Your thoughts on the Nikon D600

[Grandpaw]

I am thinking about purchasing a D600 and would like any input you have as to why I should or should not get one. If you have a D600 is there anything you would like different about it and would you recommend it to me as my next camera. Thanks for any thoughts you may have to offer, Jeff

[Photo-John]

I just re-read my D600 intro article to refresh my memory and I think it looks pretty damn good. Here's that article if you want to know what I thought about it when it was announced:

Nikon D600 Full-Frame Enthusiast DSLR Announced >>

Here's my question, Grandpaw - why the D600? I assume it's because you feel like you need to step up to a full-frame camera. Is that right? Have you looked at the D7100 yet? While the image quality won't be as good as the D600, it's very impressive compared to your D7000. I just shot studio samples with it this weekend and it's totally useable to ISO 3200 and I think ISO 6400 is probably pretty decent, too. That's not something I ever really expected from a crop sensor camera. But there it is, it's that good. And it costs about half as much as the D600.

[Grandpaw]

I just re-read my D600 intro article to refresh my memory and I think it looks pretty damn good. Here's that article if you want to know what I thought about it when it was announced:

Nikon D600 Full-Frame Enthusiast DSLR Announced >>

Here's my question, Grandpaw - why the D600? I assume it's because you feel like you need to step up to a full-frame camera. Is that right? Have you looked at the D7100 yet? While the image quality won't be as good as the D600, it's very impressive compared to your D7000. I just shot studio samples with it this weekend and it's totally useable to ISO 3200 and I think ISO 6400 is probably pretty decent, too. That's not something I ever really expected from a crop sensor camera. But there it is, it's that good. And it costs about half as much as the D600.

John, I keep going back and forth between the D600 and the D7100. Everywhere you read it says to go full frame and that is why I am looking at the D600. The D7100 would get me more reach and I like the 51 focus points that cover most of the frame as opposed to the 39 on the full frame just covering the center area. The D7100 would save me money on glass also because i could use everything I own now. One day I lean toward the D7100 and the next day lean toward the D600. There are pros and cons to either one of them. This is a hard decision to make.

[Franglais]

I would like you to get a D7100 and carry on your tips series. It seems to me that the folks who are likely to most profit from your advice are those who are just moving up to a "serious" camera and they are most likely to go for the D7100. The people I've met with a D600 were more experienced and were moving up from a D90 or something.

However - you sell your photos. This is a serious business around my neck of the woods. Nobody wants to have someone come past and say that your pictures were done on substandard gear. All the professionals have moved to FX. I think you have no choice.

[Photo-John]

Everywhere you read it says to go full frame and that is why I am looking at the D600.

Yup. I know. I'm one of the few people that pushes people to seriously consider crop sensor cameras. The bottom line is, you should consider what you really need. Think about what your D7000 *isn't* doing for you, think about the money, and decide what's *really* best for you - not what people are telling you to do. My guess is, the D7100 will be a huge upgrade for you and the D600 may not end up really being what you want. Yes, the image quality will be phenomenal compared to your current camera. But image quality isn't the ultimate measure of a camera. Not for me, anyway.

[Photo-John]

I would like you to get a D7100 and carry on your tips series. It seems to me that the folks who are likely to most profit from your advice are those who are just moving up to a "serious" camera and they are most likely to go for the D7100.

I didn't say anything about that, but I was certainly thinking it

Nobody wants to have someone come past and say that your pictures were done on substandard gear. All the professionals have moved to FX. I think you have no choice.

I can't say what I really want to say here because *I'm* a professional

Really, the photos are all that should matter. Anyone who criticizes me for the equipment I use should step up and see if they can match my work. I'm the photographer. I'm the pro. I decide what works for me and what doesn't. I wish other people would think the same way. There are too many sheep in this business who have been made to believe they need a certain camera or lens to get the job done. Most of the time, it's not true.

[Grandpaw]

I would like you to get a D7100 and carry on your tips series. It seems to me that the folks who are likely to most profit from your advice are those who are just moving up to a "serious" camera and they are most likely to go for the D7100. The people I've met with a D600 were more experienced and were moving up from a D90 or something.

However - you sell your photos. This is a serious business around my neck of the woods. Nobody wants to have someone come past and say that your pictures were done on substandard gear. All the professionals have moved to FX. I think you have no choice.

Right now I use the D7000 as my main camera with the D90 as my backup. I like the fact that all my lenses would work with the D7100. I am very happy with my D7000 but the last couple of people that contacted me were interested in really large prints. The order that I just sent in yesterday had 14 of the 19 prints were 24x36 inches. A couple of the shots that they wanted was a vertical center section of a landscape photo. Well that lost a lot of my file in the crop and then it still needed to be enlarged which is a stretch.

I am considering buying the D600 from the money I just made on a recent sale and then selling my D7000 with Nikon grip, D90 and Nikon 18-200VR which are all in excellent condition with the original boxes and paperwork to put towards the D7100. The only lens I would need for the D600 would be a 24-70 F2.8 because I already have the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8, the Nikon 70-300VR, and the Nikon 50mm F1.8 that will all work with the D600 FF. I have been looking at the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 with stabilization for about $1200 for FF and that would give me the best of both worlds. All of this is giving me a migraine!!! I use my Sigma 17-50 F2.8 a lot when I don't have the Nikon 70-200VR on my camera so that is why I would need to get a 24-70 F2.8 for the FF camera.

The good news is that everything I have is in excellent condition so there is no rush on making the decision.


These are the lenses I have now.
Lenses
Nikon 70-200VR 2.8
Nikon 20E III 2x teleconverter
Nikon 18-200VR
Nikon 70-300VR
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Sigma 10-20 Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Sigma 17-50 Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS

[Franglais]

Right now I use the D7000 as my main camera with the D90 as my backup. I like the fact that all my lenses would work with the D7100. I am very happy with my D7000 but the last couple of people that contacted me were interested in really large prints. The order that I just sent in yesterday had 14 of the 19 prints were 24x36 inches. A couple of the shots that they wanted was a vertical center section of a landscape photo. Well that lost a lot of my file in the crop and then it still needed to be enlarged which is a stretch.
....

OK I can see why you don't use the 18-200 so much nowadays. I don't have the 24-70 f2.8 but I have it's predecessor the 28-70 f2.8. Had it for 14 years now, gosh, but when I want the best it's the one to bring with me.

[dl4449]

Hi Jeff just a few observations I have had my D600 for a couple of months now.
What I like image quality, lighter than my my D700,i think the ISO performance is great, it has a remote sensor on the back as well as the front, it uses the ML-L3 remote which is inexpensive $16.00 .The movie quality is good handy when the grand daughter is around The user1 and user2 function looks like it would be nice to set up for different shooting situations

Whats not so good for me
Takes a long time to upload pictures to the computer 25-39 megs ea. I would prefer CF cards instead of SD I think they ars faster.Controlls are very different than the D700 still getting used to that.I miss the focus lock no the back of the camera( i think you can program on of the other buttons for that function).

3200 ISO





For some reason i can't load the un cropped image will try a link
http://td.smugmug.com/Stuff/IA/i-mPp...3%20copy-L.jpg

Just my thoughts
I am sure no matter which one you chose you will make it work fine

[Photo-John]

Hi Jeff just a few observations I have had my D600 for a couple of months now.

Please write a review for your D600. It sounds like you know it well enough now to be able to write a good review. In fact, you could almost just copy what you wrote here and call it a review. I hope you'll do a little more than that, though

Here's a link to that review page:

Nikon D600 Reviews >>

We don't have any user reviews for the D600 yet so if you write a good one, I'll probably make it a Featured User Review and include a link to your Web site, or whatever else you'd like

[Photo-John]

...but the last couple of people that contacted me were interested in really large prints. The order that I just sent in yesterday had 14 of the 19 prints were 24x36 inches. A couple of the shots that they wanted was a vertical center section of a landscape photo. Well that lost a lot of my file in the crop and then it still needed to be enlarged which is a stretch.

If you're regularly making prints that big - especially if they're landscapes - then a full-frame camera might be the right thing to do. Big landscapes with lots of detail is one place where full-frame can make a real difference. On the other hand, before you pull the trigger, you should try enlarging and printing some of the D7100 samples I posted. I made a 20x30 print from the ISO 3200 sample and I thought it looked great. So if you're shooting at more reasonable ISO settings, the D7100 might very well do the job. The image quality of the D7100 actually has me really excited about APS-C sensor cameras. I can't wait to see what everyone else comes out with this year.

[wfooshee]

That was my thought as well. If enlargement resolution is your concern, megapixels may be all you need. It would hurt to drop that extra several hundred on a body, plus what you'd need for lenses, for a minimal actual difference in the final result.

(Says the guy who's never shot full-frame digital..... )

[Photo-John]

That was my thought as well. If enlargement resolution is your concern, megapixels may be all you need. It would hurt to drop that extra several hundred on a body, plus what you'd need for lenses, for a minimal actual difference in the final result.

I think we're actually saying the opposite thing. I was saying the full-frame quality might actually pay off with big enlargements. On the other hand - you're correct - the resolution of both cameras is 24-megapixels. So at low ISO settings, with good exposure, the quality might be pretty much the same. It could be that the difference only shows up at high ISO. And I've already said that the D7100 looks great at ISO 3200. This is actually a really interesting question. Now I'd really like to get my hands on a D600 for studio tests to see where the differences start to show up

[volks]

Jeff, how often do you use your 70-300 lens ? You did mention reach is something you prefer. For large prints, both will do fine.

[Grandpaw]

Jeff, how often do you use your 70-300 lens ? You did mention reach is something you prefer. For large prints, both will do fine.

Actually on the longer reach photos I use the 70-200VR F2.8 with my 2x teleconverter which gives me a reach of 600mm and the 70-300VR only gives me 450mm reach because it won't take the 2x converter. I really don't use the 70-300 much any more. It may be another lens I end up selling

[tjeff1]

I am looking at it now and decided not to go with D600 at this time. This is because about 3/4 of the units have the dust accumulation on the sensor. It is normal to have a little dust but a lot of people have it so extreme that they need to clean the sensor every few hundred clicks. This would be unacceptable to me especially if you do landscapes. You should definitely research the dust issue and be aware of it before you buy. There are also "rumors" that Nikon may be up to some kind of fix very soon because so many of these D600's are needing frequent cleaning and mirror box replacements.

[armando_m]

Jeff,
My only warning about going full frame would be to consider your lenses, but from the list you only seem to miss some wide angles for FX

IQ maybe very close between the 600 and the 7100

I'll say the AF system in the d7100, borrowed from the bigger brothers is outstanding, better then the 39af system in the D600, it will make a difference when focusing in low light, or when using the teleconverter , I have been shooting in the dark along other photographers (some with the D700) and I can hear their lenses hunting for focus , while the d800 just locks (it has the same 51af system as the D7100)

another difference, the D7100 is slightly faster than the D600

but ... my comment is only based on what I've reading on the specs at the nikon page

maybe try to rent the D600 , D7100, or try them at a store?

[Photo-John]

maybe try to rent the D600 , D7100, or try them at a store?

We have some smart members. This is a great idea. There are a bunch of online rental companies now and that's an excellent, risk-free to test a camera you're thinking about buying. I've used Borrow Lenses a couple of times and I think they're great.

[Grandpaw]

I thought I had replied to this but I guess I haven't. I do plan on going to Calagaz Camera in Mobile, Al and checking them both out before I buy one.

[Photo-John]

I just finished shooting studio tests with a borrowed D600. They'll be posted later today, so you'll be able to compare the D7100 and D600 back to back. Since they're both the same resolution and the D7100 has such great IQ, I'm really curious to see where the differences show up. I'm sure they'll be almost the same in good light / low ISO. But at what point will the larger sensor start to pull ahead - that's the question. I'm also curious to see how the D600 compares to the Sony A99, which I believe uses the same sensor.

[Grandpaw]

I just finished shooting studio tests with a borrowed D600. They'll be posted later today, so you'll be able to compare the D7100 and D600 back to back. Since they're both the same resolution and the D7100 has such great IQ, I'm really curious to see where the differences show up. I'm sure they'll be almost the same in good light / low ISO. But at what point will the larger sensor start to pull ahead - that's the question. I'm also curious to see how the D600 compares to the Sony A99, which I believe uses the same sensor.

John, I am looking forward to seeing the photos. Jeff

[Photo-John]

I've been comparing the D600 tests to both the D7100 and the A99 samples and the results are very interesting. The biggest difference between the D7100 and the D600 is sharpness. Although they both have the same resolution, the D600 samples are definitely sharper. The D7100 actually appears to show less noise, though - at least up to ISO 3200. That's as far as I've looked. At standard print sizes and at lower ISO settings, I think it's going to be really hard for most people to tell the difference, though - especially without being able to compare back to back. The more I look at the D7100, the more impressed I am.

[dingoodk]

Its Best i wish i have this for my next shot on vacation

[Photo-John]

Our D600 studio tests are posted:

Nikon D600 Full-Frame Digital SLR Studio Sample Photos >>

Check them out and see what you think. Because the D7100 vs D600 comparison is so interesting, I think I may also do a separate article comparing features, specs and image quality...

[volks]

Unfortunately the d600 does have a dust spot. Very easy to see.