Not even sure why...d600?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by F/Stop, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. F/Stop

    F/Stop Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 9, 2013
    West Virginia
    Brian Y.
    But for the past month i have been thinking of trading in the OMD and my lenses (see signature) for a Nikon d600 and a lens or two.. Why am i thinking this?

    Is it because of the price point of a refurb d600 @ 1500$ ?

    Part of me believes that the OMD got me back into taking pictures and enjoying it enough again, that i am willing to be with a bigger system again and deal with its size and weight..

    Am i thinking about overall IQ, i don't think so. Rarely am i shooting high ISO where a d600 or equiv. would out perform. I am absolutely in love with the 16-35mm nikkor, why? I am a sucker for wide angle, and because the omd does not have an equivalent other than the panny 7-14, and we all know the issues with that lens on the omd.

    The nikon 50mm 1.4 is so enticing as well as the 85mm 1.4, the plethora of aftermarket accessories is also pulling me in. SO, maybe its the overall lenses? Better a/f tracking?

    Honestly i think i might be tired of waiting for a faster zoom, a wider angle olympus zoom, besides the 9-18..

    Tired of waiting, maybe that is why i am considering this move.. yikes!

    help me out guys! what shall i do, oh what shall i do!?

    Is this all too common GAS striking again? OTOH, i think back and realize what shots i got without a tripod, in low light, because of the wonderful IBIS.

    should i wait, see what they come out with this year, 42.5 1.2, phase detect etc, be patient, as it as a virtue?

    Thank you in advance!!:2thumbs:
  2. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    Don't worry, you're not alone.

    The "low" price of the two entry-level (for lack of a better term) full-frame DSLRs is certainly enticing. The fact that the D600 came out with the dust issue, which led numerous users to return them and, thus, flooded the market with these reduced-price factory refurbs (cleaned and re-sold), has just made this even more enticing.

    As the thread above shows, the ideal would be a little of both - FF when absolute IQ or tracking or narrow DOF is needed and :43: for the remaining 90-95%. However, since that's cost prohibitive for most, it leaves a very tough decision. Good luck with it ... I'm still deciding ...
  3. slothead

    slothead Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 14, 2012
    Frederick, MD
    I can tell you why Brian, and I almost did it too, I think it was because someone here offered a a D600 in trade for an OMD (maybe with some extra cash, I don't remember). But the reason I decided against it is because I really want a D800 back (24MP on a FF sensor is not enough pixel density for me). The D600 was just a flash in the pan for me.
  4. daum

    daum Mu-43 Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    D600 is an awesome camera. I sold mine after months of holding on to with no use. The OMD was the star because of it's size and finally decided to sell the D600.

    If you can deal with the bulk and weight then the D600 makes sense. But I felt like the images i get from the OMD was good enough for what I do.
  5. Hudsonhites

    Hudsonhites Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 14, 2011
    I started with the Olympus E1 then E3 and I was happy shooting my travel, portraits and landscapes until I had kids then things changed.

    I was hitting the ceiling of 43s high ISO & AF tracking so I moved to a Nikon D700. I was now able to AF & track my rapidly moving kids inside shooting ISO 3200 and getting good result and the size and weight difference wasn't great.

    Then things changed again I needed to carry more stuff for the kids while traveling and less camera gear weight. Solution the OMD the high ISO is good enough for my needs however the AF tracking is still lacking.

    Now I shoot to systems the D700 for anything that moves and the OMD for just about everything else. Yes there's a ton of aftermarket stuff for Nikon and the D700 files have no low ISO noise which sometimes pops up on OMD files.
    There's also more flexibility in the D700 files. The OMD has its pluses too size and weight advantage, in body stabilization, I love the live histogram in the EVF and the ability to view & change settings in the SCP while using the EVF.

    If you're going to be shooting more weddings or plan on children especially girls doing dance recitals than a Nikon D600 would differently add to your photography.

    I'm waiting to see if the next OMD body solves the AF tracking issue if it does I'm selling my Nikon stuff.
  6. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    I'm going to be brutal here. If you need the opinions of other photographers to help you decide if your particular type of photography would be best served by :43: or full frame, then probably you shouldn't be changing systems until you have more experience. :smile:
  7. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Feb 19, 2010
    You have a stable of great lenses, and a solid camera. If you can afford both, then get a D700. If you can't afford both, then I would say don't switch right now. I vacillated over the last 12 months, going m43 to FF to m43, and now paired back my m43 and have both, but I think I've lost about $600 in gear swapping -- trying to keep only 1 system. Ouch. Don't do it!
  8. jssaraiva

    jssaraiva Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 26, 2013
    Porto, Portugal
    José Saraiva
    Not sure if your plan is to change from M43 to FF or keep both. I currently have M43 and Nikon APS-C, but next time I "need" to upgrade the Nikon body, I'll probably go with D600 or D700. In my opinion and/or for my needs, it makes sense to have FF and a mirrorless system, not so much a mirrorless (except if the smaller sensor ones) and an APS-C, since differences can be small if you really don't need AF-C.

    However this can be very expensive to support, so you need to evauate if you need the advantages of FF, like better DoF. For me the major advantages may be the f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes, enabling very good DoF.
  9. When I consider all the myriad shooting options that a smaller, full-time live view camera like m4/3 offers, I can only assume when one considers trading one in for a DSLR you aren't taking advantage of them anyway. So, if you are happy to use a larger camera and want a larger sensor, just do it.
  10. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Do what you want and don't get influenced one way or the other. :smile:
  11. heli-mech

    heli-mech Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 9, 2012
    Vancouver Island, Canada
    Lets simplify:
    Yes its GAS, but thats OK, GAS is just another hobby, just as long as you have the money and realize the equipment won't make you a better photographer.

    Secondly: Size vs IQ/tracking AF. The D600 with equivalent lenses will be double the weight, take up nearly double the space in a bag but it will give better "pixel peeping IQ" at low ISO and better IQ at high ISO. Tracking AF will also be much better.

    Personally the extra size means the larger camera would stay home far more, negating any IQ advantage.
  12. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Probably closer to triple the size and weight.
  13. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 15, 2012
    Patrick Kristiansen
    What's keeping me in m43 first of all are the great reasonably priced lenses. Ive tried the nikkor 50mmf1,4 and it is a good lens, but ceartinly not great. Soft at 1,4, corners not really sharp at all on fx. The pl25mmf1,4 outperforms it in all aspects except shallow dof at f4.
    The 85mmf1,4 supposedly fantastic, but very pricey. You could get both oly 45mm and 75mm and have money to spare compared to the nikkor. Put premium glass on the d600, and you have in theory a technocally better camera. If you can afford it, don't mind the extra size, weight, no ibis and massive mirrorslap, go for it. Personally, I will buy a camera with a 24*36mm sensor one day, but the traditional slr don't tempt me any more. The are in essence the same now as 40 years ago...
  14. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    As work cameras. I fully endorse the use of full frame DSLRs. The lenses, the bodies and selection is fully mature for that type of use. Saying that, the OM-D represents one of the best cameras I've used in it's class. I would not trade an OM-D for a D600...maybe for a D3, D700 or D800, but not the D600.
  15. F/Stop

    F/Stop Mu-43 Veteran

    Mar 9, 2013
    West Virginia
    Brian Y.
    Thanks to All for your opinions and thoughts!

    Do i believe that owning a d600 or full frame will make me take better photographs, absolutely not. Some of the shots i would have never gotten with the d600. And the shots i did take or miss, out of focus etc, i doubt would be rectified by having a d600, and more along the lines of me not being ready for the shot.

    But , what you said jonathan, i believe more than half of the reason i want to dive into the FF market is because of its maturity...

    I think i need to rent a d6,7,800 for awhile, carry it around with the lenses i want and really see if its worth the extra weight.

    I have ALWAYS been a SUPER impatient person, and i believe that the m4/3 world is too slow in getting the glass out that we all want and need. Therefore i start to look elsewhere to a system that has the lenses i want, that i can get now.

    All the rumors that surface just drive me crazy wanting them to be true and to be released asap. So with that being said, maybe this is more of a Patience issue than anything, and not really anything else..

    This is not about buying a d600 on top of the omd, its about replacing it..for clarification.
  16. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    I own a D600 as well as my m4/3 kit and shoot both, and I honestly wouldn't want to give up either one. If I *had* to pare it down to one system I'd probably go with m4/3 for the weight and size savings especially since what got me into photography in the first place was travel photography and m4/3 excels there. But I really enjoy having and using both for different reasons.

    The FF kit gives you improvements in IQ especially at high ISO, better tracking AF, and really shallow DoF. Other than that, m4/3 is a pretty good match for FF and the Nikon glass, generally speaking. So it's really about what you enjoy shooting with & why rather than any secret sauce the new camera will add to your photography.

    Renting isn't a bad idea, maybe it'll answer your questions definitively for you. I also second the notion about having both if you can afford to (even it if means saving up). My guess is you'll eventually miss the OM-D if you sell out of m4/3, once the new camera smells wears off ;)

    Regarding your lens lust:

    1) 7-14 issues on the OM-D are easily fixable with a simple filter holder from the 8mm fisheye and a pale yellow UV filter:

    My "definitive" post on the 7-14mm "Purple Blob" Problem - Page 8 - Micro Four Thirds User Forum

    Really not a big deal or particularly difficult to address, and you'll have a heck of a good UWA lens at your disposal.

    2) If you can't live without a fast Olympus lens then I think you're gonna have to count on moving to another system. There's no rumors or announcements for the kind of lens you're looking for, and even once there are, it's going to be many months before it hits the market. That's assuming they are even planning any kind of fast wide angle any time soon.
  17. mcumeda

    mcumeda Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 25, 2011
    I have both. I probably shoot the OM-D more than the D600. I probably shoot with the OM-D about 60-70% of the time. I find it more fun for some reason, especially if it is just snapshots of my family. However, if I am shooting an event or anything with a lot movement, I usually take my D600 and a fast zoom. I find it too hard to switch lenses quickly when I am shooting my OM-D. It might be different if I had two micro 4/3 bodies, but I don't.

    I am more invested into micro 4/3rds lenses, and I just have a handful of nikkor lenses. I know a lot of people like the shallow depth of field look that you get with a full frame camera, but you have to be super careful or nothing will be in focus but an eyelash. If you are shooting more than two people you have to stop the lens down anyway sort of negating the super shallow DOF. Honestly, m4/3rds provides pretty good subject isolation with the right lenses. Also, I don't think the nikon lenses are as sharp wide open as Olympus's so if you want super sharp pics you can't really shoot wide open like you can with an Oly lenses.

    I think you would be happy with a D600, but it is a pain to lug around. If I am going to dinner or something, I just throw the OM-D with a prime into the diaper bag or throw it around my shoulder. I take my OM-D a lot more places than my D600. Also, I can take the OM-D to places that I can't the D600 like concerts and sporting events. Most venues won't let you take a "professional camera," but no one seems to care when I have the OM-D.

    If you like going wide, there are some decent micro 4/3rd lenses for that, but you are right, Nikon has some very good ones.
  18. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    Except a more direct apples to apples comparison would be with the 85mm f1.8 Nikkor AF-S - and that lens costs only slightly more than a 45mm f1.8 Olympus alone, and about half of what a 75mm f1.8 Olympus lens sells for. Of course a full frame f1.4 lens is going to be more expensive than an f1.8 lens with a comparable FOV and a much smaller image circle.
  19. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 15, 2012
    Patrick Kristiansen
    I did own the afs85mmf1,8, was my main lens on a d300 for a while. testef it on fx as well. It was also the first lens i sold to fund my omd. Its bokeh is great, but sharpness only really good from f2,8. It also had quite alot of longitunal ca. For me, the oly 45 is better in all respects, as it is cheaper, no longitunal ca, sharper, and great bokeh. That was my point, the only nikkor better would be a pricey 85mmf1,4.
  20. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    That being said, you can't evaluate the entire merits of a system on a one-off comparison of one specific lens vs. it's direct peer. I might as well suggest that Nikons long fast glass, like it's 600mm f4 has no direct peer in m4/3.

    And in fact, the 85mm f1.4 does not have a peer in m4/3 either. The 45mm f1.8 cannot come close to the blurring of background that the 85mm f1.4 can
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.