D600 or D7100 for Wildlife & Motor Sports

MikeFrewerMikeFrewer Posts: 51Member
edited February 2013 in Nikon DSLR cameras
So what would you choose if you didn't have a camera ?
I went to have a look at the D600 last weekend but I'm still not sure. Now Nikon introduces the D7100 to totally confuse me. The D600 has 5.5 fps and the D7100 has 6 fps. Both seem to be ok for my photography bearing in mind that I'll be buying the holy trinity anyway. But what would you choose ?

Hoping for some input to help me out.....Mike
«1345

Comments

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    Depends on what lenses you have or intend to use with the camera.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    bearing in mind that I'll be buying the holy trinity anyway. But what would you choose ?
    If you are going for Fx glass get an Fx Camera

    neither the 14 -24 ; the 16-35 or the 17-35 or going to be much use as wide angle lenses, on a Dx camera

  • adamzadamz Posts: 842Moderator
    @mike - honestly d800 for wildlife with this specs, though I had had to choose from D7100 / D600 only than D7100 specs are more wildlife oriented.

    @PB_PM, sevencrossing - You rarely use this kind of lenses in wildlife photography, not to mention motorsports, so UWA/WA lenses are not an issue over here.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited February 2013
    If I want to shoot motorsports, seriously...this means the ability to capture a biker coming off the high side, one must have 8-10 FPS to compete with all the other folks out there. Neither of these will do this. A used D300s will give you at least one more at full res...

    However, if I had no camera, thus no lenses, I would very seriously be looking at the other manufacturers out there. The multiple issues with the latest bodies, customer service concerns, I might go see what the talk is on some of the other forums and learn...and, I have been shooting Nikon for nearly 50 years.

    Unfortunately for many of us who are invested into one brand, we actually do not know all the issues of the other side. So, a lot of investigation would be in order. But, those gray lenses we see are not there by accident. Mmmm, maybe they have two or three bodies for a reason...like a spare tire... :))
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    sevencrossing - You rarely use this kind of lenses in wildlife photography, not to mention motorsports, so UWA/WA lenses are not an issue over here.
    I accept using a W/A for motor sport is rare
    but Mike said he was buying the holy trinity so I assume he was going to get a W/A
    Wild life photography is not limited to birding and a wide angel lens has its place
    ( note to self : must learn how to post photoes)


  • GodlessGodless Posts: 113Member
    So what would you choose if you didn't have a camera ?
    Both seem to be ok for my photography bearing in mind that I'll be buying the holy trinity anyway. But what would you choose ?
    I would get the D7100 for fast action, as it has a better AF system than the D600. Somehow the D7100 makes me feel like the D600 is somehow lacking and should be replaced by a D600S with a magnesium body and 51-point AF system..

  • It does not matter which camera company you go with Cannon has there share of problems, and Pros switch back and forth because of quality issues or because a line that they are fond of is dropped. Now as far as camera to shoot Motorsports if your money is right the D4. If it was between the D600 and D7100 I would get the D7100 and save the cash to put toward your trinity of glass.
    D800, D7100, D700, 14-24f/2.8, 24-70f/2.8, 70-200f/2.8, 50f/1.4, 24f/1.4, 150-500, 300f/2.8
  • Scuderia1Scuderia1 Posts: 82Member
    How serious are you about shooting wildlife and Motorsport? Enthusiast? If you don't own a camera currently: it sounds like you are just getting started. I was in your shoes about 6 months ago. My personal recommendation is take time and do your research. Figure out how much you are willing to spend (I assume it must be significant if you want the holy trinity). But why the holy trinity for wildlife/Motorsport? I could understand having a 24-70mm f/2.8 if you would shoot close up pictures of drivers in the paddock. Or a few wide angle shots of circuits.. But your interests are exactly what my gear is tailored to as an enthusiast photograph. And I think you need to look at a good telephoto lens first (before you several with shorter focal length). that is what you will manly shoot with for your passion..

    I agree with Godless above. The D7100 is a better option.

    My other recommendation is to look at the Nikon 300mm f/4, a teleconverter (1.4x) and Kirk collar attachment. There is no VR on this lens: but it's not necessary for wildlife or racing, as you will be shooting at high shutter speeds (which eliminate hand shake blur) or shooting panning shots (which you don't want to use VR for). You will get effectively 630mm of reach (with 1.5x crop factor)
    Nikon D800 | Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g | Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikkor 300mm f/4 (+Nikon TC1.4x)
  • MikeFrewerMikeFrewer Posts: 51Member
    Thanks for the replies everyone. Just to clear a few things up. My photography is a hobby, I don't have bucket loads of cash, but I fully intend to purchase the holy trinity as a long term objective for any other situations that may arise, including upgrading the camera in the future. I had a Nikon D40 up until a while ago when it decided to go kaput on me. So rather than spend my hard earned on repairing it, I have decided to buy a new camera. The only lens I have is a 35mm 1.4 (I think). So having no camera, I started looking at the D600 with 5.5 fps. I went to my local dealer and had a serious look at it last weekend. Then last night Nikon announces the D7100 with 6 fps ! Now I'm all confused again. I have also looked at the Canon 7D mk 2 which seems to me to be a better camera for what I need it for. But I was hoping to stay with Nikon and eventually buy the D400 or whatever they decide to call it. I am not fussed wether it is fx or dx, I just want a camera that I can grow into and that will be good for my needs. What I don't want to do is invest in Canon lenses then have to buy Nikon lenses when they bring out a better suited camera (which I'm hoping they will). If anyone has any further suggestions on cameras or lenses (including third party lenses), please feel free to comment or advise me.
    Many Thanks in advance.....Mike
  • Hey I have the D7000 it has been a great camera and sure the D7100 would work, the Cannon D7 also looks very sweet andmore FPS anyways that might be your calling since you don't have many Nikon lens
    D800, D7100, D700, 14-24f/2.8, 24-70f/2.8, 70-200f/2.8, 50f/1.4, 24f/1.4, 150-500, 300f/2.8
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited February 2013
    If photography is a hobby, then the D7100 should be fine
    If you buy a Dx camera; personally, cannot see the point in buying Fx lenses, unless you intend to one day move up an expensive professional camera such as the D4

    3 advantages of going to FX
    better quality at high ISOs
    the ability to make poster size prints ( from files shots at low ISOs)
    the ability to crop or enlarge a small part of the image; It is this, that I find most useful

    The very big disadvantage of Fx is everything is more expensive
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited February 2013
    I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Birds In Flight are always the big chalenge for me and the 70-200mm is super for that. Just bought the D600 after 4 years the D300. Now I have the full potential of the 2 FX lenses, autofocus is lightning fast and everything is better on the D600 for me. There are no lenses of this quality for DX, I think ..... (?) For me it was obvious to do this step.

    When I did not have any gear I fully agree with Msmoto. You have a very tense time when you buy a Nikon body at this moment, this is completely new.

    My advise, wait ...... , who knows which problems the D7100 has and maybe, maybe ... Nikon is making a statement in the future about all the trouble they created.

    Oh, and I shoot Nikon for about 35 years.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • mk2popmk2pop Posts: 80Member
    I think the hsc mode with full af area looks great for BIF etc.
    D300 | D90 | D40 | F65 x2 | F75 | 10-24mm | 18-200mm | 35mm f1.8 | 50mm 1.4d | 40mm Micro | 70-300mm Tamron | 100-300mm f4 Sigma |1.4x Sigma tc | Sb400 | Sb900 x2

    Awaiting a DX D400
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    As motorsports is in the thread title...
    I cannot remember who shoots the 10.5 fisheye, about a foot away from the subject, but WA can be fun in motorsports, especially if on a monopod. The issue is a safety factor and using remotes is helpful.

    Always, if one wants to be able to capture what I suspect most of wait for...an "incident" we need to be able to push the button and get 20-30 exposures over the three second "incident".

    An example

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6901695857/sizes/o/in/set-72157629055356347/

    (D90, 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6) Lucky to get this as the D90 would clog up after only a couple shots...maybe four or five...
    Msmoto, mod
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Don't forget the D7100 has the 2x crop option which gets you more reach, and one more FPS. For an enthusiast that would be the tie breaker btwn the D600 and D7100 for your intended use (wildlife and motor-sports). Forget the trinity for now and buy a fast, long prime. Get a used kit lens or a superzoom for everything else and you can always sell it later when you figure out which other lenses make sense for your shooting style.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    The difference between 6 and 7FPS is almost meaningless, when the buffer only lasts 1 second. Not enough to drive sales. The crop factor is more interesting, to get reach on the cheap.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    @ PB_PM

    Yes, the buffer is the BIG issue on some of the cameras...
    Msmoto, mod
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Do we have any definitive info on the buffer size of the D7100 yet?
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    It seems to be what all the people with preview models are saying.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Maybe they are just using slow SD cards :-) However, it sounds like the buffer isn't huge...
  • DXV_PhotoDXV_Photo Posts: 158Member
    Do we have any definitive info on the buffer size of the D7100 yet?
    At the bottom of Nikons spec sheet page it lists the buffer by image quality setting.

    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/spec.htm
  • GodlessGodless Posts: 113Member
    edited February 2013
    I would not worry too much about the buffer size, IF you use the fastest SDXC cards the camera can take (up to 104mb/s interface speeds). Wouldn´t that mean writing about 4 images/sec to the card under optimal conditions?

    Please correct me if I´m wrong about this.
    Post edited by Godless on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,337Member
    edited February 2013
    If there were any affordable SDXC cards out there, that would be great. Right now, those high capacity, fast SDXC cards our outrageously priced. The only one under $100 I can find is the Lexar 64GB SDXC 400x (only 60MB/S). Which is much slower than the standard SDHC cards, which top out at 95MB/s IIRC.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • adamzadamz Posts: 842Moderator
    I looked at the price of sd cards when I though my d800 was slow and with small buffer. Then I got sd extreme pro 64gb from sandisk and since that time I didn't managed to fill the buffer entirely and I'm shooting in CSH mode with uncompressed RAW. so in one word they are worth it and mich cheaper than CF cards.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    My Ferrari is really fast, but boy I just can't afford the high octane gas, so I put the cheap stuff in :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.