[zorza]

I am having a bit of a trouble.

I recentlly bought a black k-30 with the 18-135 wr lens.. The camera is awsome (altough the low light focusing does not quite make it for me).

I have the chance of selling the k-30 alog with the kit lens and an 55da* 1.4 lens that I bought for a very good price.
I was not thinking of it until the chance aperared in front of my eyes. I have a chance of buying a Nikon D600 with the 24-85mm kit lens . The D600 is a full frame camera, and a bit heavier than the K-30.

I know I will have to put some more money down, but that ould not be a big problem.. I can get the money to do it and not tell the wife!!!

I don't have to sell the K-30 and buy the D600, but I am inclined to do it.. Do you think the D600 is a lot better than the K-30? I know it is heavier (100grams), but do you know if the low light capabilities will be a lot better?
I mainly take pictures of my beautifull child, and of course family portraits.. I am no pro, but I do like to get good and sharp pictures..

Thanks for the input.

Zorza

[JinDesu]

Supposedly the D600's low-light capabilities are quite good, and it's image quality will be a bit better than your k-30. The weaknesses are - larger camera, the 24-85 isn't that great, a lens equal to your DA*55 F1.4 is going to be a bit expensive (although some people say the 85 1.8G is as good, but that is another $500), and there is some quality control issues with the mirror throwing oil onto the sensor for the first 1000-4000 shots.

Alternatively, the k-5II has very good low-light capabilities (some users have commented that it is better than the D600, and as good as the D800), a little bit better IQ than your k-30, and you don't need to sell the lenses (but will cost more than what your k-30 sells for).

[elliott]

The best thing you can do to improve low light capabilities is to get a flash and learn how to use it properly.

[treebeard]

The best thing you can do to improve low light capabilities is to get a flash and learn how to use it properly.

Good point.

[psychdoc]

The best thing you can do to improve low light capabilities is to get a flash and learn how to use it properly.

Ditto.

For the longest time, I refused to use a flash. And in many cases the low iso capabilities of todays cameras was good enough. However, I just started learning how to use a cheap 38 dollar Youngnuo manual flash. Its great!

[normhead]

As much as I try and wrap my head around someone going from a K-30 to a D600... I can't. There are a lot of options between a K-30 and a D600. Assuming you're going to get better IQ on a D600 with a kit lens is a bit of a stretch. You might get slightly better IQ, but are you ever going to notice it. If you look at the comparisons on Imaging Resources, it's not a given. I'm guessing once you get some pro quality Nikon glass theD600 might stand out a bit. But I haven't seen any evidence of that to date. If you're going for pro glass, why not just go to a D800? You'll get much more for your investment.

Better glass for your K-30 will probably produce better results than the D600 with the kit lens. But who knows.

Here's a comparison, D600 to K-5 (very similar to K-30, but without the new focussing system.), is that really worth paying for?

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/207515...i-vs-d600.html

[Sol Invictus]

The thing to remember when entering the world of full-frame is that it is an investment even more so than APS-C. You are putting serious money down for an excellent camera with an amazing sensor. BUT you have to put good glass in front of it. If you are going to skimp on the glass, might as well stay with the K-30. And good full-frame glass is bloody expensive. My Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens and better than anything I had with my Pentax but I paid $1600 for it after a $200 rebate.

So unless you have amazing powers of persuasion with your wife (if you do, please teach me), I would stick with the K-30 and pick up some glass and some flashes. Once you think that your photographic abilities are limited by the camera, you can think about upgrading to full-frame. And the prices are falling all the time so I wouldn't worry about getting a good deal now. There will be good deals in the future too.

[pxpaulx]

So unless you have amazing powers of persuasion with your wife (if you do, please teach me), I would stick with the K-30 and pick up some glass and some flashes. Once you think that your photographic abilities are limited by the camera, you can think about upgrading to full-frame. And the prices are falling all the time so I wouldn't worry about getting a good deal now. There will be good deals in the future too.

You must havesome powers of your own there!

Totally (or somewhat) unrelated, which version of the nikon 50mm f1.8 do you have and how do you like it? I'm leaning towards the 1.8g but would kind of like the aperture ring on the older 1.8d version (plus it is about half the cost). I would like to have a fast 50mm in my bag (since it will actually be 50mm fov).

I'm going to primarily use the d600 for landscapes and am surprised how difficult I'm finding it to narrow down the lens options (excluding the 14-24 as it is just out of my potential budget). The 2 tokina FX wide angles are tempting but lack VR - I also like the sound of the nikon 16-35mm f4 vr (still more than I want to spend...but cameta has them listed refurbished but out of stock at $999...which is probably about my limit, if they ever come in stock).

[Sol Invictus]

You must havesome powers of your own there!

Totally (or somewhat) unrelated, which version of the nikon 50mm f1.8 do you have and how do you like it? I'm leaning towards the 1.8g but would kind of like the aperture ring on the older 1.8d version (plus it is about half the cost). I would like to have a fast 50mm in my bag (since it will actually be 50mm fov).

I'm going to primarily use the d600 for landscapes and am surprised how difficult I'm finding it to narrow down the lens options (excluding the 14-24 as it is just out of my potential budget). The 2 tokina FX wide angles are tempting but lack VR - I also like the sound of the nikon 16-35mm f4 vr (still more than I want to spend...but cameta has them listed refurbished but out of stock at $999...which is probably about my limit, if they ever come in stock).

You don't need great powers of persuasion when there is no ring in the picture!

I have the G version. It's pretty much the perfect 50mm for me. Relatively cheap, very lightweight, sharper than the 1.4 at 1.8, and the big thing for me (especially coming from the K20D) is the fast and silent autofocus. I've heard good things about the D but the price difference isn't that big and the G is pretty much better in every way. If you are interested in older feeling lenses with aperture rings and the like, I would suggest picking up some used Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses instead. I got my Voigtlander for $350.00 used. It's pretty much a sharper manual focus version of the DA 40mm or FA 43mm, with some minor macro capabilities thrown in.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you regarding a wide angle zoom. I eliminated the 14-24mm for the price and the fact that it can't take filters. The Tokinas I believe also have that bulbous front end. So I'm left with the 16-35mm or the 17-something f/2.8. The 17-something is an older lens that doesn't have VR and isn't as sharp. The advantage of the 16-35mm is that in addition to VR, it's relatively light. That's a big plus for my landscaping shooting, especially if I have the 24-70mm and a 70-200mm with me. It is pricy though so I'll probably wait for a rebate or pick one up used.

[jatrax]

I mainly take pictures of my beautifull child, and of course family portraits.. I am no pro, but I do like to get good and sharp pictures..

Buying a D600 for family pictures over the k-30 is not going to magically make your images any better. If you are not getting the images you want with the k-30 then you need to update your skills, and likely your flash gear, not the camera. Does the D600 give better IQ than the k-30? Probably, given equal quality glass and good skills. But will you see any difference? not likely. In fact you might get worse images given you are going to the kit lens and given the smaller depth of focus on a full frame camera. I would suggest it will be harder to get good child images with FF than with APS-C in a typical house environment. With proper lighting that is a different, but I assume this is family pictures not formal portraits.

Skill can make up for hardware, hardware can never make up for lack of skill. Learn to use the k-30, read up on photography, get some lighting gear. I have handled the D600, and I really would not want to lug it around chasing my kids. The best camera is the one you will use, and if it's too heavy or awkward to have with you all the time you won't use it.

[pxpaulx]

You don't need great powers of persuasion when there is no ring in the picture!

I have the G version. It's pretty much the perfect 50mm for me. Relatively cheap, very lightweight, sharper than the 1.4 at 1.8, and the big thing for me (especially coming from the K20D) is the fast and silent autofocus. I've heard good things about the D but the price difference isn't that big and the G is pretty much better in every way. If you are interested in older feeling lenses with aperture rings and the like, I would suggest picking up some used Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses instead. I got my Voigtlander for $350.00 used. It's pretty much a sharper manual focus version of the DA 40mm or FA 43mm, with some minor macro capabilities thrown in.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you regarding a wide angle zoom. I eliminated the 14-24mm for the price and the fact that it can't take filters. The Tokinas I believe also have that bulbous front end. So I'm left with the 16-35mm or the 17-something f/2.8. The 17-something is an older lens that doesn't have VR and isn't as sharp. The advantage of the 16-35mm is that in addition to VR, it's relatively light. That's a big plus for my landscaping shooting, especially if I have the 24-70mm and a 70-200mm with me. It is pricy though so I'll probably wait for a rebate or pick one up used.

Thanks for the info - I've seen the output of the voigtlander 40mm around here and it is certainly tempting as well, but for the price and trade offs I think I'll be going with the 50 1.8g as well. I have a few more things to sell to get the budget up, but in the end I think it is going to be the 16-35mm f4 nikon for me - reviews look good, vr adds additional hand-holding capability and it is a solid range as well. The tokina is a stop faster but you lose the VR and larger range (and no filters) - the tokina 17-35mm f4 does accept filters and is running $600 after rebate at the moment, but again no VR...then I start thinking its only $150 more for the 16-28...then thinking if I can find a refurb just another $250 to the 16-35 nikon! And around it goes...hahahaha. For the time being I'm going to suck it up and buy one of the old film 19-35mm tokina variations (quantaray, vivitar and it might have a few other names) for around $150 before I plunge head first into the FF abyss.

[zorza]

Thank you all for you kind answers. I have made up my mind and will be keeping the k-30. I am totally in love with the 55da* 1.4, but I find it too much zoom for somethings (it's a 82mm lens in FF).
There are a couple of things that where making me go to the D600:
1) Being able to have a 24mm lens in front of the camera all the time.. I just love wide angle lens
2) having the same type of pictures I have with the da* with an 50mm f1.8 lens that cost around 100$
3)more high iso ability without much noise

And this was it.. Will be thinking about upgrading the flash..

Thankz

Zorza

[elliott]

Will be thinking about upgrading the flash..

That is really the cheapest way to improve your indoor photos. If used properly, it can be hard to tell it was used at all and you aren't going to be blinding your subjects and making them see spots. It will take time to master, but it is really worth it. Even with a D600 and fast glass I'd recommend having a good flash, it opens up so many more possibilities.

[pinholecam]

I have FF in the form of a 5D and had K5 (now K30).

I also have to 2 small children.
Personally, I don't feel that I missed anything with my K5/K30 shots over the 5D.
The DOF can be shallower for the same FOV on FF, but a lot of shots needed more DOF especially indoors which meant stopping down on FF required a higher ISO.
FF can have better subject isolation thru that shallow dof and wide looking fov 'look', but not all shots require it.
Your 55/1.4 is also a far better lens than the kit lens for the D600 (though a cheap 2nd hand 50/1.8G would set you right too)
IMO, the 55/1.4 already gives you enough DOF control for most needs.

What I found most useful for my children/family shots indoors was a flash or two and the tenacity not to be too lazy to reach for the camera.
And shoot lots.


2 shots just taken over the weekend.

[zorza]

What I found most useful for my children/family shots indoors was a flash or two and the tenacity not to be too lazy to reach for the camera. And shoot lots.

HOW!! 2 great shots.. Great lightning and great sharpness all across the shots.. These are k-30 with flash and what lens?
I know that my 55da* 1.4 is a great lens.. But I was thinking of buying the d600 with the lot lens (24-85) and then add a 50mm 1.8lens. That would give me good results also.. I was trying to get away from buying another flash, as I already have a metz 50 with Panasonic mount, and I was trying not to buy another one.. I know that the in camera flash will not make that big diference of the k-30 or the d600. It will always be a camera flash. My point would be overal better experience and better image quality, from the diference on the sensor size, as well as better high iso use, wich is always a good thing.

Zorza