Invest in D600 or go cheaper with D7000

​Okay, Nikon gurus!

I am having a serious moral debate right now.

I have the money for a new camera. I have $3000 in hand right now. I work a full time, barely over minimum wage job and have been cameraless for years. I know that I want a new camera now that I have the money. I had an Olympus E-510 a while back, and then used a D80 in my college photo classes and absolutely loved it. However, now I've been out of photography for about 5 years and there's all of these new things!

I travel a lot, and would love to photograph my journeys. I'm not looking to get into photography professionally, but I do want something that would make REALLY nice photos. My entire house is full of gallery style canvas prints of my old photos, and most of my immediate family have atleast a few of my pictures hanging up. My biggest hang up has always been low light photography, I can never get it to look *quite* right - and this is probably the biggest pet peeve about my photography.

That being said, I have the money and have been drooling over the D600 (the Costco pack looks pretty good). However, the camera and one lens would eat up my entire budget for this camera.

I've also been considering the D7000...just because it's the cheaper option. I would then also have money leftover to you elsewhere in my life.

My biggest concern is getting the D7000 and growing out if it in a few years. This is going to be my big camera investment for the next few years atleast, so I want to make sure that I'm getting the camera that will leave me the happiest in the long run. I am a little bit worried about the oil spots reported in the D600 - however, I have not found anything else wrong so I suppose I could bring it in for a clean.

Any recommendations? Also, recommendations for buying options? Costco and Adorama seem to have the best options from what I can tell. I was also looking at buying a refurb body and then make my own lens kit.

The D7000 is a fantastic camera! You could go a couple of different ways. The Costco deal is nice, but what you get is a basic set.

You could get the D7000-$900 and have $2100 leftover for several lenses!

Or spend $1199 on the D7100 and use the remainder for some lenses.

Just remember, the lenses are just as important as the camera bodies. Buy a Prime Lens and a Zoom lens with the D7000/D7100 and you'll be off to a great start.

Buy the D600 and buy a zoom or a prime lens for it.

Don't forget to look for some used stuff too!

BTW...D600 dust/oil issue is still not fixed. I just purchased one and had the issue within 1 week of using it. Nikon recommended that I send it in and it would come back "Fixed". They seem to know what the problem is and are fixing them, but they are not releasing which Serial #'s are affected. My local store was very good about contacting their Nikon rep and letting me know about this.

They seemed confident that the camera would be fixed, but I didn't want to play the roulette wheel on which one I would end up with. At least not for $2000!

Even with my D600 on its second trip to Nikon to have the shutter looked at, it's my go to camera when it's here, even over my D800. IQ is awesome, best low light performance I've seen, and I like the more manageable file sizes.

That said, if you wanted to save yourself a few bucks, get the D7100. Better IQ from what I've seen, you get a warranty and aside from my complaint about buffer size I can't find much else about it not to like ... or love.

The D600 is a Full Frame camera while the D7000 or D7100 is not it is a DX. That basically means that the sensor is smaller and has a 1.5 crop factor. So a 35mm lens is actually 1.5 X 35mm or 52.5mm.
The D600 is more of a pro camera even though the D7x00 is one of the best DX cameras that Nikon makes.

One other thing is that the dust issue has not been resolved. Someone on this forum sent one back to Nikon to be "fixed" only to find the problem persists.
I own a D600 and a D7000 and if I could only have one it would be the D600.

Get a D800 and don't look back. Buy once, cry once.

You might want to consider a refurbished camera. This place has factory Refurbished cameras and lenses that have a full One Year Warranty

Search Results

If I were you I would go for the D7100 and get some good glass to go with it.

Yes I would consider a Nikon factory refurbished camera from Adorama. That way at least the camera would have been through that weaning period of getting the dust out of its system, hopefully for good.

TedG954 said:

Get a D800 and don't look back. Buy once, cry once.

Click to expand...

He could do that if he got a used one on Ebay with low shutter count and then get a 50 mm 1.4D. But a related question I wanted to ask is whether you have old Nikon lenses already you could use with a D800? Since you need a good resolution camera for prints to hang around the house, it is a natural choice. I know that I talk a lot about different lenses but I still very much appreciate how much one can accomplish with just a 50 mm lens, and there's nothing like going out with a nice camera with just one simple lens and concentrate on making the most of that. Travel light and fast and still be able to capture editorial-quality images.

The only question you really need to ask is....Can you settle for a D7100? Will you truely be happy with the DX platform when you knew the FX was in your reach? If you think you will always be asking yourself what if when the D7000/7100 is in your hands....then buy the D600.

It will always cost you up front.....but if it makes you happy....what's that really worth?



Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Just get the D3X. haha. J/k I love my D600. Amazing camera, amazing pictures.

And after you use it a lot, Ashton Kutcher comes to your house to take pictures with you.

You mentioned that you have $3K in hand and work for just over minimum wage. I'd love to recommend a D600, but after you spend ALL of your $3K, you might just regret it. What if some major emergency comes about? It's your call, but the D7000 is a great camera, as is the D7100. I'd seriously consider one or the other. As time goes on, you job situation will improve and you will be able to get a full-framed camera. Good luck.

Phillydog1958 said:

You mentioned that you have $3K in hand and work for just over minimum wage. I'd love to recommend a D600, but after you spend ALL of your $3K, you might just regret it. What if some major emergency comes about? It's your call, but the D7000 is a great camera, as is the D7100. I'd seriously consider one or the other. As time goes on, you job situation will improve and you will be able to get a full-framed camera. Good luck.

Click to expand...

I was going to say something along those lines but you beat me to it!

A pro camera does not a pro photographer make...

​Life is tough but it is even tougher if you are foolish!

rockewell has just done a D600 7100 7000 comparison

Nikon D600, D7100 and D7000 Comparison

I have the 7000 and money is no issue as its for business but all I gain in going to a 7100 or 600 is more pixels and its only +20% in resoulution.

a D600 would be heavier and the reduced depth of field negates the better low light as I would have to stop down more .......sitting on the fence at the moment....

I would personally say go for the D7100 and some good lenses, and leave some change for future investment or even as savings
You've mentioned you don't really want to go pro, but want to develop your non-pro skills, and a new camera like the D7100 should see you good for a few years
Plus these things hold a good resale value, so even if you do want to upgrade a few years down the line, you won't be making a massive loss on it

pistnbroke said:

rockewell has just done a D600 7100 7000 comparison

Nikon D600, D7100 and D7000 Comparison

I have the 7000 and money is no issue as its for business but all I gain in going to a 7100 or 600 is more pixels and its only +20% in resoulution.

a D600 would be heavier and the reduced depth of field negates the better low light as I would have to stop down more .......sitting on the fence at the moment....

Click to expand...

The D600 is not that much heavier than the D7000, OK, a bit maybe but not that much. I have both and they both feel quite the same when I use them. I suggest you go to a dealer and try one with your cards, go back home and see what the files really look like. It's the only way to know if it would suit you.

pistnbroke said:

a D600 would be heavier and the reduced depth of field negates the better low light as I would have to stop down more .......sitting on the fence at the moment....

Click to expand...

At 3 oz. heavier than the D7100, and 2.5oz heavier than the D7000 I doubt you'd hardly notice. As for depth of field, while there is a difference (provided images are framed the same) I don't know that it's that drastic a difference that it would require more than a stop. Here's a great blog post explaining and showing the differences (in case anyone reading hasn't heard of the DoF "differences"), which are likely more consequential at longer focal lengths than what you're shooting at weddings. I have to imagine that th IQ you get from the larger pixels on the D600, plus the amazing low light performance, would still yield gains even if you have to boost the ISO to shoot at equivalent settings to what you're shooting now.

I saved my money to just get a 3100 a couple years ago. I was given a few lenses not long after. A year later like you I had around $3000 to spend. The FX cameras were still out of reach. I would have had enough for the body and no lenses. I decided to go for a refurbished 300s, 35mm/1.2D, 50mm/1.8D, new 85mm DX macro and an sb700 flash. I spent a little more then my budget. I still have my 3100 and I use my macro on it most of the time It's a lot lighter then the 300s. I have made some money back on my photos so, it's all good. It's just like trying to buy a car. It took me months to decide on my cameras and I'm happy.

Thanks for your input. I still have a lot to think about. Oy vey! My mind is telling me no, but my body is telling me yes!