Upload & Sell: Off
Andre Labonte wrote:
That's nice, and this helps the OP how?
By suggesting that the D600 is a nice camera and worth buying? Seems reasonable to me.
For what it's worth OP, I use a D800 and happily take it bushwalking (as it it correctly called ) with me. The weight, at least to me, is not a significant issue.
I have nothing against the D7100, by all accounts it's a stunning camera, but I get the feeling from this thread that you are the sort of person who will likely want to upgrade in the near future if you buy a DX camera, as they are perceived (wrongly) as being lesser cameras. Seems to me that you've had more experience with FX cameras and lenses, and have enjoyed them, so if you have the money, why not?
Having said that, everyone suggesting you can spend more on lenses now if you were to go the DX route is completely correct. And lenses tend to make a bigger difference on the whole as compared to bodies. However, if you weigh the potential savings now against the cost of changing to FX at a later date... I'm not really sure that you would come out all that far ahead. There are the arguments to be made for simply using FX lenses on DX bodies, but I think there are some limitations to this.
This is especially considering that you are likely to be looking more at the wide end of the spectrum, which is the place where FX really differs from DX in terms of lenses. To my mind, one sees a smaller difference in usability between a 70-200 on both FX and DX as opposed to the difference between a 24-70 or 14-24. Not that either of those lenses aren't usable on DX, they absolutely are, but I don't see one getting as much from them as if they were used on FX.
Anyway, that is probably a whole post full of contradictions which will give you no help whatsoever, sorry! End of the day, I get the feeling you would be happiest with an FX camera and FX lenses, and seem to be happy to spend the money to get them, so why not? But hey, it isn't my money, so it's easy to spend!