Upgrade to D600 ??

[donna_dunlap]

<p>Hello, I have a D7000 with no backup camera. With a very "limited" budget I want to buy a full frame. Is the D600 that much better than the D7000? What I mean is, is it worth it to me to upgrade now, or should I wait until I can afford the D800?? Your opinion are appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Donna:</p>

<p>You might consider the 24 mix. d7100. That is what I did and I have no regrets. The d800 is a great camera but there are other expenses that go along with that upgrade that I am sure you are aware of. </p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D600 is more like the "FX version of the D7000." The D600 will be better for low light, but you need good lenses to take full advantage of FX. So unless you have the budget for lenses, you are much better off staying with the D7000, which is a fine camera. I would spend the money on lenses instead.</p>

<p>What is wrong with your D7000, anyway?</p>

[donna_dunlap]

<p>I have some full frame lens, Nikkor 14/24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8. So I've already invested in some lens. For the upgrade from D7000, I'm concerned about low light situations. Will the D600 will be significantly better than D7000? Or should I wait until I can afford the D800.</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p> Is the D600 that much better than the D7000?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You need to define "better", Donna.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D600 will give you somewhere between 1 to 2 stops of high-ISO improvement from the D7000, in the ISO 1600, 3200 and 6400 range. If high-ISO is your main concern, the D800 will not buy you much more than the D600. The main issue with the D600 is that the Multi-CAM 4800 AF module (same as the one in the D7000) does not cover the FX frame that well. Of course, there are a lot of complaints about dust and oil issues on the D600; I am sure you have read about that.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>If you do not know if to upgrade, so the answer is: do not upgrade.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Donna, the D600 is slightly over a stop better than the D7000, because there's slightly over twice the amount of light hitting the frame (it's 2.25x bigger). The D600 and D800 are essentially equal in low light conditions. Choose between them based on handling, speed, autofocus and resolution. Both the D600 and D800 are roughly a stop better than the D700 (which probably has a slight edge on the D7000 in some light), due to technological advances, in case you were considering that option.<br />

<br />

It sounds as though you really want a D800. In that case, I'd suggest waiting until you can get a D800, at least if you don't desperately need a back-up. If you buy a D600 now (which is a perfectly fine camera), you'll take a hit on depreciation.<br />

<br />

The D7100 is a fine camera too - fine enough that you might miss some features going to the D600 if you upgrade incrementally again. It won't give you the low-light advantage of a D600 or D800, though.</p>

[a_tang1]

<p>I thought the same thing Donna, I've handled both the D600 and D800 and prefer the D800s viewfinder and build quality. I currently have the D7000 too and the only reason I was looking to upgrade was to get the use of my wide angle nikkor lenses and my 28-70 F2.8. My D7000 is still such a good camera and produces fantastic quality images so I decided to keep it a while longer and wait for the prices to drop next year.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Donna, do you need a backup? Are you a professional that cannot be without a camera, or a hobbyist? Before considering what additional camera to get, I'd first consider whether I'd really need a second camera at all (and while I have 2 DSLRs, I never carry them both, actually).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>first of all, if the OP already has the 14-24, that right there is a reason to get a full-frame camera, since you are not utilizing that lens to its full potential if you are using it on a crop sensor body, period.</p>

<p>therefore, the next question is, d600 or d800? that depends on whether you need what the d800 can offer--more resolution, better AF and better build and ergonomics (but also much larger file sizes). which kind of depends on what you shoot--landscapes, sports, portraits, etc. IMO the d600 is in some ways a lateral or even backwards move from the d700 (frame rate, build, AF). however used d700's are going for around the refurb price of a d600. a refurb d600 is actually a better idea than a new one, since any QC problem will probably already have been fixed. the d800 is a lot of camera, and may even be more than you need.</p>

<p>i dont think anyone can tell you with any certainty whether you're better served by a d600 or 800, especially if it means waiting longer (by which time nikon might have come out with a newer FX body). the 600 is very close to the 7000 in terms of controls and UI so having both makes some sort of sense. (however, if all you need right now is a backup, you could get a 5100, which has the same sensor as the d7000, or just another d7000 while you wait it out. just pointing out that there are lower-cost options.)</p>

<p>i know a lot of shooters are wishing there was something in-between the 600 and 800, i.e. the 24mp FF sensor with better AF and build, and a fast frame rate for $2500 or maybe even less. if nikon does introduce one of these, prices for the 600, 800 and D4 may drop. one possible reason we havent seen this camera is nikon learned from the d300/d700 introductions not to cannibalize its higher-end line. unfortunately, that leads to dilemmas like this, as well as curiosities as the $1100 d7100 having better AF than the $2100 d600.</p>

<p>back to the OP's question, if it were me, i'd probably get the 600. for all but the most critical shooting, the d600 will be fine. also its more portable and has a built-in flash. refurb d800s are down to $2400, but that's still more than $800 over a refurb 600.</p>

<p>in either event, you will need at least one more FX-ready lens, either a midrange zoom like the 24-85 or a prime in the 28 or 35 range. it makes less sense to blow your entire budget on a body and still be missing some important focal ranges than it does to get a less-expensive body and put the difference toward lenses.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Allow me to ask which flash you have for your D7000. </p>

<p>When you say you want better low light shooting, what are you shooting where the D7000 is failing you? You have two F/1.8 lenses. They are seriously fast. </p>

<p>I am not a huge fan of the D600. As Shun mentioned the autofocus leaves a great deal to be desired for me. The D800 is a wonderful camera but I dislike the large file sizes. Though I have a very fast computer and massive storage they are just oppressive. </p>

<p>If I were you I would do an exercise. Go through your last 1000 pictures and count the number that were of less than acceptable because of the low light performance of your camera. I'll bet you will be surprised. Maybe you have what you need now. Of course if you just want a new camera for the joy of it, go for it. </p>

[donna_dunlap]

<p>Rick, I have a SB700 flash</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Donna, now that the D610 is official, there is more to consider: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00c3Jd">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c3Jd</a><br>

For all practical purposes, the D610 is the same camera as the D600, hopefully without the oil/dust issue and without any new wide-spread issues. The main downside is that the D610 also uses the same Multi-CAM 4800 AF module, just like the D600, D7000, and D5200.</p>

<p>However, it also means perhaps you can find some remaining new D600 at close out discount. But I have no idea how much more discount you can get and how long supply will last.</p>

<p>Are you mainly a wedding photographer? <a href="/wedding-photography-forum/00aU2F">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00aU2F</a><br>

As long as you are not shooting sports, the Multi-CAM 4800 should be good enough. But most likely, you'll need additional lenses.</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>You <em>still </em>need to define "better", Donna.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>You <em>still </em>need to define "better", Donna.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, "better" is a simple word all of us use frequently. There is no point to press for a precise definition for something so simple.</p>

<p>As I mentioned earlier, the D600 and now D610, which has identical electronics as the D600, can provide 1 to 2 stops of better high ISO results than the D7000, around the ISO 1600 to 6400 range. Whether such improvement is a worthwhile upgrade is entirely up to Donna to decide.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>first of all, if the OP already has the 14-24, that right there is a reason to get a full-frame camera, since you are not utilizing that lens to its full potential if you are using it on a crop sensor body, period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a lot to be said for that, and yet also a lot not. I never saw the logic of the huge and expensive 14-24 on DX, as the alternatives are a whole lot cheaper. But realistically, as a wedding photographer (as I know understand - thanks Shun for looking that up), how much use is the extreme wide angle anyway? Especially 14mm on full frame? I can see use for a 20-24mm on full frame, but below that, it will be very occassional use. While on DX, the 14-24 range is actually quite a bit more useful. In my view, anyway - sure photography styles can differ.<br>

Would I be a professional wedding photographer, yes, I'd try to jump to FX for the better high ISO performance. But I'd certainly want a 24-70 f/2.8 to go with it, and if the budget can't stretch to getting both camera and lens, a D7100 with a 17-50 f/2.8 is a lot more affordable and not too far behind. In the end, it's not just about getting the right body, but about getting the right combination to do your job. So, already having some FX lenses is useful, but it matters more they're the right lenses for the job at hand.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>You still need to define "better", Donna.</blockquote>

<blockquote>For the upgrade from D7000, I'm concerned about low light situations. Will the D600 will be significantly better than D7000?</blockquote>

<p>I thought that was pretty clear. Donna is concerned about whether the D600 is better than the D7000 in low light. It is, by approximately the factor of the sensor area. Since the D7000, most Nikon cameras have had very similar response to low light. There's a slight edge to some models (such as the D4), but the difference between a D800 and a D600 is small, and the difference between a D7000 and the DX subset of a D800 is small as well.</p>