Torn between two cameras! Help appreciated for this total newbie!

skyeyes70

I have researched and read and struggled over what to do and now, I'm going to ask for help!
I am moving from a point and shoot to DSLR. I actually got a D3200 kit from Costco for Christmas and got it out, set it up, watched hours and hours of videos on youtube, took a few pictures, packaged it back up and returned it for a full refund a week later. While I think it was a great camera, I realized pretty quickly that it was not the one for me even though I thought I had done a ton of research before I made the purchase. I did learn a great deal about shooting in M (which is one of my goals-- take great pictures in M)

Now, I am looking at choosing between D7000 (selling for $699) and refurbished D600. I missed the $1300 ebay deal at Roberts for the D600, but I'm thinking it will come around again there or somewhere else. Yes, huge difference in price. Yes, I have the money for either. I know I will need to get a lens (planning for a prime to start off and then, Mother's Day isn't too far away). The question is I guess one I will have to answer...do I need to spend the money on the D600!!

Given my experience level and my scope of knowledge right now, obviously either of these cameras will give my lots for room to grow! I do understand the need for good glass! I'm committed to becoming an amazing photographer and want to take portraits, architectural, and general family shots. Eventually, I would like to hone my skills and talent to be qualified to actually earn some money (a girl can dream!), but if I never get to that point, then I still want to at least produce some amazing work from my awesome hobby!

So, with that being said, do you have any feedback on which camera for long term use. I've been told both from trusted photographer friends. One said if he had to do it over, he would have started out with an fx and the other said to go with the D7000 (thus saving some $) and work on developing my skills and knowledge and then in a few years go with an FX and keep the DX as a back up camera.

I would appreciate any help with my decision!

Thanks!

Elvishefer

It would be helpful if you could elaborate on why the D3200 wasn't right for you.

There's a mixed message in your post - that you know what you want but don't know what you want.

Typically, gear is determined by what you want to shoot/what kind of photography you'll be doing.

If you're just starting out and don't have that vision, then it becomes a lot harder to recommend a path.

(The D3200, D7000, D600, DX or FX can all produce excellent photos.)

JakesGT

If money isn't an issue, get the D600 and a 50mm 1.8 to start with

skyeyes70

Well, being that I'm just starting out, the more I learned about the d3200, the more I learned that I may have been wasting of money that could be put toward a better camera. But, there will always be a better camera!
On the d3200, you can't see the settings on the top of the camera, you can't hook up the large lights to your flash...for later, no ability to use a remote, and can't add a battery pack. These don't really mean much to me right now, but later down the line, they will....well, or could.

I will mostly be doing portraits, architectural elements, candid shots, possibly street photos. I doubt I will ever shoots sports, wildlife, large landscapes, etc.

I realize that a great deal of photography is in the photographer. I've been told for many years that I've got a good eye and I have enjoyed my point and shoot. I am now in the situation that I want to expand and grow, but I also want to make a good decision.

I do feel like if I get the D7000 now, then it will serve me well for years and then I will still want to move to a FX. That's why I'm torn about going ahead now and dropping the money on the D600 and the 50mm f/1.8 now.

Thansk!

heartyfisher

Hi ..
lets take each of your interests 1 by one
1) Portrait - DX does well if you get some good lenses like the 85mm but FX is the choice here.
2) Architectural elements. Here the main factors are the lense. You can spend alot on them. The best architectural lenses work best on the FX. But by the time you are ready to purchase these expensive lenses it may be quite a few year down the line or you may never buy one like most of us its one of those "love to have one" but too expensive for the number of times we will use it. So a regular ultrawide is all we get and is good enough for us. so practically FX=DX
3) Candid shots & street - smaller is better the little mirrorless like the Olympus OM-D. is a good choice. many street photogs are going that way. I suggest that you go with the D7100 instead of the D7000 as it has the fast Autofocus and better lowlight AF (better than the D600) but the D600 is not much bigger. It gives you better High ISO and subject Isolation(thin DOF). I would still say the DX is ahead here.

I would say both your choices are suboptimal.. ie D7000 and D600. Both are one generation back and the D600 has a reputation (some here will never get a d600 no matter the price :-) But i am considering getting one!). Both FX and DX are great at this level. My suggestion is that you go with the D7100. and get some large Aperture lenses mainly for your interest in portrait. a good cheap one to start with is 50mm F1.8G.. but that is not a general lense on a DX. You will need another lense. The 18-140 kit lens is really very nice..go with that first and add the 50mm or 85mm F1.8. for portrait. f you like primes replace the 18-140 with a 35mm.

However, you seem the type who will be wondering forever if the D600 should have been better for you ! so .. in that case get the D600 and wonder no more!

skyeyes70

Okay, I'm aware of the D600's reputation so, what if I get the D7000 (but probably the D7100) and lenses and then once I "prove myself" then in years down the road, I can justify jumping up to an FX (and not the entry level FX--who knows what it will be by that time but I tend to not be one to run out and buy the latest greatest of the newest technology).

Do lenses that are not DX work well on a DX camera? It has been explained to me that really, they are better glass. It's something I've not spent tons of time researching because of all the other stuff I'm trying to learn. (Did I mention I'm also learning lightroom 5.)

As for the 7100 kits, Costco's comes with the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II. Is that a good lens? Or, would I be better off buying the body and the buying a prime lens? I had a pro guy tell me that on the dx, for portraits, I would be better off with the 35 mm. He said A DX camera turns your 50mm into an 80mm which is good for portraits, but too long for many other things and suggested looking at a 35mm first. What do you think?

shawnino

Deal at Roberts is back.

WestEndBoy

It sounds like you have no doubt that you will eventually buy FX. A refurbished D600 is an excellent place to start. If you buy a DX camera, you will just end up wanting to replace it in a year or two and spend more money than originally planned. Unless you think you will be happy with a D7100 for AT LEAST 4, and preferably more, years, buy the D600.

skyeyes70

I'm not seeing that the deal at Robert's is back.

Yes, I do think I will eventually buy an FX. I think in all reality, if I get the D7100 then it will be quite a long time before I make that move at which time I would most likely get something other than the entry level FX.

manhattanboy

It sounds like you have no doubt that you will eventually buy FX. A refurbished D600 is an excellent place to start. If you buy a DX camera, you will just end up wanting to replace it in a year or two and spend more money than originally planned. Unless you think you will be happy with a D7100 for AT LEAST 4, and preferably more, years, buy the D600.

I agree with the statements above since you said "I doubt I will ever shoots sports, wildlife"

The 600 is loud and big for street photography, but outstanding for portraits and architecture. D7.1K prices are falling so fast that you could eventually pick up a DX later to do sports or wildlife if you change your mind (they are complimentary cameras). The biggest downside to the 600 is the dirty sensor-inducing shutter and limited autofocusing.

heartyfisher

I have the 18-200 .. it's a nice lense .. and I used it for many years. But I recently got the 18-140.. I posted a thread here comparing the 18-140 with my 18-200 and I now use the 18-140 as my general carry around lense for DX. Although the 18-200 focuses faster and more accurately. The IQ of the 18-140 is generally better.

Msmoto

Maybe you need to purchase either a D600 refurb or the D7100 and a 35mm or 50mm lens. Shoot about 10,000 images and after processing at least 500 to final, then decide what else you think you need. Your initial post would suggest all the research was not helpful, and the one element in the decision making that is apparently missing is the experience factor.

JakesGT

Using FX glass on a DX body is perfectly fine. For two years I used a 3100 and 50 1.8g. I loved it. I would reccomend the 50 over the 35 because it's better built, will stick with you when you jump to FX if you don't start that way, it's sharper, has a lot less CA, focuses faster and has much nicer bokeh.

Also, I have the 7100 and it's superb

ptrmcky

When I started out as a pro all I had was the D7000. If you are starting out in photography I would never recommend going FX unless money is no issue at all. It's not just the expense of the camera, but getting equivalent lenses for FX is so much more expensive.

I love using my Tokina 11-16 on the D7000, but to get the Nikon 17-35 to use on FX is about 5 times more expensive. The same goes with the longer primes that I like to use.

In my experience anyway it took me a while to figure out what lenses fitted my style of shooting. I bought a few lenses and ended up selling them because they just weren't right for me. If I had to do that on an FX system, I would have had to spend 4 times as much on lenses.

If you want to do portraits, I would recommend the D7000 with a 35mm 1.8. I still shoot that combo all the time at weddings.

scoobysmak

Maybe you need to purchase either a D600 refurb or the D7100 and a 35mm or 50mm lens. Shoot about 10,000 images and after processing at least 500 to final, then decide what else you think you need. Your initial post would suggest all the research was not helpful, and the one element in the decision making that is apparently missing is the experience factor.

I will have to agree, until you shoot with a camera and see the images your good at and others you can't hit the delete key fast enough, its really hard to tell sometimes what your personal "niche" might be. I know when I first started that what I thought I liked doing is not the same as it is today. From your current feelings though to me it says FX for everything. Honestly DX can do better in some areas but worse in others, the low light ability of the sensor I believe is the best FX advantage but that seems to be dwindling down over the past couple of years. The price to pay for starting out in FX is much stepper than with DX but in the long run if your going to go FX anyway its a moot point besides learning what your good at "before" you drop down a lot of money on FX glass.

I have a D7000 and a D700, I only pull out my D7000 if i am shooting something from a distance. Some of this is biased though because I like the feel of the D700 and the D7000 just doesn't feel right in my hands (honestly I would rather shoot my D200 than my D7000 but other than the controls the D7000 is better).

skyeyes70

Maybe you need to purchase either a D600 refurb or the D7100 and a 35mm or 50mm lens. Shoot about 10,000 images and after processing at least 500 to final, then decide what else you think you need. Your initial post would suggest all the research was not helpful, and the one element in the decision making that is apparently missing is the experience factor.

Excellent advise about the 10K images! The dilemma is between which camera! But also which lens as well. (kit or no kit)- If I do come upon a good deal on a kit, then yes, I will get it and get a 50 or 35 as well. But, if I get just the body, then I'll start with the 50 or 35.

While I lack the DSLR experience, I don't totally lack photography experience, but I'm looking to open the door to a whole new world. Here is one of the pics I took (and worked on learning LR with) using the D3200. Keep in mind that this was my 1st go with DSLR and I was learning to shoot M. http://www.flickr.com/photos/115637741@N02/12173096876/

Looking back through years of pictures, I tend to shoot a lot of my daughter, some of my son, pictures of interesting looking buildings or parts of buildings, lampposts, fences, interesting trees, some flowers, etc.

manhattanboy

http://www.flickr.com/photos/115637741@N02/12173096876/

These types of photos would probably be better on a 600 (or 610 or 800) than the D7K or 7.1K.

~~~Side rant~~~
The dirty shutter issue really prevented me from buying one as I am too afraid to clean them on my own. Canon has a program for $100 a year that they will clean up to 5 lenses and/or bodies, but I am not aware of anything similar for Nikon amateurs (pros it may be a different story).
~~~End Side rant~~~

Indoors and lower light situations the DX sensors are inferior to the FX ones. The suggestion is always to rent to try out before you buy...unfortunately renting bodies is not all that cheap, but look around and maybe you can even take your SD card to a store and shoot with their floor models to get an idea of what the images will look like when you process them in post at home.

henrik1963

Few people keep their camera bodies more than one upgrade cycle - they may tell themselves that they will - but something new comes along that you can't live without :-) You are in the market for a "learner". The best buy right now is a D7100 - there is very little you can't learn on a D7100. After 2 years you will know what you want. If you buy a D600/D610 it will be the same - but you will have spent more money.

As for lenses - some like good quality zooms - the best way to build a complete system - others prefer primes for best possible image quality. Few people have the money to just buy a complete set of good primes - so get a D7100 with a good kit lens. Then ad primes as you go.

If you think you will end up buying a FX camera - no problem - buy FX primes and use them on your D7100. 1.8 primes will work fine even on a D800.

Good luck

Gareth

I would buy the D600. If you buy the D7000 you will always wounder how much better full frame is and never be sure you made the right choice.

I bought a D700 and still use it professionally as my main body. It is a fantastic camera (click my sig, all photos were taken using it).

MikeGunter

Hi all,

As @heartyfisher said, some here will never get a D600 no matter what the price (I'm one). If you go FX, I'd recommend the D610 or D800, although the D800 is a lot of camera.

'Care and feeding' also has to figure into what you're doing and understanding some principles of photography. Fast lenses are expensive, and if you are into making portraits that have a limited DOF (depth of field), you'll be chasing lenses that are really expensive for as long as you're in photography.

But if you're shooting groups, you'll need to keep the front person and back row person in sharp focus causing you to use a stopped down aperture and slower shutter speed - that bigger camera can get awfully unwieldy, but that's where high ISO comes in handy (and FX handles that somewhat better than DX).

Carrying a big camera system around a lot is something to think about, too. Look at the specifications on weight and size. It does matter.

Likely as not, I'd lean you to a D610 with a mid-range zoom the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm. That will likely break your bank, but it's sound option. Add an 85mm, a 24mm, then a 105mm Micro.

Expensive, but lovely kit.

My best,

Mike

Vipmediastar_JZ

If I could do it all over again with my first DSLR I would get an FX camera and if the FX is out of your budget start with the 50mm 1.8G for a more cost effective solution.

I always said that I would start with dx camera and dx lens then "when" i was ready i would upgrade to FX.
It's been a year with FX and I regret not starting with an FX camera. Get a good lens otherwise when you sell or upgrade to get the better one you will end up loosing some money in the end.

WestEndBoy

I stuck with film and point and shoots until I could afford the items in my signatre. No regrets.

skyeyes70

The best buy right now is a D7100 - there is very little you can't learn on a D7100. After 2 years you will know what you want. If you buy a D600/D610 it will be the same - but you will have spent more money.

As for lenses - some like good quality zooms - the best way to build a complete system - others prefer primes for best possible image quality. Few people have the money to just buy a complete set of good primes - so get a D7100 with a good kit lens. Then ad primes as you go.

If you think you will end up buying a FX camera - no problem - buy FX primes and use them on your D7100. 1.8 primes will work fine even on a D800.

Good luck

This is what I've been thinking but looking at is with the idea of trading up in 4-5 years with a D800 (or whatever it will be at the time). Which, if I buy a FX lenses, then I will have lenses when I do trade up. - If I go with a DX, I will trade up.

Hi all,

As @heartyfisher said, some here will never get a D600 no matter what the price (I'm one). If you go FX, I'd recommend the D610 or D800, although the D800 is a lot of camera.

'Care and feeding' also has to figure into what you're doing and understanding some principles of photography. Fast lenses are expensive, and if you are into making portraits that have a limited DOF (depth of field), you'll be chasing lenses that are really expensive for as long as you're in photography.
.......
Carrying a big camera system around a lot is something to think about, too. Look at the specifications on weight and size. It does matter.

Likely as not, I'd lean you to a D610 with a mid-range zoom the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm. That will likely break your bank, but it's sound option. Add an 85mm, a 24mm, then a 105mm Micro.

Expensive, but lovely kit.

My best,

Mike

Yes, Mike, expensive kit and I would love to run out and get it, bit it is over budget at this time. I'm a little nervous about the D600 due to the issues, but the idea of getting the FX is so tempting! I will be one to be chasing leneses! LOL

As far as carrying a system around, I'm not planning any hiking trips and if I need something to carry for a long period of time (think walking around Disneyworld), it sure won't be a big camera! I will keep and use my point and shoot for that.

I really appreciate eveyone's feedback and suggestions. It is all something to think about because it is a big purchase and will be an expensive hobby! But, it is something I'm willing to put money and time into.

I guess, it comes down to getting the refurb D600 @$1300 if it comes back around or getting the D7100 @$1146. The cost after that is pretty much the same if I'm going to get FX lenses and other gear. I'm just to willing/able at this point to spend more than that on the body but in theory, after 4-5 years, I would be able to go with a higher cost FX body.

This is really an agonizing decision!

TaoTeJared

Let's take a step back and correct some information and remember that skyeyes70 is very "green" and still needs to learn the fundamentals along with gear limitations & capabilities.

Well, being that I'm just starting out, the more I learned about the d3200, the more I learned that I may have been wasting of money that could be put toward a better camera. But, there will always be a better camera!
On the d3200, you can't see the settings on the top of the camera, you can't hook up the large lights to your flash...for later, no ability to use a remote, and can't add a battery pack. These don't really mean much to me right now, but later down the line, they will....well, or could.

This is all false and very incorrect. You can do all of that with every Nikon body sold. There are accessories for everything that will allow you to do everything. There is really little difference between the various bodies until you get to the Pro bodies - and even then the difference is small. The D3200 is very basic (compared to the better bodies) but can do a lot. A 5300 (I think that is the current one) is very capable.

1) Know your budget and what you are willing to spend. For portraits you need: Body, Lens, Flash, (will want a radio transmitter- cheap one to start), tripod, Light-stand, umbrella, and a reflector. You can spend enough to go to the moon on this stuff, but with most things, some searching, you can get away for cheap.

2) GAS: Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Starting out, realize that you will waste money on stuff that you a) wished you bought better, b) wished you bought cheaper, c) things you don't need. There is no getting around it, and you must accept it - there is no choice.

3) "Down the road" - Down the road (first 2 years) you will have strong desires for a better body, more lenses, more bags, more accessories - no matter what you buy. Buy what you can afford now knowing that whatever camera you will choose will be capable of doing more than your own abilities. (This is the case for even those of us who make a living at photography.)

Bodies:
Starting out, going straight to FX is a waste of money. Camera bodies have a "shelf life" and loose value faster than any other piece of equipment. Lighting equipment is the longest lasting, lenses are next, flashes, and then accessories. It is smarter to buy a cheaper DX, a SB-700/910 flash, and focus on lenses. By the time you get better, the body will be ready to be replaced.

Lenses:
For portraits (and basically everything), you want 4 basic focal lengths covered (FX/full frame equiv.) 28,35,50,85. The easiest is a zoom, and you will want a fast prime.

35mm 1.8 DX (50mm equiv on FX) is a no brainer if you get DX.
18-105vr - Buying a basic zoom is a no-brainer as well. That will cover the rest of the range and then some.
50mm 1.8G - This equals 75mm on DX and is a good portrait lens for DX.

FX: 50mm 1.8, 24-85VR, 85mm 1.8. Would be the kit for FX.
----------------------------------------------------------

Everything comes down to cost and what you are willing to spend. Figure this for a "kit" (that I think you would be happy with.

DX:
35dx ($200), 50($215), 18-105 ($400)
-----------------------------
Lenses $815

FX:
50 ($215), 85 ($500), 24-85vr ($600)
-----------------------------
$1315

Flashes (either can be used for DX/FX
SB-700 = $327
SB-910 = $510

Lighting tools (Same for DX or FX):
Manfrotto 5001B ($65), Manfrotto 026 Swivel Lite-Tite Umbrella Adapter ($35), Phottix Multi 5-in1 Nikon Set Stratos ll ($105), Flashpoint 32" 5-in-1 Collapsible Disc Reflector ($30), Flashpoint 33" White Interior Umbrella with Removable Black Cover ($16). (I have been using this kit for 3+ years. Well it's expanded, but this is the base.)
-----------------------------
$306
-----------------------------
DX Lenses, SB-700 Flash, Lighting tools = $1,448 + Camera (D5300 $1,096) = $2,448

FX Lenses, SB-700 Flash & Lighting tools = $1,948 + Camera (D610 $2,000) = $3,948

So DX will cost you around $2,500, FX will Cost you $4,000. Oh and a tripod needs to be added to that.

Body + lens kits will save you some $$s, and there are some good 3-party flashes (I would suggest starting with Nikon first) that will save you some money as well. The Lighting Tools I suggested is what the base of my kit (granted it is quite expanded normally) but that will allow you to do more things than you could fill a year with. The Stratos II allow TTL pass through so you can control your flash off camera with the DSLR.

skyeyes70

@TaoTeJared, I'm copying this info for later use. Thanks for breaking it all down for me like that!

Taking into consideration the "shelf life" and starting off with a DX would be a cheaper way to go. So, would it make sense to still buy the FX lenses since they would carry over to an FX after I wear out my DX?

I have the lighting gear on my radar but thought it would be best to hold off until I am more proficient with shooting because at this point, I still have some learning to do but I can't really learn much without a camera in my hand.

WestEndBoy

@TaoTeJared, I'm copying this info for later use. Thanks for breaking it all down for me like that!

Taking into consideration the "shelf life" and starting off with a DX would be a cheaper way to go. So, would it make sense to still buy the FX lenses since they would carry over to an FX after I wear out my DX?

I have the lighting gear on my radar but thought it would be best to hold off until I am more proficient with shooting because at this point, I still have some learning to do but I can't really learn much without a camera in my hand.

I agree with TTJ. I would have recommended the same had I thought it through a little more. My suggestion to get the D600 was based on your comparison with the D7100 and the fact that you would get it used and my feeling that you would be compelled to upgrade in a few years. However, all you need to do is resist the urge to upgrade your camera for as long as you can.