Considering the D600

endurodog

I know there is some other threads about this camera and some of the reports on it are just trickling in but what I have seen looks favorable so far. It's a big jump $$$ wise for me. I'm just an amature, not making any money at this but really enjoying it as a hobby.

What I have now is a D7000 and a couple of lenses. Both Tamaron a 70-300 F4-5.6 and a 17-50 F2.8. I mainly shoot landscape, night time, some sports (mainly outdoor motocross stuff ) If I was going to go for a D600 I would be using these lens for a while till I could build up my money in the my hobby account.

Would appreciate your thoughts on how these lenses would work with this camera? Would I see much of a difference in image quality going from the D7000 to a D600. Any other pluses or minus on this.

Thanks a bunch guys

cmason

I think the 70-300 is a FX lens but the 17-50 is a DX. This means the longer lens would be ok on the D600, but the shorter one would not cover the full frame sensor in the D600

Icebear

I don't mean to sound snarky, but IMO your 70-300 lens is not the quality glass you would need to make use of the increased resolution and IQ of the D600. I think you'd be better served by saving for better glass first. The D7000 is a pretty capable body. Ultimately though, bodies are consumables and will become outdated. Glass is an investment.

Matthew Saville

If you mainly shoot landscapes and night time stuff, you'd love a D600. Full-frame is the ultimate for night-time stuff where you're trying to capture stars or whatever.

However, you'll be up a creek with those lenses on a D600, as others have mentioned. The 70-300 would do okay for shooting motocross in bright sunlight, however any time you need to start cutting it close with shutter speed, (twilight, etc.) ...kiss your performance edge goodbye.

Bottom line? I'd rather have a good Nikon 70-200 on the D7000, for most anything, than a D600 with a Tamron 70-300.

My best advice / reasoning? Get a used Nikon 70-200 mk1 right now, or maybe even a 70-200 mk2, because both lenses have settled in price. Then save up for the D600 over the next year or two, and by then you'll be able to get one for way cheaper than it's new price right now.

I know that bodies are the most glamorous purchase you can make, compared to anything else, but honestly it's all about the lenses...

On a side note, to be honest, if it were just a matter of sports and general shooting, I might prefer a D700 even since you can hit 8 FPS full-frame with a vertical grip. But of course when you add landscapes and night photography to the equation, (timelapses maybe?) ...The D600 does start to look like a more versatile option.

Good luck deciding! I say go for a 70-200 2.8, or a Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR. Those are two long-term investments that you'll love as a landscape and motocross photographer.

=Matt=

endurodog

Thanks for the input guys!!!!

MGRPhoto

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I say go for a 70-200 2.8, or a Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR. Those are two long-term investments that you'll love as a landscape and motocross photographer.

=Matt=

This. I own the VR1 70-200 2.8 but I'd like to pick up a VR2 and the 16-35 f4 before I get a D600. But those 3 items (body and 2 lenses) cover about 90% of my photography for nature/wildlife.

angevin1

endurodog wrote: »

Thanks for the input guys!!!!

Today I just completed a Week with Nikon's new D600. Review to follow.

But as has been said, Glass/lenses is really where it is at.

Actually both of those lenses will work and work quite well with the D600. The D600 has an Auto-DX mode that works well. I used both FX and DX lenses on this Camera this week and found it easy to love in that regard.

My thoughts are why not rent it like I did. see for yourself if it is something you'd like.

endurodog

Tom I'm looking forward to your review!

Matthew Saville

angevin1 wrote: »

My thoughts are why not rent it like I did. see for yourself if it is something you'd like.

Solid reasoning indeed, although I was thinking that every hundred $$ counts when you're in the "affordable" market. While I do absolutely recommend and encourage getting to know a camera before buying it, I also wish to point out what the savings would be if someone were to invest now in lenses which have a stable price, take a year or two to handle a D600 or D700 etc. when the opportunity arises to do so for free instead of paying a couple / few hundred dollars to rent, (in stores, friends, GTG's) ...and then by the time 1-2 years have passed and you've acquired a few great lenses, you can save even more money because both the D600 and the D700 will be cheaper than they are now.

I'd say that by investing in lenses now and waiting 1-2 years to purchase a body, you might be able to save as much as $500-$750 even if you assume that the price of those lenses goes down by $100-200...

Just an aspect to consider! :-)

=Matt=