I just ordered a D7000 with 18-105 kit along with two primes, a 35 and a 50, and a SB-700. Should I keep my current gear or return it to B&H and order the D600 with the new 24-85 lens when the d600 body is released?
Opinions?
D600 vs D7000
(43 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 11 months ago #
-
Well so far who knows when the D600 will be announced, released or available. You are sacrificing your lenses...3 for 1, less range and no primes. Do you have a camera already? It sounds like you don't know why you would need a D600, but want one just because it is new.
Posted 11 months ago # -
colson said:
I just ordered a D7000 with 18-105 kit along with two primes, a 35 and a 50, and a SB-700. Should I keep my current gear or return it to B&H and order the D600 with the new 24-85 lens when the d600 body is released?
Opinions?I would NOT keep the D7000. It is about 1.5 years old, and although a wonderful camera...the price is about to fall through the floor. The reason it's price is important you may ask? Because as a model soon to be replaced it's simply not worth the MSRP it sells for now. The 35/1.8 is a wonderful lens for sure. However, it is DX only as you know. Not so with the 50, so keep it. I would WAIT, if you can, for the D600 to be released. You will thank yourself later with superior ISO and DR of the FX formula.
I had the D7k and never got used to its small viewfinder after having owned both the D700 and 5dII. FX viewfinders are SO much better, and for that reason alone most would buy full-frame cameras. The main advantage to DX is weight of body and longer effective focal length with the 1.5 mag factor. The d600 will have a DX crop mode, and if you really need range buy an older D60, D80, or D90. FX is where its at. At least, for me.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Two different animals.
"superior ISO and DR of the FX formula" That has yet to be seen. I'm sure it is better - but by how much and is it worth loosing the 1.5x crop is different for every shooter and their needs. I think the superiority of FX at a lower level system VS a DX counterpart will be less than previous generations.
People need to be careful when assuming what others need, desire and what technology fits those needs.
There is also the cost factor of glass. DX glass is about 1/3+ less than FX glass. Take a 70-200 VS 300mm. Cost difference is $4,000? That is massive. If someone want's that focal length is FX worth it? Probably not worth it for most who don't make $ off their equipment.
Posted 11 months ago # -
-
Stick with your order. You will enjoy the D7000 as many of us have.
Posted 11 months ago # -
I wouldn't buy either camera yet. The D7000 will most likely be updated soon after D600 release. I'd wait at least until then before making a decision.
If you don't have a DSLR and must get one now then buy a used D90 to tie you over and sell it when you're ready to upgrade. You won't lose much and it will also give you a sense for what the D7000 (or it's replacement) would feel like. Also hold off on the DX glass until you make your decision.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Gabbb said:
DR? The d7000 has a superior dynamic range when compared to a d700, d3,d3s,d3x,d4. The d800 is the first fx camera to best it's dynamic range and it's still just slightly better.Relative to cameras from the same generation, FX cameras have better DR than DX cameras. So, the D700 had better dynamic range than the D300, D90, D5000. The D800 has better dynamic range than the D7000, D5100, D3200.
Posted 11 months ago # -
colson said:
I just ordered a D7000 with 18-105 kit along with two primes, a 35 and a 50, and a SB-700.This is a good choice of kit and is available NOW
Want to go FX ? If you can afford it , Get a D800 and the 24- 120 f4. There is nothing, available today, that can hold a candle to this combination
I don't see a lot point moving up to FX, then getting a lens that is only f5.6 @ 85mm
Buying a digital camera is like buying a computer, there will always be an upgrade tomorrow and in 3 years time it will be out out of date
Live with it. Stay with D7000 and take some mind blowing photos next week. Life is not a rehearsal, enjoy it today
Posted 11 months ago # -
PB PM said:
Relative to cameras from the same generation, FX cameras have better DR than DX cameras. So, the D700 had better dynamic range than the D300, D90, D5000. The D800 has better dynamic range than the D7000, D5100, D3200.The d90 and d5000 both win over the d700 in terms of dynamic range. And the d800 has about the same dynamic range as the d7000 on a pixel level, it wins slightly only because of the number of pixels, but it's a very minimal difference, in crop mode it's the same.
When you compare the d7000 to a d700 in terms of dynamic range the d7000's DR advantage is about 2 EV in the shadows. (massive difference) The d4 is a brand new camera it beats that too in that aspect...
Posted 11 months ago # -
sevencrossing <a href="http://nikonrumors.com/forum
Buying a digital camera is like buying a computer, there will always be an upgrade tomorrow and in 3 years time it will be out out of date
Live with it. Stay with D7000 and take some mind blowing photos next week. Life is not a rehearsal, enjoy it today
I could not agree more. In December 2010, I knew I was going on a great trip to South America. So in February 2010, I replaced by 3 y/o D40 with a D90 so I'd have some time to really get to know it before my trip. So in between my purchase date and departure date Nikon releases the D7000.
Does that mean that the camera I traveled with didn't have all the latest bells and whistles? Of course, but that's always going to be the case, no matter what technology you buy.
Have I had an absolute blast with it and taken some great pictures anyway? Yes.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Gabbb said:
The d90 and d5000 both win over the d700 in terms of dynamic range.Umm, in what way? The D700 has way more data in the highlights and shadows than the D90/D300, thanks to having 14bit RAW. How do I know, cause I've used all the cameras in question. DXO marks mean jack in real life.
Posted 11 months ago # -
PB PM said:
Umm, in what way? The D700 has way more data in the highlights and shadows than the D90/D300, thanks to having 14bit RAW. How do I know, cause I've used all the cameras in question. DXO marks mean jack in real life.It doesn't mean a whole lot indeed dxo that is, but measuring the dynamic range in raw files is a pretty straightforward business. 14bit raw doesn't mean much at all, it's almost nothing in real life, the difference only shows up in the extremest of situations, like pulling 6EV of detail in the shadows. (I tested this personally) I also experimented with d700 raw files and I do think in terms of dynamic range it's pretty disappointing when compared to the new gen dx sensors.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Whoa nellie!! i started the DR argument with my *apparently incorrect* assumption that a FX sensor (in D600) will produce better DR and ISO performance than the older d7000. Maybe it won't. Who knows. I don't take DXO too seriously, as their testing methods are somewhat controversial.
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?
Posted 11 months ago # -
If you wait you will wait forever ... buy the best option available now and go on a shooting spree.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Yes depends if you have a working camera now and whether it meets your needs. I have a D90 and its fine for now so I am waiting for the next best thing that will suit my needs for the future.
I love taking shots wherever I go, and my shots are getting better and better with practice and experience.
If you don't have the camera that meets your needs now you are missing out on taking those shots and I believe from what people tell me the D7000 is a great camera and from the magazines people even sayu how good the 3200 is and that is so cheap at the moment...but again its the question do you need the camera now or can you wait 6 months to a year...plus its only rumours for now so nothing official...Posted 11 months ago # -
sevencrossing said:
This is a good choice of kit and is available NOWWant to go FX ? If you can afford it , Get a D800 and the 24- 120 f4. There is nothing, available today, that can hold a candle to this combination
I don't see a lot point moving up to FX, then getting a lens that is only f5.6 @ 85mm
Buying a digital camera is like buying a computer, there will always be an upgrade tomorrow and in 3 years time it will be out out of date
Live with it. Stay with D7000 and take some mind blowing photos next week. Life is not a rehearsal, enjoy it today
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
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.
Posted 11 months ago # -
here is a sample with the exposure slider moved to the max setting (+5EV)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Posted 11 months ago # -
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......
Posted 11 months ago # -
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..
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
