I have a D7000 and my only issue is when there is very low light, 35-f1.8 struggles to focus. There is nothing that could be done, not a big fan of flash photography (may be lazy to learn it) and it was very tough to handle those situations.

My friend rented a D800 for a week (I was using D7000) and it had very sharp images at medium-low light (70-200 f2.8 VRII) and I used the same lens on D7000 and it had mixed results.

I was considering D600 if it reduces in price, for two reasons:
- Full frame (better at low light and clarity of photos, with limited exp on D800)
- Smaller body (not like D800)

In day light... D7k rocks big time!!!

Nikon itself and others shooting D600 and D7000 have concluded that in 99% of photographs the single biggest difference in the two Nikon DSLRs is DEPTH OF FIELD. A local store has a D600. Walking outside to shoot the cameras on a street scene the primary measurable difference I was able to measure is depth of field. These tests were not conducted in a lab. As a scientist I have many laboratory hours (years) and I shoot photos in field environments, not studio. I have NOT been able to do any side by side comparisons with the D800. Some report that the D600 and other FX cameras has a different presence. It Would appear to me without extensive further tests that the BIGGEST single difference is depth of field. WELL if that is the primary difference I always pick wider depth of field. I may be photographing a cornfield because I think it is pretty and then go back and notice.....hmmm.....some rust disease is just starting to show or maybe the frost I thought we totally avoided last night did clip back the edges of the field more than I thought.
Not many farmers or foresters or land owners or managers use cameras as extensively as we do. But right now.....to me DX looks like between the lens cost issue, initial purchase price, etc.FX has some problems for my use. Cost and size of the gear being the worst.

My conclusion is then D7000 is still a totally good value and if revamped (updated) would still probably be my choice and very possibly even OVER the D400 which will be quite protected but once you own it.....lower cost bodies will in time outstrip it. For instance check out the thread on D300 versus the D7000!

in4fun said:

To sum it all up and pop the bubble: No, unfortunately FX didn't all of a sudden become affordable to the masses.

I think anyone who is even somewhat of a photography enthusiast will agree that DSLR photography in any form is expensive, and the cost of the D600 is relative.

Yes, it's a *less* expensive option for the body, but good FX glass is pricey and will always be.

To in4fun: Welcome to Nikon Rumors! I have been on NR for some time and have found it a very useful site. I calculated what it would cost me to add the D600 despite owning 6 really excellent FX lens (70-300VR, 60 Micro Nikkor, 20-35mm Nikkor, 35mm f1.8 Nikkor Prime, 70-300 Nikkor D, and 85 mm Nikkor Prime). The low estimate for D600 and added FX glass was the body and kit lens at $2,700 to somewhere around $11,000. I consider myself a pro as I have had that title years ago and to be honest I never even think of that category. I have always used photos as a tool to support my work in environmental conservation and because it has been part of my life since I started taking photos at 22 and I am now nearly 70. The largest group I know are pro newspaper photographers who have told me to switch to the D600 would cost them more than their newspapers and they could afford. Some of them will of course switch to FX. So In4fun is right on target with his posts.

I agree with your argument that Nikon released the D600 prior to the D400 to maximize FX sales among the pros. Unfortunately I am not even close to the pro camp and I don't have the experience nor the existing lens collection to even consider the D600. But I did consider the D600 very seriously since I was naively blinded by the low price tag on the body and I guess I'm not alone.

I think that many amateurs with an 'average Joe paycheck' (like myself) are led to the false belief that the time has finally come to make the switch to FX (or even start out with FX as a first camera) since the body is so tempting affordable right now.

I don't want to go that far and say that it was Nikons intention but in my language we have a special term for that and it's called a 'dairymaids calculation'. You want to believe and thats why you're unconsciously blocking out other important factors that contribute to the final bill. If you're looking at the total cost of a decent D600 starter set, FX suddenly doesn't look that appealing anymore for the average amateur.

To sum it all up and pop the bubble: No, unfortunately FX didn't all of a sudden become affordable to the masses.

@ In4fun; Using DX lens on a D600 makes no sense at all unless you are out photographing and haven't a FX lens. So you are right there. My belief is that Nikon PURPOSELY decided there were enough pro FX people out there that believed FX rules and DX was slumming that introducing the D600 before the D400 would result in more SALES. The DX format is actually extremely efficient and has many benefits. The D7000 is actually the best buy out there for quality versus cost and lens available. If I buy a D600 a would NOT use my DX lens on it at all. I do have six FX lens including some of the best Nikon built. What I don't have in Nikkor glass are teles beyond the excellent 70-300VR. That lens is one of my all time favorites and has performed extremely well on my F5 film camera.

Just another thing to keep in mind if you're planning on using your DX lenses on the D600.

Using the D600 with DX lenses will give you less detail and less resolution than a DX lens on a D7000. So you can't zoom in that far into your shots as you could with the same lens on a D7000. So if you don't use dedicated FX glass you will end up with lower quality pictures than you'll get with a D7000.

So even though the D600 body seems a bargain, if you add 2 or 3 premium fx lenses it becomes unaffordable (at least for me). As I said using DX lenses on the D600 makes no sense so I'm stuck waiting for a possible D7200 or D400.

Gabbb said:
It's ~25-82, the f4,2 math is somewhat ok for depth of field, but for (shutter) speed it's a true 2.8. Although I would be surprised if the new 24-85 wouldn't be better overall, the 17-55 is a pretty old lens and it isn't exactly state of the art.

isn't state of the art but it is a pro level lens whereas the 24-85 is a kit lens made for consumers. i have AIS lenses that aren't state of the art but would blow the 24-85 g out of the water.

Eric Bowles wrote:

"If you shoot wildlife or other subjects that need reach, DX is hard to beat. If you shoot low light subjects, street weddings, studio etc. - FX is probably better a it provides a little more subject isolation and better low light performance. The file size of the proposed D600 is a blessing or a curse - 50% more pixels means 50% larger files. That's longer time to process and more storage required." end of Eric's quote

I own and get to use a D7000 Nikon some. Other times my son and grandson are using that camera. I believe that for the VAST majority of photos and video that camera is equal to the task. I shoot almost exclusively in the field.

Two days ago I climbed to one of the Adirondack High Peaks. I was the only one on the trail, or on the peak with a DSLR camera. I carried the D90 and my 18-105Nikkor and the D300 and the 70-300VR. The view from the summit was AWESOME. Stunning clarity and bright fall foliage! The images with my two cameras was worth frankly an agonizing climb both up and DOWN! I contemplated the days when I actually carried a 8x10 and huge glass to the same summit.

Would the trip with FX Nikon and bigger lens have been more difficult? Answer is Hell Yes! Would the resultant photos have been better? Well that is unresolved. Getting the proper exposures up there is not easy. There was so much light that I had GREAT difficulty even seeing the LCD screens. But I am most happy with the images. A very close friend going up to another peak two days before dropped his FX glass and now the lens barrel is seriously damaged. He is younger and stronger than almost any pro photographer I know who has the time for such a climb. My son is an excellent photographer but can't take the time from his timber frame construction work building homes so people can vacation here. So there are many compromises we ALL have to make concerning photos, our time, and gear.

From my standpoint (and from my wallet's standpoint as well!), I think it would suit me best to get the D7000. I like the faster shutter speed the most, as I'd like the option to shoot wide open sometimes.

Plus all my lenses would still be compatible.

sevencrossing said:
This has been suggested by others but i fail to understand the advantage of restricting the image size at the shooting stage rather than cropping in post

Eric ,do you get a better IQ with your D7000 compared to a cropped image with your D800E?

I dont see big file sizes an issue. The first computer I used (a PDP7) had about 4 KB of memory the latest 2 TB

You can also buy a pro lens or two and a D7000 for the price of the D800E.

If you system is hanging on 16MP files, you don't have enough RAM.

Gabba href="http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=6394&page=2#post-99434">said:

Big file sizes are an issue, I have a fairly powerful computer, despite that when I press "edit in adobe ps cs6" in LR

How much RAM have you got ?

If LR and CS are open at the same time,12 GB of RAM seems to be the minimum on a PC

sevencrossing said:
This has been suggested by others but i fail to understand the advantage of restricting the image size at the shooting stage rather than cropping in post

Eric ,do you get a better IQ with your D7000 compared to a cropped image with your D800E?

I dont see big file sizes an issue. The first computer I used (a PDP7) had about 4 KB of memory the latest 2 TB

You are right, if you compare the d7000 to the d800 there is no resolution advantage anymore and there won't be since the majority of lenses can not really resolve a 24mpx dx sensor.

Big file sizes are an issue, I have a fairly powerful computer, despite that when I press "edit in adobe ps cs6" in LR while working through my raw files the system just hangs up with 16mpx files alrdy, I can imagine the pain of handling even larger files, if you shoot jpeg I guess that doesn't matter. D800 dx crop mode and d7000 image quality is pretty much equal, dynamic range is probably indistinguishable, resolution is roughly the same, high iso somewhat worse on the d7k. Comparing any DX camera to the d800E is not a fair thing to do, since the lack of the aliasing filter really makes it superior, I've seen some d800E raw files and it's just amazing. Too bad there is no d7000E I totally would have bought that.

eric bowles said:

If you shoot wildlife or other subjects that need reach, DX is hard to beat.

This has been suggested by others but i fail to understand the advantage of restricting the image size at the shooting stage rather than cropping in post

Eric ,do you get a better IQ with your D7000 compared to a cropped image with your D800E?

I dont see big file sizes an issue. The first computer I used (a PDP7) had about 4 KB of memory the latest 2 TB

It's not about D7000 vs. D600. It's about whether you really need FX or DX and other features. The D600 is a rumor at this point, but it looks like a good entry level FX body. The D7000 is a good midrange DX body.

If you shoot wildlife or other subjects that need reach, DX is hard to beat. If you shoot low light subjects, street weddings, studio etc. - FX is probably better a it provides a little more subject isolation and better low light performance. The file size of the proposed D600 is a blessing or a curse - 50% more pixels means 50% larger files. That's longer time to process and more storage required.

I have two D7000 bodies, a D800E, and a D600 ordered (wait list) to convert to IR.

Don't know what your budget is, but personally, I'd go with a DX body (lighter weight, longer effective FL, etc.) and an FX body (better with wide glass, assumed higher IQ, etc.)

If your budget is limited, and if you don't really need the new equipment now (are you going on vacation? having some big event?), hold off on your purchase until after the D600 and the D7100 are announced - and then buy the D7000 (at it's then newly discounted price) and a D600. Then you have both DX and FX.

The D600 is supposed to be around $1500 but that still sounds awfully low to me. I think $1,899 or $1,999 body only and $2,299 or $2,399 with 24-85VR. Hard to fathom it being only a slight premium over the D7000. Technology is getting cheaper every day though.

I have the 85/1.8 AF-D. Excellent, excellent glass. Not completely sharp @ 1.8 but still plenty sharp. I got super deal on Ebay used for around $225.00 I believe. Very good condition. Word of advice on Ebay -- always buy from Sunday - Thursday. I've sold hundreds of items (and bought about 1/2 as many) and weekends generate much higher prices. And if you can find an auction ending in the middle of the night, like say 3:00 AM, then you are even better off. My 2 cents anyway.

birdman said:
WOW! That is pretty impressive. I assume this is a D7k file, no? I have a few very good landscape shots with that camera, so let's see if LR 4.1 can handle some tweaks.

Off topic, but are YOU (Gabbb) going to buy the d600? I am dumping my 5d2 before price absolutely dies and waiting on pre-ordered D800. We'll see in the mean time. I hate parting with my 5d2, but it's getting long in the tooth and prices keep deflating. Also, hate to lose some of my glass, but it's nothing Nikon can't come close to matching.

Now only if we had that long-awaited 70-200/4.0 VR or 300/4.0 VR......

Yes that's a d7k file, 1/2 magnification. I don't know, if I had the money I would buy a d800.. :) The d600 is still going to be too expensive for me at us, I think maybe 2-3 years from now I'll be able buy one used :) I already have the lenses, I'll only need a 85mm, I thought about playing around with a classic film nikon for ultrawide shots.

I too envy canon ppl for their cheap 70-200F4..

WOW! That is pretty impressive. I assume this is a D7k file, no? I have a few very good landscape shots with that camera, so let's see if LR 4.1 can handle some tweaks.

Off topic, but are YOU (Gabbb) going to buy the d600? I am dumping my 5d2 before price absolutely dies and waiting on pre-ordered D800. We'll see in the mean time. I hate parting with my 5d2, but it's getting long in the tooth and prices keep deflating. Also, hate to lose some of my glass, but it's nothing Nikon can't come close to matching.

Now only if we had that long-awaited 70-200/4.0 VR or 300/4.0 VR......

here is a sample with the exposure slider moved to the max setting (+5EV)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Gabbb said:
It's no contest really! The d3s has a base iso of 200, which means there is no way it could be able to compare, if u are interested further to prove me wrong, you can test it easily, download nef samples from base iso (100 and 200 respectively) images from both cameras with significant shadowy areas in them and try to pull the data from them, the differences are so obvious it's easy to eyeball them.

I had a D7000, kid. No one is intent on proving you wrong. In fact, you are correct-- Kid. I'm glad we have forum monitors such as yourself to clear up inconsistencies.

I am only joking around with you so please don't take it seriously. I'll go over some of my d7k files later and try to pull shadows, etc. Maybe it will force me to buy the damn camera again.

While TTJ mentions there is high cost for FX glass vs DX, there are some low cost primes and zooms out there that keep overall investment low and the 70-300ED zoom is a pretty amazing lens for the price, so you can get some decent reach on FX without too much $$$ or weight and use crop mode when you need to get more reach.

D7000 is a good camera, but I'd probably wait if an $1500 FX were coming out a few months or 1/2 year later if I didn't have some specific need for the camera right away-- of course, if you're new to photography, wouldn't want to steer you to higher price if you don't know you're going to get into it. Improved DOF, ability to get 1.5x the zoom range (by using crop mode), and ability to use classic lenses like the 80-200 or 180 or 105 or 85 for the angle of views they were designed to give are all good reasons to have the flexibility of DX and FX in 1 camera.

MikeWhis said:
The 24-85 is 3.5-4.5, the 17-55 is 2.8 (when you add the crop factor, the 17-55mm becomes 28-85 4.2). The 17-55mm is actually worse than 24-85.

It's ~25-82, the f4,2 math is somewhat ok for depth of field, but for (shutter) speed it's a true 2.8. Although I would be surprised if the new 24-85 wouldn't be better overall, the 17-55 is a pretty old lens and it isn't exactly state of the art.

birdman said:
i would love to see a D3S and D7000 go head-to-head in DR testing. i am almost certain the D3S would win. Of course, DXO doesn't say it would. They must be 100% correct, right?

It's no contest really! The d3s has a base iso of 200, which means there is no way it could be able to compare, if u are interested further to prove me wrong, you can test it easily, download nef samples from base iso (100 and 200 respectively) images from both cameras with significant shadowy areas in them and try to pull the data from them, the differences are so obvious it's easy to eyeball them.