>I've been a Canon shooter for awhile and currently shooting >with 5Dm2. >Currently, I'm trying to choose between D600 and D800. >Here are my considerations: >1. Since D600 is a consumer body, I'm afraid it's going to >feel small and not beefy enough, coming from a pro Canon body.
If you have not handled a D600, you ought to do that first before judging its heft and build. It is a weather sealed body and is of hybrid build magnesium/polycarbonate construction - Canon really has nothing like it.
That said, I can't really imagine why you would want to change from the 5D MkII - Do you not have much of a lens investment to consider?
>3. I don't print huge posters, so I don't need 36 MP and those >huge files do fill up memory cards and hard drive fast. By the >way, can I just select to use smaller RAW files or shoot at ~ >20-24 MP?
Well, you actually can print poster size with a D600.
Nikon does not downsize RAW files from a pixel perspective - it has either a lossless or lossy compression option on the D600. The only thing that will make a RAW file smaller is if you shoot in the DX crop mode, but as implied by the name, it is not a full frame image, (it is equivalent to the 10mpixels of the old D200 APS size sensor).
>4. Since 5Dm2 has only 9 focus points in the middle of the >matrix, and realistically, I mostly use center point, I >believe moving to 51 or even 39 points would be a huge >improvement. AF is a very strong point on Nikons.
>5. I'm being a hobbyist, so the price is always a >consideration. Considering my requirements, is $800 worth the >difference?
The D800 is a heavy duty Nikon, but then, the D600 is too - 150k rated shutter, 5.5 frames per second, weather sealed, .... - the list goes on and on and it has unbelievable high ISO low light capability along with outstanding resolution - but it is going to be incremental improvement over your Canon gear.
Just a perspective,
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " - Carl Sagan