Upgrade to D600?

<p>I have a D7000, but lately I have been considering going FX to the D600. Up until 6 months ago, I mainly photographed birds and my dogs. But for the past 6 months, I have mainly been shooting my 6 month old son and people with my son. I've been shooting indoors and have found my go to lens is the 35 1.8, although it isn't my favorite lens I own. I love my 50 1.4G and 85 1.4, but find the focal length is just too long for the indoors and I can't quite capture what I want to capture. I have been thinking of purchasing the 35 1.4G, but with the price tag, I can't quite justify spending that much when I could go to FX and use most of my lenses. I was hoping to hear other's (who are more experienced and knowledgeable) opinions on this. I don't want to upgrade just to upgrade. Thank you in advance.</p>

<p>So????? Can you explain again why you think you need an FX camera?</p>

 

<p>The D600 is basically the same camera as the D7000 with a full frame sensor. You can't go wrong and it should resolve your shooting issues. The larger viewfinder is really nice to have. Smart thinking!</p>

<p>I have the 35mm f2 (FX) and although I find the image quality fine, its focal length is not one of my favorites either. I much prefer the 50mm and love the 85mm on FX. I am sure you will be quite pleased.</p>

<p>Rene' - I figured I could get more use and better quality out of the lenses I currently own with an FX camera rather than my D7000 I currently own. I could use my 50 and 85 indoors on the D600 since I won't have the crop factor to worry about. Right now, I hardly use my two best lenses because I just can't back up far enough to get what I want in the picture. I have invested quite a bit of money into really nice lenses, but can't use them.</p>

<p>For what you want to do, I submit you don't need FX. I have a D200 (i.e. DX) and a D600. For me, the biggest improvement was in low-light capability, since my D200 is 7-year-old technology. For you, given that you have a D7000, the only significant differences will be:<br>

- More choice in wide-angle lenses (a good thing)<br>

- The D600's AF sensors are all clustered in the middle of the frame (a bad thing)...might as well just have five!<br>

So, since going really wide was not among your problems, I'd say save yourself $2K, or more to the point, spend it on lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can't go wrong and it should resolve your shooting issues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>more like, justify your NAS issues. not sure how shooting issues would be resolved by getting a d600. the issue is that the OP doesn't like the 35/1.8, right? but i'd be careful about making a move which might actually result in less photographic capability. with the D7000 and the three primes, you have the focal lengths of (approx.) 50/75/135 covered. with 2 primes on FX, you'd have 50 and 85 covered. for that reason, spending $2000+ just to use the 50 and 85 indoors doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. in all likelihood, you'll want to spend even more on a W/A prime. btw, what exactly is wrong with the 35/1.8?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have invested quite a bit of money into really nice lenses, but can't use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this might seem obvious, but if the 50 is too long for indoors on a DX body, an 85 on an FX body is going to be even longer. this doesn't seem to be a case where you absolutely need the extra resolution, so a used d700 could work too. going FX would give you shallower DoF, by about one stop, which might make a difference with fast lenses. OTOH, if you shoot at wide apertures, less of the image will be within the focal plane. so there are pluses and minuses here for going FX, in addition to the cost.</p>

<p>if i were in your shoes, i'd maybe look at the sigma 30/1.4 and the nikon 28/1.8 G as alternatives to the 35/1.8, which IMO is a pretty good lens, with CA and slightly nervous bokeh being its biggest flaws. the sigma 30 is better, and the extra 5mm makes a difference indoors. the 28 obviously would give you an even wider angle. also, sigma just announced a new 35/1.4 which could be an option once its released, if it's anything like their 85/1.4 and 50/1.4.</p>

<p>No doubt, your 50 and 85mm lens will shine on the D600. But if your passion is shooting pictures of your now 6 month old son, you will long for a good zoom lens in the near future. Quickly moving, playing children can be photographed with fix focals, but it is much easier with a zoom. A good 2.8 17-50(55) from Nikon or Tamron would solve many of the problems you describe and work very well for shooting playing children in the coming years. If you go for FX, comparable lenses are much heavier and much more expensive. The distribution of AF sensors in the D600 over the picture frame is inferior to the D7000 - maybe an issue in shooting children in action. If you have other reasons to buy an FX camera (Viewfinder, bokeh, high ISO) then go for the D600, but I would not base the decision primarily on children photos.</p>

<p>Much what Eric said... You're asking about two solutions, but let's take one step back first, what is the real problem? You state "I have invested quite a bit of money into really nice lenses, but can't use them." - frankly, you invested in stuff you do not need. It would be silly to repeat that.<br /> <br /> If the 50 is too long indoors, moving to FX only solves the use of your 50mm f/1.4G (the 85 would still be too long). If it's only the 85mm being too long indoors, then, OK, there is a point there, and you would gain use of that particular lens.<br /> If the issue is that you do not like the 35 f/1.8DX, then I'd try to understand first what you feel is wrong about this lens? I've had it, and frankly, it's a pretty epic little lens, certainly considering its price. It's miles better than the AF-D 35mm f/2, it's small, fast, sharp - there is seriously quite little to dislike with its optics. Some people will complain about its bokeh, I never found it very objectionable (though there are better lenses for sure). If it is the angle of view you dislike... then a move to FX might again not solve a whole lot, since that would mean you'll dislike the 50mm f/1.4 afterwards, so you'd be left with only the 85 f/1.4. Getting another 35mm would also not help in that case. So, what is the problem you find with this lens?</p>

<p>Getting the 35mm f/1.4 or a FF camera... I'd say you need to first better pin down what the actual real problem is you look to solve. <br /> Don't overlook the option of selling the lenses you do not use, and get lenses that do suit your way of working. The best lenses are not those with the best test results and most praise online, but are those that you find yourself using to good effect time and time again.</p>

<p>I appreciate everyone's advice and viewpoints about the subject. That is why I posted here. Maybe to talk me out of wanting the D600, which I don't necessarily need but just been thinking about a little bit lately. Wouter - I did not invest in stuff I did not need. My needs have changed. I have gone from mainly outdoor, wildlife (well,animal) photography to indoor portrait photography. My D7000 and current lens set up has worked wonderfully for me for the past couple of years. <br>

I guess compared to the image quality of my 50 1.4G, my 35 1.8 just seems lacking. There isn't anything particularly wrong with that lens. I absolutely love my 50 and it was my go-to lens when I would photograph outdoors. Now I feel stuck with the 35 that isn't what I am used to.<br>

Because I have moved from mainly outdoor photography to indoor photography, I want the camera that will give me the best quality when shooting with high ISOs. My little one is about to start crawling/walking and I'll need a faster shutter speed than what I'm currently using to capture him. Also, nice, smooth, and pleasing bokeh is definitely a want.</p>

<p>OK, sorry, sure needs can change, I did not quite consider that scenario :-) Still, it may sound cheesy, but the best lens is the lens on your camera - based on your previous posts, I felt it was worth bringing that up.<br />Our experiences with the 35 f/1.8 are quite different; maybe yours isn't a great copy, I don't know. No need to dwell too much on that.<br /> I'm not wanting to talk you out of a D600 - I just moved to FX myself, and despite thinking I wouldn't, I am already selling all DX gear. Anyway. A bit on the fence here; while I like the high ISO capability of my D700, it still requires contrasty nice light, even if it is low. The higher shutter speeds are welcome, but a lot of low light situations are just crap light, really... it's not the area which I experience as the best part of the move to FX (the viewfinder is). Just putting this up for consideration, as sometimes a good bit of indirect flash is a whole lot better than ISO3200 and f/2. Yes, a D600 might bring what you're looking for, but without actually seeing any photos where you're currently hitting the limits of your D7000, it's hard to say for sure.</p>

<p>That said, the D600 is more likely to give you what you hope for than a 35mm f/1.4G would in this scenario, in my view. But I would not dismiss the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 suggested above either - nice lens, better bokeh than the Nikon, and it may just do it for you, for a lot less money.</p>

<p>+1 for what Ulrich suggest about the 17-55 2.8. It never leaves my D7000 and is, I would argue, the best all-around lens for the D7000.</p>

<p>I have a D7000 and bought a D700 to get to Full Frame. I couldn't be happier. Loved the D7000, but for portraits, etc. the D700 is so much better. I can only imaging the D600 would also be fantastic. I can't speak for the AF on the D600 and bunched up sensors, but the AF on the D700 was an improvement over the D7000 as it uses a different AF module, which you won't get with the D600 upgrade.</p>

<p>With Full Frame I'm getting better low light, which the D600 should give and I think might be even better than the D700. I'm also able to get much better Depth of Field (or lack of it), since I need to get closer at a given focal length to fill the frame. I'm sold on Full Frame especially for indoors where you might not have the space. 35mm DX vs 50mm FX for a portrait are not the same even if they are equivalent.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My 35 has already been sent to Nikon once. I am definitely considering a different 35/30mm lens. I will look into the Sigma versions. <br>

I actually already own the Tamron 17-50. I only use this while traveling and sight seeing. I LOVE primes - I love how fast they are to focus compared to my Tamron, the bokeh, and shallow dof. Until I had my son, the 50 1.4G rarely left my camera. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The updated review is out from dpreview<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/23<br>

Me too I am considering upgrading from d7000 to d600.<br>

A part from the small coverage af area, I am really concerned about this:<br>

"Sensor appears unusually prone to dust spots"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If what the OP wants are different angles of view, I would get the appropriate lenses to compensate. If the D7000 can do the job for you, getting a D600 is a very expensive way to accomplist something that should be much simplier. The 17-55mm/f2.8 suggestion is a good one, and the Nikon version may solve the AF speed issue.</p>

<p>If you want f1.4 or 1.8, there are many lens selections from Nikon and third parties.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want the camera that will give me the best quality when shooting with high ISOs. My little one is about to start crawling/walking and I'll need a faster shutter speed than what I'm currently using to capture him.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i have the d3s, which is about equal to the D4 in that regard. i wouldn't advise spending that kind of cash for candid shots you are only going to show to friends and family. i also don't see the need to get a d600. the d7000 should be good to about ISO 3200. realistically, how often do you need to go above that? a much cheaper solution is simply to invest in some indoor lighting, such as soft boxes.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Also, nice, smooth, and pleasing bokeh is definitely a want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>in general, 35mm isn't a great focal length for bokeh. longer focal lengths tend to do better in that regard due to compression, however there are exceptions,i.e. the sigma 50 has better bokeh IMO than the sigma 85/1.4. the sigma 30 is one of the best sub-50mm 'bokeh' lenses, especially on DX, which is currently available. the sigma 30 is miles ahead of the 35/1.8--i own both--in that regard. i've kept the 35, however, because its much more compact and therefore portable, even pocketable. (the tokina 35 macro is even sharper and better than the sigma 30 in terms of bokeh, but isn't quite as fast.)</p>

<p>that said, i'm wondering if some of the uncomfortableness the OP feels isn't just the result of moving out of a photographic comfort zone to unfamiliar territory, i.e. indoor candids. used properly, the 35/1.8 is capable of stunning shots and it's much sharper wide open than the 50/1.8D and the 50/1.4G--<em>according to Photozone, the 35/1.8G is almost as sharp at 1.8 as the 50/1.4G is at 2.8.</em> so, some of this really comes down to technique. it seems the OP has the perception that the more expensive lenses deliver better results than the $200 prime, but is this really the case? typically, the more expensive primes are better when it comes to things like flare resistance, which should be less of a problem indoors than outdoors. but in terms of sharpness/resolution, the 35/1.8 definitely holds its own. i would argue that the more you use a lens, the better your results with that lens. So maybe the answer here is just to keep shooting, until you know for sure whether you are satisfied with the 35/1.8 or not.</p>

<p>sometimes, it helps to see what others have done with the same lenses one owns, before succumbing to NAS. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs3518gdx/pool/">here's</a> a link to the Flickr 35/1.8 group pool. hope that helps.</p>

<p>I enlarge the photos I take and display them in my house - they aren't just going up on facebook. Yes - the quality is important to me. They aren't just snapshots. I don't care about how expensive/inexpensive lenses are. My main goal is not just to accumulate a bunch of "stuff" but to find the "stuff" that works for me in the situations that are present. My photos are my treasures. No, I'm not a professional, but I invest in camera gear that I think will last for quite a while and produce image quality that I am proud of. <br>

I have the 50 1.4 and the 35 1.8 for quite some time now. I have used both and very familiar with both. I prefer the 50 over the 35 - I know I'm not alone on this one. I use very shallow dof because most shots are taken (at least presently) in my home, and yes, I like to blur out the crap that has stacked up around my house due to sleep deprivation, taking care of a 6 month old, and working. I want a camera/lens solution that can be up to many challenges of photographing a child indoors. There are plenty of things that draw me to going full frame - not just the price tag. I didn't feel the need to mention all of the pros of the D600 because I am sure most of you already know them. I am not going to invest in a lighting system, but thanks for the suggestion. </p>

 

<p>Just go for it, DOF is main difference, between crop and full frame, its give different look to pictures. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have been thinking of purchasing the 35 1.4G, but with the price tag, <em>I can't quite justify spending that much</em><br>

<em>I don't care about how expensive/inexpensive lenses are</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's kind of difficult to give accurate advice when faced with contradictory statements such as above. Just do what makes you happy.</p>

<p>Sigma has just released a 35mm f1.4 for list price $899. The Sigma f1.4 lenses are generally more highly regarded than the Nikons, and significantly less $$. The only single focal lens i own is the Simga 30mm f1.4, and it is excellent on my D5100 and D300. All in all, I bet your kid would rather have the money spent towards a trip to Disneyland than camera gear.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>For the OP... My favorite lens for shooting a youngster is either a normal or a short tele. For me, that's the 35mm f/1.8 or a 50mm lens on a DX camera. Back a generation ago, it was 85mm f/1.8 on an F2 film body.</p>

<p>I suggest you keep trying your 50 for the 6-month old. </p>

<p>I have a D200 and I do not have any issues taking photos of my 9mo old granddaughter. I just select a lens and go shoot some pictures. I am always pleased with the results. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma f1.4 lenses are generally more highly regarded than the Nikons, and significantly less $$.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i have the sigma 30/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4. they are generally sharper at sub-2.8 apertures than their nikon equivalents which are optimized more for corner/overall performance. wasn't in the market for a 35mm, but if the new siggy gets good reviews i might be interested...</p>

<p>I used to shoot with D800 / D7000 until recently when I give up to DX upgrading to D600. The reason of the upgrade was that my D7000 gets almost no use after the upgrade from D700 to D800. Now I am very pleased with D600. I use D800 for landscape, architecture and studio type of work but for everything else D600 is the workhorse. I shoot very much indoor in available light and with fast primes, like the OP is doing. While D7000 is a capable camera D600 is a considerable step forward for available light usage. If you have the necessary funds go to upgrade your camera and don't look back. Just pair it with a good, fast prime...</p>