I agree with SquamishPhoto although the difference is slight.

I think you have it backwards, Tord. The D600 should be a lot cleaner with noise than the D700 and the D800 has greater DR than the D600.

I agree with DaveyJ fully, although I own a D600!

Against the D600 comes the dust issue (dust appears very easily on the sensor, probably due to a design fault (according to Lens Rentals) - and that dust is not that easy to clean off), slightly noisier shots than either the D700, or the D800. The AF sensor is far better than the D700, but not quite comparable with the D800's.

The rest is just perfect for me, as it weighs quite a bit less than either the D700, or the D800.

The results, when shooting is superb, far outshining any APS-C/DX I've owned, or have tried (I come from Pentax K-5, which shares a lot of details with D7000, including the sensor, and I have a D3200).

So it doesn't resolve quite as tiny details as the D800, but it has few peers when it comes to dynamic range - some say it is better than the D800 in that respect.

I owned a D700 and sold it because I got a very high offer. It didn't have video and the guys at my business avoided taking it out to photograph with. The D7000 has been AWESOME for RESULTS. I looked very closely at the D600. The turnoffs to me were too numerous. But it does have video. If you are CERTAIN that video is NOT what you want, then the D700 is an excellent choice. I base this comment a lot on price. Lower the D600 price substantially and I would say buy that.

Nobody is mentioning that the D700 is totally sorted whereas there are still some quality question marks over the D600.

I looked at some Hi ISO shots of the D700 and they were so good that for me I would still consider the D700 with its MANY advantages over the D600 Vs perhaps slightly better Hi ISO and higher Mp.

As others have pointed out before the D600 and D700 are playing in different marketing segments (consumer vs. professional). This is not only reflected in the button layout, but also in small things, that might make a difference for you or not. Some that come to my mind are:
- faster shutter speed and x-sync on the D700 (1/8000 and x = 1/250 vs. 1/4000 and x = 1/200 on the D600)
- larger coverage of af points on the D700
- for auto bracketing (e.g. for HDR images etc) you can do up to 9 images on the D700 vs. 2-3 on the D600

The one thing on the D700 that I find annoying is that it does not have 100% view finder coverage. But I am getting used to it.

So before deciding what camera to get think about what is missing for you on your current camera and make sure it is not also missing on the one you are about to get...

Other than that have fun with whatever camera you will get!

generally new tech > old tech

you're right my D4 gives my a "bing and tweet too".

stupid me, but I though You buy the camera to take sames and not to make buzz. I guess world has changed.
anyway, sticking back to the main topic. if I would going to buy new d600 ornew d700 as my first fx, and I would shoot mostly reportage style photos I'll go with d700. for wildlife, landscapes, architecture I'll go with d600 - more pixels.

Andromeda said:

The D600 however does not seem to gain the same notoriety. Don't get me wrong it's a fantastic product and I have considered purchasing one but I just don't get the same "buzz" as when I first purchased the D700.

That would be because it is a lower range camera than the D700 was.

Andromeda said:
I just hope when Nikon finally decided what will officially replace the D700 that it holds the same great linage of such a brilliant camera.

They already did - the D800.

I can see the exact same longing for the good old days happening when they discontinue the D800 for the D900.

I own a D700 "beefed up" with the MB-D10 battery grip, DR-5 viewfinder coupled the 24-70 F2.8 and it's stronger brother lens the 70-200 F2.8 VRII can make for a “topic lead in” while out socially with both female and male admirers of photography.

With such camera’s you're taken seriously and beginners want to know more about DSLR's. It's a fact whether you agree or disagree.

The D600 however does not seem to gain the same notoriety. Don't get me wrong it's a fantastic product and I have considered purchasing one but I just don't get the same "buzz" as when I first purchased the D700.

One small thing I would like to have seen a 8fps as standard rather then the "D700" paced 5 fps. This would have given photographers who don't wish to use 'battery grips' more speed if required without the additional weight.

Also the 39 point focus system seems too tight for the FX focus screen. Either retaining the '51' or upgrading to a '63' would have given more "wow" to the specification when it was released.

Those who choose to buy the D600 won't regret it and nor should they. I just hope when Nikon finally decided what will officially replace the D700 that it holds the same great linage of such a brilliant camera.

I have a D7000 and my only issue is when there is very low light, 35-f1.8 struggles to focus. There is nothing that could be done, not a big fan of flash photography (may be lazy to learn it) and it was very tough to handle those situations.

My friend rented a D800 for a week (I was using D7000) and it had very sharp images at medium-low light (70-200 f2.8 VRII) and I used the same lens on D7000 and it had mixed results.

I was considering D600 if it reduces in price, for two reasons:
- Full frame (better at low light and clarity of photos, with limited exp on D800)
- Smaller body (not like D800)

In day light... D7k rocks big time!!!

Nikon itself and others shooting D600 and D7000 have concluded that in 99% of photographs the single biggest difference in the two Nikon DSLRs is DEPTH OF FIELD. A local store has a D600. Walking outside to shoot the cameras on a street scene the primary measurable difference I was able to measure is depth of field. These tests were not conducted in a lab. As a scientist I have many laboratory hours (years) and I shoot photos in field environments, not studio. I have NOT been able to do any side by side comparisons with the D800. Some report that the D600 and other FX cameras has a different presence. It Would appear to me without extensive further tests that the BIGGEST single difference is depth of field. WELL if that is the primary difference I always pick wider depth of field. I may be photographing a cornfield because I think it is pretty and then go back and notice.....hmmm.....some rust disease is just starting to show or maybe the frost I thought we totally avoided last night did clip back the edges of the field more than I thought.
Not many farmers or foresters or land owners or managers use cameras as extensively as we do. But right now.....to me DX looks like between the lens cost issue, initial purchase price, etc.FX has some problems for my use. Cost and size of the gear being the worst.

My conclusion is then D7000 is still a totally good value and if revamped (updated) would still probably be my choice and very possibly even OVER the D400 which will be quite protected but once you own it.....lower cost bodies will in time outstrip it. For instance check out the thread on D300 versus the D7000!

in4fun said:

To sum it all up and pop the bubble: No, unfortunately FX didn't all of a sudden become affordable to the masses.

I think anyone who is even somewhat of a photography enthusiast will agree that DSLR photography in any form is expensive, and the cost of the D600 is relative.

Yes, it's a *less* expensive option for the body, but good FX glass is pricey and will always be.

To in4fun: Welcome to Nikon Rumors! I have been on NR for some time and have found it a very useful site. I calculated what it would cost me to add the D600 despite owning 6 really excellent FX lens (70-300VR, 60 Micro Nikkor, 20-35mm Nikkor, 35mm f1.8 Nikkor Prime, 70-300 Nikkor D, and 85 mm Nikkor Prime). The low estimate for D600 and added FX glass was the body and kit lens at $2,700 to somewhere around $11,000. I consider myself a pro as I have had that title years ago and to be honest I never even think of that category. I have always used photos as a tool to support my work in environmental conservation and because it has been part of my life since I started taking photos at 22 and I am now nearly 70. The largest group I know are pro newspaper photographers who have told me to switch to the D600 would cost them more than their newspapers and they could afford. Some of them will of course switch to FX. So In4fun is right on target with his posts.

I agree with your argument that Nikon released the D600 prior to the D400 to maximize FX sales among the pros. Unfortunately I am not even close to the pro camp and I don't have the experience nor the existing lens collection to even consider the D600. But I did consider the D600 very seriously since I was naively blinded by the low price tag on the body and I guess I'm not alone.

I think that many amateurs with an 'average Joe paycheck' (like myself) are led to the false belief that the time has finally come to make the switch to FX (or even start out with FX as a first camera) since the body is so tempting affordable right now.

I don't want to go that far and say that it was Nikons intention but in my language we have a special term for that and it's called a 'dairymaids calculation'. You want to believe and thats why you're unconsciously blocking out other important factors that contribute to the final bill. If you're looking at the total cost of a decent D600 starter set, FX suddenly doesn't look that appealing anymore for the average amateur.

To sum it all up and pop the bubble: No, unfortunately FX didn't all of a sudden become affordable to the masses.

@ In4fun; Using DX lens on a D600 makes no sense at all unless you are out photographing and haven't a FX lens. So you are right there. My belief is that Nikon PURPOSELY decided there were enough pro FX people out there that believed FX rules and DX was slumming that introducing the D600 before the D400 would result in more SALES. The DX format is actually extremely efficient and has many benefits. The D7000 is actually the best buy out there for quality versus cost and lens available. If I buy a D600 a would NOT use my DX lens on it at all. I do have six FX lens including some of the best Nikon built. What I don't have in Nikkor glass are teles beyond the excellent 70-300VR. That lens is one of my all time favorites and has performed extremely well on my F5 film camera.

Just another thing to keep in mind if you're planning on using your DX lenses on the D600.

Using the D600 with DX lenses will give you less detail and less resolution than a DX lens on a D7000. So you can't zoom in that far into your shots as you could with the same lens on a D7000. So if you don't use dedicated FX glass you will end up with lower quality pictures than you'll get with a D7000.

So even though the D600 body seems a bargain, if you add 2 or 3 premium fx lenses it becomes unaffordable (at least for me). As I said using DX lenses on the D600 makes no sense so I'm stuck waiting for a possible D7200 or D400.

Gabbb said:
It's ~25-82, the f4,2 math is somewhat ok for depth of field, but for (shutter) speed it's a true 2.8. Although I would be surprised if the new 24-85 wouldn't be better overall, the 17-55 is a pretty old lens and it isn't exactly state of the art.

isn't state of the art but it is a pro level lens whereas the 24-85 is a kit lens made for consumers. i have AIS lenses that aren't state of the art but would blow the 24-85 g out of the water.

Eric Bowles wrote:

"If you shoot wildlife or other subjects that need reach, DX is hard to beat. If you shoot low light subjects, street weddings, studio etc. - FX is probably better a it provides a little more subject isolation and better low light performance. The file size of the proposed D600 is a blessing or a curse - 50% more pixels means 50% larger files. That's longer time to process and more storage required." end of Eric's quote

I own and get to use a D7000 Nikon some. Other times my son and grandson are using that camera. I believe that for the VAST majority of photos and video that camera is equal to the task. I shoot almost exclusively in the field.

Two days ago I climbed to one of the Adirondack High Peaks. I was the only one on the trail, or on the peak with a DSLR camera. I carried the D90 and my 18-105Nikkor and the D300 and the 70-300VR. The view from the summit was AWESOME. Stunning clarity and bright fall foliage! The images with my two cameras was worth frankly an agonizing climb both up and DOWN! I contemplated the days when I actually carried a 8x10 and huge glass to the same summit.

Would the trip with FX Nikon and bigger lens have been more difficult? Answer is Hell Yes! Would the resultant photos have been better? Well that is unresolved. Getting the proper exposures up there is not easy. There was so much light that I had GREAT difficulty even seeing the LCD screens. But I am most happy with the images. A very close friend going up to another peak two days before dropped his FX glass and now the lens barrel is seriously damaged. He is younger and stronger than almost any pro photographer I know who has the time for such a climb. My son is an excellent photographer but can't take the time from his timber frame construction work building homes so people can vacation here. So there are many compromises we ALL have to make concerning photos, our time, and gear.

From my standpoint (and from my wallet's standpoint as well!), I think it would suit me best to get the D7000. I like the faster shutter speed the most, as I'd like the option to shoot wide open sometimes.

Plus all my lenses would still be compatible.

Hehe, I didn't see this topic for a long time. :)

I was very sick, so I had to cancel my trade of D700 and 105mm 2,8

Right now I am trying to get better and waiting for the D600 to come out so I can hold it in my hands first.
Best scenario: the D600 will feel great in my hands and the iso will be somewhere near D700 so I will buy a new D600.
Second best scenario: I will get a used D700.

I am pretty sure both cameras will be a huge upgrade for me and I intend to keep them for a long time (that's why I am still leaning towards the D700 since it just has that "professional feel" that I might "enjoy" more).

Thanks for the responses so far and I hope we will learn something on the 22.

I own a D7000 and D700. Depending on and if the D600 comes out I'd venture on replacing my 7000 for the D600 and keeping my D700 as a backup. If not then possibly gating the D800 and selling the 7000 since the crop mode of the 800 is fairly equivalent to my D7000 for the two DX lenses I still own. Kind of waiting to see what happens over the next couple of months.

I'll post my reply to mtsybulsky again.

Check to see if you have red-eye flash mode turned on in your manual settings. That is probably what's causing it to pre-flash.

It has been posted by mtsybulsky.....

"Hello Everyone, I have a weird issue, when shooting in manual mode with my d7k and sb700 attached the speedlight fires 3 times and then fires again with the body and takes the picture. When I shoot in auto mode both body and speedlight fire at the same time only once. Does anyone know a setting that can be adjusted so that camera and speedlight fires only once in Manual mode.

Thanks Everyone."