Reading mode: Light Dark

D7K plus 24-70, --OR-- D600 plus 50 1.8G

Go to last post
F

fredal

New member
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Location
AU
Hi guys. Just seeking your thoughts/comments. I've recently sold most of my Nikon gear except for my 70-200 VR2. My last body was the D300, which I had for about 3 years. The proceeds I got from selling my D300, Sigma 10-20, Nikon 17-55 is around $2k-ish... which I plan to use for my current purchase dilemma. Im just an enthusiast and not earning anything from my photos... just your typical hobbyist who loves taking pics of family, holidays, etc.

Now... I've been thinking (and a lot of reading online) about this for almost a month now (since the release of D600)... and I still cant seem to decide on what road to take. After several years with the D300, Im feeling Im now wanting to go FX for that "FX magic" (e.g. DOF, etc). Though, the crop factor of DX is really great as I always shoot my kids' sports activities.

Nikon D7000 + Nikkor 24-70 f2.8; OR-

Nikon D600 + Nikkor 50 1.8G...50 1.8G for starters, given my funds available... but Im not sure when will I be able to gather funds again for a 24-70 glass (maybe a year or two =(

Appreciate your thoughts/comments/suggestion. Best regards.
 
The 24-70 f2.8 is an FX lens (projects a larger circle of light for the bodies with the Larger sensor), so buying it for the D700 DX body (which has the smaller sensor) would be a huge waste of money.

The D600 is an FX body so it could use that lens.
 
I'd say "not maximised" rather than terming it a waste on DX, after all... I'll be using the 24-70's sweet spot (inner circle) on DX. The reason Im going for the 24-70... with my 17-55, Im always wanting more from 55mm and not really shooting much 17mm but mostly above the 20+ mm range.
 
I would go with the D600. I have a d7000 & a d600. The d600 blows the d7000 away in every category.

I am really not a fan of the 24-70 on a DX camera.

You end up getting a 36-105 equivalent. If you don't like the range of the 17-55 I doubt you will like the 24-70. The 17-55 is supposed to replicate the 24-70 in DX.

Personally I got a d600 + the 17-35. For my shooting I love this combo. Throw in a 50 1.4, and a 70-300 (would like a 70-200, but I rarely shoot telephoto.. maybe when my kid starts with sports :) and I am a happy camper. Have a 105 DC for portraits. But that usually stays at home unless I know I am doing portraits.
 
I firmly believe that good glass trumps a good body. If I were in your position, I'd have kept the 17-55 (unless you had enough to get a 24-70) and bought the d7000. By the time you have another $2k saved up, there will likely be the d600 replacement body available, which will be even better than the d600 and maybe the d800.

Kerry
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Kerry Pierce said:
I firmly believe that good glass trumps a good body. If I were in your position, I'd have kept the 17-55 (unless you had enough to get a 24-70) and bought the d7000. By the time you have another $2k saved up, there will likely be the d600 replacement body available, which will be even better than the d600 and maybe the d800.

Kerry
--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree, but the d300 > d600 jump is HUGE. He already has a 70-200, can't get much better there.
 
FloEvans said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I firmly believe that good glass trumps a good body. If I were in your position, I'd have kept the 17-55 (unless you had enough to get a 24-70) and bought the d7000. By the time you have another $2k saved up, there will likely be the d600 replacement body available, which will be even better than the d600 and maybe the d800.
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree, but the d300 > d600 jump is HUGE. He already has a 70-200, can't get much better there.
Click to expand...
But.... We weren't talking about the d300 vs d600. We're talking about the d7k vs d600, where the jump isn't so huge, especially when he has no glass below the 70-200. Plus, he's losing the crop factor for the kids sports that he likes to shoot.

That's only my opinion, which he's free to take or leave as he wishes. :)

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
D300-to-D600 is huge indeed. D7K-vs-D600... this I cannot tell as I got no experience. This is why I cannot decide whether to prioritise glass (D7k + 24-70), or go for the change from D300> D600.
 
you are comparing apples to oranges. A zoom lens vs a prime?

It sounds like you don't know what type of photography you want to do, otherwise your lens selection will be based on your needs.

I would get the D7000 and 24-70, and add in a DX ultra wide.

Unless you will be shooting above ISO 800 most of the time, D600 will not give you much advantages that justifies the extra cost.
 
SUPERHOKIE said:
you are comparing apples to oranges. A zoom lens vs a prime?

It sounds like you don't know what type of photography you want to do, otherwise your lens selection will be based on your needs.

I would get the D7000 and 24-70, and add in a DX ultra wide.

Unless you will be shooting above ISO 800 most of the time, D600 will not give you much advantages that justifies the extra cost.
Click to expand...
it sounds like you don't know what this thread is all about as well =D
its not zoom vs prime
 
The 24-70 is a big investment, and with that the D7000 would eventually have to go in order to get the full benefit of the lens. I would start with the D600. It doesn't seem that you are looking for telephoto capability, so that would be the better choice. For the lens, I recommend you spend just a little more and get the 50mm 1.4G for one reason. With that setup you will want to shoot live-view occasionally, and you might even want to use manual focus. The 1.4G is very good in this respect. The manual focusing is better than on any of the other Nikon 50mm lenses. Pick a lens you think you will keep for a very long time.
--
Roy
 
fredal said:
D300-to-D600 is huge indeed. D7K-vs-D600... this I cannot tell as I got no experience. This is why I cannot decide whether to prioritise glass (D7k + 24-70), or go for the change from D300> D600.
Click to expand...
Well I do have a D7000 and a D600. It just so happens my father has a D300 and a 24-70 2.8 to boot.

In the end it is up to you, I like wide angles and shallow DOF. The choice for me is easy, the better AF and added dynamic range and low light ability are just icing.

I would recommend renting both bodies and the 24-70, try them out yourself and decide.

Just to add another factor... the D7100 is surely just around the corner (and a D400 :P). Who knows what these cameras will bring.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tdixson/
 
I just upgraded from the D7000 to the D600. I chose the word upgrade because the D600 is an upgrade. I liked the D7000 but the D600 is better in several important ways:
3 stops better ISO performance, Metering is more accurate, Autofocus quicker

I suggest the D600. If you are going to get a 50mm to go with it the new 1.8 is half the price with of the 1.4 and is equal or better in most ways.
 
VisuallyOriented said:
I just upgraded from the D7000 to the D600. I chose the word upgrade because the D600 is an upgrade. I liked the D7000 but the D600 is better in several important ways:
3 stops better ISO performance, Metering is more accurate, Autofocus quicker
Click to expand...
The d600 is 3 stops better than the d7k? Are you sure about that?

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Let's not forgot that on a D600 you can just flip it into DX mode and get a 1.5x crop - unless you need to do big prints and need more than 10 MP, I see this as a perfect win-win
Kerry Pierce said:
FloEvans said:
Kerry Pierce said:
I firmly believe that good glass trumps a good body. If I were in your position, I'd have kept the 17-55 (unless you had enough to get a 24-70) and bought the d7000. By the time you have another $2k saved up, there will likely be the d600 replacement body available, which will be even better than the d600 and maybe the d800.
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree, but the d300 > d600 jump is HUGE. He already has a 70-200, can't get much better there.
Click to expand...
But.... We weren't talking about the d300 vs d600. We're talking about the d7k vs d600, where the jump isn't so huge, especially when he has no glass below the 70-200. Plus, he's losing the crop factor for the kids sports that he likes to shoot.

That's only my opinion, which he's free to take or leave as he wishes. :)

Kerry

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
 
don't waste your money on bodies, they come and go, their value drop very quickly.If you want fx, go for a used one, don't be such a geek, like most here, who buy a D600 and pair it it with a poor lens because they don't have money to buy good lens. You have the 70-200, now go for the 24-70. Later on, you may pick a D600 at a more decent price.
fredal said:
Hi guys. Just seeking your thoughts/comments. I've recently sold most of my Nikon gear except for my 70-200 VR2. My last body was the D300, which I had for about 3 years. The proceeds I got from selling my D300, Sigma 10-20, Nikon 17-55 is around $2k-ish... which I plan to use for my current purchase dilemma. Im just an enthusiast and not earning anything from my photos... just your typical hobbyist who loves taking pics of family, holidays, etc.

Now... I've been thinking (and a lot of reading online) about this for almost a month now (since the release of D600)... and I still cant seem to decide on what road to take. After several years with the D300, Im feeling Im now wanting to go FX for that "FX magic" (e.g. DOF, etc). Though, the crop factor of DX is really great as I always shoot my kids' sports activities.

Nikon D7000 + Nikkor 24-70 f2.8; OR-

Nikon D600 + Nikkor 50 1.8G...50 1.8G for starters, given my funds available... but Im not sure when will I be able to gather funds again for a 24-70 glass (maybe a year or two =(

Appreciate your thoughts/comments/suggestion. Best regards.
Click to expand...
 
VisuallyOriented said:
I just upgraded from the D7000 to the D600. I chose the word upgrade because the D600 is an upgrade. I liked the D7000 but the D600 is better in several important ways:
3 stops better ISO performance, Metering is more accurate, Autofocus quicker

I suggest the D600. If you are going to get a 50mm to go with it the new 1.8 is half the price with of the 1.4 and is equal or better in most ways.
Click to expand...
The D600 is much better at high ISO but where or how did you get 3-stops? 3-stop would indicate that the D7000 ISO1600 is similar to D600 ISO12800.

I have the D7000 and the D800, it's more like 1.5stops when both are view at the same size. This is still a huge difference IMO.
 
astigmate said:
don't waste your money on bodies, they come and go, their value drop very quickly.If you want fx, go for a used one, don't be such a geek, like most here, who buy a D600 and pair it it with a poor lens because they don't have money to buy good lens. You have the 70-200, now go for the 24-70. Later on, you may pick a D600 at a more decent price.
Click to expand...
I quite agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top