So I've had my D600 for a year now. The camera was plagued with the now well-known oil spot issue on the sensor (I won't beat that dead horse any more).
In short: I sent the body to Nikon Canada twice for repairs with no improvement. They sent me a brand new body two weeks ago, and after 200 frames, the oil spots reappeared. I requested a full refund from the customer service supervisor, I sent the camera back, and my cheque is in the mail.
Subsequently, I just purchased a new Fuji x100s. This is the first time in 20+ years that I bought a non-Nikon camera. And the D600 was my first step into the DSLR world as I still shoot film.
I realize the Fuji rangefinder won't be able to do things a DSLR can do, and vice versa. Bottom line: I want another Nikon DSLR but I refuse to get the D610 until some time has passed, and it's free from manufacturing problems. I don't want the D800E because it's even bigger than the D600, and not worth the extra $1,000. But I love the full frame format.
With a bag full of Nikon lenses and flashes (but no digital body), can anyone recommend a solid alternative to the D600? Is it possible to get FX-quality images from a DX camera?
>For the small price of a card reader, I think you should not >be limited by the memory card format. > >The D700 uses CF cards, as does the D3 and D3s. The D800 uses >one of each. The D7100 has 2 CF card slots. > >Mick >http://www.mickklassphoto.com >or >Visit >my nikonians gallery>
Fri 11-Oct-13 11:24 AM | edited Fri 11-Oct-13 11:25 AM by mklass
For FX, a good used D700 would seem to be your best bet. If you don't mind spending a little more, a D3 or D3s are both incredibly capable cameras. Any of those choices is going to be bigger, or even much bigger, than the D600.
For DX, the D7100 is quite similar in size and controls to the D600. Dynamic range is wide. Of course if you put an FX lens on it, the crop factor will give you a different image than the same lens on a FX camera. Whether the images are FX-quality depends on what you define as FX quality.
If you are feeling cautious, wait for a month or so after the D610 hits the streets. If there's anything to complain about, you'll read about it here. Then just separate the wheat from the chaff.
Take a look at the D800. It is a terrific camera and easily available for just a little more than the D610.
The D7100 is a good camera in the DX world. The two big challenges with DX are the ultra wide images due to the crop factor, and increased DOF. You'll probably need to add an ultrawide lens for DX. The DOF issue is either a positive or a negative depending on your favored style. When you compare equivalent focal lengths on DOF charts, you'll see that a DX camera provides 1- 1/2 stops more DOF. That's great when you need more DOF - but makes it tougher to isolate subjects and have a smooth background.
The D800 is a great camera but the high resolution reveals any lens issues. Just keep in mind your output size and don't review images at magnification too far beyond what you expect to see in a print. The native resolution of a D800 is adequate for a 16x24 print without upsizing.
The D800E has a modified anti-aliasing filter to allow slightly sharper images with a small risk of moire. For a $200-300 premium, the E is probably a good deal, but there are some excellent deals on the D800 so you might be better going that route.
I chose the E because I shoot mainly nature - and moire is not an issue over 25,000 frames or more.
If you shoot video, choose the D800 over the D800E because moire is too much of a problem to remove.
ISO performance of both is excellent because you have such a large file. But that works against you for sports or places where you need a higher frame rate.
I rented a D700 for my GF to try recently, and she loved its similarity to her D300 (which recently lost it's disk drive). I used it, too, and going from my D600 to it was no problem. She's used the D800, and hated the file size!? I'm looking for a D700 for my GF.