would be surprised if someone owning both a D700 and a D600 said the images from the D700 were better. Maybe now that you have started this thread someone will pop up and post that they feel the same as you.

See if you can borrow or rent a D600 for while, shoot with it and then make your comparisons with the images the tools produce in your hands not a comparison with images produced by others and found somewhere on the internet. I think whatever impression you have is a false impression based upon something other than objective data. However, your eye is your eye and you should use the equipment your eye likes best to produce the images you like best. It is your personal art, after all. No one has to agree with you or see what you see.

More pixels should allow a wider latitude for picture effects. The D600 sensor is a more advanced piece of equipment. Especially at hi ISO, as seen on the main blog, the D600 is outstanding. Look at the 25,000 ISO images compared to the D800. Maybe very slightly softer, but far less noise.

It would be surprising if the images from the D600 were not better than the D700. However, the D700 is more of a pro model, the D600 more a pro-sumer. And for me, if I had a D700, I would be hesitant to trade unless I needed the higher ISO of the D600. Maybe you can post a couple photos here and have them linked to full size images on Flickr so we can see what you are talking about in terms of the differences between the D700 and D7000. Please keep the post here limited to 800 pixels.

Sorry! I really haven't explained myself well at all...

I meant to say that images shot with the very same lens, settings, RAW etc etc on the two different cameras give, to my eyes, the following results:

Nikon D7000: Great image, but nonetheless a great photo, with the emphasis on photo.

Nikon D700: Even better image than that made by the D7000 in that the photograph is really true to the scene, more life-like. You forget it's a photograph and it can be like looking at the subject of the image as it appeared in real life rather than it being like looking at a photograph of the subject.

What I'm trying to get at is that the images produced by the D600 I have seen online certainly look spectacular, but in the way that images made by my D7000 can look great. That is, they look like even better D7000 images.

The sensors of the D7000 and D700 seem to produce images that are different (when using the same Picture Control) and are useful to me in different ways. The D700 brings a more poetic look to the world and its images have real presence. I wouldn't want to lose this if I decided to sell both cameras now and with the money buy the one camera. The D600.

And what the heck does "lit-like" mean?

Christina said:
Hello all,

I own and use a D7000 and a D700. Both make great photos but the difference to my eyes is that an image made using my D7000 looks like a superb photographic while an image made using the D700 can look like you are looking on the subject shot through a pane of glass when its later viewed on a computer screen (not talking about prints here). It has real 'presence' for want of a better word.

You don't state whether or not the images you're comparing are shot with the same lens, same aperture, same subject, same camera Picture Control settings, WB, jpg vs RAW, etc.

I have edited the thread title, so as to make it more clear. I think the images from a full frame sensor will always look better given the equivalent post processing. Without post processing, the camera settings are going to determine the final product. And, if I understand your comment, you think the image from the D7000 is better than the D700. If this is what you are saying, I think there is a problem somewhere in the D700 as the full frame should get a better final image.

Hello all,

Not able to try out the D600 easily where I live in the UK so have a question some of you guys may have a view on.

I own and use a D7000 and a D700. Both make great photos but the difference to my eyes is that an image made using my D7000 looks like a superb photographic while an image made using the D700 can look like you are looking on the subject shot through a pane of glass when its later viewed on a computer screen (not talking about prints here). It has real 'presence' for want of a better word.

If you have a D600 and also a D700 and D700, do the images look more like those of the D7000 (which I would describe as having a more 'modern' look) or those of the D700, which I would describe as being more lit-like, if 'grittier'?