# D600 or D7100 ????



## keirem (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm going to get a new dslr with my tax refund, thinking of the D600 or D7100.
I have a D5100 w/18-55 and 55-300 lenses. I like to shoot landscapes/architecture
but it will take me a little longer to pick up FX lenses. Just wondering about your
preferences or suggestions.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

FF or DX?  Which one do you need?  That is the question.


----------



## gregtallica (Mar 5, 2013)

Which one do you _want?

That_ is the question.


----------



## keirem (Mar 5, 2013)

Both seem to be good choices, I am leaning toward the D600 but I thought that
some opinions would be a good idea as this seems to be a harder decision to make.


----------



## cwcaesar (Mar 5, 2013)

Both!  D600 as primary and D7100 as backup.  

I went the full frame route, but you should be prepared to spend some extra on glass it you do the same.  That said, if you don't want/need full frame, the D7100 looks pretty awesome!


----------



## tevo (Mar 5, 2013)

If you buy a D600 you will need to buy FX lenses or shoot in a crop mode (I'm not even sure D600 has a crop mode).


----------



## Patrice (Mar 5, 2013)

tevo said:


> If you buy a D600 you will need to buy FX lenses or shoot in a crop mode (I'm not even sure D600 has a crop mode).




Or you could use your DX lenses with a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter to fill the frame of the FX body at the cost of one f stop. Stop gap measure but it does work and the TC can be used later on FX lenses when extra reach is wanted.

This photo taken with a DX lens on FX frame (no cropping) using the teleconverter.


----------



## cwcaesar (Mar 5, 2013)

D600 does indeed have a crop mode - about 10 MP resolution.


----------



## goodguy (Mar 5, 2013)

Its a matter of personal taste and need, for me its a no brainer if I can go FF I will go FF.
In am pretty sure sooner or later I will get a Full Frame camera so I say get the D600


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 5, 2013)

tevo said:


> If you buy a D600 you will need to buy FX lenses or shoot in a crop mode (I'm not even sure D600 has a crop mode).



AFAIK, all FX bodies have DX mode.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

So do you plan on keeping your current gear or selling it off first before picking up a D600/7100?  Do you need to sell your gear to pickup the D600/7100?

Or do you plan on just buying a D600/7100?

If you planned on just buying one of the two new bodies, keeping your old gear, then I would sell what you have and start with one great piece of glass and the D600.


----------



## keirem (Mar 5, 2013)

jake337 said:


> So do you plan on keeping your current gear or selling it off first before picking up a D600/7100?  Do you need to sell your gear to pickup the D600/7100?
> 
> Or do you plan on just buying a D600/7100?
> 
> If you planned on just buying one of the two new bodies, keeping your old gear, then I would sell what you have and start with one great piece of glass and the D600.



I'm going to give my old gear to my girlfriends son, I might keep the 55-300 lens.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 5, 2013)

If you don't have any reason to keep the extra "reach" of the crop sensor boy, and you have the funds to go FF, what's holding you back?


----------



## bc_steve (Mar 5, 2013)

jake337 said:


> If you don't have any reason to keep the extra "reach" of the crop sensor boy, and you have the funds to go FF, what's holding you back?



agreed.  I have the D7000 and it is great but the reduced noise from the larger sensor in the D600 makes me want one.  If you can afford the D600 it is probably worth it, but it is like deciding between a car and a truck.  You can do a little more with it, but everything about it becomes more expensive!

and about those lenses you've got, I've had them both in the past and there's no reason to feel too attached to them.  I am going through a bunch of pictures from last year when that is what I was using, and I am not at all impressed when I look in the corners of the pictures i took with the 18-55 kit lens.  The 55-300 isn't terrible, but it's not worth a ton of money and there are better lenses out there ..


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 5, 2013)

D600 with the 50mm f/1.8.... GO!!! That's what I did and I love it.


----------



## coastalconn (Mar 5, 2013)

What exactly do you feel is holding you back with the D5100?  Just curious.  What are you hoping to improve with a new camera vs better glass?


----------



## keirem (Mar 6, 2013)

Don't get me wrong, the D5100 is a great camera. I want something a little bigger and beefier as well as better glass.
Since I will have the funds for a FF I might as well get one. I don't expect better pictures because of FF but I think
thats where I want to go and just wanted a few opinions from fellow photographers to see if there was a reason to
stick with DX or make the jump to FX now.

Thanks for your answers


----------



## NapoPhoto (Mar 6, 2013)

This is an interesting debate, I have a D7000 & recently been building up FX lenses 70-200 Vr & 24-70 2.8. I am inclined towards buying a FF due to the results these lenses perform on FF. but the cost!! D800 or D600 is the question !!


----------



## goodguy (Mar 6, 2013)

DCerezo said:


> D600 with the 50mm f/1.8.... GO!!! That's what I did and I love it.




Arrrrggg you are such a tease LOL


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 6, 2013)

NapoPhoto said:


> This is an interesting debate, I have a D7000 & recently been building up FX lenses 70-200 Vr & 24-70 2.8. I am inclined towards buying a FF due to the results these lenses perform on FF. but the cost!! D800 or D600 is the question !!



In hindsight... If I had the brains at the time I would have gone for the D800. I didn't because I didn't think the price difference was justified... But it is  so if you can get the D800, do so!


----------



## gregtallica (Mar 6, 2013)

What about a D700 used or something? Are you printing wall-sized posters and need the mp?


----------



## sashbar (Mar 6, 2013)

keirem said:


> Don't get me wrong, the D5100 is a great camera. I want something a little bigger and beefier as well as better glass.
> Since I will have the funds for a FF I might as well get one. I don't expect better pictures because of FF but I think
> thats where I want to go and just wanted a few opinions from fellow photographers to see if there was a reason to stick with DX or make the jump to FX now.
> Thanks for your answers



I really can not see the logic here. 
Why do you want something beefier? Do you shoot every day so you need something more reliable and long lasting?  Do you shoot in bad weather conditions and need it weatherproof? Do you like carrying heavy bags? 
Why do you need a better glass if you do not expect better pictures ??


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 6, 2013)

Only reason to upgrade any body is for more convenient dial and button placement and image quality. Also if you shoot in low light like I do.


----------



## keirem (Mar 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> keirem said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me wrong, the D5100 is a great camera. I want something a little bigger and beefier as well as better glass.
> ...



Not offended at all, it does rain here a lot so the weatherproof will be nice and I want something that I will be using for a long time to come.


----------



## tevo (Mar 6, 2013)

keirem said:


> Not offended at all, it does rain here a lot so the weatherproof will be nice and I want something that I will be using for a long time to come.



People get into photography and they become thirsty for better quality gear. Will a D5100 meet OP's present needs? Yes. Would a D600? Yes. The question then becomes will a D5100 meet OPs needs down the speculative road of photography considering he gets into it? Probably not. Here comes the discussion on glass vs body but for all intent and purpose I make the point that a better body now will retain its value as a tool and a medium for a longer time. The glass will come along.


----------



## gregtallica (Mar 6, 2013)

sashbar said:


> keirem said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me wrong, the D5100 is a great camera. I want something a little bigger and beefier as well as better glass.
> ...




I think if you really looked at it, you enjoy your music way more. Like he probably would with photography. Your love for the music hasn't dropped, in fact, you hopefully have come to love it more. It's just a huge expansion on the _way_ you get to enjoy the music. I've done the same with music gear. Some of it I needed, heavy road cases for touring and stuff, gotta have reliable, good sounding gear for gigs. I didn't need all of it, but I wanted all of it.

Whether you need it or not, that's an entirely different debate, but if you have the money and resources - there's something to be said for having nice gear. It's just nice to have. 

I have a 6x12" speaker cabinet, two 4x12", and two 2x12" speaker cabinets, 6 different guitar amp heads, all for playing guitar. I play in a couple different bands, but I don't really need as much power as I have. But even though I'm not making any money off it, it's worth having pro gear. It feels better, sounds better, easier to use, looks great... I would gladly do that with photo gear if I could afford it. Not to step on the toes of the pros, but just to have my own nice things. It's all the tinkering I get to do with my gear. Trading it constantly, building my own effects, things like that. I get to enjoy playing music in a way, way more fun environment than I got to do as a broke teenager with two guitars and one amp.


----------



## DBA (Mar 6, 2013)

In my humble opinion it'd be kind of silly to get a FF (D600) without having any good glass. Bodies have a considerable shorter life span compared to lenses, so I wouldn't upgrade until you have some decent glass.

I had a 70-200mm VR2 on my D5100 (and was able to get killer shots), moved that lens to my D7000 when I upgraded the body. Then recently I got the D600 and guess what, the 70-200 VR2 now rests on it.

A good pro quality lens will give you a much better improvement verses a body upgrade, plus it'll last you longer.


----------



## MOREGONE (Mar 7, 2013)

I too have been pondering these cameras. 

I have the D90 and would like better low light performance. I shoot a lot of bars and nightclubs and the D90 just isn't up to snuff. I am moving towards weddings and recently 2nd shot a catholic wedding where flash was not allowed, again, a strain on the ole D90.

I have a 2 lenses that are FX and 3 that are DX. I don't intend to get rid of the D90 so I think I would have a decent setup of D600 with my 70-200 and 50 1.8 and keep the 12-24, 35, and 17-50 on the D90.

I have considered the 7100 since it will be a good bit cheaper and should have some good ISO performance. If I am being completely honest with myself, I think I want the D600 for the sake of being FF


----------



## TheLost (Mar 8, 2013)

Just to set the record straight..  Good FX glass doesn't have to be expensive:

Nikon 50mm 1.8D = $100 (1.8G = $200)
Nikon 70-300VR = $350 Refurbished
Nikon 85mm 1.8G = $397
etc...

IMHO.. even if you shoot DX these are lenses you should be looking at.

What camera should you get?  You want a D4... Cant justify that? just go down the Nikon line from there until you find one you can afford


----------



## keirem (Mar 8, 2013)

TheLost said:


> Just to set the record straight..  Good FX glass doesn't have to be expensive:
> 
> Nikon 50mm 1.8D = $100 (1.8G = $200)
> Nikon 70-300VR = $350 Refurbished
> ...





With the 50mm would you go with the 1.4 or 1.8 ?
And is the G much better than the D ?

Thanks


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 8, 2013)

keirem said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Just to set the record straight..  Good FX glass doesn't have to be expensive:
> ...



Get the 1.8G


----------



## bc_steve (Mar 8, 2013)

keirem said:


> TheLost said:
> 
> 
> > Just to set the record straight..  Good FX glass doesn't have to be expensive:
> ...



If f/1.8 is wide enough for you then get that.  When I bought the 50mm 1.8D I read a lot of reviews, comparisons and tests online (I have not used the 1.8G or the 1.4) but of all three lenses the 1.8D is the sharpest.  The 1.8G does better bokeh.

The 1.4 is much more expensive, and I couldn't really justify the expense compared to the 1.8, especially since it is apparently not quite as sharp.  So it was between the D and the G.  For me, right now at least, sharpness is probably the most important although really, any of them is going to be wicked sharp.  Better (rounder) bokeh in the 1.8G didn't really seem to justify paying nearly double for the lens.  (The 1.8D doesn't auto-focus on some of the cheaper SLR's but this will not be an issue for you)
Also the 1.8D is slightly smaller and lighter.

I see you're in Canada.  I bought a bunch of stuff in the fall and ordered it through Memory Express because they had the best price for some of the things I wanted, and beat anyone else's price when they didn't.  I used Photography, Digital Camera, Lens Price Comparisons for Canada - photoprice.ca to price compare on a bunch of online retailers to find out what the best prices in Canada were.  Shopbot - Compare prices - Canada - Price Comparison - Comparison Shopping is another good one.  Maybe that'll save you a few bucks.


----------



## ghache (Mar 8, 2013)

d600, 50 1.8G should get you going for a while. do it. dont ever look back


----------



## TheLost (Mar 8, 2013)

bc_steve said:


> If f/1.8 is wide enough for you then get that.  When I bought the 50mm 1.8D I read a lot of reviews, comparisons and tests online (I have not used the 1.8G or the 1.4) *but of all three lenses the 1.8D is the sharpest.*  The 1.8G does better bokeh.



Umm... no... That's not true.   The 1.8G is sharper then the 1.8D.  You may want to read more reviews...  All the reviews i've seen show the 1.8G sharper in the corners AND in the center then the 1.8G.

I actually own both lenses and my 1.8G is sharper then my 1.8D when shot at 1.8... they are about same @ f/4 in the center but the 1.8G is better in the corners through almost at every stop.




keirem said:


> With the 50mm would you go with the 1.4 or 1.8 ?
> And is the G much better than the D ?



The 50mm Nikons are a tricky bunch... but they go something like this.

50mm 1.4D = not great.. 1.8D, 1.8G and 1.4G are better in almost all aspects (unless you need 1.4 and cant afford the G)
50mm 1.4G = sharper then the 1.4D.  Exactly the same @ 1.8 as the 1.8G but slightly sharper as move up from there.
50mm 1.8D = sharper then the 1.4D.. not as sharp as the 1.4G or the 1.8G
50mm 1.8G = sharper then the 1.4D and 1.8D.. just as sharp @ 1.8 as the 1.4G.

IMHO... My first choice would be the 1.8G.. then the 1.8D (mostly cuz its $100).. then the 1.4G and the 1.4D would be my last choice.  There are very few people who need a 1.4 lens.  If you are that person then you probably wouldn't be asking which is better.

(I've owned all 4 lenses at one time or another... YMMV... but i think most of the reviews agree with me)

Side Note:  Don't rule out the 50mm 1.8D if your camera can use it.  I've shot TONS of indoor sports with that lens and for the price its hard to beat!


----------



## bc_steve (Mar 8, 2013)

TheLost said:


> bc_steve said:
> 
> 
> > If f/1.8 is wide enough for you then get that.  When I bought the 50mm 1.8D I read a lot of reviews, comparisons and tests online (I have not used the 1.8G or the 1.4) *but of all three lenses the 1.8D is the sharpest.*  The 1.8G does better bokeh.
> ...



I'm not going to look too far into it since I have my 50mm and am not shopping for a new one but I compared the 1.8D and the 1.8G on DxOMark:

DxOMark - Compare lenses

according to them the 1.8D is slightly sharper, but overall the 1.8G is the better lens.  I haven't owned both lenses so it would be silly for me to try to argue about which is better.  What I can say is that they are both excellent and very sharp and I am sure the OP will be very happy with either.  The only point I am trying to make is that maybe he would get more bang for his buck putting that $100 or so in savings somewhere else?


----------



## DCerezo (Mar 8, 2013)

Like towards a flash?


----------



## Danuser (Mar 8, 2013)

Details and fine points aside, if you are a developing photographer going from a kit lens to any of the 50mm prime lenses, your mind is going to be blown. A whole new world opens up.


----------



## snowbear (Mar 8, 2013)

.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Mar 9, 2013)

Save your money n buy a D7000. Not a whole is in the upgrade to the D7100. You don't have fx lens so keep the dx.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 9, 2013)

dynamic range of the D600 pulvarizes that lessor camera. do it right 1st time, and pass on the second best lenses do that right first time too 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





i wasted a lot of time and money before i did it right


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Mar 9, 2013)

Out of the camera yes the d600 is very nice no questions asked. If you don't mind some editing in aperture or lightroom then the d7100/7000 is just fine.


----------



## keirem (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm getting the D600 with the 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 and a 50mm f1.8G to start and later in the year I will pick up the 105mm f2.8 micro.


----------



## brian_f2.8 (Mar 9, 2013)

you will be happy with the 28-300. the 50 1.8G i can't say much I have the D but nice upgrade. either way you will enjoy the purchase.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Mar 10, 2013)

Simple, if your mainly a sports or wildlife photographer and you don't have cash for new lenses, get the D7100. if your a regular shooter that generally shoots all kinds of things get the D600 and a 50 1.8g. your welcome.

I'm in your exact situation with a slight difference that i got a few FX lenses already, like the 50 1.8g and the 28-300, I'm using in the meantime my D5100 but I'm buying for my 30th birthday a D800 with a grip.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 10, 2013)

You've looked at a side by side comparison of the features right?

There are some serious advantages to the D7100 that I believe will make their way to whatever replaces the D600, but aren't there yet.
Examples include:
faster FPS
Far better AF module (51 vs consumer 39)
cross type coverage at 15 vs 9
Faster shutter at 1/8000
30% greater screen rresults to name a few.

The D600 has the advantage in its far larger sensor size, with its inherently greater dynamic range and color depth. How much of this would you notice, I'm not sure. But you'd definitely notice the benefits the D7100 would bring to the table.

I'm in this same boat, but I believe I will wait to see what comes after this first run D600. The AF module is the deal breaker for me, and I feel as though if I purchased the D600 and had a new model with the 3500FX come out and it's 51 points... I'd be upset.


----------



## keirem (Mar 10, 2013)

I have compared both and lean towards the D600 as I do not need the faster fps or a 51 point AF system. The advantages of the FX format I believe will be more suitable for me. 

Thanks again for all opinions and suggestions from all.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 10, 2013)

You don't need 51 points but need FX?

Well I guess many have been happy with less before (D40 with 3)...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 10, 2013)

Dominantly said:


> You've looked at a side by side comparison of the features right?
> 
> There are some serious advantages to the D7100 that I believe will make their way to whatever replaces the D600, but aren't there yet.
> Examples include:
> ...



Tons of difference.  Night and day.  Shoot at some shadows and into direct sunlight and see what the D600 sensor has over the D7100.  Night and day.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 10, 2013)

I've spent quite a bit of time shooting with a D4 and a D90 as a backup, so I know the difference... It was a more question based on user experience and shooting style. 
I've met people who see no difference in images from a cheap P&S and a good DSLR, so its very subjective.


----------



## ghache (Mar 11, 2013)

Dominantly said:


> I've spent quite a bit of time shooting with a D4 and a D90 as a backup, so I know the difference... It was a more question based on user experience and shooting style.
> I've met people who see no difference in images from a cheap P&S and a good DSLR, so its very subjective.




this is something i dont understand. who buys a d4 and use d90 as backup?


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 11, 2013)

That's a good question.

The D4 I used was company issued.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 11, 2013)

ghache said:


> this is something i dont understand. who buys a d4 and use d90 as backup?



Someone with the funds to buy a D4 but then lacks the funds to buy a D800 as a backup.  That's who.

Not everyone inflicted with NAS is filthy rich.


----------



## TruckerDave (Mar 13, 2013)

Dominantly said:


> That's a good question.
> 
> The D4 I used was company issued.



The best camera (or anything for that matter) is one somebody else pays for.


----------



## keirem (Mar 18, 2013)

Well, I got my refund and my new gear. I just want to thank you again for your opinions, suggestions and recommendations.


----------



## FAPhoto (Mar 24, 2013)

I prefer the D7100 over the D600.  D600 is a weak FF camera. 

If you have money for a FF camera then get a real FF camera and buy the D800 or D700 not the D600.


----------



## DBA (Mar 24, 2013)

FAPhoto said:


> I prefer the D7100 over the D600.  D600 is a weak FF camera.
> 
> If you have money for a FF camera then get a real FF camera and buy the D800 or D700 not the D600.



Sounds like someone is a little butt hurt...

You're seriously suggesting that the D700 is better than the D600?


----------



## FAPhoto (Mar 24, 2013)

DBA said:


> FAPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer the D7100 over the D600.  D600 is a weak FF camera.
> ...



Not completely.

Let me rephrase it. 

What I meant to say is that you can get a D700 for a good price and buy a nice lens and not throw away all your money in a D600 body.

But I guess the OP did the right thing and got a good lens with it.


----------



## poker_jake (Mar 24, 2013)

DBA said:


> Sounds like someone is a little butt hurt...
> 
> You're seriously suggesting that the D700 is better than the D600?



I would, as someone who has used all three and owns two (700 and 800), the d600 lacks many features and the feel of a $2000 camera. Especially when you can pick up a refurbished d800 for $2350.


----------

