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.

I believe there will be a crop mode on the D600...so you could get the DX reach out or your 70-200 just at the sacrifice of it probably being around 12 MP instead (the D800 is 16 right?). Or you could get a TC which produces good results from what I have seen. Either way you would have to sacrifice or buy a longer lens. Lastly if you keep your D7000 then you could use that when you want the range and use the D600 for other stuff. There are lots of options...just have to decide which is the best for you...not sure we can tell which that is.

Mmmm... as I am thinking.... one of the points of view I have previously stated is that when we decide on our equipment, we must first decide on what we are going to shoot. If FX is desired for the increased resolution, then consideration of selling the D7000, adding this amount to the cost of the D600 and one would be at nearly the cost of the D800. And, with a tremendous benefit in quality, for both formats. If the primary issue is the wide angle, then another consideration of one of the wide angle lenses, 16-35mm f/4 VR (great lens) or even a 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye. Or the 16mm fisheye which gives 107° (about 90° horizontal) on DX or later on 180° (150° horizontal) on FX.

The 24mm is absolutely wonderful on FX, however, and if this is your goal, think about selling the D7000 and really going all the way...

Cheers for the responses,

In reply to wonkylens, the reason I'm considering the purchase is the irritation of being limited to a 36mm FX Equivalent has finally reached a point where i'm willing to spend £600 on the ability to go wider when needed.

In reply to msmoto, the d800 would be grand if it were in my price reach ;)

Thats why i'm considering the d600 when it is launched, as it will give my 24-70 an FX 24, which would satisfy my wide angle needs for now (plus all the other advantages of an FX body)

Admittedly the extra reach on the 70-200 is nice, but is it worth staying dx for? (question to myself i know) but if i did purchase the d600 i'd probably still keep my d7000 as a backup body.

cheers for the feedback and the rename. think i might just hold tight and wait for the announcement/reviews.

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. I have settled for 17 on DX with my 17-55. I haven't had a lot of opportunities to see how much of a difference it will make for me, but so far I haven't missed it much.

Either way I would wait unless you have a trip or something coming up you wanted the wide angle for. If you get the Nikon you wouldn't lose much if you sell it later on.

I'm in the same boat as this guy, same FX lenses but the more I think about it the more I think about staying with the D7000/DX lineup, for the extra reach on the 70-200 and then go with the Tokina 11-16 for my wide-angle lens, saving a whole lot of money.

Here are two threads which discuss the two cameras
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=6394&page=2
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=7041&page=3

But, the real question is always about reality vs. future guesses. No one really know what the D600 is going to be as of yet as Nikon has not announced it. And, as you are obviously a very serious photographer from the glass you have, it would almost seem you might want to get a D800.

I am renaming your thread as it is unique. Most folks do not have the FX glass already.

Probarbly easier to get advise if you tell us what you shoot today.

Good glass will last alot longer than a body so a 10-24 isnt a bad investment if you need a wide angle. If you feel you need a 10-24 it is a bit strange to considering spending the cash on a new body instead unless it is to satisfy some "need to buy" wibe wich I can fully understand :)

Personally I would wait for the official annoucement and see if they give any hint of availability and not unimportanly what the price will be.

If the price is as low as some has specualted you can perhaps considering a 16-35 AND a D600 as sort of a compromise :).

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