Hi everyone, I'm a beginner, and have no more than $3000 spend in dslrs and lenses. I mainly shoot landscapes.
I don't have any lenses burden. Now I'm considering d600 kit or d7000+24-70 2.8, and don't know which to buy... I know many people say to spend more on lense but I heard that wideangle lenses works much better on fx bodies.. Do you have any suggestions? Also any other recommended combination of Canon is Ok!
D600 kit or D7000+24-70???
(49 posts) (21 voices)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
I would recommend the D600 kit for five reasons: First, you don't need f2.8 glass for landscapes. Second, the D7000 has a DX sized sensor while the D600 had the FX sized sensor. FX is larger and better for landscapes. Third, a 24mm-70mm lens on a DX body isn't really 24mm to 70mm. It is more like a 36mm to 105mm so you lose the wide angle for landscapes. An 18-55mm kit lens on a DX body is equivalent to 28mm to 82mm which gives you wide angle to portrait. Fourth, the D7000 is a great camera but soon to be replaced in early 2013 so it is "old" technology today while the D600 is very new technology. Fifth, if you have budget constraints (we all do, just at different price points) you can find many good and inexpensive (under $500) lenses originally made for Nikon film cameras which work fine on a latest technology D600 body. See this thread http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=9682
Posted 7 months ago # -
donaldejose said:
I would recommend the D600 kit for five reasons: First, you don't need f2.8 glass for landscapes. Second, the D7000 has a DX sized sensor while the D600 had the FX sized sensor. FX is larger and better for landscapes. Third, a 24mm-70mm lens on a DX body isn't really 24mm to 70mm. It is more like a 36mm to 105mm so you lose the wide angle for landscapes. An 18-55mm kit lens on a DX body is equivalent to 28mm to 82mm which gives you wide angle to portrait. Fourth, the D7000 is a great camera but soon to be replaced in early 2013 so it is "old" technology today while the D600 is very new technology. Fifth, if you have budget constraints (we all do, just at different price points) you can find many good and inexpensive (under $500) lenses originally made for Nikon film cameras which work fine on a latest technology D600 body. See this thread http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=9682+1
Posted 7 months ago # -
Yes, +2
Posted 7 months ago # -
I guess Donalld has said it for all of us... +3
Posted 7 months ago # -
another vote for the D600 even KR likes it
The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S VR has had very good reviews
and should be fine for landscapes
Posted 7 months ago # -
No fun really if the first reply makes so much sense that all of the rest of us might us well go takes pictures of something... ;-)
Still, a very good answer, Donald!!! +4
Have a D7000 myself and hoping to upgrade to D600 by the end of the year. Waiting cought up the money and in the mean time eagerto see what the D7100 will look like... BUt my choice is pretty much made already.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I'd never put the 24-70mm on a DX body, what's the point?
Posted 7 months ago # -
Regulator75 said:
I'd never put the 24-70mm on a DX body, what's the point?I have used the 24-70 2.8 on my D7000 and the results are fantastic. So, with all do respect, don't think that combination is by any means a waste of capital. But given, the current Nikon line up and one's ability to get in to the wonderful world of FX/FF body, I believe the D600 is a no brainer. Hence, why I agreed with Don's remark.
But just to make my point, a picture is worth a thousand words:
D7000 24-70 2.8 6 sec ISO 100 @ f/5.0
Posted 7 months ago # -
Yes, we can expect great FX glass to also be great DX glass (after all the DX sensor is just seeing the center section of the lens where the better sharpness is in the first place). The zoom range changes and you carry more weight than optically needed but you very well may have much better corner sharpness and less light fall off than that same lens produces in the corner of an FX image. So there can be advantages when putting an FX lens on a DX body.
Posted 7 months ago # -
-
Regulator75 said:
I'd never put the 24-70mm on a DX body, what's the point?Well, it could be said (given that Nikon have the same lens mount on DX and FX), that it would be daft not to use a fast high quality lens on a DX. If you have DX lenses only, then you have no ability to change to FX without selling everything and also given that you cannot get the same shallow DoF with DX that you can with FX, it would be really daft to only get an F4 maximum aperture lens if you are changing from a kit lens?
Just another way of looking at it (just saying is all...).
Posted 7 months ago # -
The D600 is a much more advanced body than the D7000. So, no brainer here. Spend the $2100 then for $500 an AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens and another $360, the AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens. Or the AF-S NIKKOR 28mm f/1.8G Lens for $700...a bit over budget. Or just get a AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens for about $440 plus if you wanted wide or tele, one or the other.
What everyone has to determine is exactly what type of shots one wants to shoot. And this before buying anything. If landscapes are your thing... maybe an AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D should be one to think about plus a 50mm or 85mm. But, the quality of the FX body combined with some nice prime lenses may be the biggest bang for the buck. (Best results for your money).
Posted 7 months ago # -
waterpork said:
Hi everyone, I'm a beginner, and have no more than $3000 spend in dslrs and lenses. I mainly shoot landscapes.
I don't have any lenses burden. Now I'm considering d600 kit or d7000+24-70 2.8, and don't know which to buy... I know many people say to spend more on lense but I heard that wideangle lenses works much better on fx bodies.. Do you have any suggestions? Also any other recommended combination of Canon is Ok!That was my situation almost exactly...
I'm a beginner and I set a $3K limit for my first DSLR. I had narrowed my choice down to the D7000. Just before I ordered it I started reading the D600 rumors and it looked really appealing. So I waited and got the D600 w/ the 24-85 Kit lens. I It was the right thing to do for me.
For me, the best thing about the D600 is that: 1) it is extremely versatile and 2) it was the best camera I could buy within my budget.
Versatility was important because during the decision making process I had made a list of the type of photos I wanted to shoot and the list kept growing. It started out w/ landscape and family events then grew to include night photography, concerts (my son is in a band), time laps, astro photography, outdoor portraits etc. The list is still growing.
I’ve had my camera a few weeks now and I love it.
Also, the comment “…I know many people say to spend more on lense…” did not apply to me. I plan on using the kit lens for a while. A cheaper zoom will be better for me until I find a niche that I like a lot and improve my skill. Then I may plunk down some cash for a really nice prime or 2. I'll admit that good glass would be a waste for me, at least for now.
Posted 7 months ago # -
In would get the D600, but not sure about the lens. I have heard it is pretty good, but I would probably buy a couple primes in the meantime instead and save up for the 24-70.
Posted 7 months ago # -
This is simply too easy: D600 all the way. the 24-70 is great, but IMHO it fits a certain purpose for Pros -- it is sharp at 2.8 and it has excellent build quality. there are less expensive options. The d7k was a great camera when I owned it, and still is but is getting a little long in the tooth. When its replaced soon you'll have an overpriced predecessor to a newer DSLR. If I had to do over, and budget was a concern, then D600 body and either Tokina 17-35/4.0 or Tokina 16-28/2.8. Grab a 50/1.8d used, and a used 70-300VR
Posted 7 months ago # -
-
sevencrossing said:
As a beginner I would shy away from the 24-70 (and most primes) as they are not VRCamera shake is more likely to cause an unsharp image than lens quality
Camera shake can be avoided by using faster shutter speeds (1/focal length x crop factor). The modern sensors are so good you can bump the ISO really high. So you can shoot with almost any shutter speed anywhere. Which makes the first sentence of your reply a load of B.S.
Posted 7 months ago # -
@Godless & sevencrossing: You both make good points (thought I would have left "B.S" line out)
The 24-120 F4 VR is a superb lens and that will make any photographer happy. +1 for the recommendation.
Depending of the end users ability to leaner proper shooting technique, i.e understanding "light" the need for VR can be eliminated given the flexibility builtin to the D600. I'm all for VR, specially given what I experienced at the air show using my 70-200 2.8.
At this stage is all depends on the OP's budget...
Posted 7 months ago # -
Considering the two options I wouldn't hesitate a second to... get D7000 and N24-70/2.8 (I might actually swap this for 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/4 + some nice tripod), why:
- glass is and always be a better option
- was playing with d600 recently and apart from the sensor size I don't see any differences between d7000 and d600 - pretty much all You have in d7000 You have in d600
- N24-70 on DX is as golf007sd wrote a great combo, was using this for some time with d200 and later with d90 and was more than pleased with the results (though this combo needs wide angle lens as it's not wide enough as a one lens strategy)
- image quality at the base (up to iso 800) should be undistinguishable between those two bodiesPosted 7 months ago # -
Godless said:
. The modern sensors are so good you can bump the ISO really high.you can indeed, but high ISO, like camera shake, will degrade IQ
VR is IMHO* one of thoes rare things in life, where you really do get somthing for nothing
Yes, what I say may, IYHO, may be B.S. But In IMHO it's correct
this is a forum " A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas"
you can have your opion, I can have mine
Posted 7 months ago # -
I might add that if you buy Nikon pro glass as your first lens then there is no going back. If you buy the D7000 and 24-70 F2.8 be prepared to contract NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) and spend lots of money in the future on nice Nikon glass ;)
I don't think you could go wrong with either option really. One main reason for not voting for the D7000 is its age. And for landscapes the D600 is going to be better hands down.
I usually would agree with Adamz on the glass investment, but there really aren't that great of options for a DX body atm...if I was coming in I would almost buy a D3200 and a couple nice lenses for the same price. Upgrade my body when something better comes out.
Final note if you get the D600 be prepared to spend money in the future on other FX glass. Might be one benefit of the DX body is that you can find some more affordable glass down the road, but you could probably argue not if you get some older lenses.
Posted 7 months ago # -
It is interesting how opinions vary....and for good reason. We all have different expectations... And budgets. While I agree with Adam regarding the glass, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 is such a phenomenal lens, it most likely depends on the ultimate direction one wants to go. The decision to go with full frame, i.e., D600 will mean more money in the future for glass. And if one is not going to blow up beyond 16" x 20", the quality difference may not be seen.
The iso performance may be the biggest difference and this can be seen at dpreview in the studio comparison section as not very much at ISO 6400 between the D7000 and D600.
Posted 7 months ago # -
If I was you, I'd get the D600 (no kit) and the 50mm f/1.8 D. Being a beginner you'll learn much faster with just using a prime lens and not depending on your zoom.
Then save some cash up and then get the 24-70mm or as other have stated the 24-120mm f/4 VR.Posted 7 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
