Should I trade in my sensational D7000 + 17-55mm 2.8 combo and get D600 + 50mm 1.4?

[o hey tyler]

To be fair, a 17-55 DX is equivalent to an 82.5 FX when zoomed all the way in.

Nope, it isn't. The FoV is the same though.

 

[greybeard]

You could consider the 35mm f/1.4 for your D7K. It won't have quite the shallow DOF but will be as fast and basically the same perspective as the 50mm f/1.4 on a FF body.

 

[Janmc]

You could consider the 35mm f/1.4 for your D7K. It won't have quite the shallow DOF but will be as fast and basically the same perspective as the 50mm f/1.4 on a FF body.

Greybeard, I didn't try the 35 1.4, but did try the 35 1.8 and also the Sigma 30 1.4. They were great lenses but did have their limitations - basically I still could not achieve with them the type of portait I posted. For the longest time the sigma 30 1.4 lens was my main staple lens (the Canon version). Its a great lens for portraits and not being so close in on a crop camera. But the totally creamy bokeh with a full size person - that it could not do. Nor any other lens I ever tried with a crop.

 

[o hey tyler]

Greybeard, I didn't try the 35 1.4, but did try the 35 1.8 and also the Sigma 30 1.4. They were great lenses but did have their limitations - basically I still could not achieve with them the type of portait I posted. For the longest time the sigma 30 1.4 lens was my main staple lens (the Canon version). Its a great lens for portraits and not being so close in on a crop camera. But the totally creamy bokeh with a full size person - that it could not do. Nor any other lens I ever tried with a crop.

Get a longer lens. If you shoot canon, get the 135/2L and use it outdoors.

 

[slow231]

i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments. outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.

to the OP, you have already tried both. you know what and how you shoot. sounds like you should already have more than enough info to make this call yourself. that said, here's my 2c. I went from d7k to d600. the ff fov was the key for me. the lenses I prefer fall in much better ranges on the FF. imo the 24-70 is so much better than the 17-55 (and that focal range is so critical, on ff/dx respectively), that just being able to switch those two lenses is worth the d7k->d600 upgrade. and of course you're also able to get much more DOF control since you are using longer lenses for the same effective fov. but other than fov the d600 isn't much different. in practice I haven't found the iso performance to be any different, and the AF struggles under the same conditions.

as far as usability, i can easily walk around with just the 50 on a ff. but that really shouldn't mean much to you since you already know what and how YOU shoot. if you're not sure, leave your 17-55 at 33mm on the d7k and see if think you could get away with using just that length until you can save up for a zoom (or another lens).

 

[Janmc]

in practice I haven't found the iso performance to be any different, and the AF struggles under the same conditions.

slow231, how do you mean when you say it "struggles" under the same conditions? Do you mean the D7K has better AF?
I had a harder time for the little bit of time I had the D600, but was not sure if it was the camera, or "me".

Yes, I've kind of already figured that FF is where I need to go. Getting a longer lens is not the solution for me. As mentioned before, I can't stand a mile away from the kids I shoot.
The AF is definitely more of what I am a little worried on, as I do need to nail focus, and fast. Especially on that fast moving 2-3 year old crowd.

 

[tevo]

The D600 is a full frame version of the D7000 with more megapixels, and less AF coverage. Quite frankly, I don't think it's worth the upgrade. If you wanted to go full frame, why not get a D700 for way less money? Granted, you lose some megapixels but 12.1 is plenty. With the money you save buying a D700, you can afford to get another lens.

 

[greenx]

Keep the 7000... If you do jump to full frame i would jump all the way to a 700 or 800 honestly... If not just keep with the D7000 and get a new lens! Body's come and go but lenses are forever

 

[o hey tyler]

i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments. outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.

The other option is to defy optical physics.

Your choice, kid.

Honestly, the 50mm isn't even that great of a full body length portrait lens if you're looking for shallow DoF. It works, but like I said, longer lenses are better. You don't have to be 20 feet away from someone with an 85mm lens to get a full length (or full body) photo on a full frame body.

Sure the 50 is a good walkaround lens with a very normal FoV and space rendering. But if you want to do portraits you REALLY want a longer lens with a fast aperture. On a D600, that would be an 85/1.8G (or 1.4G).

 

[480sparky]

i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments. outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.

........ and of course you're also able to get much more DOF control since you are using longer lenses for the same effective fov........

Nothing like contradicting yourself.......

 

[slow231]

in practice I haven't found the iso performance to be any different, and the AF struggles under the same conditions.

slow231, how do you mean when you say it "struggles" under the same conditions? Do you mean the D7K has better AF?
I had a harder time for the little bit of time I had the D600, but was not sure if it was the camera, or "me".

Yes, I've kind of already figured that FF is where I need to go. Getting a longer lens is not the solution for me. As mentioned before, I can't stand a mile away from the kids I shoot.
The AF is definitely more of what I am a little worried on, as I do need to nail focus, and fast. Especially on that fast moving 2-3 year old crowd.

the af systems on both are the same as far as i'm concerned. if there was a slight upgrade to the system in the d600, i'm sure not noticing it.

i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments. outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.

The other option is to defy optical physics.

Your choice, kid.

Honestly, the 50mm isn't even that great of a full body length portrait lens if you're looking for shallow DoF. It works, but like I said, longer lenses are better. You don't have to be 20 feet away from someone with an 85mm lens to get a full length (or full body) photo on a full frame body.

Sure the 50 is a good walkaround lens with a very normal FoV and space rendering. But if you want to do portraits you REALLY want a longer lens with a fast aperture. On a D600, that would be an 85/1.8G (or 1.4G).

i'm not saying longer lenses aren't preferable for portraits, or more useful for creating shallow DOF shots. but the OP is looking for shallower DOF for specific FOV shots. suggesting to just use longer lenses and standing further away, or going outside are not solutions to making those shots.

if I want a shot of subject A with a certain size in frame, with subject B a certain distance away also a certain size in the frame, using a longer/shorter lens will not recreate that perspective. and then there are the logistical issues with changing the distance to subject. even if you have space indoors, shooting kids (or dogs, or other un-directable subjects) from another room can be pretty annoying. not saying that longer lenses can't solve certain issues, but they are not always a viable solution.

sure the 50mm isn't all that great with shallow DOF, but it certainly is better than a 35mm of the same speed. so if you your shot requires a 35mm FOV on a crop, you could now get away with using a 50 on the ff, which allows you more room to dial in subject isolation. I think that's the point the OP i trying to make. he/she's not looking for absolute shallowness in DOF, but rather shallower DOF for a given FOV, which the ff can certainly buy you.

i never understood the "oh just use a longer lens and stand further away (or go outside)" comments. outside is not the same shot, further away with a longer lens is not the same shot, and there are lots of times where further away is NOT an option.

........ and of course you're also able to get much more DOF control since you are using longer lenses for the same effective fov........

Nothing like contradicting yourself.......

not sure where the contradiction is. in one instance i'm talking about using two different length lenses on the same body, and in the other i'm talking about same FOV shots on a FF vs crop.

 

[Janmc]

slow231 thank you for all your points and insight.
Yes, I am most certainly talking about shallower DOF at given FOV.
I do know that quite a lot of professionals use very long telephoto lenses for portraits and that those are very flattering, but I do work with kids, often fast moving ones that will pause for all of a second if that, and it means that the telephoto route really can't easily work for me. Not to mention the weight of some of these lenses while running around outdoors with all those fast moving kids.
Now, granted, the 17-55mm which I have loved on my crop is certainly not a feather - I have loved it for its range, and for its decent portrait capabilities, esp at the 55mm end on a crop, but it simply cannot create the shots I often wish for, and I many times have to painstakingly blur the background further in Photoshop - time consuming and doesn't produce anything near as good as what one can get straight out of the camera with the right equipment right off the bat.
I've certainly tried the 30-35mm range on the crop which would be roughly equivalent to 50 on a full - but those lenses even wide open at the FOV to fit an entire person within the frame just cannot produce what the 50mm can on a full frame. I wish it had taken me less time to realize that.

Now I'm totally open minded to go with a D700, I certainly don't care that much about megapixels, nor about having the latest and greatest. The only thing is, even used I haven't seen it cheaper than the d600 - maybe I'm missing something. I also really like having my U1, U2 settings on the D7000 for different situations and that's one thing I like that carries over to the D600.
I actually do love the D7000 body. I just wish it were full frame.

Its certainly been tough, esp with the amount of advice I've gotten on here to stick with the d7000. Maybe I should explore the 6D instead on the canon side?
I do think that all in all... I'm ready to make the full frame transition, or I'll just be wishing for all these images that I cannot take.

 

[Derrel]

Just buy a D600, and get the built-in flash, and flash commander, and the U1 and U2 pre-programmable positions. You are totally right about the selective focus issue with full-frame, and the degree of shallower depth of field per a given angle of view that FF creates over what APS-C creates. FF really,really,really changes the way the standard, old-school prime lens focal lengths work; on APS-C, the 24,35,50,85,100,and 135mm lenses ALL become very,very,very different from what they are when shot on a FF sensor. As slow321 mentioned, the prospect of photographing kids from "the next room" on APS-C is kind of a PITA. Read Ming Thein's on-line D600 review--he very much likes the D600, and he compares it with his D700 and D800 experience, and has a LOT of very positive things to say about the D600.

I am not sure if that Nikon D600 + free 24-85 AF-S VR-G lens promo is still going on for $1999, or if that is now expired.

 

[thereyougo!]

What you do have to be careful with people shots of FF is wide angle lenses as they tend to be quite unflattering for portraits. You should have no problem with the 35 - 70, just be a little careful at the wide end.

To illustrate Derrel's excellent point about DoF, this shot is with a Pentax 645N with a 75mm f/2.8 lens which is equivalent to 45mm on 35mm. It is shot at f/5.6:


Jeein-on-the-boat by singingsnapper, on Flickr

 

[480sparky]

not sure where the contradiction is. in one instance i'm talking about using two different length lenses on the same body, and in the other i'm talking about same FOV shots on a FF vs crop.

And that's exactly what we're suggesting........