Awhile back DigitalRev did a vid about bad glass on a good body vs good glass on a bad body. Short verdict was good glass always wins.

I would tend to agree.

I would also add, GOOD LIGHT and good glass can produce fantastic results even on the older, less capable bodies. A decent lens and the right light with even a lowly body like a D40 can make some stunning images.

tcole1983 said:
Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

I am with you as far as my own personal purchases go, tcole.

Only problem for me, is that my money doesn't go as far as my eyes tell me it needs to ;-)

Hmmm my ratio of lens money to body money at this point is about 10:1 and if I ever upgrade my body will be around 4:1...so sticking with lenses here. Now you still have to keep up with the lately technology I think. Several generation newer bodies can do wonder for picture quality from what I have seen, but at the same time putting junky glass on an expensive body seems like a moot point also.

But now for years to come I can still use my glass I have invested in already...and my body is already out of date and needs (or I want to) upgrading.

AA is indeed famous for his landscapes but early in his career, he could not support his family, solely with his creative work. Like many "creative " photographers he did "commercial" photography and like most commercial photographers, he took whatever work he could get and that included portraiture, see Ansel Adams an Autobiography

sevencrossing said:
Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Yes, I have mispoken....what I meant to say, was, his landscapes generally did not include people....and I believe this was quite intentional in sharing the scene as he saw it. It was to my understanding, the importance in his work was on the natural resources in the landscapes and the portraits he did snap were of far less importance. This is only my understanding and I could be in error here as well. But my knowledge is based on discussions from years ago..

Thanks sevencrossing..

msmoto said:
Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. ........ he made little attempt to photograph people.......Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

Do look up his portaits of Albert Bender, Georgia O'Keeffe & Orville Cox, Robinson Jeffers, Mary Austin, Beaumont Newhall, Cedric Wright, Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston

Probably important to understand, Ansel Adams lived in a time which was technologically limited. No digital, no computers capable of what we can do today, and most important, his passion was the landscape. While his images are the highest form of photographic art, he made little attempt to photograph people.

If one is a "paparazzi" and is interested in recording life, then the camera's capabilities become very important. The high ISO, rapid frame rates, rapid interchangeability of lenses, and portability of the camera body are in some cases critical. So, in one senses asking which is more important is like asking which is more important in the car...the engine or the transmission....

Just a few thoughts to encourage more comments :-)

For me? I believe in lenses. Fast glass.

I took a note from reading about Ansel Adams some years back and it made sense to me. He said, all other things being equal, the lens is the most important. If it does not get through the glass, you'll never see it on the image.

As an example, I bought the Nikon 70-200mm ED VR II f/2.8 early in 2012. Fast glass. In the middle of shooting a season of local baseball, I could suddenly see very detailed fine dust/dirt particles in my images just as my eye did as the players moved or from the catchers glove. Others were just as amazed at the 'new' images.

Before that I was using an f/4.5 Nikon zoom/tele. Both good lenses, but the VR II f2/8 internal zoom was better from all my reading and seeing it could be f/2.8 through its focal range was something to be said.

I've the same experience with my Micro Nikkor 60mm and two other very good lenses.

Fast glass rules for me as I love hearing people's breath being taken in at the sight of my pictures. :-) It just makes a good camera better.

I'll get a new body in 2013. My investments in glass that I have made will only improve even more then.

Seb, don't be worried about the technical jargon about the lenses. You will see a drastic improvement in picture quality going to a FX sensor. I sold my D7000 and bought the D800. I haven't had a single regret. I'm sure you'll be happy with the D600. Just being able to shoot at higher ISO's with less noise has allowed to get shots I wouldn't have dreamed of before. Get what you can afford and enjoy.

At this point I think I am going to wait on the D600, even if supply vs. demand means a preorder now won't be filled for a while. With the B&W film class I'm taking, I have barely used my D7000. Nothing really big coming up that would wind up making me put hundreds or thousands of photos through a DSLR anyways. Maybe I'll pick up a D600 or D800 before I go to Costa Rica next year, and depending on battery life a D600 may be the ideal camera for me to take on the Appalachian Trail. (Decided I'm officially officially doing that next year!)

well first thoughts now are, WOW expensive!

I knew it was going to be more, but £1995! nearly £700 more then the US!
Which really makes this decision harder.

TaoTeJared said:

To be realistic, FX - DX neither format is better except for on the extreme uses by any measurement. I doubt there will be much of a difference in sensor performance of the D3200 vs the D600. More headroom (1-1.5 stops) on the high side of ISO.

The only real reason for the OP (SEB) to move is if 1) need the extra resolution to crop, 2) Utilize better video 3) Shoots continuously above ISO 1000. Outside of that, there really is no real difference from the leaked specs.

It used to be that wide angle lenses were unavailable for FX, but that has since been solved. Still, DX wide lenses are much less expensive than Full Frame wide lenses.

I was thinking £600 for a Dx wide lens to give me 15-300 total equivalent focal length coverage, or £400 more for 24-200 coverage, but with higher resolution, better noise handling and the 'correct' focal lengths and aperture depth of fields; hoping that 24 would be wide enough. (would for weddings, just missing ultra wide landscape sunsets/starscapes)

but..

Really not sure i can justify £1400 more for the body, and reduce my focal length coverage, even with the advantages of FX. (also when i did want to go wide, it would cost me!)

I have no NEED for wide for the rest of this year (just have the money now, and the frustration from all summer shooting 36mm!) so i think i'm just gonna hold tight, and see if the price drops.

Thanks for all your time and effort, appreciated.

Let's not get into the effective focal length vs designed focal length here - we all know what they mean.

FX sensors don't utilize FX lenses any more than DX does. Arguably DX utilized the best parts of FX lenses and thus making them better.

To be realistic, FX - DX neither format is better except for on the extreme uses by any measurement. I doubt there will be much of a difference in sensor performance of the D3200 vs the D600. More headroom (1-1.5 stops) on the high side of ISO.

The only real reason for the OP (SEB) to move is if 1) need the extra resolution to crop, 2) Utilize better video 3) Shoots continuously above ISO 1000. Outside of that, there really is no real difference from the leaked specs.

It used to be that wide angle lenses were unavailable for FX, but that has since been solved. Still, DX wide lenses are much less expensive than Full Frame wide lenses.

You're missing his point, tcole. He's just making a big huff over whats called effective focal length, and its true that the lens itself never provides anything other than its stated focal length. Crop sensors change how we perceive the focal length, sometimes dramatically. Anyway, don't let his attitude make you miss something important. :]

D400 said:
Please, 24mm = 24mm, no matter whether you are shooting on a full frame, crop, or nikon 1 body. The focal length is always the same, no matter the crop factor.

This is an absolute incorrect statement.

Looks at the exif data on a dx picture and tell me what it says...here I will find some for you:

Focal Length 24 mm
Focal Length (35mm format) 36 mm <----IE FX format

Funduro said:
You will attain the maximum resolution capabilities of all you FX glass on a FX sensor period. You will have the TRUE focal length which is written on each lens barrel. Gold Ring FX glass was designed to be used primarily with a FX sensor, everything else is a step down compromise even if DX uses the "sweet spot". DxO mark shows you very clearly the affects of FX glass used with a DX sensor. DX crop factor is good for achieving extra reach for longer focal lengths. FX 28mm = 28mm, 35mm = 35mm, that is undeniable in my book.

It does not matter what the final D600 specs will be, the D600 FX sensor give you the performance that your Gold Ring Nikkor lenses were designed for. You seem to be the exact customer that Nikon is aiming for with the D600. My advice, buy it.

Please, 24mm = 24mm, no matter whether you are shooting on a full frame, crop, or nikon 1 body. The focal length is always the same, no matter the crop factor.

Having both of these bodies together would sure be a great setup if you can afford it financially. Both bodies are light and have resolution right in the sweat spot. You don't need anymore for anything I have learned with the D800e. 16-24mp is perfect and it sounds like the D600 is perfect for somebody in your position :)

seb said:
hello.

I've read this forum from time to time, but never needed to sign up and post, until now. i know there is much debate over this but i was wondering for me:

I own a 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.4. i was literally going to buy a nikon 10-24 this month, until i heard about the d600 due to be announced on the 13th.

Would yo recommend spending the money on upgrading, or sticking with the d7000 and buying the wide lens? your valued opinions welcome.

cheers

You will attain the maximum resolution capabilities of all you FX glass on a FX sensor period. You will have the TRUE focal length which is written on each lens barrel. Gold Ring FX glass was designed to be used primarily with a FX sensor, everything else is a step down compromise even if DX uses the "sweet spot". DxO mark shows you very clearly the affects of FX glass used with a DX sensor. DX crop factor is good for achieving extra reach for longer focal lengths. FX 28mm = 28mm, 35mm = 35mm, that is undeniable in my book.

It does not matter what the final D600 specs will be, the D600 FX sensor give you the performance that your Gold Ring Nikkor lenses were designed for. You seem to be the exact customer that Nikon is aiming for with the D600. My advice, buy it.

sevencrossing said:
SEB ..Your reasoning seems good to me. Given you already have FX glass, on your budget, the D600 seems the perfect camera for you

Yeah 100% agree with sevencrossing here. I did pretty much the same thing. Collected a lot of old old and AF FX glass in preparation for going FX at some point. Once the D800 was announced I had to have it since it was THE camera I had been waiting for. Had the D600 been announced first I probably would have ended up with that. IF the D600 is the D7000 but FX camera that all the rumors are saying it might be it will be a hell of an awesome camera, especially if the price point is accurate.

SEB I will say this even though I am not a pro and honestly really a low level amateur with the glass you currently have the D600 should be a really fun camera that you should be able to make some really excellent photos with. (Once again assuming the rumors are accurate and it is mostly everything we hope it will be.)

SEB ..Your reasoning seems good to me. Given you already have FX glass, on your budget, the D600 seems the perfect camera for you

I personally would make the jump to the D600, even with the 24-70 being the widest lens. I've found 24mm equivalent to be a comfortable wide, and I'll probably have the 24-70 on a full frame camera far more often than my 16-35.

tcole1983 said:
it just seems like such a mishmash of stuff, but not really the exact camera anyone is wanting from what I can tell. I mean is a beginning photog going to spend $1500 on a body?

Although I agree, I think the money is there, and that people are going to embrace it, and be it for lack of better choices. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're just starting out, you can either get a D3200 or a D800. Everything in the middle is either rather old or EOL. D700 and D7000 are discontinued (are they not?), and the D300s apparently can't match either when It comes to IQ. I guess everyone not willing to pay or wait a whole lot longer will get a D600.

I wonder what it'd take for the camera market to manufacture to customers' demand. You don't just buy a computer, you go online and upgrade your RAM, get a 7200RPM HDD or SSD instead of the 5400, take the faster CPU with the larger cache. Makes me wonder why you can't configure your own DSLR online - magnesium alloy body instead of plastics, longer lasting shutter, cache/image processor/mirror combo advanced enough to go 7-9 fps, but low MP count in order to get better ISO performance. Or what ever floats your boat. How hard can it be to design a camera that leaves a couple of key features up for choice?

kenadams said:
Anyone else have those reservations? Anyone thinking there could be a pro ~24MP/+6 FPS FX some day? Like a D800s or D700x ?

I think all of us that haven't bought a D4 or D800 are in the same boat. No I don't think there is going to be a camera like that...or at least not in the next 2-3 years. So I wouldn't hold your breath for it. There are somewhat limited choices at the moment for those that want to upgrade, but either don't need or can't afford a D800 or D4. I think many of us are hoping for a D400 to stay DX...others seem anxious for the D600, but until it is released I don't think anyone can be sure what it will bring. I feel like Nikon is leaving several gaps without a D400 and with the D600. Other then 24 MP so far the D700 seems like a superior camera to the D600...so why the D600, I have no idea.

I just can't wrap my mind around the entry level FX just yet...for the price and features it will offer...as of now it just seems like such a mishmash of stuff, but not really the exact camera anyone is wanting from what I can tell. I mean is a beginning photog going to spend $1500 on a body? Plus need FX glass...I mean minimum $2000 for a body and single FX zoom. Or those that already have the lenses, have a different dSLR...are we going to be disappointed by the feature set of the D600? Or are we supposed to love it just because it is FX? But even in Seb's case...he has some FX glass, but look at the difference in price of getting an ultra wide...$800-$900 for the 10-24 vs double that for the 14-24. It seems like even compared to the D7000 the features of the D600 might be a step back...it just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I will be wrong when it is released. Just a little while longer...

I have a D80 and want to upgrade. For my F100, I got a great deal on a practically new used 17-35, which I adore. I also have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a 50 AF-D 1.4. Only DX lens I own is the kit 18-135.

I'm kinda wondering what the D600 will bring, since I'd really like to go FX. At the moment I'm totally indecisive as the D800 is a bit much (resolution) maybe and slow (fps). But if the D600 turns out to be FX on the cheap, i'm not sure that's the way to go, cheap body, possibly awkward controls, etc. Alternatively, I'm thinking about buying a used D700, however, great as it may be, it's over 5yrs old. Film doesn't move anymore, digital runs fast as hell. Over a grand for +5 yrs old tech ... don't know?! Also, it's only 12MP and I'm mostly into landscape, not action, so that's a bit poor.

Anyone else have those reservations? Anyone thinking there could be a pro ~24MP/+6 FPS FX some day? Like a D800s or D700x ?

tcole1983 said:
Well you have survived thus far with 24 being your widest on DX which is really 36 mm on FX...so you will gain some wideness when you get the D600. So would you need the wide angle for FX? If you do save up and get it later. If you can wait a little while you can see what the D600 is going to be like and make a decision then. ...

Moving to a D800 I'm at the Wide angle dilemma as well but what Tcole said is where I am at. We forget how 24-28 is actually quite wide. Shooting DX for 7 years I really forgot how wide that really is. I would say wait and get the camera and see what you need.

I have a Tokina 17mm FX lens that is a fantastic performer and for now, that and a 28-70 for anything wide has been enough. I am keeping my D300 and my 12-24 Tokina for the wide stuff lives on that body and I swap lenses on the D800. If I find a good deal on a wide lens for FX I will probably pick one up, for for now that is what I'm sticking with.

A point for FX that you may not have considered is the bigger viewfinder image, it really is nice.

As compared to the D7000, the D600 will have bigger pixels which should translate into improved low light performance... Add in technology improvements and the low light capability of the D600 should be noticeably better than the D7000.

It sounds like you know what you are doing so as msmoto implies, you will probably be happier with a D800. The D600 may have a similar interface to that of the D3200, if so, and having played with the D3200, I can say that the D800 is a lot more enjoyable to use. That being said, fiscal realities are tough to ignore.

From a lens standpoint, another option with the D600 is the 18-35. It is not in quite the same league as the 14-24, 16-35, 17-35 or 20-35, but it is a good value for the money.

I have to agree with tcole and others, it really depends on your own goals and preferences. For me personally, I agree with msmoto (as usual) and would try to find a way to get a D800 to go with that great glass. After playing with the D800, you can then reassess your needs. Best of luck, let us know what you decide.