# Should I trade in my sensational D7000 + 17-55mm 2.8 combo and get D600 + 50mm 1.4?



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

I own the D7000 with a 17-55mm lens and this is an amazing combo in just about any every day situation.
I recently tried out the new D600 with a 50 1.4 prime and was in love with the incredible portrait/candid/depth-of-field capabilities.

I am severely on the fence now wondering if I should sell of my aging D7K and lens and buy the D600+50mm combo for a little more.

I do child photography and need to capture beautiful portraits both outdoors and in (I use mainly natural light).
Of course kids don't always sit still and nailing focus is extremely important even if my subject is not entirely stationary. Surprisingly I have found that using the D7K with the zoom is like butter, focus is nailed perfectly 99.9% of the time. Even if the shots are not as amazing overall - comparatively there is more noise than with the other combo, and of course as far as bokeh capabilities are concerned, the full frame combo is in a different league. But a blurry shot is useless, which I get more often with the D600 and I don't know if its due to my inexperience in handling the D600 (I only had it a few days)

Of course, with the new combo I will also lose the range, and quite a lot of it at that. I would be saving up to eventually buy the wonderful 24-70mm but that won't happen ridiculously soon.

For anyone who has 2 cents to spare on my dilemma, what would you advise?
If you were shooting child portraits, or events (weddings or other), and also wanted to have a great combo for just shooting everyday things, what would be your preferrence?
Any insight?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 6, 2013)

what does the D7000 not do that you think you will get with the D600? a lot of money to spend to get the same results.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2013)

I dunno...the D7000 + high-grade DX utility zoom lens is a potent image-maker...a very decent crop-body camera with Nikon's best DX utility zoom lens...hmmmm....very,very good rig...the 17-55 f/2.8 was designed to be the go-to event/utility zoom for APS-C bodies. I dunno...not sure I would trade for the D600 + 50, although the PRICE of both outfits seems roughly equal...so it'd be a fair trade for both parties, in my estimation.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

Seeing as you now have both..... why not keep them?


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 6, 2013)

Keep what you have now and invest in some flashes.  And learn how to use them.  You will see a bigger difference in quality than by switching bodies.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

No, I don't have both.. I "tried" out the D600+50mm combo and did love how it unlocked the ability to take certain photographs that my other combo cant do (namely the shallow DOF on a full frame, and the cleaner images in low light). on the other end, the other combo obviously has range and is arguably easier/faster to nail focus with (unless I don't know how to use the D600 well enough)
I can't keep both. If I want to buy the D600, I will need to sell off my other combo to offset cost.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 6, 2013)

There is always better gear out there.  I would LOVE a Hassy H4D, but do I need it?  No.  Can I afford it?  Well... not easily.  Can I justify it?  NO!  If the gear you've got is doing what you want, stick with it.  Upgrade when it wears out/becomes obsolete/breaks.  The D7000 has not been on the market long enough to call it an 'aging' camera.  More money has been wasted in photography on "I want it, I want it, I want it" upgrades...  

Save your sheckles, shoot the s**t outta that D7000 and work towards a D800 & 24-70 (or whatever it happens to be when that time comes).  The D600 is still a consumer body.  Your only real gain is the sensor-size, and IMO, that's NOT enough to justify the cost, sexy as it may seem.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

If it's a matter of money, you gotta ask yourself:  "What will I _gain_ with a D600 and 50/1.4 that I'm _not getting_ from my D7000 and 17-55?"

Could you _gain _what you need by just getting the 50/1.4?  Or is there something the D7000 can't do that the D600 can (larger buffer, for instance)?


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

I have found shots like this impossible to achieve with a crop, with any lens I have tried.
Even with really fast primes, one needs to be way to zoomed in on a crop to get the effect of the blurred background on a LARGE area. I have tried primes in the 30mm range (like Sigma 1.4) and while the background can be a little blurred, it is nowhere close to something like this which I have only been able to do with a full frame camera.

this is the primary reason I want a full frame.
However, if someone can show me how to achieve this on a crop (this is just a random example I found), then I would be glad to try that combo this instant and not even look into the direction of a full frame.

editing to include a link to some examples of photographs with a full person (and background very out of focus effect). not the original image I had used as example (can't find it now) but same concept.
See link here.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> .........Even with really fast primes, one needs to be way to zoomed in .......









BTW, posting images that you don't own or have rights to is verboten here.

That said..... wide-angle lenses aren't really conducive to the bokeh/OOF you're referring to.  I wager good money that shot was taken with _at least_ an 85mm.  Throw a 100 or 105 on your D7000, shoot at f/4 and you're golden.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc,

If by "photos like that" you mean shallow depth of field, isolated out of focus background, 'nice' bokeh,  sorry, but images like that can be made, and are made, with crop body cameras. There thousands of examples on the web.

It's not magic: good lens, fast aperture, good focus, good exposure, well lit, background a good distance away from the subject. Here are but a few examples gleaned from a google search.



d7000eg.png
Awesome+Low+Light+Photos+from+Nikon+D7000+%285%29.jpg
DSC_2932.jpg


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

sorry, didn't mean to break any rules (I did maintain their source/copyright info)
I just don't know how else to illustrate my point/question.
an image is worth a thousand words.
this is the effect I'm trying to achieve. If it is possible with a crop, I'd genuinely like to know.
as you mentioned, using a wide angle lens, even at 2.8, don't produce this effect.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> I have found shots like this impossible to achieve with a crop, with any lens I have tried.
> Even with really fast primes, one needs to be way to zoomed in on a crop to get the effect of the blurred background on a LARGE area. I have tried primes in the 30mm range (like Sigma 1.4) and while the background can be a little blurred, it is nowhere close to something like this which I have only been able to do with a full frame camera.
> 
> this is the primary reason I want a full frame.
> ...



You have hit upon one of the main reasons that people who have experience with 120 rollfilm and/or 24x36mm "35mm film" quite often prefer shooting people pictures on full-frame format cameras. The two cameras are of different FORMATS. As the camera format grows larger and larger and larger, the depth of field grows smaller and smaller, and smaller, at each equivalent picture angle. A lot of people own only APS-C digital SLRs. A lot of people have learned their photography exclusively on APS-C cameras, and have no actual experience with ANY OTHER format, and so...you will often get advice that does not reflect familiarity with different types of capture FORMATS.

The reason you are having difficulty getting shallow DOF on as you stated, a "large area"??? That is caused by the crop-factor that APS-C has; to get a full-length shot of a 6 foot tall man on Canon APS-C (1.6x), with an 85mm lens, the camera needs to be 34 feet away. With a FF camera, 20 feet distant with the SAME, exact lens, will yield the same angle of view, namely 8.47 feet tall. What happens to the background???? Well, depth of field increases at a HUGE rate _as the focus distance approaches the hyperfocal distance._ Depth of field increases EXTREMELY RAPIDLY as focusing distance grows longer and approaches the hyperfocal distance. So, when working at "long distances", like 34 feet, there is a lot of depth of field, and the "large area", meaning the background, is quite far away from the camera.

What happens with crop-body cameras is that due to the reduced angle of view, they force the photographer to *stand farther away than he/she would if the camera used a full-field (aka FX, aka full-frame AKA 35mm-sized) sensor. The increased distance from the camera-to-the-subject brings more depth of field. When the sensor is made smaller, the effect of increased camera-to-subject distance has an almost multiplying effect! The smaller the sensor, the GREATER the depth of field, at each angle of view!!! This is why small-format deep depth of field shots are so,so easy to create!!! *The smaller capture formats are very,very useful when you want to show deep scenes, all in pretty good focus!!! However, if you want to show large areas of backgrounds that are well,well out-of-focus, then a LARGER capture area, like 24x36mm, or 120 rollfilm, is much,much better suited to that kind of "look".


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

Patrice, I have had no problem getting beautiful bokeh with the crop, but just not with a wider shot like this (where there is more of the person in the shot and the background is still blurry to this level). I can get wonderful results when the shot is more zoomed into the face, but I cannot achieve anything like this (with the whole body of a child), no matter the lighting or lens. If there IS a way, I'd love to know of specific examples (what lens/lighting etc). Trust me, I have searched for years for something that produces these kinds of portraits.
The picture you posted, that of a bird, gotta realize, the bird is tiny and yes, I can get that with a DX camera. But I dont shoot birds, I do child photography. To get a whole child to fit in a frame and to have that kind of blurriness to the background... I have yet to learn the secret recepie to achieving that on a crop sensor. If anyone knows, please share!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> ..........this is the effect I'm trying to achieve. If it is possible with a crop, I'd genuinely like to know..........



You just don't have the right lens.  A 17-55 is way too 'wide' for general portraiture work.  Look into getting something 100mm+.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

Derrel, you have nailed exactly what I am talking about here.
This is the main reason I would like a full frame camera, UNLESS there is a magical lens/camera combination that gives me this ability on a crop. 
I didn't really think about this technical difference in the past, and searched pretty much in vain for the fastest primes and things like that to achieve portraits like the one I posted. I didn't realize that they are shot with full frame cameras.

This is the main reason I want to get the D600, even though I am torn. But if there is no way to get these types of shots with a crop, there may be no other choice.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2013)

I think she wants wide-angle, or wide-view shots with very out of focus backgrounds. If a person wants that look, the easiest way to get it is to switch to a full-frame camera and some fast-aperture primes, like the 35/1.4, 50/1.8, or 24mm/1.4 or 28mm 1.8.

Just moving up to the larger FF capture size will allow shallower DOF when using wider-angle lenses.

The thing is...with a CROP-body camera, using a 100mm lens means the photographer MUST, I repeat MUST, move "wayyyyyyy back" to get the SAME, identical angle of view, and the same-sized "person" on the capture, compared to a shooter using a full-frame D-SLR or a medium-format rollfilm camera. *The increased DISTANCE,* the distance, the distance,the distance--is what brings the deep depth of field!!!!

In other words, the smaller sensor size forces the photographer to shoot from a longer distance--and that increased distance brings with it much,much,much more depth of field! In a word, the smaller sensor size being used, and the increased distance, combined, create a NET GAIN in depth of field. The increase in focal length is more than offset by 1) the increased distance and 2) the smaller capture size which 3)boosts the depth of field per-angle-of-view.

Again...85mm lens at 20 feet with full-frame camera....34.5 feet with 1.6x crop-body camera...the full-frame shot has a pleasantly defocused background...the crop-body shot has...a much more in-focus "look" to the background. There is a real reason that full-frame d-slrs are favored by the majority of full-time professional "people" shooters...it is a different FORMAT than APS-C. It shoots differently, looks different, and uses different lens lengths to make each image.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

480sparky said:


> You just don't have the right lens.  A 17-55 is way too 'wide' for general portraiture work.  Look into getting something 100mm+.



430sparky, with a 100mm and a crop, I'd have to stand 3 miles away from the child (exaggerated, but I'm sure you know what I mean) to get the entire child to fit into the shot. And at that distance, the background will not be so blurry, even with the lens wide open. That's my dilemma.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > You just don't have the right lens.  A 17-55 is way too 'wide' for general portraiture work.  Look into getting something 100mm+.
> ...



Jan, your post describes EXACTLY the scenario that APS-C cameras create when the photographer really wants SHALLOW depth of field. Your observation about the behavior of APS-C format cameras illustrates precisely why full-frame cameras like the Canon 5D series, and the Nikon D3 series, and the Nikon D700, and D800, are so popular with wedding photographers and portrait artists. Combined with wide-aperture prime lenses like the 24/1.4, 28/1.8,35/1.4,50/1.4,and 85/1.4, these larger-format cameras allow people photographers to create very SHALLOW depth of field effects, even with wide angles of view, in real-world homes, offices, churches, and studios.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> sorry, didn't mean to break any rules (I did maintain their source/copyright info)
> ...


*Just as an informational aside Jan, including source information, citations, acknowledgements, etc, do NOT negate the requirement to obtain permission from the owner of the copyrighted work for it's use.*


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 6, 2013)

To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.  

80mm or 85mm lenses in AIS or MD format were bread and butter portrait lenses for years.

If it's f2.8 @55 then it's fine for portraits.  He just needs to shoot fully zoomed and wide open most of the time.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> For anyone who has 2 cents to spare on my dilemma, what would you advise?
> If you were shooting child portraits, or events (weddings or other), and also wanted to have a great combo for just shooting everyday things, what would be your preferrence?
> Any insight?



You can get the d600 w/ the prime since it does things for you that are specific to what you want/need.

In response to your "omg, what am I going to do about the $2grand to get a workable midrange zoom"..... I offer this suggestions... 

Nikon's BEST KEPT SECRET ->  Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 AFD zoom.

I bought mine many years ago when I had finally built a good working relationship with one of the old guys who had been at Adorama since forever.  I was lusting over the AFS lens... and he said... "let me show you this... not many people know about it, but it's professional glass in an AF package." I bought mine for maybe $550.  They go for much less now... often under $400.

That should give back the flexibility you're afraid to give up w/ the D600 and a single prime.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 6, 2013)

WOW!!!!! Thank you for that amazing tip!! The price of the 35-70mm is certainly a lot more doable. 
As I said, if I "could" get these shots with a crop, I would - I've tried for years to no avail to find a way to get them, until I learned about the inherent nature of the full frame format.
Certainly the thought of the price of the zoom for the FX had me thinking, and I had no idea about this option.
This will certainly help! Thanks bunches!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.
> 
> 80mm or 85mm lenses in AIS or MD format were bread and butter portrait lenses for years.
> 
> If it's f2.8 @55 then it's fine for portraits.  He just needs to shoot fully zoomed and wide open most of the time.



It's equivalent in *FOV ONLY*.  It will *NOT *have the same _optical_ properties as an 82.5mm.  55mm is 55mm is 55mm is 55mm.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

Janmc said:


> 430sparky, with a 100mm and a crop, I'd have to stand 3 miles away from the child (exaggerated, but I'm sure you know what I mean) to get the entire child to fit into the shot. And at that distance, the background will not be so blurry, even with the lens wide open. That's my dilemma.



Just find another location that's condusive to using your gear.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 6, 2013)

480sparky said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.
> ...



I just said equivalent, not identical.  Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?


----------



## Mach0 (Jan 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:
			
		

> I just said equivalent, not identical.  Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?



Out of focus rendering is different and aside from the d3x ( if I'm not mistaken) the higher ISO low light performance is much better.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> I just said equivalent, not identical.  Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?



Darrel's post (#17) on distance-to-subject.


----------



## nycphotography (Jan 7, 2013)

480sparky said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I just said equivalent, not identical.  Outside of DOF, what other differences are important?
> ...



Ironically, I think we all missed the point... we're hacking away at each other about the 55 on a DX for portraits, and he's looking to replace it with a 50 on a FX.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2013)

Decent suggestion nycphotography, on the 35-70 f/2.8 Nikkor AF or AF-D zoom...I see these going for $300-4325 these days, and they are usually in good shape!!! They were a RUGGED, pro-grade zoom when they were top-line, and hence were really built well! For the money spent, the 35-70/2.8 is a lotta lens for not that much money, and on full-frame, 35 to 70mm is really QUITE useful for people work. I often use the 35mm f/2 AF-D for parties and such indoors...it's a really handy lens for people pictures in social situations. I was watching on-line the Creativelive.com sessions with noted glamour portrait shooter Sue Bryce, whose FAVORITE lens for portraiture is...wait for it..wait for it--the Canon 35mm f/1.4-L on her 5D Mark II...she noted that she LOVES the 35mm lens, shot at f/2.8, for all types of portraiture. Anyway...

I was never 100% happy with APS-C and prime lenses...the focal lengths are not quite 100% "right" when the capture format is cut down so far in size.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:
			
		

> To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.



Nope, it isn't. The FoV is the same though.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 7, 2013)

You could consider the 35mm f/1.4 for your D7K.  It won't have quite the shallow DOF but will be as fast and basically the same perspective as the 50mm f/1.4 on a FF body.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 7, 2013)

greybeard said:


> You could consider the 35mm f/1.4 for your D7K.  It won't have quite the shallow DOF but will be as fast and basically the same perspective as the 50mm f/1.4 on a FF body.




Greybeard, I didn't try the 35 1.4, but did try the 35 1.8 and also the Sigma 30 1.4. They were great lenses but did have their limitations - basically I still could not achieve with them the type of portait I posted. For the longest time the sigma 30 1.4 lens was my main staple lens (the Canon version). Its a great lens for portraits and not being so close in on a crop camera. But the totally creamy bokeh with a _full _size person - that it could not do. Nor any other lens I ever tried with a crop.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 7, 2013)

Janmc said:
			
		

> Greybeard, I didn't try the 35 1.4, but did try the 35 1.8 and also the Sigma 30 1.4. They were great lenses but did have their limitations - basically I still could not achieve with them the type of portait I posted. For the longest time the sigma 30 1.4 lens was my main staple lens (the Canon version). Its a great lens for portraits and not being so close in on a crop camera. But the totally creamy bokeh with a full size person - that it could not do. Nor any other lens I ever tried with a crop.



Get a longer lens. If you shoot canon, get the 135/2L and use it outdoors.


----------



## slow231 (Jan 7, 2013)

i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments.  outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.

to the OP, you have already tried both. you know what and how you shoot. sounds like you should already have more than enough info to make this call yourself.  that said, here's my 2c.  I went from d7k to d600. the ff fov was the key for me.  the lenses I prefer fall in much better ranges on the FF.  imo the 24-70 is so much better than the 17-55 (and that focal range is so critical, on ff/dx respectively), that just being able to switch those two lenses is worth the d7k->d600 upgrade.  and of course you're also able to get much more DOF control since you are using longer lenses for the same effective fov.  but other than fov the d600 isn't much different.  in practice I haven't found the iso performance to be any different, and the AF struggles under the same conditions.

as far as usability, i can easily walk around with just the 50 on a ff. but that really shouldn't mean much to you since you already know what and how YOU shoot.  if you're not sure, leave your 17-55 at 33mm on the d7k and see if think you could get away with using just that length until you can save up for a zoom (or another lens).


----------



## Janmc (Jan 7, 2013)

slow231 said:


> in practice I haven't found the iso performance to be any different, and the AF struggles under the same conditions.



slow231, how do you mean when you say it "struggles" under the same conditions? Do you mean the D7K has better AF?
I had a harder time for the little bit of time I had the D600, but was not sure if it was the camera, or "me".

Yes, I've kind of already figured that FF is where I need to go. Getting a longer lens is not the solution for me. As mentioned before, I can't stand a mile away from the kids I shoot. 
The AF is definitely more of what I am a little worried on, as I do need to nail focus, and fast. Especially on that fast moving 2-3 year old crowd.


----------



## tevo (Jan 7, 2013)

The D600 is a full frame version of the D7000 with more megapixels, and less AF coverage. Quite frankly, I don't think it's worth the upgrade. If you wanted to go full frame, why not get a D700 for way less money? Granted, you lose some megapixels but 12.1 is plenty. With the money you save buying a D700, you can afford to get another lens.


----------



## greenx (Jan 8, 2013)

Keep the 7000... If you do jump to full frame i would jump all the way to a 700 or 800 honestly... If not just keep with the D7000 and get a new lens! Body's come and go but lenses are forever


----------



## o hey tyler (Jan 8, 2013)

slow231 said:
			
		

> i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments.  outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.



The other option is to defy optical physics. 

Your choice, kid.

Honestly, the 50mm isn't even that great of a full body length portrait lens if you're looking for shallow DoF. It works, but like I said, longer lenses are better. You don't have to be 20 feet away from someone with an 85mm lens to get a full length (or full body) photo on a full frame body. 

Sure the 50 is a good walkaround lens with a very normal FoV and space rendering. But if you want to do portraits you REALLY want a longer lens with a fast aperture. On a D600, that would be an 85/1.8G (or 1.4G).


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 8, 2013)

slow231 said:


> i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments.  outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.
> 
> ........  and of course you're also able to get much more DOF control since you are using longer lenses for the same effective fov........



Nothing like contradicting yourself.......


----------



## slow231 (Jan 8, 2013)

Janmc said:


> slow231 said:
> 
> 
> > in practice I haven't found the iso performance to be any different, and the AF struggles under the same conditions.
> ...



the af systems on both are the same as far as i'm concerned.  if there was a slight upgrade to the system in the d600, i'm sure not noticing it.



o hey tyler said:


> slow231 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i'm not saying longer lenses aren't preferable for portraits, or more useful for creating shallow DOF shots.  but the OP is looking for shallower DOF for specific FOV shots.  suggesting to just use longer lenses and standing further away, or going outside are not solutions to making those shots.  

if I want a shot of subject A with a certain size in frame, with subject B a certain distance away also a certain size in the frame, using a longer/shorter lens will not recreate that perspective.  and then there are the logistical issues with changing the distance to subject.  even if you have space indoors, shooting kids (or dogs, or other un-directable subjects) from another room can be pretty annoying.  not saying that longer lenses can't solve certain issues, but they are not always a viable solution.

sure the 50mm isn't all that great with shallow DOF, but it certainly is better than a 35mm of the same speed.  so if you your shot requires a 35mm FOV on a crop, you could now get away with using a 50 on the ff, which allows you more room to dial in subject isolation.  I think that's the point the OP i trying to make.  he/she's not looking for absolute shallowness in DOF, but rather shallower DOF for a given FOV, which the ff can certainly buy you.



480sparky said:


> slow231 said:
> 
> 
> > i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments.  outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.
> ...



not sure where the contradiction is.  in one instance i'm talking about using two different length lenses on the same body, and in the other i'm talking about same FOV shots on a FF vs crop.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 8, 2013)

slow231 thank you for all your points and insight.
Yes, I am most certainly talking about shallower DOF at given FOV. 
I do know that quite a lot of professionals use very long telephoto lenses for portraits and that those are very flattering, but I do work with kids, often fast moving ones that will pause for all of a second if that, and it means that the telephoto route really can't easily work for me. Not to mention the weight of some of these lenses while running around outdoors with all those fast moving kids.
Now, granted, the 17-55mm which I have loved on my crop is certainly not a feather - I have loved it for its range, and for its decent portrait capabilities, esp at the 55mm end on a crop, but it simply cannot create the shots I often wish for, and I many times have to painstakingly blur the background further in Photoshop - time consuming and doesn't produce anything near as good as what one can get straight out of the camera with the right equipment right off the bat.
I've certainly tried the 30-35mm range on the crop which would be roughly equivalent to 50 on a full - but those lenses even wide open at the FOV to fit an entire person within the frame just cannot produce what the 50mm can on a full frame. I wish it had taken me less time to realize that.

Now I'm totally open minded to go with a D700, I certainly don't care that much about megapixels, nor about having the latest and greatest. The only thing is, even used I haven't seen it cheaper than the d600 - maybe I'm missing something. I also really like having my U1, U2 settings on the D7000 for different situations and that's one thing I like that carries over to the D600. 
I actually do love the D7000 body. I just wish it were full frame.

Its certainly been tough, esp with the amount of advice I've gotten on here to stick with the d7000. Maybe I should explore the 6D instead on the canon side? 
I do think that all in all... I'm ready to make the full frame transition, or I'll just be wishing for all these images that I cannot take.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 8, 2013)

Just buy a D600, and get the built-in flash, and flash commander, and the U1 and U2 pre-programmable positions. You are totally right about the selective focus issue with full-frame, and the degree of shallower depth of field per a given angle of view that FF creates over what APS-C creates. FF really,really,really changes the way the standard, old-school prime lens focal lengths work; on APS-C, the 24,35,50,85,100,and 135mm lenses ALL become very,very,very different from what they are when shot on a FF sensor. As slow321 mentioned, the prospect of photographing kids from "the next room" on APS-C is kind of a PITA. Read Ming Thein's on-line D600 review--he very much likes the D600, and he compares it with his D700 and D800 experience, and has a LOT of very positive things to say about the D600.

I am not sure if that Nikon D600 + free 24-85 AF-S VR-G lens promo is still going on for $1999, or if that is now expired.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jan 9, 2013)

What you do have to be careful with people shots of FF is wide angle lenses as they tend to be quite unflattering for portraits.  You should have no problem with the 35 - 70, just be a little careful at the wide end.  

To illustrate Derrel's excellent point about DoF, this shot is with a Pentax 645N with a 75mm f/2.8 lens which is equivalent to 45mm on 35mm.  It is shot at f/5.6:




Jeein-on-the-boat by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2013)

slow231 said:


> not sure where the contradiction is.  in one instance i'm talking about using two different length lenses on the same body, and in the other i'm talking about same FOV shots on a FF vs crop.




And that's exactly what we're suggesting........


----------



## ashlim (Jan 9, 2013)

I am in the same boat like you. Bought myself the D600 replacing my trusty D7k,
10 days later, I exchanged it to D800. Wanna upgrade, from D7k to FF, don't waste 
your time in D600. There is no different between the 2, just bigger sensor. Forget All those
mumbo jumbo technical stuffs, lens are more beneficial to invest. I used Nikkor 24-70mm and 
16-35mm on my D7k and it works like a pro. Until I can't frame my picture in tight environment 
that I have to upgrade to FF. So I got the D600, end result same picture quality with my D7k.
Want to see differences, get the D800 or D700 if you are in budget. Just my direct and 2 cents opinion.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 9, 2013)

@Derrel, thank you for letting me know about the promo! I searched for it and found it on Vistek - have never bought from them before. Is this a for real deal?

@ashlim, what kind of photos do you shoot? I am just wondering what made "you" upgrade to D800. I don't doubt the D800 is awesome, I just don't know if I truly need it and whether the extra is best invested in a good lens. I don't have any issues with the D7000 - I love it. All I wish is that it were full frame (for the reasons I have talked about). I simply need full frame to get those kinds of shots - that's it. Now I know some things are actually a downgrade going from D7K to D600 - 1/4000 shutter speed vs 1/8000, 5.5 vs 6fps (will I notice? I don't shoot sports), and things like that. But.... its full frame. And the more I think about it... the more I feel ready to take that step. Otherwise I'll just keep renting full frames for the shots I want that will only cost me bunches more in the long run.


----------



## Patrice (Jan 10, 2013)

Don't be afraid of dealing with Vistek. They are real bricks and mortar camera stores with knowledgeable staff.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 10, 2013)

Patrice said:


> Don't be afraid of dealing with Vistek. They are real bricks and mortar camera stores with knowledgeable staff.




alas the deal is gone - it expired LAST NIGHT... 
to say I'm bummed is an understatement! I should have pulled the trigger but had no idea I had only minutes left to do so!

I see the combo under 2200 with an ebay dealer - maybe a reseller who bought during the deal and makes a quick buck on the turn-around...
is that a good option?..


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 10, 2013)

Janmc said:


> alas the deal is gone - it expired LAST NIGHT...
> to say I'm bummed is an understatement! I should have pulled the trigger but had no idea I had only minutes left to do so!
> 
> I see the combo under 2200 with an ebay dealer - maybe a reseller who bought during the deal and makes a quick buck on the turn-around...
> is that a good option?..



Just make sure it's not a gray market kit.


----------



## Janmc (Jan 10, 2013)

it says bought in US retail store, unopened package, has Nikons warranty etc. I'll try to figure out some more to make sure its a good source and maybe just pull the trigger.
I dont doubt full frames will come down in price eventually. But in the money I will spend renting them in the mean time... might as well just go for it.


----------



## Reyna (Jan 11, 2013)

I just bought the d600 and also have the 7000. The 600 is AWESOME in low light. I shot quite a few photos with my iso at 3200 and saw VERY little noise. I was shocked. I'm keeping my 7000 but you will love the d600/50 1.4 combo  Good luck


----------



## Janmc (Jan 11, 2013)

Reyna said:


> I just bought the d600 and also have the 7000. The 600 is AWESOME in low light. I shot quite a few photos with my iso at 3200 and saw VERY little noise. I was shocked. I'm keeping my 7000 but you will love the d600/50 1.4 combo  Good luck



I am always SO extremely interested to hear from those who had D7000 and now have D600, as this would be my case, and I still feel squeamish at times about trading them (I wish I could keep both like you, but cant)
It sounds very encouraging to hear that you love the 600 and its low light capabilities (that of the D7000 already blew me away). 
Which 50mm do you own? The D or G version? that's gonna be my next dilemma on which to get.
So glad you love the D600!


----------



## Reyna (Jan 17, 2013)

Janmc said:


> Reyna said:
> 
> 
> > I just bought the d600 and also have the 7000. The 600 is AWESOME in low light. I shot quite a few photos with my iso at 3200 and saw VERY little noise. I was shocked. I'm keeping my 7000 but you will love the d600/50 1.4 combo  Good luck
> ...



Oh, great! If you are able to go for it, I say do it! 
I have the 50mm 1.4G & just purchased the 28mm 1.8G and LOVVVEEE that one on my camera! LOVE LOVE LOVE! Let me know if you have any questions!


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 17, 2013)

Janmc said:


> I am always SO extremely interested to hear from those who had D7000 and now have D600, as this would be my case, and I still feel squeamish at times about trading them (I wish I could keep both like you, but cant)........



I made the switch about 3 weeks ago.  Admittedly, I haven't spent the time with the D600 that I'd like to, but I did find one real treat with it that blew me away.  Shooting with my D7000, I couldn't keep up with the action if I was shooting raw.  I'd fill the buffer up so quick sometimes I would miss a few shots just waiting for the buffer to clear.  So I reluctantly starting shooting some of the fast action with JPEGS.  I cringed every time I checked the histo............

With the D600, I can turn off all the buffer-eating options (Distortion control, noise reduction, active d-lighting, etc.) and fire away with 12-bit raws and never have to worry about the buffer.  The larger buffer (15, v 10 on the D7k), coupled with it's faster write capability, let's me relegate shooting JPEGs to "Hi, Mom!  Yes....... it's snowed 12" today... I emailed you a shot of the neighborhood".


----------

