D7000 or D600

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by javier_diaz|3, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. I don't know which camera would be the best I'm finding it very difficult to chose between the d7000 or the d600
    I do wedding photography and events, I need high performance in low light conditions, and sometimes I do food photography but that is
    not very often
    What are your recommendations on each one? And the pros an cons of each one?
  2. Do you already have any Nikon equipment (such as lenses)? The D7000 is a DX-format body, while the D600 is an FX-format body. Similar compositions on those two bodies will require lenses with different focal lengths. Before getting into explaining all of that, it would help to better understand your current way of working and how you're equipped.
  3. I just went through that decision myself to replace an aged D200. A friend who's a part-time pro recommended that I get the D7000. His argument was that DX lenses are cheaper and lighter than FX equivalents and you get plenty of resolution with the D7000. However, I already have 2 FX lenses (f1.4 50mm and f2.8 105 mm micro) plus an 18-200 DX. My logic was that, while I'd get more pixels from a D7000 than a D600 with DX crop, the flexibility of FX OR DX on the D600, coupled with the slightly larger size of the D600 (I have big hands), coupled with the new pricing to get the f3.5-4.5 24-85mm kit lens plus the D600 body for $2000 US sold me on the FX path. I'm just an amateur photographer, and for some these reasons may not make sense, but they worked for me! Cheers- Bob
  4. They are basically the same camera except for the FX/DX difference. If you want a larger viewfinder and superior high ISO IQ, the D600 makes more sense.
  5. lwg


    I don't shoot weddings, so my way of working may not be the same as yours. To me having a selection of fast primes is very important. I sold my D7000 so I could buy a full frame camera and use fast primes. Image quality wise the D800 is better than the D7000 was, but it's not a huge jump. The D600 looks like it's about the same level as the D800, but with better low light capabilities.
    The D600 (or other FX) has the greater range of lenses available in the focal lengths I want. Add in the better low light shooting and I would get the D600 if I was in your shoes. But my advice is to look at what lenses you need and see if either system supports them. If you will only use f/2.8 zooms in either system then both should work fine for you. If you want the option of an f/1.4 lens in 24mm or 35mm then only the FX camera will give you that currently.
  6. I would have to disagree, there is a huge difference in image quality with the D600 being the clear winner: more dynamic range, superior high ISO performance. For the record, we use both a D600 and D7000. I might imagine we will use both DX and FX in this next year because a D7000 with a 17-55 is far less expensive than a D600 with a 24-70. But there is no way I would give up my D600.
  7. I moved from the D300 to the D800, never used the D7000 which is said to have better IQ than the D300. The D800 produces vastly superior images than the D300. The difference is not in the resolution alone, it's the much wider dynamic range and the smoother transition between tones that make the difference.
    Yes, FX lenses are more expensive and heavier but if you compare apples to apples the weight difference is not overwhelming. The 17-55/2.8 DX is not much lighter than the 24-70/2.8. In addition to that Nikon is now offering a bunch of excellent f/1.8 prime and f/4 zoom lenses that can lighten your bag.
    As to cropping, choosing an FX body was in part made with the thought that I would use the camera option to switch to DX if more range is needed. In reality I never use the cropping setting, I prefer doing it in post-processing.
  8. If it is all the same you might want to consider the D600 with a couple of caveats.
    It has greater dynamic range as John said whcih is always important in wedding photography. But here are the caveats:
    The D600 focusing area is small. Too small IMO. You would like to have focus points available in more of the frame. Why Nikon did this I do not know but it pushes many people to the D800.
    It is much more expensive as John said. If the money works then the D600 is the winner. If the choice is between the D600 with average glass and the D7000 with good glass then I would go with the D7000.
    The march of technology is a tender trap. You are saying that you do wedding photography now. What do you have now in the way of cameras and lenses? That will impact on the wise choice.
  9. I would recommend the D 600 for the reasons already stated. And if you can afford it, the D 800 for the added focus points, which I think would be important for a wedding photographer. You will need quality FX lenses for either camera. I own a D 600 in addition to a D 700 and d 300s.
    Joe Smith
  10. Javier, how are you using your photos? If you are not printing really big for up close viewing or cropping really tight all the time, you may find that the real-world difference between those two cameras with appropriate lenses is minimal or non-existent.
  11. I would base the decision on what lenses you have and whether you shoot wide to normal or tele. I see benefits for DX when using tele or you already have DX lenses. Under 200mm I think FX may be the better choice.

Share This Page