Soldato
more? Rent in london is near 1k mate
And yes i know what u mean but my point is, u saved 1.5k already. maybe took u 6months to do so? be patient for another 1 or 2 months and could have a d800 instead?
thats my point.
D600 with full fat AF system!
- Thread starter An Exception
- Start date
more? Rent in london is near 1k mate
And yes i know what u mean but my point is, u saved 1.5k already. maybe took u 6months to do so? be patient for another 1 or 2 months and could have a d800 instead?
thats my point.
Soldato
If it was that easy everyone would be rockin' D800's, 5D3's and G or L lenses all round. That this isn't the case should be enough to show your thinking is flawed
Caporegime
Oh, so it's just as easy as that. 2 months and *pop* £500 spare!more? Rent in london is near 1k mate
And yes i know what u mean but my point is, u saved 1.5k already. maybe took u 6months to do so? be patient for another 1 or 2 months and could have a d800 instead?
thats my point.
I'd *love* to be in a world where it really was that easy.
P.S. see my location.. I'm well aware what rent is in London, and it can be had for far less than £1,000.
Soldato
more? Rent in london is near 1k mate
And yes i know what u mean but my point is, u saved 1.5k already. maybe took u 6months to do so? be patient for another 1 or 2 months and could have a d800 instead?
thats my point.
The D600 and D800 are completely different types of cameras. The D600 is an iso monster whilst the D800 has a far better AF system and is properly weather sealed. The D600 is what I'd consider a great second body to use for someone like me, who would like the extra MP for specific tasks such as studio work.
With what I currently own, I'd rather put the difference in cost into a better lens.
If it was that easy everyone would be rockin' D800's, 5D3's and G or L lenses all round. That this isn't the case should be enough to show your thinking is flawed
Yup
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
That ISO monster thing surprises me - it has a higher ISO noise threshold than the D800. Marginal, only 4%, but I would've thought the D800 would've rocked that one. Is that a case of less pixels = larger light collecting sensor-nodules (whatever they're called ) and therefore better ISO performance?
£1400 seems seriously good value to me. I think if it was out when I was looking - when I opted for a much cheaper setup - then I would've been seriously tempted by it.
) and therefore better ISO performance?£1400 seems seriously good value to me. I think if it was out when I was looking - when I opted for a much cheaper setup - then I would've been seriously tempted by it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
Agree with the price thing btw, if you're already stretching to get a £1400~ camera - which to most normal people is a ridiculous amount to spend on a camera - another £500 is a significant amount of money.
If it was that easy everyone would be rockin' D800's, 5D3's and G or L lenses all round. That this isn't the case should be enough to show your thinking is flawed
If £500 is so hard to get, then there is probably more pressing things to spend £1500 on than a camera.
Sure budget's are budget's, I'm on one, else I would be rocking D800's now. Instead I will hopefully be rocking D800's sometime later once my D700's have paid for them.
My point is, I would rather wait however long, than regret getting the D600 and end up upgrading anyway. To me the AF is a fundamental requirement, I don't want to make do and hobble along with a crippled system because it will affect the quality and quantity of my pictures.
This will directly affect how much I can charge.
What is a more pressing conundrum for me is D800 Vs D800E.
£500 is allot, especially for a minor benefit.
Soldato
I don't understand that sort of logic though as a budget is a budget regardless. If you just use the arguement about "well you can keep saving", why not get a D4, especially for what you use a camera for?
Hell, if you wanted a megapixel monster, just keep saving for a hasselblad 80mp medium format camera lol.
I just don't understand that sort of angle I'm afraid.
D4 has no real advantage for weddings other than FPS which I don't use anyway.
Medium format is a huge disadvantage in terms of practicality and usability as well as ISO being nowhere good enough.
Even with a limitless budget the D800E is the best tool available for me.
Lastly your deliberately missing my point by veering away from reality with extreme counter points that still wouldn't offer me an overall advantage.
Saving for a 3-6 months for the extra for a D800, is not like saving for 5 years for a D4 or 30 years for medium format.
Soldato
I'm not missing your point at all, I simply don't agree with it.
Soldato
exactly my point.
people mis understood me again it seems.
a person has already saved 1.5k in x amount of months. an extra x amount of months and they can potentially have a far better camera. were not talking of a camera thats double the cost of the money they saved up. where talking £500 that they can save up. not another 1.5k
I know for me that if i was looking to buy product A and had the funds to do it but saw that a much better product B was available for 1/3 more. i would consider it
Soldato
Yeah but do they even require the "better" camera? Thats the point thats being missed here. If you take PCs for example, you can spend £1500 and play games perfectly well for years to come, yet people spend 2-3 times more than that and still do the same things, with rare exceptions who do use multiple screens, 3D or retarded amounts of AA.
However, would most people notice a difference between a £1500 PC and a £2500 PC when all they do is browse the internet? Nope...
What I'm trying to say is, not everyone "needs" the top end cameras to do what they want.
Soldato
Yea but m point is nothing to do with whether its they can tell the difference. its to with the fact that people who are already spending x amount can most likely spend a 1/3 more to get a better product.
i bet those who paid 1.5k pc had a budget of say 1k/1.2k but decided umm if i spent a couple of hundred quid more, i can add thiss, add that, get a better gpu, more storage etc etc
Same with d800/d600. umm if i spend extra £500 i can get double MP, weather sealing, beter ergonimics and handling and better AF system. umm interesting prospect. let me wait a month of two and save and get a d800! im nearly there anway. already got 1.5k lying around. lets do this
whether that product benefits them is not the issue. the fact is, spend a little, potentially gain a little. Your telling me u never in your life spent a little to gain a little for anything or do u always set out on a budget X andNEVER go above that at all?
come on man.
This is not a comparison on what a d600 and d800 can or cannot do or what gains can be had or loss. this is about the "potential" of gaining a little more by spending a little more.
its as simple as that.
Do not overcomplicate my point lol
Last edited:
Soldato
If you regularly check the general hardware forum, thats really not that common to increase the budget without exceptionally good reasoning.
Lets agree to disagree though as we obviously have different buying ethics lol
Lets agree to disagree though as we obviously have different buying ethics lol
It depends, as it's all relative.
Spending an extra £500 for a D800, buys allot more potential performance. If you can appreciate the benefits in your photography of not having to focus re-compose etc. etc. then it's maybe a good idea to wait.
i.e. you spend allot, you get allot.
However it may not make sense to do that if you spend allot, and get a bit. Like with the D800 Vs D800E.
Spending an extra £500 for a D800, buys allot more potential performance. If you can appreciate the benefits in your photography of not having to focus re-compose etc. etc. then it's maybe a good idea to wait.
i.e. you spend allot, you get allot.
However it may not make sense to do that if you spend allot, and get a bit. Like with the D800 Vs D800E.
Caporegime
You've misread his post.. he said significant, not insignificant. £500 is very much a significant amount of money to most people.
Soldato
I've already said in this thread that I would go for the D700 or D800 over the D600. Personally I would most likely go with the D700 if I was shooting Nikon, I don't shoot much of anything, or print big enough, to justify a D800. I disagree that finding an extra £500 is no small thing to do, or that investing that much in an item is an easy thing to do either for everyone. Sure, when I was single I would blow 3 times that a month on beer 'n gadgets, but I recognise that it isn't like that for everyone.
Caporegime
You're the one that overcomplicated it. The D800 is not an entry level camera, the D600 is and is £500+ cheaper.
..
Pause to let that sink in a bit as you obviously missed it.
£500. On a salary of £30,000 per year, after taxes but with no other contributions, you'd need to work for a fortnight without spending a penny on anything - no bills, no food, no transport, no clothing, etc - to earn that. So even a living-at-home rent-free bachelor with no life and minimal spending is going to need a few weeks to save that extra bit for it. Fine for him, but the rest of the world that have dependents, cars, travel costs, food costs, rent/mortgages etc. £500 is a fortune.
Soldato
And if that was the case, they would most likely ot have 1.5k spare of cash if 500 is a significant amount of money to them. see where i am getting at?
Soldato
yes exactly mate. well said. the fact is, a d600 and a d800 is very different to eachother. teh d800 offers sooo much more. IMO more then £500 extra. IMO it easily offers excess of 1k worth of features