Hi would D600 be good for wildlife or birding with 70-200 vrII?
I know 70-200 is not ideal for birding but i cant afford expensive lens only for birding i like D600 as a all round camera.
FM user trenchmonkey has gotten good shots with lesser cameras, so it really depends on your skills. The D600 is certainly capable enough, even if a D4 is better.
If that's all you're interested in I think you'd be better off with a D2X or D300. But I'm sure you can get good results with a D600 as well. It really depends more on you than your gear.
i don't see why it wouldn't work pretty well..ok, so it's no d4/d3s, but it has more resolution, has a faster framerate than a d800, is good at high iso and peoople aren't complaining about the focus. for most people it should work fine.
Surely you'd be better of with a D300s or D7000 with a long lens, such as the Nikon 300mm F4 + TC14, or even the Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO Macro, not a stellar lens, but very good for the money.
That said, if you live in parts of Florida, you'll have Ibis and other birds perching on your shoulder, or waddling up to you. Maybe a 28mm lens would do?
For bird photography, a DX camera is king. That extra 50% pixel density gives dramatically more reach. The d600 is basically a D7000 body without the extra reach. You would be FAR better off with a D7000 (or even D300) and putting that extra $1,000 towards a really decent lens and tripod/head to hold it. Internet forums generally ovehrype the latest camera but often they are a poor match for some specific kinds of specialty photography.
Two23 wrote:
For bird photography, a DX camera is king. That extra 50% pixel density gives dramatically more reach. The d600 is basically a D7000 body without the extra reach. You would be FAR better off with a D7000 (or even D300) and putting that extra $1,000 towards a really decent lens and tripod/head to hold it. Internet forums generally ovehrype the latest camera but often they are a poor match for some specific kinds of specialty photography.
Kent in SD
+ 1
I shot wildlife and birds with a D3x - and unless you can get within spitting distance, that 70-200 won't be enough. Heck, my 500 VR and teleconverter isn't enough half the time on FX.
I shot wildlife and birds with a D3x - and unless you can get within spitting distance, that 70-200 won't be enough. Heck, my 500 VR and teleconverter isn't enough half the time on FX.
+2
I would get a used D7000 now for half the price of new and save up for the D400.
The best Glass is a much better investment than camera bodies.
A few years back i got the opportunity to pick up a non-VR 600 AF-S lens. It is a phenomenal piece of glass that never fails to amaze me. I took it out with the 1.7X TC and my D700, and I'll be darned if I wasn't needing more reach! Not that I could necessarily handle a lens longer than that, but in some cases it didn't get me where I wanted to be.
Then I watch what trenchmonkey posts with shorter lenses than I'm using and I came to realize that it has as much or more to do with technique than the gear. They could crop to achieve better results than I could get with a longer lens. Oh well, I guess I just have my work cut out for me!
DX has some real advantages for wildlife, especially if you can't get close to it. The D300 has been a great body for my purposes, though I suppose you could crop the D600 to get similar results to what the D300 can do. Still, the D600 is a camera worth checking out. The latest bodies always seem to offer something new that makes it a consideration. If you are used to using a DX body though, be prepared for your lenses to all lose about a third of their length!
Nikon will almost certainly eventually release a D400, to compete with the excellent canon 7D. That camera will have a first rate AF system, very high pixel density, and higher ISO capability than you really need for wildlife. It will be a killer camera for birds and wildlife. I am waiting for it, and see the D600 as settling for less.
Two23 wrote:
Nikon will almost certainly eventually release a D400, to compete with the excellent canon 7D. That camera will have a first rate AF system, very high pixel density, and higher ISO capability than you really need for wildlife. It will be a killer camera for birds and wildlife. I am waiting for it, and see the D600 as settling for less.
I'm sure you will see a D400DX or something better in this lifetime.
At $1799-2,000 it would have to completely blow away the 7D
However, an improved D7100 more likely to come first.
And I think the D7000 is the better camera already.
Who knows what will be announced in the Spring?
There are not even any good rumors yet.
again it depends on what your after,, you can catch them in most local trees and be surprised at the variety in any neighborhood if you spend the time,,
do agree for those special long away captures the long glass is a necessity,, I use to use my TV 85 telescope as it was fairly portable but totally manual focusing,, if the bird is far out you normally have the time for the manual focus shot,,
so ask yourself where and what are you wanting to capture which is first base,, after that decision is made then proceed to second base to determine the gear needed for the capture,, third base is taking the photos,,
if you can, go out to a few blinds or birding locations and see what the locals are using ,, they will be happy to show their gear and discuss why it works for them,,
20 people will always offer a tad different thought on what works and why as the above postings have displayed,,
Derry thank you for your kind reply. I decided i will go for D600 + 70-200 vrii and 1.7x TC i hope soon D400 will be launch then i will change body only. I had D800 + 24-70 f/2.8 about couple of months its v nice camera but i dont have sturdy hands and cant carry tripod all the time 95% shots i took were blurry so i sold it and now starting from scratch.
I dont need camera only for Birding or wild life i want all around general camera and i think D600 has lot to offer for my need.
