the standard answer would be to bring a zoom for convenience plus a prime lens for low light.
D600 User Thread II
- Thread starter ijnek
- Start date
the standard answer would be to bring a zoom for convenience plus a prime lens for low light.
Luminare
Senior Member
Unfortunately, the answer shall never be as straight forward as it depends on the nature of your travel, what you are photographing and a lot slew of other factors.
Either way, I'll comment on the 2 lens based on "Travel" considerations
For the 24-70mm, it covers the usual focal lengths required to capture landscape, street life and most of things one would shoot during a holiday trip.
However, the lens has its fair share of limitations that you can read all about it within this forum or other reviews.
I use 14-24mm and 24mm f/1.4G for my landscapes and I cover overhangs with a 70-200mm lens and I give up anything in the middle except for 35mm that I crop from 24mm so I don't use the 24-70mm f/2.8G
For the 70-200mm, I don't recommend someone carrying it for general travel. It is long, heavy and if one don't know when to use it, it becomes a little too long for most applications except when shooting from overhangs and street life and it is just a dead weight lugged around.
Both lens are heavy and not easy to carry around attached. One needs to carry a camera bag the size of the Think Tank city walker to carry both around. The Lowe Pro slingshot 202AW has to have its internal dividers modified to carry both lens with one attached. What this means is that it will eat up your carry on luggage that is normally limited to 7~8kg depending.
If you are not sure what you are going to photograph, the safest bet is a 16-35mm f/4VR and a 50mm f/1.8G that can all fit inside a Lowe Pro Inverse AW and is reasonably light weight for carry all day without much fatigue. This combi may not be the Trinity but it is not the Trinity that produces good photos. That goes to the perspective and composure.
Either way, I'll comment on the 2 lens based on "Travel" considerations
For the 24-70mm, it covers the usual focal lengths required to capture landscape, street life and most of things one would shoot during a holiday trip.
However, the lens has its fair share of limitations that you can read all about it within this forum or other reviews.
I use 14-24mm and 24mm f/1.4G for my landscapes and I cover overhangs with a 70-200mm lens and I give up anything in the middle except for 35mm that I crop from 24mm so I don't use the 24-70mm f/2.8G
For the 70-200mm, I don't recommend someone carrying it for general travel. It is long, heavy and if one don't know when to use it, it becomes a little too long for most applications except when shooting from overhangs and street life and it is just a dead weight lugged around.
Both lens are heavy and not easy to carry around attached. One needs to carry a camera bag the size of the Think Tank city walker to carry both around. The Lowe Pro slingshot 202AW has to have its internal dividers modified to carry both lens with one attached. What this means is that it will eat up your carry on luggage that is normally limited to 7~8kg depending.
If you are not sure what you are going to photograph, the safest bet is a 16-35mm f/4VR and a 50mm f/1.8G that can all fit inside a Lowe Pro Inverse AW and is reasonably light weight for carry all day without much fatigue. This combi may not be the Trinity but it is not the Trinity that produces good photos. That goes to the perspective and composure.
Last edited:
ChengB
Member
Bro, there is no such thing as best since everyone has different requirements and opinions.
Personally, I have a 24-120 f4 VR which is pretty much everything I need. I'm planning to get a 50mm f1.8G to go along with my zoom in case I need a wider aperture. Or if you don't think you will reach anything past the standard zoom range, you can always get the 16-35 f4 VR along with maybe another prime. I always like to attach a prime along with my setup cos I feel that there is a need for large apertures which most zooms (of a cheaper price) can't provide.
Then again, this is all just me.
Dunno if this is considered as downgrade or upgrade for my friend.
Decided to offload his D600 and go for D7100 as he feels there is a need for better glass and more AF points/AF speed. Wonder if indeed the 3500DX AF module is faster than D600 4800FX AF?
Also heard from the shop (one in funan) that he is about to buy the D7100 after selling D600 is that the D600 price will be going for another round of slashing of $100+ within the next few weeks (i think to about $2200+?), wonder if this is salesman tactic to get him to buy the D7100 fast or not.
Decided to offload his D600 and go for D7100 as he feels there is a need for better glass and more AF points/AF speed. Wonder if indeed the 3500DX AF module is faster than D600 4800FX AF?
Also heard from the shop (one in funan) that he is about to buy the D7100 after selling D600 is that the D600 price will be going for another round of slashing of $100+ within the next few weeks (i think to about $2200+?), wonder if this is salesman tactic to get him to buy the D7100 fast or not.
ageha
Senior Member
The price was already at $2200 last year overseas. Anyway, I doubt he has any insider information from the future except that prices always fall. That prediction is pretty easy to make.
I tried the D7100 over the past week. Everything the D7100 have is equal or better than the D600, less 2 items: High ISO performance and DOF (emm depending on how you define DOF, for me I am referring to portraiture, i.e people's photos which makes up 90% of what I do with the camera).
You pay $800-900 more for these 2 items (based on current price). Is it worth it for you (or him for the matter)?
For me, just the high ISO performance difference is already worth the difference. You will appreciate the D600 more if you do lots of low light shooting, and tried the D7100 at the same time.
For all other purposes, quite frankly, the D7100 is unbeatable at it's price vs performance now.
That's very good insight.
For me I'm baffled by his decision. He went from D90 with 18-105 to directly D600, only to realise that what he wants are better glass.
Actually purely based on ISO, how do we determine how good the D600 is? by stop difference? (say 1 stop difference i.e. ISO 3200 on D600 will be similar to ISO 1600 on D7100?)
Via DXOMark, based on the ISO score the D7100 scored 1250~ while D600 scored 2900~. The figure is really like heaven and earth man.
I'm still using my D7k and I find ISO3200 kinda sucky, but then again I rarely do high ISO and so FX seems redundant for me atm.
Last edited:
Yup what I saw (unscientific, based on actual shooting and output) was quite consistent with DXO scores. Basically D600 ISO 6400 output is around D7100 at ISO 2000-2500. I will not push the D7100 past ISO 3200 for sure. This is expected and has always been the key difference between DX and FX.
But as a whole, the D7100 is already doing very well for a DX sensor. Definitely better than the D7k, especially if you shoot RAW. The DR is quite amazing, not quite what I was expecting :thumbsup: I upgraded to D600 from the D7k. I pulled out some old files from D7k to process in LR, and can safely say, the D7100 is quite an improvement.
Nice comparison!
What about ergonomics, AF in low light, colors and dynamic range?
I did not really realised this,until recently, i compared my old trusty d80 raw to d600 raw (both shot at same day, low-light indoor)
The difference in colors are just amazing!
Ergonomics-I thought I was handling a D600 when I was handling the D7100 :bsmilie: They feels the same. Probably only difference is the thumb rest, D7100 slightly more narrow. I don't feel the difference in weight even though on paper, there is a difference. I don't like the last button on the bottom left side of the D7100. It is more for video users, for shooting pictures, it is a lil hindrance especially when you wanna use the zoom in zoom out button. (Used to D600 configuration, so pressed wrongly on many occasion)
AF in low light - D7100 wins, not by miles, but it wins anyway. (Ok I am honest here
)Colours - same
DR - D600 wins (winning margin narrowed considerably as compared to D7k
Disclaimer: These are based on my findings, non scientific actual shots. It may differ from people to people.
ageha
Senior Member
AF-S 28/1.8! Better for traveling coz lighter and sharper in the corners (minimal) and cheaper, too. Of course the 35/1.4 is brighter and sharper in the center...
Last edited:
AF-S 28/1.8! Better for traveling coz lighter and sharper in the corners (minimal) and cheaper, too. Of course the 35/1.4 is brighter and sharper in the center...
Ah! Ok I will take your recommendation into consideration! Thanks!!
Ergonomics-I thought I was handling a D600 when I was handling the D7100 :bsmilie: They feels the same. Probably only difference is the thumb rest, D7100 slightly more narrow. I don't feel the difference in weight even though on paper, there is a difference. I don't like the last button on the bottom left side of the D7100. It is more for video users, for shooting pictures, it is a lil hindrance especially when you wanna use the zoom in zoom out button. (Used to D600 configuration, so pressed wrongly on many occasion)
AF in low light - D7100 wins, not by miles, but it wins anyway. (Ok I am honest here
Colours - same
DR - D600 wins (winning margin narrowed considerably as compared to D7k
Disclaimer: These are based on my findings, non scientific actual shots. It may differ from people to people.
Ic, d7100 sounds pretty impressive in practical
Hi guys, I'm one of those D90 users looking to jump ship to D600 for the 'Full Frame upgrade'. I currently have D90+18-105mm, a 50mm f1.8D and a 70-300mm G (non-VR) lens. I was thinking of saving up for a D600 since D600 can shoot both FX and DX modes (which would render the DX-only D90 a white elephant), and apparently D600 can handle noise much better than a D90 (especially for ISO 1250 onwards). I need opinions: is the D600 really that capable of low-light photography + videography, enough to justify an upgrade from D90? Or should I just stick to D90 and buy more expensive lenses instead?
And also, is the 24-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR lens a good lens for frequent usage on the D600? Or should I spend more to get the new 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 (non-VR) lens to complement shooting wide-angles on D600 instead? In other words, for a D600, the 24-85mm or 16-35mm matches better, considering that I still have 50mm and 70-300mm lens at my disposal? Thx a lot.
And also, is the 24-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR lens a good lens for frequent usage on the D600? Or should I spend more to get the new 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 (non-VR) lens to complement shooting wide-angles on D600 instead? In other words, for a D600, the 24-85mm or 16-35mm matches better, considering that I still have 50mm and 70-300mm lens at my disposal? Thx a lot.
Analysis ur past photo before u decide if u should go fx. Judging from ur current setup I think its a wiser choice to buy better len, and a tripod.
Ask urself ..
Do u shoot iso 6400 that often? (Ppl always said they need high iso, they maybe wedding photographer in the first place, thus low light shooting is a must)
Can u afford the basic setup of d600 w 24-85 or 18-35 (est $3k range)
If money is no issue ... buy fx and enjoy. If not stock to dx and try better len. Fx len is EXPENSIVE.
Ask urself ..
Do u shoot iso 6400 that often? (Ppl always said they need high iso, they maybe wedding photographer in the first place, thus low light shooting is a must)
Can u afford the basic setup of d600 w 24-85 or 18-35 (est $3k range)
If money is no issue ... buy fx and enjoy. If not stock to dx and try better len. Fx len is EXPENSIVE.
Thx for replying so fast.
Actually I thought thru. I kinda feel 'outdated' shooting with D90. Coz 720p@24fps, plus high noise levels at low light during video mode, regardless of ISO set (I observe digital noise even at ISO 200 shooting video in low light conditions, quite pathetic when it comes to video-editing). And the 11-point AF (+1 crosstype) is seriously unnerving when I slap on my Raynox DCR-250, the D90 just cant seem to find a single AF point! The continued AF hunting really turns me off when I try macro with the Raynox. I'm hoping that D600 with 39-point AF can be much better at this. And the dynamic range - hopefully fellow D90 users can confirm this - but pictures seem to be whited-out in terms of colour tone, hence dynamic range. When I shoot on D90, no matter what kind of lens I use or how expensive the lenses are that are paired with the D90, the colour rendering from the D90 seems to be a shade or two brighter than expected. So I'm banking my hopes on D600 to resolve this - or am I hoping for too much with the D600?
As for pricing wise, no issues with coughing up the money. I'm currently in NUS studying, semester's gonna end soon. Probably gonna find temp jobs to do during the summer break. And if I manage to sell off my D90+18-105mm + supplied accessories for ard 1k, that would mean my nett expenditure is reduced to abt 2k, also taking into account the possibility of price reductions of D600 due to depreciation. So that means abt 2 months of work to upgrade to D600, money no issue here.
And just as u mentioned FX lens is expensive, so I hope i can find the best one lens to cover the wide angle range. Since I have been on DX all the time, I dun noe how wide is wide (18-105mm DX lens at 18mm is only 27mm equivalent for FX). Is 24mm justificably wide enough to take landscape/cityscape shots with the typical barrel distortions that wide-angled shots are famous for? Or do I need to go down to 16-18mm rnage on FX to get that effect?
Actually I thought thru. I kinda feel 'outdated' shooting with D90. Coz 720p@24fps, plus high noise levels at low light during video mode, regardless of ISO set (I observe digital noise even at ISO 200 shooting video in low light conditions, quite pathetic when it comes to video-editing). And the 11-point AF (+1 crosstype) is seriously unnerving when I slap on my Raynox DCR-250, the D90 just cant seem to find a single AF point! The continued AF hunting really turns me off when I try macro with the Raynox. I'm hoping that D600 with 39-point AF can be much better at this. And the dynamic range - hopefully fellow D90 users can confirm this - but pictures seem to be whited-out in terms of colour tone, hence dynamic range. When I shoot on D90, no matter what kind of lens I use or how expensive the lenses are that are paired with the D90, the colour rendering from the D90 seems to be a shade or two brighter than expected. So I'm banking my hopes on D600 to resolve this - or am I hoping for too much with the D600?
As for pricing wise, no issues with coughing up the money. I'm currently in NUS studying, semester's gonna end soon. Probably gonna find temp jobs to do during the summer break. And if I manage to sell off my D90+18-105mm + supplied accessories for ard 1k, that would mean my nett expenditure is reduced to abt 2k, also taking into account the possibility of price reductions of D600 due to depreciation. So that means abt 2 months of work to upgrade to D600, money no issue here.
And just as u mentioned FX lens is expensive, so I hope i can find the best one lens to cover the wide angle range. Since I have been on DX all the time, I dun noe how wide is wide (18-105mm DX lens at 18mm is only 27mm equivalent for FX). Is 24mm justificably wide enough to take landscape/cityscape shots with the typical barrel distortions that wide-angled shots are famous for? Or do I need to go down to 16-18mm rnage on FX to get that effect?
Similar threads
