GPS Studio Services wrote:
Boy, you should get some interesting answers.   I am a fan of both the D610 and the D7100.  Each has pluses and minuses.  Honestly, I don't think you will go wrong with any of the three you have mentioned.

I know which way I'm leaning....but want to see what others think lol.  I don't know what to expect though haha. 

My logic with throwing the 600 in there is I can find them for ~500 or more less than the 610, and with Nikon finally acknowledging the oil issue and fixing it it seems like a better idea to do that and use that money for a couple primes.

The 7100 would afford me even more for glass, but I tend to shoot movement with my models...and I'm not sure the better AF would be as big a deal if I can only shoot 5 frames before the buffer is full...

I really want to like the Sony....but dunno if the kit lens and the 35mm are solid pieces of glass...heard bad things about both.  If they compare to the 40mm canon, or 50mm nikons then I'd be happy though.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Boy, you should get some interesting answers.   I am a fan of both the D610 and the D7100.  Each has pluses and minuses.  Honestly, I don't think you will go wrong with any of the three you have mentioned.

T-D-L wrote:
I know which way I'm leaning....but want to see what others think lol.  I don't know what to expect though haha. 

My logic with throwing the 600 in there is I can find them for ~500 or more less than the 610, and with Nikon finally acknowledging the oil issue and fixing it it seems like a better idea to do that and use that money for a couple primes.

The 7100 would afford me even more for glass, but I tend to shoot movement with my models...and I'm not sure the better AF would be as big a deal if I can only shoot 5 frames before the buffer is full...

I really want to like the Sony....but dunno if the kit lens and the 35mm are solid pieces of glass...heard bad things about both.  If they compare to the 40mm canon, or 50mm nikons then I'd be happy though.

I have a D600 and have never had the oil issue.  I would have no problem recommending it either.  People are very hung up on it.  In any case, no matter how serious you thought the issue was, Nikon has offered to take care of it so a D600 is certainly a viable option.

London Fog wrote:
I've just shot with a D600 (loaner from NPS as my piece of shit D800 is in for repair for the 3rd time in 2 months!), and I have to say I was and am very impressed with it in just about every way.

The AF is fast and responsive, great IQ and images, and it actually feels more sturdy than I expected. Overall a very nice little camera, marred only by the dreaded 'oil' issue, although thankfully not seen on this loan one.

I'm also a Canon 7D user, and I noticed that you are or have been too. Just curios, but why give up on this wonderful camera, it's easily still the best crop out there! Or is just the need to go FF?

My 7D was built like a tank, but apparently tanks shatter into lots of pieces when dropped down 2 flights of stairs

Also, I hated the 7D performance above ISO 200.  Utter crap.  And since I'm shooting mostly on location and in not so well lit areas all the time, I need something with better noise performance, and ideally FF for the fov. 

Your opinion does make me a little more confident though, as you've come from the 7D's awesome AF and the D800s as well, yet still thought the D600 was good.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
If megapixels isn't an issue, perhaps consider a used Nikon D700?

Tried it, wasn't a fan.  And unfortunately, most people I run into while freelancing are demanding 20+ mp (yeah, I know...mp doesn't equate to IQ, but try telling that to stupid-assed clients).

T-D-L wrote:

Tried it, wasn't a fan.  And unfortunately, most people I run into while freelancing are demanding 20+ mp (yeah, I know...mp doesn't equate to IQ, but try telling that to stupid-assed clients).

Yes, that's a sad indicment of the industry. Just a few years ago the D700 was perfectly acceptable for publishing, and demanding clients. Now all of a sudden they all want D800 size files!

Out of all my cams, the D700 is my go to and absolute favourite DSLR ever! An absolutely near on perfect picture making machine!

London Fog wrote:

Yes, that's a sad indicment of the industry. Just a few years ago the D700 was perfectly acceptable for publishing, and demanding clients. Now all of a sudden they all want D800 size files!

Out of all my cams, the D700 is my go to and absolute favourite DSLR ever! An absolutely near on perfect picture making machine!

Unfortunately so....

So far this year I've had people demand I have a D800 when all we were supposed to shoot was catalog images, on white, used only on the web at 1024x1024px

Same for people demanding the 5DIII for a lookbook, or the person who said that their headshots were shot last time by someone with a Hasselblad so I needed one of those if I wanted their business lol

To be honest, I loved nearly everything about the 7D (other than being a nikon user originally, I couldn't get used to the button layout) except for the poor high iso performance.  If it were as good as my old NEX6 at ISO 800 (which isn't saying much) I'd just get another one and deal with the idgits who demand more resolution.

That being said, couldn't find any decent deals on D600's (all the ones here on craigslist are going for nearly as much as a D610, and I'm not confident in the AF enough to warrant 2k on one), so I'm going to check out a Sony A7 in a bit and see if the kit zoom and my MF 50mm 1.4 I've been using on my NEX is a good setup until I can get a hold of the 35mm.  *fingers crossed*

Paul AI wrote:
Of those three, I would definitely go with the 610.  Nikon "acknowledged" the oil problem by making the 610, not fixing the 600s, haha.

It amazes me how many people that don't own a D600 knock it because of the Internet hype as opposed to how many who actually own one love them.

T-D-L wrote:
Unfortunately so....

So far this year I've had people demand I have a D800 when all we were supposed to shoot was catalog images, on white, used only on the web at 1024x1024px

Same for people demanding the 5DIII for a lookbook, or the person who said that their headshots were shot last time by someone with a Hasselblad so I needed one of those if I wanted their business lol

To be honest, I loved nearly everything about the 7D (other than being a nikon user originally, I couldn't get used to the button layout) except for the poor high iso performance.  If it were as good as my old NEX6 at ISO 800 (which isn't saying much) I'd just get another one and deal with the idgits who demand more resolution.

That being said, couldn't find any decent deals on D600's (all the ones here on craigslist are going for nearly as much as a D610, and I'm not confident in the AF enough to warrant 2k on one), so I'm going to check out a Sony A7 in a bit and see if the kit zoom and my MF 50mm 1.4 I've been using on my NEX is a good setup until I can get a hold of the 35mm.  *fingers crossed*

I'm mainly a Nikon user too (23 years!), and I found the same with the 7D, namely the button and menu layout is totally pants. At least with Nikon the menu system, buttons and overall layout is well laid out, and logically organised, even if the WB is shit compared to Canon!

I like my 7D up to 400, but after that forget it, this was the same problem with the D300, great up to 400, but pretty much usless beyond that! At least with the D700 it's as clean as a cats ass at 1000, 1600 and way beyond!

Good luck with whatever you choose!

GPS Studio Services wrote:

It amazes me how many people that don't own a D600 knock it because of the Internet hype as opposed to how many who actually own one love them.

I think I've fallen in love with this loan D600, might have to keep it!

T-D-L wrote:
What say you?  Narrowed my choices down to the 3, but having trouble leaning one way or the other.  I think FF would be the best way to go, but hate the cam4800 in the Nikons.  D7100 obviously better AF, but read iffy things on IQ and skin tones.  Sony would be the definite way to go, except lens selection sucks and I'm not a fan of paying more for mediocre lenses just because they say Zeiss on them.

I actually went to Buy a Sony A7 and 50mm 1.8 lens for it.

As I aways do I did a 3D target test shot as it's a good quick way to test a lens.

I did not like the results with 55mm 1.8. Looked terrible and I  hate having to deal with color fringing in post.



The one on the right is the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8.

What is interesting is that the one on the left is the Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8 for Fuji x-mount.

I would have more than one Sony A7 if they had a 50mm or 55mm that did not have this fringing problem....

Fred Greissing wrote:

I actually went to Buy a Sony A7 and 50mm 1.8 lens for it.

As I aways do I did a 3D target test shot as it's a good quick way to test a lens.

I did not like the results with 55mm 1.8. Looked terrible and I  hate having to deal with color fringing in post.



The one on the right is the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8.

What is interesting is that the one on the left is the Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8 for Fuji x-mount.

I would have more than one Sony A7 if they had a 50mm or 55mm that did not have this fringing problem....

Cool info Fred, will keep that in mind.  Talked to Kesler and he said the 55 was better than the 35, which is my main concern because at the moment I think 35mm would be a much better focal length for me...

By any chance did you get to do any tests with the 35?

NH ice wrote:
FWIW I would stick to either Nikon or Cannon.  The availability of glass and accessories are way better. I think Sony finally changed their hot shoe to a standard mount, but I know people that had trouble using a standard pocket wizards because the adaptor never worked right. Everyone I know (small sample size) who has one of the other brands regrets buying it.

They changed the hotshoe last year with the NEX6, they use a standard one now on all of them as far as I know.

Accessories aren't important, never use hotshoe flashes, battery grips, etc.  All I need is a sharp, fast prime, and a basic zoom (the kit lens maybe?  seems to get ok reviews for a variable aperture lens).  That's my biggest question of concern with the Sony, is that it took them almost 2 years to get some decent lenses for the NEX series....how long will it take to get some for the A7?  Or will Sigma step up and create a winner for the FF like they did with the NEX (their 30mm was awesome). 

I see they've listed a 35mm f2 and 35mm 1.4 zeiss in their roadmap....as well as 21, 135, etc.  But can I wait until late 2014/2015 with just the 35mm 2.8?  I guess we'll see in a bit

Joecosentino wrote:
Look at the 610 and the nikor 85 mm lens.  I had 5 D600's last year returning each one for dust issues.  My dealer traded it out in December for a 610 and I now have 2 of them.  good luck.

If this A7 deal falls through, I think I'd be more likely to purchase a D600 and just take it straight to Nikon here in LA to replace the shutter (as per their service advisory thingy).  They haven't changed anything else from 600-->610, so it seems economically more responsible to get the substantially cheaper one that they will fix for free

Image Unit wrote:
I own a D3x, a D3, and a D600.  I got the D600 for video.  I use all 3 cameras on a regular basis.  Coming from someone who uses the pro bodies every single day, PLUS uses a D600, I can tell you that the D600 is a solid camera.   We print large format photos EVERYDAY (4 feet x 6 feet as a standard size print for us) from 12 megapixel cameras, so the 24 megapix on the D600 are just fine!  Don't get caught up in all the hype.  Get the D600 and be at peace.

+1... totally agree... D600 is a solid camera with an amazing sensor... I'd say go for it...

Legacys 7 wrote:
The advantage that the Sony A7 have is the option of lenses that you can use with an adapter. You don't have to depend on Sony glass. Most A7 users are using both Sony and non Sony glass. Over all, Sony has better quality in image and a wider lens selection.

Wider lens selection?  Nikon has never changed their lens mount.  So I can literally use the very first Nikon SLR lens on my D3x right NOW.  That's a HUGE range of lenses.  And if you mean, you can add an "adapter" to your camera and use a Nikon lens then you need to rethink that a little better.  The lens may FIT, but we have done tests with focus calibrator targets, and the cameras with "adapters" have serious calibration issues.  The gap from the back of the lens to the sensor must be EXACT for the target to actually be in focus when the camera THINKS its in focus.  The gap differential from adapters throws this off.  We offer this test free to all of our members and this is a VERY COMMON problem with adapters.
So if you count "available lenses" as, lenses actually made BY the camera brand, then Nikon reigns supreme.  ALSO....Nikon users are getting a HUGE financial benefit because the old "film" lenses, work perfectly on the new FX bodies.  You can pickup a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens made 20 years ago for FILM cameras, for $300, and it will work perfectly on a new FX body.  Food for thought.

T-D-L wrote:

Tried it, wasn't a fan.  And unfortunately, most people I run into while freelancing are demanding 20+ mp (yeah, I know...mp doesn't equate to IQ, but try telling that to stupid-assed clients).

I shoot with a D3 (12.3mp) and have never had any issues with people requesting larger files. I am an approved Alamy stock shooter and shoot commercially.

Image Unit wrote:
Wider lens selection?  Nikon has never changed their lens mount.  So I can literally use the very first Nikon SLR lens on my D3x right NOW.  That's a HUGE range of lenses.  And if you mean, you can add an "adapter" to your camera and use a Nikon lens then you need to rethink that a little better.  The lens may FIT, but we have done tests with focus calibrator targets, and the cameras with "adapters" have serious calibration issues.  The gap from the back of the lens to the sensor must be EXACT for the target to actually be in focus when the camera THINKS its in focus.  The gap differential from adapters throws this off.  We offer this test free to all of our members and this is a VERY COMMON problem with adapters.
So if you count "available lenses" as, lenses actually made BY the camera brand, then Nikon reigns supreme.  ALSO....Nikon users are getting a HUGE financial benefit because the old "film" lenses, work perfectly on the new FX bodies.  You can pickup a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens made 20 years ago for FILM cameras, for $300, and it will work perfectly on a new FX body.  Food for thought.

Yes my thoughts exactly. No camera manufacturer has a wider choice of lenses than Nikon, if you consider that just about every lens ever made since 1959 will work on a Pro DSLR.

Sony (TV manufacturer) has lenses that date back to what, 2009...or whenever! That's some legacy!

T-D-L wrote:
Went and played with the A7 some more....and bought it lol.  Right now I've just got the kit lens and a MF 50mm 1.4 I used to use with my NEX6, but I figure that'll cover me until I can get the 35 or 55. 

Button layout is a bit confusing right now, they've changed A LOT from the NEX series.  Hoping to put it through it's paces in the next day or two, just need to book a shoot first lol.

Congratulation and welcome to the dark side of photography where a TV maker sells the gear

London Fog wrote:
Yes my thoughts exactly. No camera manufacturer has a wider choice of lenses than Nikon, if you consider that just about every lens ever made since 1959 will work on a Pro DSLR.

Sony (TV manufacturer) has lenses that date back to what, 2009...or whenever! That's some legacy!

Well if we exclude the E-mount which is specific to mirorless camera and physics of that body. The Sony (TV) mount for Cameras has been around a while 1985 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_A-mount#A-mount

there is quiet a bit of heritage form Minolta, Konica, ... in the late 80" even nikon made some lenses for the A-mount. The lense lineup is pretty complete (except on the very long end where there are no or expensive options)

Yes the ef-moun tis new and lenses are limited. That does not stop many people to stick their old (60's and older Leica, ... lenses on the A7 and be very happy with focusing and image quality.

Native lenses are great but it may not the a requirement for all photographers. Also try to remove the duplicate/overlapping versions of the Nikon lenses and the difference is not that big anymore. Try to find a used Minolta lens and if it is any of the good lenses the prices are insanely expensive.

Image Unit wrote:
Wider lens selection?  Nikon has never changed their lens mount.  So I can literally use the very first Nikon SLR lens on my D3x right NOW.  That's a HUGE range of lenses.  And if you mean, you can add an "adapter" to your camera and use a Nikon lens then you need to rethink that a little better.  The lens may FIT, but we have done tests with focus calibrator targets, and the cameras with "adapters" have serious calibration issues.  The gap from the back of the lens to the sensor must be EXACT for the target to actually be in focus when the camera THINKS its in focus.  The gap differential from adapters throws this off.  We offer this test free to all of our members and this is a VERY COMMON problem with adapters.
So if you count "available lenses" as, lenses actually made BY the camera brand, then Nikon reigns supreme.  ALSO....Nikon users are getting a HUGE financial benefit because the old "film" lenses, work perfectly on the new FX bodies.  You can pickup a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens made 20 years ago for FILM cameras, for $300, and it will work perfectly on a new FX body.  Food for thought.

Don't know why that was so difficult to grasp. The o.p. was solely looking at Sony lenses. With the A7, he doesn't have just use Sony glass. So um yeah, he has a wider of selection of lenses, including nikon. Who cares that nikon don't have to use an adapter for their glass.

Calibration issues using Nikon lenses. Have you used a Nikon lens on the A7? so far, you haven't even pointed out that there is an issue using it on the A7. What I do know is, besides the quality, the other main thing that comes up often is the fact that you can use any lens on the A7. Including your Nikon glass. Btw. Nikon isn't the only damn lens option. No where in my post did I state nikon glass. You did.

Now show me where I said that Sony has more glass than Nikon. Sony doesn't have more glass than Canon or the other long time players in the game. Shit. That's not news.

He's pondering on buying it. He also stated that he regrets getting rid of his Nex 7. I'd highly recommend that he look at some of the Youtube video on here where you can see A7 users using non Sony lenses. The focusing peek for the manual glass is spot on. No calibration issues etc. Last. There are several A7 users on that can also back that up.

T-D-L wrote:

London Fog wrote:
Yes, that's a sad indicment of the industry. Just a few years ago the D700 was perfectly acceptable for publishing, and demanding clients. Now all of a sudden they all want D800 size files!

Out of all my cams, the D700 is my go to and absolute favourite DSLR ever! An absolutely near on perfect picture making machine!

Unfortunately so....

So far this year I've had people demand I have a D800 when all we were supposed to shoot was catalog images, on white, used only on the web at 1024x1024px

Same for people demanding the 5DIII for a lookbook, or the person who said that their headshots were shot last time by someone with a Hasselblad so I needed one of those if I wanted their business lol

To be honest, I loved nearly everything about the 7D (other than being a nikon user originally, I couldn't get used to the button layout) except for the poor high iso performance.  If it were as good as my old NEX6 at ISO 800 (which isn't saying much) I'd just get another one and deal with the idgits who demand more resolution.

That being said, couldn't find any decent deals on D600's (all the ones here on craigslist are going for nearly as much as a D610, and I'm not confident in the AF enough to warrant 2k on one), so I'm going to check out a Sony A7 in a bit and see if the kit zoom and my MF 50mm 1.4 I've been using on my NEX is a good setup until I can get a hold of the 35mm.  *fingers crossed*

I hope this is just an LA thing

Image Unit wrote:

Wider lens selection?  Nikon has never changed their lens mount.  So I can literally use the very first Nikon SLR lens on my D3x right NOW.  That's a HUGE range of lenses.  And if you mean, you can add an "adapter" to your camera and use a Nikon lens then you need to rethink that a little better.  The lens may FIT, but we have done tests with focus calibrator targets, and the cameras with "adapters" have serious calibration issues.  The gap from the back of the lens to the sensor must be EXACT for the target to actually be in focus when the camera THINKS its in focus.  The gap differential from adapters throws this off.  We offer this test free to all of our members and this is a VERY COMMON problem with adapters.
So if you count "available lenses" as, lenses actually made BY the camera brand, then Nikon reigns supreme.  ALSO....Nikon users are getting a HUGE financial benefit because the old "film" lenses, work perfectly on the new FX bodies.  You can pickup a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 lens made 20 years ago for FILM cameras, for $300, and it will work perfectly on a new FX body.  Food for thought.

You convinced me to switch