Its going to come down to FPS for me. I used to love the extra zoom the my D70 gave me. Now, I'm growing increasingly frustrated with it. The D400 is rumored to have the faster burst but is a damn DX body! I'm hoping for the rumors to be wrong for the D600.
Will the D600 likely be your first FF DSLR?
(55 posts) (39 voices)-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
We've been shooting with D200's since 2006, so, we're definitely ready for an upgrade, though we love out D200's, they're great cameras!!
We think we'll like the D400 being the same prosumer body as the D200's, but, the D600 being an economical FX, morer than likely we're upgrade our two D200's to one D400 and one D600. If the D400 never comes to be, I don't know what we'll do, don't know if two D600's makes sense or not?? The D800 would be an option, except for the 36mp RAW files, our current computers would choke on them.
Posted 9 months ago # -
If this is for real, which I really believe it is, this will definitely be my first FX camera. We'll be selling our D3100 and D7000 plus DX lenses (18-105 and 35mm f/1.8G) and the D7000 grip to upgrade.
Posted 9 months ago # -
No, the D800 was my first FX body, moving up from a D7000 DX. But if the D600 contains the D4 sensor it just may be my second FX body. Then again, if the D400 is around 20mp and has high fps as well as clean ISO 6400, that may become my second body. I will have to see the stats of the D600 and the D400 compared. Which will give me the highest FPS and the cleanest ISO 600? I don't need super high megapixels since I have the D800 for that. Hopefully, Nikon will release both the D600 and the D600 soon so people can compare them.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I've had a while to think things over since my last post in this thread. I would be intereted in a D600 ( if the specs are OK), but will probably wait until the elusive D400 specs become public before making a decision. Either way, DX or FX, I'd like to add a more current body to my gear.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Being a student on a student budget, if the rumored price is actually true of around 1500 US, then it comes down to how much I can get of my DX lenses, which really isnt a lot since I have been preparing for the jump. But I really hope the AF is at least the mk 1 51 point in the D700 as opposed to the 39 point. Otherwise might as well get a used D700 since I dont shoot video
Posted 9 months ago # -
If it is under $2000, the D600 will most likely replace my D7000. The only thing a D7000 lacks that I want is a full frame sensor and larger view finder, so any other upgrades over the D7000 would just be icing on the cake for me. I'm just on the fence as to whether I should sell my D7000 right now or wait. It will be about 3 months before the next major thing I need my camera for, I need to send a couple of my lenses off to be repaired anyway (won't use my camera much without them), and I do need the most I can get out of the D7000 to go toward the new camera (looks like that is in the $900 range right now if I am lucky). I'm thinking a downgrade to an older $200 DSLR or a nice p&s might happen soon so that I can upgrade to FF in the near future.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I never planned on going full frame since I just don't have the budget for it. However, if the rumored price is correct then this camera will change my upgrade path completely. My original plan was to upgrade to the D7000 but the look and feel of a full frame camera is just too good to pass up for this price, as long as the rest of the specs are more or less the same as the D7000. I'm in no rush though, I still have other parts of my kit that I want to complete before going for a new camera, so it will probably be another year before that happens. Hopefully the price can be even lower by then :p
Posted 9 months ago # -
My first FF Nikon was the F. ;) With a D200, D700 and D7000, I'm ready for the D600 if it is smaller and lighter than the D700/D800. I'll sell the D7000 and the DX lenses if I get a D600. I use the D7000 only for video. Much prefer the D700 for stills. The D600 would be more comfortable for a "walk around" camera, but it would be heavily used for video production.
More than likely, I'll order a D600 the moment anyone's taking orders.
FWIW, I find full frame cameras more comfortable to use. The larger viewfinder, alone, is a big benefit.
Posted 9 months ago # -
In a word, yes.
I've been eyeing a full frame sensor for a while now since I shoot at crowded conventions. I'll appreciate that my 24mm f/2.8 will actually be 24mm and not 36ish. I'm also a sucker for "bokeh" so I'll appreciate the ability to have a shallower DoF as well.
The main thing stopping me from doing it has been the price. I don't have a lot of free cash so I tend to finance things, but I'm also in my 20's and haven't built up a lot of credit so it's a bit difficult to get the limit to make a purchase like the D800. I'm also not a professional shooter, just an amateur freelance that is still learning. Because of that, I don't need something like a D4.
Enter the D600. If the rumored $1500 price point is true I can fit the bill pretty easily over time. I'm a person that looks at the image quality a camera can produce more than other things (button layout, buttons vs dials, etc). D7000 is feature rich enough for everything I do so I have no complaints at all about the possibility of the bodies being similar.
Hopefully they will start shipping shortly after they are announced. I have a big event in November and it would be awesome to have it in my hands before then!
Posted 9 months ago # -
If the D600 comes out and has good mechanics and features, say like a D7000, it should be a great camera. But, the real issue is whether Nikon brings along enough reasonably priced glass so that one does not have to purchase all the FX glass from the pro lineup. This would make the cost of the camera body rather insignificant if one had to spend lots on the lenses. It does appear that Nikon is moving this way, but at present the vast majority are way over $500 a piece and most over $1000 each. So, if one has a nice set of DX lenses, it does not seem from my point of view a great idea to run out and purchase a less expensive FX body unless it is used as a starting place for the accumulation of an FX lens collection.
Maybe the D600 will be a nice companion/backup for the those who have an FX body already. Of course, one can always shoot DX mode while in the initial phase of lens accumulation.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I am still slightly contenplating this camera, but gosh I hate to have to buy another lens now...I will need something to replace my 17-55 and I don't think I want the variable aperture 24-85...hate to get a new body to sacrafice on the lenses after having a great zoom. Would maybe have to sell the 17-55 if I got FX.
Posted 9 months ago # -
tcole1983 said:
I am still slightly contenplating this camera, but gosh I hate to have to buy another lens now...I will need something to replace my 17-55 and I don't think I want the variable aperture 24-85...hate to get a new body to sacrafice on the lenses after having a great zoom. Would maybe have to sell the 17-55 if I got FX.I was eyeing the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and decided against it for that very reason. I didn't want to invest in any fast DX glass when I ultimately planned to move to FX in the future. For people like you I imagine the decision is harder. For me, The only DX glass I'll miss is the 35 1.8 which is a fairly cheap piece of glass in the the world of lenses (and I hear you can get acceptable results in certain situations on a FX body with it anyway...) The only other DX specific lenses I own came with my D40 kit... 18-55 and 55-200 VR. Since my girlfriend will be shooting my old bodies they'll still get used :)
Posted 9 months ago # -
rensuchan said:
I was eyeing the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and decided against it for that very reason. I didn't want to invest in any fast DX glass when I ultimately planned to move to FX in the future. For people like you I imagine the decision is harder. For me, The only DX glass I'll miss is the 35 1.8 which is a fairly cheap piece of glass in the the world of lenses (and I hear you can get acceptable results in certain situations on a FX body with it anyway...) The only other DX specific lenses I own came with my D40 kit... 18-55 and 55-200 VR. Since my girlfriend will be shooting my old bodies they'll still get used :)Well I will keep my D5000 so I will have a use for my 17-55 if I don't sell it, but then I will only have the 105 F2.8 and 300 F4 for an FX body...I will need zoom lens at the wide end and it will cost at least $500+. Spend that plus a new body and I am getting into D800 range.
Posted 9 months ago # -
tcole1983 said:
I am still slightly contenplating this camera, but gosh I hate to have to buy another lens now...I will need something to replace my 17-55 and I don't think I want the variable aperture 24-85...hate to get a new body to sacrafice on the lenses after having a great zoom. Would maybe have to sell the 17-55 if I got FX.From your photos, it doesn't look like you need the extreme high ISO capabilities of the FX body.
You could do fine with a D7000. That with the 17-55 2.8 would be quite the kit.
But then again, if you have the money, why not splurge?
rensuchan said:
I was eyeing the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and decided against it for that very reason. I didn't want to invest in any fast DX glass when I ultimately planned to move to FX in the future. For people like you I imagine the decision is harder. For me, The only DX glass I'll miss is the 35 1.8 which is a fairly cheap piece of glass in the the world of lenses (and I hear you can get acceptable results in certain situations on a FX body with it anyway...) The only other DX specific lenses I own came with my D40 kit... 18-55 and 55-200 VR. Since my girlfriend will be shooting my old bodies they'll still get used :)You could get the 50mm 1.8, which isn't that much more expensive than the 35mm 1.8.
I don't think I would jump ship to FX. If it were just above $1000 like the D7000 is, then maybe. But I highly doubt it. I'm already not too happy about the size of my kit- getting slightly on the large side. :D
Either that or I'm getting lazy.
I too enjoy the 18-135 with the D40, along with the 35mm 1.8. It's a nice, decent size.
Buying FX would mean I'd need to sell at least the 18-135, maybe the 35mm 1.8, leaving me with just the 105mm 2.8 again.
Posted 9 months ago # -
In a word- yes.
Posted 9 months ago # -
NSXType-R said:
You could get the 50mm 1.8, which isn't that much more expensive than the 35mm 1.8.I used to own the 50mm 1.4 but I sold it off when I picked up the 85 1.8D since that was more useful for portraits. That being said, I do have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 that covers full frame so I may not worry about a fast 50mm prime.
Posted 8 months ago # -
I think yes. I've been investing in non-DX lenses over the past few years in anticipation of Nikon expanding its FF lineup. While the 800 seems like an amazing camera, it may be overkill for a hobbyist like myself (even a hyper-enthusiastic one). Also, 36mb images just seems like they could add up on my hard drive rather quickly.
I guess in a perfect world I'd have the 600 for wider lenses (17-35, 24-70, and the 105 macro when I didn't need the additional working space) and a 400 for my 70-200.
On the other hand I just looked at what I wrote and realized that I'm in the market for two bodies that technically only exist on rumor sites. Is that the first sign of NAS?
Posted 8 months ago # -
proudgeek said:
On the other hand I just looked at what I wrote and realized that I'm in the market for two bodies that technically only exist on rumor sites.
or for about the same money you buy a D800 today
the solution to clogging up you hard drive is vicious editing , if the image is not up to scratch, delete it, or just keep a med res jpegif youthink you need a D400( I dont think you do )just set the D800 in Dx mode
Posted 8 months ago # -
I've certainly considered that. One other reason would be to have two bodies and therefore reduce the number of lens changes. Fewer lens changes means fewer chances for dust to get on my sensor.
Taking a big trip next year where I think I'll need more than one body to really get everything.
Posted 8 months ago # -
I'm already setting up for either the D600 or a used D700. Just found a mint condition (refurbed) AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 and I ordered a Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 that's on the way.
I love the D7000 but except for a few lenses, I'm not crazy about what DX choices are out there. The 35mm f/1.8G DX is mediocre, or at least my copy is.
I found myself eying all the FF glass, and used prices are not far off from the "pro" DX glass, so going to a FF setup seems like the logical step.
Posted 8 months ago # -
On the other hand, I could simply get two D800s. The wife would be most pleased.
Posted 8 months ago # -
-
-
Now that the specs are pretty much finalized (FX D7000), I'm pretty sure I'll get this. I've sold all but one DX lens (tamron 17-50 2.8) over the past year and a half, and I've got the okay from my wife. If I decide to keep my D7000 it might not be for a while, though.
Posted 8 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
