The D610 might be a better option as it has fixed the mirror box oil issues.
What are these mirror box issues? Is it worth the extra £150?
First of all play with a D600 before you buy it, you may not like the AF, second of all what are you shooting that a DX cant take?
What's wrong with the AF? Typically I only use a single af point.
I'm mainly shooting indoor sports, so the lighting isn't the best and the shutter speed high.
As robj20 said but its nearly as much as a D800, granted with the adapter rings you can use your current lenses IIRC, could you stretch to a D800?
As for a flash you may want to look at the Yongnuo YN-565EX, I have it and its a fantastic flash, the only thing it dose'nt have is HSS but that will cost another £50 O_o
Possibly, I mean I do eventually want to move beyond the D600 to the higher ISO performance of the D800 anyway and the ability to change the aperture in live view means I wouldn't have to keep using D lenses to shoot video...
I'll take a look at the Yongnuo thanks, as a couple people in this thread seem to be recommending them.
What DX lenses are you selling?
I am considering buying a long zoom.
I currently have a 35mm f/1.8 and 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6, ironically I've already sold my only FX lens, the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 because of it's narrow aperture. Experience has shown me I don't need that much reach anyway.
First things first is make sure you really want FF, there are at least as many cons as pros so it depends what's you really want or expect. The extra low light performance is only 1 stop, somewhat less than you might expect and depending on your DX lenses easily achievable with better lenses.
For a normal zoom look at the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 or 24-120mm f/4.0. But if one of your reasons to moveto Ff is lowlight then you should really be looking at f/2.8 or faster to get any benefit.
Yeah I took a look at the 24-70mm but I don't think it was worth the money for a lens two stops slower than the 50mm when the focal length range is not hugely different if a take a few steps towards or away from the subject.
Btw, what DX lenses do you have? Some work well on FX, like the 35mm f1.8 DX works as a portrait lens. I wouldn't feel bad buying DX lenses for a DX body, makes more sense than buying FX lenses for a DX body in the wide to normal range.
Is there any point keeping the 35mm f/1.8 though if I'm getting the 50mm f/1.4?
Bang on the money there. If you aren't shooting for money and instead just for fun, just get something you actually like to use. Its what I did and I haven't looked back.
If you are shooting for fun, I'd ditch the idea of the DSLR and go for a fuji x pro 1 (not sure when the 2 is out) or the X-E2 that is brand new. Not full frame, but the lens line up is pretty nice and it offers truly full manual control, just like my leica does.
But for me an SLR is fun to use.
I have done some small jobs for money in the past though, and hope to step that up a bit, nothing major though.
Full frame is a bit of a gimmick to be honest as the depth of field and iso can be useful, yet the later has started turning a lot of photographers into lazy point and shoot specialists, especially with auto-iso features etc. Most of the time, shooting wide open at large apertures such as 1.8 or larger is also counter productive to the shot as the depth of field will be far too small to get most objects in focus, including peoples faces unless they are further away than the composition would probably like in the first place.
I don't feel I need a large DOF for what I'm shooting though, the calculators seem to suggest that it would be more than adequate in any case.
I also wouldn't buy a D600 if you have your heart set on an fx camera, as the autofocus is rubbish compared to the D7000 as the coverage in the view finder is abysmal and its low light accuracy is poor unless you use the built in autofocus assist lamp, which isn't ideal for subjects such as wildlife etc. I've owned the D600 and my fiancé owns the D7000, so I've had a good go at comparing these side by side and can safely say you'd not gain much going to the D600 in terms of usability and image quality. Either get a D700/D3 if you are concerned over the budget, or get a D800, as any of those choices are better from a usability perspective than the D600 is.
Maybe the D800 will be a better choice for me after all then, I'm amazed that the AF is considered so poor for a camera in this price range, why would Nikon release a POS only to have the prosumer and professional buyers subsequently return it?
