Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

d600... Maybe? Please help!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • d600... Maybe? Please help!

    Here is my situation- I have a Nikon d3100 (actually it's my Dad's, but he lets me use it whenever I want). It was good for learning the basics, but it's sharpness capabilities aren't all that great compared to some of the other dslrs out there. Anyway, I want to start saving up for something more, well, professional. What about the d600, particularly for portraits? Should I save up for the d700 instead? Video quality isn't really an issue. Do any of you know any other cameras out there that you really like (Nikon)? Thank you so much for your help. I don't really want to spend more than 3000, if that can be helped. Thank you very much!
    Oh, and can you edit RAW in LR with the d600, or was that a different camera? Can it take SD cards?
    I heard the d700 is kind of bulky, is that a big issue? I like to be able to move around a lot, so something smaller would be nice! I greatly appreciate your help!

  • #2
    Re the D600 specs see here -
    Nikon D600 In-Depth Review: Digital Photography Review


    What version of Lightroom?

    If it is 4.2 then Yes.

    Bulk is not an issue, unless you have small hands or some other problems, it may even be better for some users as it gives you more to hold on to.

    Most DSLRs are fine for portraits, with the right lens, and good technique.
    Flickr stream.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RichardTaylor View Post
      Most DSLRs are fine for portraits, with the right lens, and good technique.
      +1. The D3100 is just fine for portraits as long as the print isn't huge.

      I'd pick the 600 over the 700 personally...
      Steve
      the Photographic Academy.com
      SharpShooter Industries
      My 500px, My Flickr, My Blog

      Comment


      • #4
        What lenses do you have, and why do you want to go to full frame. IF you don't have a good answer as to why you want a full frame camera then you are probably better off sticking with a DX body - perhaps a D7000.
        Nikon D800e, D300, D5000, NIKON GLASS 85mm F/1.8 D, 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF-S VR, 70-200 AF-S VR f/2.8, 28-300 AF-S VRII,10.5mm Fisheye, 24-70 AF-S f/2.8, TC-20E III AF-S, Sigma 12-24 HSM, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM, Sigma 150-500 OS, 2 SB-600 Speedlights, SB-900 speedlight, 4 YN-622N transceivers, Manfrotto 190MF3 tripod & 322RC2 ball grip head. - NJ, USA
        Flickr Photobucket
        Ok to edit and repost my shots on DPS forums

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks, everyone. Someone was telling me how the "beginner dslrs" aren't really sharp compared to the other more expensive cameras. I figured that's why I was never getting tack sharp images, even with all the research I've done to fix that.
          What exactly does "full frame" mean? Does that make the camera more expensive?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by soph98 View Post
            Thanks, everyone. Someone was telling me how the "beginner dslrs" aren't really sharp compared to the other more expensive cameras. I figured that's why I was never getting tack sharp images, even with all the research I've done to fix that.
            What exactly does "full frame" mean? Does that make the camera more expensive?
            Soph, I think I know who that "someone" is.... I read the post in the "technique" section where ccting insisted that you needed to upgrade your camera to a D700 in order to get sharp photos. He is the LAST person on this forum you need to be taking advice from and anyone who is familiar with him will agree. I really don't think a new camera body is the answer, especially a full frame body. A full frame body has a larger sensor and, because of this, will have a wider frame of view, basically, it will make your photos appear as if they were taken with a wider focal length lens. The sensors in full frame cameras also will have better low light capability, meaning less noise. But, these cameras will require lenses that are full frame compatible, and depending on the lenses you have now, you may not be able to use any of them with a full frame body. These lenses are also very expensive, as well. I suggest working with the body you have now, as it is fully capable of taking tack sharp photos, and if needed, you could always take it in to get checked out for a focusing issue at a local camera shop.
            http://500px.com/tiffanyboman82
            http://www.flickr.com/photos/tboman/
            Nikon D7000, infrared converted D200, 18-105mm kit lens, Samyang 85mm 1.4, nikon 50mm 1.8, nikkor 60mm 2.8 macro, lensbaby composer pro, lensbaby fisheye, SB-700

            Comment


            • #7
              See this re full frame
              http://digital-photography-school.co...-right-for-you

              Re cost.
              Basically yes, and that is not just the body, you will generally need better lenses also,

              Entry level DSLRS are capable of delivering sharp images, providing you know what you you are doing.
              If you don't know what you are doing then a new camera will not solve all your problems in a lot of cases, however it may help in difficullt shooting conditions, with the right lens .
              Last edited by RichardTaylor; 12-09-2012, 12:42 AM.
              Flickr stream.
              http://www.flickr.com/photos/34094515@N00/

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by soph98 View Post
                Someone was telling me how the "beginner dslrs" aren't really sharp compared to the other more expensive cameras. What exactly does "full frame" mean? Does that make the camera more expensive?
                That person was taking a lot more factors into consideration than just the sensor. The simple answer is it's all about the lenses, technique and software skills. New equipment can help in some situation and even hide some flaws. But if you are not sure if you should upgrade and why, you are probably not ready.

                The D600 on automatic mode is a waste imo. Of course it will get you better pictures just by pressing the shutter button in many situation, but it's also ~1500$ more thans your D3100. Can you beat the automatic D600 using your D3100? The answer is yes but you need to invest some time and that's what most people are not interested to do. They just want to press that button hehehe.

                p.s. if it was indeed ccting who said that, do yourself a favor. Stop reading what this guys is saying. Everything. He is not here to help people.
                Life is simple: do it, then live the consequenses.
                My Flickr
                Nikon D800, D300, 16-35mm f/4, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 2 x SB600

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thank you all for warning me about that person. Appreciate it. =)
                  By the way, I CAN shoot in manual, in fact, I never leave that setting. Automatic scares me. =)
                  Thanks also for putting up with my amateurish questions. I am so glad I found these forums!
                  Last edited by soph98; 12-10-2012, 06:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    i too am looking at a D600, for other obvious reasons..but not for what was explained above.

                    the D3100 is more than capable of producing a really sharp image, as mentioned before, its all technique. In fact, i have seen people use D3's, D700's, 7000 and yes even the D600 and not produce a sharp crisp image.

                    I say hold on to that D3100, I am not too sure if you have maxed out its capabilities as of yet? maybe you have...but even after i purchase another body, i will for sure keep my 3100 as a dependable backup. In fact, the D600 has been having issues with oil spots showing up in exposures..i highly doubt your 3100 has comparable issues.

                    now is the 600 a great body? uhhh yes, thats an understatement. But as mentioned before, yes the 3100 is an entry level body, but do not let its capabilities fool you. here are some shots taken with my 3100, granted any shot can always be better, but this will give you a general idea as to what that 3100 can do if you didnt already know.

                    Studio 1 (1 of 1)

                    Rosete

                    maeve

                    Butterfly
                    http://jessemartinez.zenfolio.com

                    https://www.facebook.com/j.martinezphotog

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Those are very nice pictures, but that has nothing to do with the capabilities of the camera. A good photographer can take good pictures with any camera, while a bad one can take bad ones with any camera. The issue really is what capabilities does one want or need. The D600 has many capabilities that the D3100 does not, it just becomes an issue if the OP wants or needs those features.
                      Nikon D800e, D300, D5000, NIKON GLASS 85mm F/1.8 D, 105mm f/2.8 Micro AF-S VR, 70-200 AF-S VR f/2.8, 28-300 AF-S VRII,10.5mm Fisheye, 24-70 AF-S f/2.8, TC-20E III AF-S, Sigma 12-24 HSM, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM, Sigma 150-500 OS, 2 SB-600 Speedlights, SB-900 speedlight, 4 YN-622N transceivers, Manfrotto 190MF3 tripod & 322RC2 ball grip head. - NJ, USA
                      Flickr Photobucket
                      Ok to edit and repost my shots on DPS forums

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lolkat View Post
                        But, these cameras will require lenses that are full frame compatible, and depending on the lenses you have now, you may not be able to use any of them with a full frame body. These lenses are also very expensive, as well. I suggest working with the body you have now, as it is fully capable of taking tack sharp photos, and if needed, you could always take it in to get checked out for a focusing issue at a local camera shop.

                        well i have both FX and DX style lens..however both will work on a D600 considering the 600 has a DX crop mode.
                        http://jessemartinez.zenfolio.com

                        https://www.facebook.com/j.martinezphotog

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kirbinster View Post
                          Those are very nice pictures, but that has nothing to do with the capabilities of the camera. A good photographer can take good pictures with any camera, while a bad one can take bad ones with any camera. The issue really is what capabilities does one want or need. The D600 has many capabilities that the D3100 does not, it just becomes an issue if the OP wants or needs those features.
                          great point and thank you.

                          you are right in a sense that its easier with a more capable body; however, is it worth jumping 2000 dollars meanwhile you still need to necessarily learn the basics? i guess thats where i was trying to go with my post.

                          maybe the idea of a D7000 may be up as an option? which it has better capabilities and its much less cost wise....a lot less lol
                          http://jessemartinez.zenfolio.com

                          https://www.facebook.com/j.martinezphotog

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X