I am an advanced amateur looking to take the step into pro photography shortly and was wondering if the D600 is considered a Pro Body. I will not be shooting sporting events so the continuous shooting rate is not a big deal for me.
If you're an 'advanced amateur' you should be able to answer this question yourself.
But being as you did ask...
Professional pictures make a pro-photographer not a 'pro' camera.
I would say, depending on the type of photography you plan to be pro at, having a fast lens or two in your bag is way more important than the body. f1.4 or f1.8 can do things on any body that a variable aperture kit zoom never will on a 'pro' camera. Not to say you can't get great pics with kit lens but pros have fast glass for good reason, simple.
However - clients can be as swayed by marketing hype like mega-pixel count as anyone. So could you respond to a client question about your gear, with confidence, with a 24MP FX camera in your bag?
Thanks for the replies. I understand that most often it is the baker not the oven that has the biggest impact on the cake but that being said, great equipment makes it easier to have better outcomes as long as the basic knowledge it there. So I guess my question would have been better if asked this way: Is the D600 that much better than a D7000?
>Thanks for the replies. I understand that most often it is >the baker not the oven that has the biggest impact on the cake >but that being said, great equipment makes it easier to have >better outcomes as long as the basic knowledge it there. So I >guess my question would have been better if asked this way: Is >the D600 that much better than a D7000?
More to the point, the question you must ask is: "What would the D600 do for me that my D7000 isn't?"
I hate when people ask me what I see myself doing in 5 years...... I don't have 2020 vision!
Actually the D7000 & D600 are fairly close in construction, size, weight etc. However, for sports the D600's buffer is bigger than the D7000 & ISO capability is better than the older D7000. I bought the D600 for sports & wildlife because the D7000 is NOT the best for action.
By my definition, no it's not a "pro" For me, a "pro" body has (1) better sealing for moisture and dust; (2) faster frame rate/bigger buffer; (3) more advanced metering system; (4) more advanced AF system; (5) ability to meter with MF lenses (not a deal breaker, but it allows access to more lenses within the Nikon lineup); it also used to be that pro bodies did not have an on-board speedlight.
Nikon USA have certain requirements as to what it considers a pro body, based on what equipment is used by the "pro" photographer for his/her full time photography business (within the U.S.). That list can be found here.
Typically, pro bodies have a single unit designation: F, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6; D1-series, D2-series, D3-series, D4. But now included are some of the upper tier bodies F100, N90s, D800, D700, D300, D200, D7000 - as second bodies; not primary bodies.
Now then, a professional in my book is one who derives more than 50% of their income from the photography, has the talent, skill and equipment to get the shot, just about every time in all conditions. Does that mean that a pro can only produce "professional" results with "pro" equipment only? Of course not, right tool, right job. The late Galen Rowell used to shoot with a small light kit because ounces count when your climbing a mountain. Its the person, not just the equipment that makes the results.
IMO, you can take a "pro" level image with any current Nikon DSLR and many models before the current crop. Just look at the images captured by the truly dedicated that are on this site and dotted across the Internet.
Henri Cartier-Bresson shot with a completely manual focus, manual control Leica that many would consider absolutely crude compared to a Nikon's entry level D3100. Does anyone think he was not a pro?
It's not the camera, it's the photographer, regardless of the current crop of technology.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof " - Carl Sagan
Tue 15-Jan-13 03:41 AM | edited Tue 15-Jan-13 03:45 AM by ho_co
>I ... was wondering if the D600 is considered a Pro Body.
Rob, take a look at accessories to get Nikon's take on the question.
"Pro" cameras D200, D700, D800, D3, D4 can use the MC-30 remote release, but the D600 and less expensive cameras take the MC-DC2 remote release for less than half the price.
I'd say the D600 is the top model of Nikon's bottom line, and the D800 is the bottom model of Nikon's top end cameras.
The D600 is the only full-frame camera they offer in the lower end. Does that mean that the DX cameras aren't capable of pro-grade work? Not at all. Nor does it mean that more expensive bodies can't be used for family snapshots.
It's a fair question, but IMHO how Nikon sees it and what you or I do with it are two different things.
Thank-you for your responses, I agree that the user is more important than the equipment. I also realize that the D7000 that I currently have is way more capable than the first Nikon digital pro cameras. But it appears that in some ways Nikon treats the D600 as a Pro in that it meets the requirement for NPS but in other ways it may not be at the same level of ruggedness, metering or focal points that the D800 or D4 have.
I would think that a D600 is a pro capable body for an "art" photographer, since the sensor is arguably only bettered by the D800 and D800E. That said, there is nothing at all wrong with the D4 and all the D3 sensors, and they come attached to bigger/faster/stronger body parts. You could easily shoot the best picture of you life with a D600 and it may be the most challenging in terms of needing dynamic range or high ISO. That is why I bought it.
But it is humbled a bit, at least I think so, when I am shooting HS basketball (as a favor to the school, not for payment) and the players are so fast they run through the AF. (Meaning they are running at me...shot 1 is in focus, shot 2 is not, shot 3 is in focus, shot 4 is not.) My guess is a D4 handles that. But this is a hobby, and I am not spending that much money on a body.
What does it do that a D7000 doesn't? The question is what does it do better. Better AF, better high iso, better dynamic range, better resolution. It is one hell of a camera...