Upgrade to D600?

[r._bond]

<p>Eric - you have taken what I wrote out of context. In the end, I will do what makes me happy. I do appreciate everyone else's advice. Thank you.</p>

<p>I do not understand why people get so annoyed when other's think about new camera gear. </p>

[raphael1]

Hello!

 

I find your posting interesting because I am in a similar equipment decision upgrade. The most revealing statements you (in my opinion)

were that your son is six months old and how important the photographs are to you.

 

You have wonderful equipment now and also some great FX lenses. I have a 50mm f1.8 g and an 85 mm f1.8 d. I currently have an older

dx camera. The 50mm you have now is great on either camera but the 85 is also useful for portraits ( effectively 127 mm). I was surprised

by this. I think a d600 is a good idea for you because both of these lenses will work fine and you are a prime shooter.

 

The most compelling reason to me is your son. Think of all the wonderful photographs you will take! Believe me it is not just the next few

years but think what they will mean to your son's grandson in 50 years. I have witnessed this.

 

Best of luck with your decisions.

 

Brad Anderson

 

P.S. For you the decision is not whether to go to FX but when to go. It is inevitable. Go now.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>In the end, I will do what makes me happy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely. If getting a D600 makes you happy, that is exactly what you should do.<br>

<br />I think Nikon marketing is doing a great job. The D600 is an attractive camera at a fairly affordable price. Canon has announced a similar 6D, but it is still not yet available, so the D600 pretty much has that sector of the market for itself. A few months down the road after D600 sales saturates, you'll see a D300S successor to capture another sector of the market at a similar (but a bit lower) price point.</p>

[andy w, jakarta]

<p>Dear ms. Bond,<br /> In general I am agree with your thinking about moving to full frame. You will get good results in available light photgraphy indoor, plus you get more blur areas compared to APSC sensor. <br /> Years ago, I am using Leica M6+ 35 summilux asph to take my daughter and son photos, and the moments are not repeatable. I am glad I could have those moment well captured.<br /> Today I am using Nikon d700 + 50 mm f1.4 AIS, 85 f 1.4 AFD plus other lenses, but still thinking to get a 35 f1.4 G ;)<br /> If you could do manual focusing, 35 mm f2 lens from Carl Zeiss is another option. Excellent lens with half price tag of the Nikon 35 f 1.4 G. Or get a 35 f1.4 AIS, which second hand price range from usd 450-600.<br /> Just an opinion.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Dear mr. Bond</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I know, the OP's first name is not James.</p>

<p>Her name is Rachel.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric - you have taken what I wrote out of context.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>with all due respect, i dont think so. first you wrote a nikon 35/1.4 is out of the question because of price. then you said price wasn't a factor in choosing lenses. both statements cannot be true. maybe you didn't realize you contradicted yourself. i'm still unsure on what your reasons are for not liking the 35/1.8, other than it's not as expensive as lenses you don't use as much, which may factor into your perception of aesthetic quality. you also didn't indicate at what ISO and shutter speed you are currently shooting at, which could help determine whether it makes sense to go FX. you also said "I don't want to upgrade just to upgrade." in any event, if getting a d600 is what will make you happy, then my advice is to do exactly that.</p>

[r._bond]

<p>I said I couldn't justify spending that much on that particular lens. If you go back to my original post, I never said I couldn't afford the lens - I just couldn't justify spending that much on one particular lens when I could spend a little bit more for the D600. Please, Eric, I do not need or seek your advice anymore. </p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Based on the type of photography you want to do, the D600 seems ideal for your needs: shallow DOF for aesthetics or just to blur out a busy background; better high ISO performance. Go for it. It's a lot of camera at a reasonable value.</p>

<p>I actually prefer a somewhat busy, even cluttered milieu in most of my street candids, family and personal documentary photography, so I'm leaning away from the DX/APS sensor toward even smaller sensors. That way I can get more in reasonable focus without stopping down more than to f/2.8 or f/4.</p>

<p>An odd preference, granted, but it makes the Nikon One CX format and tiny sensor digicams better suited to my purposes. With a full frame dSLR I'd need to stop down to f/8-f/11 to get the same effect, which would be fighting the strength of that format.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Just read the last page and the top of the first. If that's what you want maybe the FX would be suitable for you. Considered a used FX maybe? But generally speaking most people are more than happy with just a 2.8 zoom lens and some others are quite happy without a normal lens - either go wider or short tele. But in terms of prices, if you want FX, AF etc etc .. and probably more so into the future, get used to the lens prices. The 35/1.4 might be seen as maybe the standard now for something decent. Heck a 2.8 zoom is now is up to $2,400.</p>

<p>Later in the first page, if you want the better performance high ISO. It would then have to be the latest FX sensor, not sure how the D600/800 compares to the D4 though, haven't really looked at it as that's not my area. By afaik the D3s was quite an improvement in the high ISO than the original D3. The area that seems to perform a lot better for many users are high ISO over time. Tripod users like me could just shoot lowest ISO with the cheapest body. </p>

[pierolopane]

<p>I have used the D600 extensively since it came out and I think what Nikon recycled the sensor from the D3x and adding video capabilities. Having worked with a D3X I don't see much difference aside from the body and lack of pro features. The dynamic range is a bit better with the D600 and I believe it is in part to the addition of video. The top left corner dust issue is a real turn off for the value of this body though. Nikon refuses to make an official statement of the problem as they did with the Left focus issue with the D800. Nikon quality control seems to be going down the drain lately. </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Don't know how true it is but just been watching videos and is it they say the D600 may not be as quick in the AF department. I know that you said AF is was quite important. Maybe you could read up or ask another question re: AF.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I think what Nikon recycled the sensor from the D3x and adding video capabilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, your assumption is completely off base. The D3X's sensor generates a 6048x4032-pixel RAW file while the D600 generates a 6016x4016 RAW file. The pixel counts are actually different althought they are both "24MP."</p>

<p>The D3X maxes out at ISO 1600 while the D600 goes to ISO 6400. The D600 also has much better dynamic range and high-ISO results. There is almost four years of technological advances in the D600, and the difference is very obvious. When the D800 was announced, I pointed out that the D3X should be below $2000 in the used market; now that the D600 is out at $2100, I would say I am not going to use a D3X at any price. I have tested all of those models and am very familiar with them all.</p>

[pierolopane]

<p>In terms of build quality you cant deny the d3x though. Hand holding a D600 is alright but for long extend periods it may become a pain. Furthermore the 39 point AF placement inside the FF area is horrible. Everything is in the center so Enjoy focus-recompose. Image quality IS great I cant deny that.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>In terms of build quality you cant deny the d3x though. Hand holding a D600 is alright but for long extend periods it may become a pain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What are you going to use the D3X for, hammer nails?</p>

<p>I have taken my D7000 (D7K, DX format) on two trips to South America and used it in light rain; there has been no problems. To me, the construction quality for the D7000 and D600 is more than good enough.</p>

<p>If I need to hand hold a camera all day, I would much rather use a D600 than a D800. Back in early 2008 when I tested the original D3 for photo.net, I took it to a wedding as a second shooter and used it for half a day with the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, etc. I developed shoulder pain for the next day or two.</p>

[luke_visconti]

<p>Go for the D600. FX will allow you to use longer lenses - and your 85mm lens will take a far more flattering picture than any 35mm lens, doesn't matter how much you spend. There's a website that shows how facial features are distorted with wider angle lenses - can't seem to find it, though.<br>

You'll better enjoy pictures taken with a proper portrait lens - and your child will only grow up once. </p>

[photomarche]

<p>I would keep an eye on the sensor dust issue before jumping on the "buy" button. It is not just few users complaining and nikon might fix this in the next load of camera.<br>

This problem happen. I bought a d7000 last year and the mirror was spraying oil on the sensor. I was told this was a problem with early models, and a nikon dealer replaced the faulty part with no charges. Early releases of the Canon 5D Mark III had a light leak on the sensor. Canon has now fixed the problem. </p>

<p> </p>

[r._bond]

<p>Thanks everyone. I'm really considering it. I am worried about the dust problems, Frencesco. I am not sure how long I would need to wait for this problem to be fixed. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Rachel, IMO the dust issue is way over-blown. I used a D600 for a month and half and never worried about that once, except for checking it out because of a forum thread discussion. I also never had any AF issues on two D800 I used extensively or the D7000 I have owned for over two years.</p>

<p>If you keep reading forums, every single Nikon DSLR model is "defective" and has serious problems. I have been using Nikon DSLRs for over 10 years and own the following ones: D100, D2X, D200, D300, D700, D7000, and D800E. I have also tested many more samples from Nikon, including a D600. I have never found any problems on any one of them.</p>

<p>I am sure there are defective cameras out there, but your chances of running into one is slim, but they do have warranties in case you do get a bad one.</p>

[luke_visconti]

Look at Shun's photos. He knows what he's talking about. You'll love taking nice photos of your son and think of the fun you'll have when

he goes to the prom and you pull up all the old photos - with the right perspectives because you used a proper portrait length lens on a fx

camera. Go for it and have fun! He'll be walking before you know it.