# d7000 contemplating switch to d600



## nycounsel (Sep 15, 2012)

I have no illusions about being a pro photographer, but am interested in moving up to full frame and the higher resolution, bigger sensor and larger finder on the D600 are tempting.  Contemplating a switch from the D7000 to the D600.  Suggestions/advice are welcome (not looking to recreate someone's earlier D7000 to D800 thread drama!).

Thanks!


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 15, 2012)

Same body with full frame sensor..... If that's what you want- hop on it. Hope you have glass.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

I would say if you want to go to FX, right now, this month, the D600 is a nice, small, LIGHT (26.8 ounces!) camera body, with a LOT of features. And yeah, 24 MP on FX provides ample resolution, with a wide variety of lenses. The VAST, vast, vaaaaaast majority of Nikon's lenses, past and present, cover full frame 24x36 image area. There is in fact, NO such thing as an "FX Nikkor" lens--but there are a couple handfuls of lenses that carry the designation "DX Nikkor" on their barrels. So, the thing is--something like 96% of all Nikkor lenses ever made were designed for FX format shooting. So, loads of lens choices are out there for the guy or gal shooting on FX. I am shooting a 24MP FX sensor these days, and the quality of the images is really awesome. My advice? Shoot onto 8- to 16-gigabyte memory cards of HIGH SPEED!!!!! Adorama just dropped prices on many SanDisk memory cards like two weeks ago.

Tamron 24-70 VC lens, for $1299...VERY high resolution for a 24-70, wide-nomal-tele PLUS in-lens stabilization! Nikon 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 VR....a surprisingly GOOD tele-zoom, available for a fair price. The D600 for $2699,paired with the *BRAND-NEW 24-85 AF-S 3.x~4.x kit seems like a good, a very good, option to me.*

Nikon *high-end flash unit.*...SB-800 (discontinued), SB-700 (okay), SB-600 (used, $150 nice, but a bit simplified,yet still, a "smart flash"), Nikon SB 900...these kind of flashes are *SWEET!!!!!!!!! Do NOT waste money on anything under an SB 600!


*


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 15, 2012)

Don't forget your options with used AF-D lens, especially the wide angle F2.8 20mm. Ultra compact and pretty awesome IQ.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> Don't forget your options with used AF-D lens, especially the wide angle F2.8 20mm. Ultra compact and pretty awesome IQ.



YES...I wanted to try and emphasize that issue--the LENS CHOICES for FX Nikon are very broad. INCREDIBLY broad. For example....the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D is a very SOLID performer...and I saw a nice one yesterday in immaculate shape, $375. It's not too big either! See, that's the thing with the 24-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkor--it is a BIG lens, and the D600 is a very SMALL,lightweight body. The 20mm 2.8 AF-D is a nice lens, 62mm filters, weighs very little. I seldom use it though, preferring the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D most of the time, but then, I like less-wide rather than more-wide. The thing about the D7000 or D600 is with that small of a body, you can carry it in a small fanny or waist pack AND have a couple smallish lenses with you as well, with little hassle. The 24-85 represents true wide at 24, wide at 28, semi-wide at 35mm, normal-ish to long normal from 43mm to 58mm, and short telephoto from 59mm up to 85mm....making the 24-85mm kit zoom a TRUE wide-angle to short-telephoto lens.

Keep in mind; the APS-C crop on the D600 is going to mean the lens on the camera will function like "two" different lenses. The FX and APS-C CROP OPTIONS of the D600 are going to be nice!


----------



## KmH (Sep 15, 2012)

nycounsel said:


> I have no illusions about being a pro photographer, but am interested in moving up to full frame and the higher resolution, bigger sensor and larger finder on the D600 are tempting.  Contemplating a switch from the D7000 to the D600.  Suggestions/advice are welcome (not looking to recreate someone's earlier D7000 to D800 thread drama!).
> 
> Thanks!


What benefits do you expect "moving up to full frame and the higher resolution, bigger sensor and larger finder on the D600" will get you as far as improvements in the quality of the photographs you produce?

Certainly, if money is no object you need no justification whatsoever.
I see a lot of people spend money to upgrade their gear only to be sorely disappointed, because it's the photographer's artistic/technical knowledge and skill that need to be upgraded to realize any significant improvement in image quality.


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> YES...I wanted to try and emphasize that issue--the LENS CHOICES for FX Nikon are very broad. INCREDIBLY broad. For example....the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D is a very SOLID performer...and I saw a nice one yesterday in immaculate shape, $375. It's not too big either! See, that's the thing with the 24-70/1.8 AF-S Nikkor--it is a BIG lens, and the D600 is a very SMALL,lightweight body. The 20mm 2.8 AF-D is a nice lens, 62mm filters, weighs very little. I seldom use it though, preferring the 24mm f/2.8 AF-D most of the time, but then, I like less-wide rather than more-wide. The thing about the D7000 or D600 is with that small of a body, you can carry it in a small fanny or waist pack AND have a couple smallish lenses with you as well, with little hassle. The 24-85 represents true wide at 24, wide at 28, semi-wide at 35mm, normal-ish to long normal from 43mm to 58mm, and short telephoto from 59mm up to 85mm....making the 24-85mm kit zoom a TRUE wide-angle to short-telephoto lens.
> 
> Keep in mind; the APS-C crop on the D600 is going to mean the lens on the camera will function like "two" different lenses. The FX and APS-C CROP OPTIONS of the D600 are going to be nice!



I love my old 35-70 lol


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 15, 2012)

KmH said:


> Certainly, if money is no object you need no justification whatsoever.
> I see a lot of people spend money to upgrade their gear only to be sorely disappointed, because it's the photographer's artistic/technical knowledge and skill that need to be upgraded to realize any significant improvement in image quality.




BAM!


----------



## Mach0 (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Nikon *high-end flash unit.*...SB-800 (discontinued), SB-700 (okay), SB-600 (used, $150 nice, but a bit simplified,yet still, a "smart flash"), Nikon SB 900...these kind of flashes are *SWEET!!!!!!!!! Do NOT waste money on anything under an SB 600!
> 
> 
> *



Agreed if the OP wants ttl..... Without going off topic much- (OP) don't discount the older higher end flashes from Nikon. I have the sb24 and sb28 as well... I prefer the sb28. It's about the same size as the sb800 and you can get them for a great price.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

Every time you need to shoot in SUCKY light, that FF, 24MP sensor is going to give higher technical image quality than the D7000 can. Every time you want to use an 85mm focal length indoors, that FF sensor is going to make it EASY to use the 85mm length without moving 35 feet away from a six foot tall man...every time you want to throw a background out of focus AND have a wide-angle of view, that full-frame sensor is going to trump the D7000's small, APS-C sensor. When you want a used, $200 WIDE-angle prime (and I mean a *TRUE*, *WIDE*-angle!!!), that full-frame sensor is going to come to the rescue--and not require you to spend $700 or more to buy a ultra-wide zoom like a 12-24 DX,etc.,etc..


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Every time you need to shoot in SUCKY light, that FF, 24MP sensor is going to give higher technical image quality than the D7000 can. Every time you want to use an 85mm focal length indoors, that FF sensor is going to make it EASY to use the 85mm length without moving 35 feet away from a six foot tall man...every time you want to throw a background out of focus AND have a wide-angle of view, that full-frame sensor is going to trump the D7000's small, APS-C sensor. When you want a used, $200 WIDE-angle prime (and I mean a *TRUE*, *WIDE*-angle!!!), that full-frame sensor is going to come to the rescue--and not require you to spend $700 or more to buy a ultra-wide zoom like a 12-24 DX,etc.,etc..




On the other hand... when you know what you're doing, none of this matters. Ever.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you need to shoot in SUCKY light, that FF, 24MP sensor is going to give higher technical image quality than the D7000 can. Every time you want to use an 85mm focal length indoors, that FF sensor is going to make it EASY to use the 85mm length without moving 35 feet away from a six foot tall man...every time you want to throw a background out of focus AND have a wide-angle of view, that full-frame sensor is going to trump the D7000's small, APS-C sensor. When you want a used, $200 WIDE-angle prime (and I mean a *TRUE*, *WIDE*-angle!!!), that full-frame sensor is going to come to the rescue--and not require you to spend $700 or more to buy a ultra-wide zoom like a 12-24 DX,etc.,etc..
> ...



I guess that is why Nikon has made the D3, D3s, D700, D3x, and D600, and D800 full-frame d-sr models, and professionals and serious shooters of all skill levels clamor to own a D3-series body, or a D700, or a D800, right? Because *nothing* matters. *Ever*. Riiiiiiiight. Quite a strong case you make Christopher!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Every time you need to shoot in SUCKY light, that FF, 24MP sensor is going to give higher technical image quality than the D7000 can. *Every time you want to use an 85mm focal length indoors, that FF sensor is going to make it EASY to use the 85mm length without moving 35 feet away from a six foot tall man..*.every time you want to throw a background out of focus AND have a wide-angle of view, that full-frame sensor is going to trump the D7000's small, APS-C sensor. When you want a used, $200 WIDE-angle prime (and I mean a *TRUE*, *WIDE*-angle!!!), that full-frame sensor is going to come to the rescue--and not require you to spend $700 or more to buy a ultra-wide zoom like a 12-24 DX,etc.,etc..



Yeah once I shot with my D700 in an average size studio at portrait focal lengths plus saw the difference in FF performance such as depth of field my D7000 went on Craigslist 

And looking at the tonal resolution and dynamic range of the D800, I may add one to my junk pile soon.  I've just been too stingy to pull the trigger


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I guess that is why Nikon has made the D3, D3s, D700, D3x, and D600, and D800 full-frame d-sr models, and professionals and serious shooters of all skill levels clamor to own a D3-series body, or a D700, or a D800, right? Because *nothing* matters. *Ever*. Riiiiiiiight. Quite a strong case you make Christopher!




You're becoming quite the drama queen lately Derrel. I'm starting to get concerned.


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel, that AF-D F2.8 35-70 is VERY heavy for what it is. Metal construction and all, it's the heaviest lens in my bag. I got it because it has better range as a walk around lens than my 50mm, but to be honest, I like my F1.4D 50mm A LOT MORE!

An alternative will be the F3.5-4.5 35-70. It's plastic, very light. IQ is quite decent. I wish my other lens are as light and compact!

Oh yes, if you have a 50mm, you will see what you've been missing once you start shooting it on a FF.

Also, I compared the F2.8 20-35mm and the F2.8 20mm prime. At 20mm, the zoom has significant more distortion than the prime, and CA of course. I highly recommend the 20mm prime.


----------



## Patrice (Sep 15, 2012)

I didn't mind using crop sensor nikons since I had bought models that have the screw drive and besides my D200's (I had two) metered with every old nikon mount lens I own. However when the D700 got down to a price I could live with I did not hesitate very long. The biggest reasons were not increased ISO performance, although that is nice, nor increased dynamic range, although that is nice as well, but the single most important reason for me was that my lenses now all gave me the same angle of view as they did on my Fm2n and F4s. What a joy to get wide angle again from my short primes.

We all have personal reasons for the choice of camera we make and thus buy. If you want a full frame DLSR then go out and get one. There is no need to justify the reasons to anyone other than to the other people in your life who might count and depend on your resources.


----------



## slow231 (Sep 15, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Every time you need to shoot in SUCKY light, that FF, 24MP sensor is going to give higher technical image quality than the D7000 can. Every time you want to use an 85mm focal length indoors, that FF sensor is going to make it EASY to use the 85mm length without moving 35 feet away from a six foot tall man...every time you want to throw a background out of focus AND have a wide-angle of view, that full-frame sensor is going to trump the D7000's small, APS-C sensor. When you want a used, $200 WIDE-angle prime (and I mean a *TRUE*, *WIDE*-angle!!!), that full-frame sensor is going to come to the rescue--and not require you to spend $700 or more to buy a ultra-wide zoom like a 12-24 DX,etc.,etc..
> ...



what a misplaced, snide comment.  "knowing what you're doing" doesn't solve any of derrel's points.  the wider field of view (on the lenses i prefer) is key for me.  the better low light performance (for same image size) from the larger sensor + higher res is icing on the cake.

to the OP, i'll be making the move to d600 from d7000.  the only lens i need to trade up on is the 17-55 -> 24-70.  the question is if i grab the 24-70 first and wait for the body price to drop, or grab the body now and 24-70 later since my tighter (at least on aps-c) lenses can fill the gap in the mean time.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 15, 2012)

slow231 said:


> what a misplaced, snide comment.  "knowing what you're doing" doesn't solve any of derrel's points.




No it isn't. What I got from Derrel's comment was that the OP can't shoot in low light, can't use an 85mm focal length, and can't use a wide angle lens and in order to do so - he has to go for that high priced FX sensor. He makes it sound like there is absolutely no way you can use an 85mm indoors... REALLY? That's false and misleading. I just used my 80-200 at well over 85mm's indoors, on my crop sensor body, and there's an entire thread of photos to prove it. 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon/298839-d90-vs-d7000-low-light-test.html


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> Derrel, that AF-D F2.8 35-70 is VERY heavy for what it is. Metal construction and all, it's the heaviest lens in my bag. I got it because it has better range as a walk around lens than my 50mm, but to be honest, I like my F1.4D 50mm A LOT MORE!
> 
> An alternative will be the F3.5-4.5 35-70. It's plastic, very light. IQ is quite decent. I wish my other lens are as light and compact!
> 
> ...



I looked up the weights...35-70/2.8 AF-D is 23.4 ounces, 28-70 and newer 24-70/2.8 AF-S Nikkors are both right at 900 grams, aka 32 ounces. So, those are the weights. The physical SIZE/length is where the 35-70 trumps some of the newer 24-70mm/2.8 zooms...I differentiate between size, and weight. SIZE determines how I can carry a lens...fannypack or not??? To a mostly-prime user, a 23.4-ounce 35-70 f/2.8 might well be the heaviest lens in his bag, yes. My very first EVER AF NIkkor was the 35mm-70mm f/3.3~4.5 AF Nikkor, which later was updated to AF-D, and retails used these days around $69-$79 or so. It is SMALL, yes!!!!!!! NOT MUCH BIGGER than a 50mm f/1.4 AF-D, really. VERY small.

There are a LOT of Nikkor lenses that ought to work well on the D600, both zooms and primes. Small,light prime lenses for FX Nikon are many. 20,24,28,35,50,60,85...all have some good models that oughtta' rock on the D600.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

85mm indoors...8.5 foot field of view, so as to be able to shoot a FULL-Length portrait of a standing wedding couple, with some room for their head, and feet AND maybe, if the shot is good enough, to make an 8x10 proportion or 16x20 print...

With a full-frame camera, the photographer can stand 20 feet away, and get the 8.48 foot field of view.

With an APS-C camera, the photographer MUST BE 34 feet away, to get the same 8.48 foot field of view.

It's quite often difficult to be shooting at a crowded event, and to ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE a clear, unobstructed view from the camera and 34 feet of distance between you and your subjects. Nothing misleading Christopher, just FACTS. And yes, a bigger, newer, FX sensor is BETTER than a smaller, older, lower MP count sensor, all things the same. But of course, all things are not the same...the D600 is what? Two years newer than the D7000? CHristopher, I realize that you are happy with your D90 and your D7000 DX cameras, and can do good work with them. But your repeated bashing of FX, and the D600, in thread after thread, is rather fanboyish, it seems to me. There are multiple reasons that Nikon has made multiple FX-format cameras. Hundreds of thousands of shooters understand these reasons.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 15, 2012)

Derrel said:


> But your repeated bashing of FX, and the D600, in thread after thread, is rather fanboyish, it seems to me.




As is your bashing of DX. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd go FX in a skinny minute for my own personal reasons. But telling someone that they can't use an 85mm lens indoors is total crap. In the real world, when you can't take a full length photo indoors, you go outside. You make accommodations. You compromise. You work within the circumstances you are given. That's what makes a good photographer - making the shot, and getting the shot no matter what conditions you're shooting in or what equipment you are carrying. And if you're shooting in a cave, well sometimes that means that you have to concede that you CANT take the shot because there are circumstances beyond your control. By telling someone that they can't use an 85mm shot indoors, and that they should go for the FX camera, all you are doing is reinforcing the idea that better gear makes a better photographer.


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 15, 2012)

better gear makes a good photographer better.


----------



## slow231 (Sep 15, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > But your repeated bashing of FX, and the D600, in thread after thread, is rather fanboyish, it seems to me.
> ...



do you not realize that an outside shot is not the same shot?  do you not realize that not every shot is something that you can re-setup, re-shoot, or re-circumstance?  no one is claiming you can't use a 85+mm inside.  but it's a physical FACT that the field of view of said 85mm on a ff is wider than that on a crop. no amount of skill is going to change that fact.  that means more circumstances when shooting in tight quarters (like indoors...) that you can properly frame the subject.  it also means you can get closer to your subjects (given the same subject size in the frame) which gives more options for bokeh.  i loved my 85mm, but inside on a crop i was always backed up against a wall. even then i was still forced to shoot on the tighter side (including the larger venues).  a ff sensor will give me the capability to use the lenses I like in more circumstances. if a FF doesn't make sense for you, fine.  but acting like skill can always replace the physical advantages of a ff for anyone else, in any circumstance, is boneheaded.

i'm not getting into the skill vs. gear argument.  there are hundreds of people who will outshoot me (or you) on crappier gear.  that's not gonna change. but they're not outshouting themselves on better and more versatile gear. there _is_ a point to ff. whether or not it's worth the extra $ for a given photographer a different question.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

I'm not "bashing DX"...that voice is coming from inside the head of ChristopherCoy...I'm just stating the facts...in EVERY field, there are "classes"....in boxing and wrestling their are weight classes...in kids' sports, there are age classes...all across the entire world of "things", objects are grouped toghether according to their characteristics and properties...DX and FF are different FORMATS..they are different "classes" or "kinds" of cameras. I've been shooting photos since I was 10. I've shot on 4x5, 2 1/4 square, 645, 126 square, 110, and 135 aka "35 millimeter" aka "FX" aka "35mm full-frame", as well as APS-C Nikon and APS-C Canon. No fortmat is better or worse in absolute terms.

I'm not bashing DX...I'm just pointing out that DX and FX are entirely *different FORMATS*. But then, I actually understand what I mean. CC OTOH seems very worried that his APS-C cameras are somehow being seen as "less-than". Different "capture formats" allow the photographer to do different "things". The ability to do "different things" is the reason so many film formats have been created...are things starting to make some sense???

DX will typically finish in second place beneath FX when the need is for the ultimate in high-ISO shooting. DX has a HANDFUL of special lenses designed for "DX". More than 96% of Nikkor lenses have been made for FX camera use, I would estimate. More models, more lenses, across more decades. Simple, dispassionate facts. Please, try and deal with it.


----------



## slow231 (Sep 15, 2012)

ok maybe that last reply was a bit harsh.  so let me tell you where i'm coming from.  I use to be so anti-gear, and all about not needing the best gear to make decent images.  i took a photo class with a point-and-shoot, and even did one of the assignments with a camera phone.  all that proved is you can make good images with non-ideal gear (although you do have to work harder for it).  but that's been known, forever!  the difference with good gear is it opens the door for more good images.  all of the times that i had to concede that i could not make the shot didn't need to be that way.  of course i could create other situations where I could make OTHER nice shots, but that still meant missing opportunities.  when it comes to satisfying a client at an event or missing a family memory, a missed opportunity is a missed shot.  when i first got into photography i said i'd never own a dslr. when i got my first dslr, i said i'd never need a ff. but the more i shoot the more i understand the limitations of what i have.


----------

