I always enjoy your posts, Jerry! Thanks and keep em' coming.

I'll definitely check it out---thanks for the info!

Does this apply if you've already sent your 600 in to get the shutter replaced? I have gotten my camera back and it works fine from what I can tell, however I'm concerned about resale value if I want to upgrade.

Thanks to both of you for your reply, that really helps!

I've often wondered why people want lenses such as 1.2 but never use them to their fullest? If you had a 1.2 and a 1.8 but shot both at a 2 would you get different/better results with one? Does it purely come down to paying for the better glass=better picture at same DOF? I am a "seeing is believing" type of person, is there a website that would show me the difference on the same picture? Thanks in advance!

Answering your question directly, if I kept jpgs, I would keep them at the maximum size possible if they were for future prints or at something like 40% if they were for emailing. (I try to keep email pics at below 2MB each.)[/quote]


I was doing the maximum size for all, but it was brought to my attention that each file is still over 10mb in size at 95-99%---I'm wondering what the lowest mb could be for printing decent pics but not losing quality. I also keep a saved file for web sized versions.

I have been having some issues with LR4 lately, so I'm not entirely sure I will be doing my editing there for much longer. I want to be able to see and find my files easily without having to bring them up into a program such as LR, and cannot see my raw files simply by clicking on them. That is my husbands main gripe, since he is photographically challenged and hasn't seen many of my actual pics of the family in a long time, lol! I have a bad habit of taking pics and never printing them, but if they are JPEGs they would at least be able to be seen easily on the computer by him and have the possibility of printing later. I will still be saving the raw files of important ones as well, but just want the simplicity of having the JPEGS around of the not so important, everyday pics without them taking up too much space.

I have a side business of photography of which I keep all of my raw, edited, and print sized files. However, for my personal files, I have been trying to just keep what I need and delete the rest purely to save storage space. I have been editing what I want to keep, then only saving the raw ones that I like and converting some of the keepers to JPEG using LR4. My question is this: how big are your JPEG files that you keep for personal use? What is the smallest size you would convert them to in order to keep? I was using 95-99%, and the files are still 10 MB each for JPEG. I would like to get that number down without losing too much quality if I ever need to get them printed. What would you recommend? I shoot with a D600. Thanks in advance!

I don't know the private owner, just through a facebook forum that sells used gear. I know, seems shady but have been watching this site for awhile and people seem to be happy with it, and this camera that came up is VERY clean with the photog being reputable outside of the forum. Will the 600 be as good of an investment longevity wise? I don't like the terminology they are giving to it, "entry level, consumer quality, etc." It makes me nervous that it wont keep its value as well as the 700 would due to build and quality...

I can find a used one of these for $1500, however a new one is $1686.00 or something. Would you take your chances on the used one, or just pay a bit extra for new?

Which would you do? I am having such trouble deciding between these two cameras, which are about the same price refurbished/used. I'm leaning toward the refurbished D600, but need some input. I am semi pro, shooting portraits currently with a D7000. Thanks!

Hi Weidoh,

Its pretty easy, all you have to do is take a pic with your camera, and upload it to a site like
www.camerashuttercount.com
They will tell you what number that photo is, like mileage on a car.

Thanks for all the information everyone! You may have just swayed me..... :)

Is the 600 comparable in low light conditions to the 700?

Thanks for the feedback, not physically being able to touch and compare the two (600 vs 700) is one of the things I hate. I hear so much on forums about the body of the 600 not being as well made since it's not all metal. Obviously you all don't think that's an issue, and I'm not really sure that would be an issue for me either. I don't live near the beach or anything. Kinda regretting not picking one up around christmas when they had that great sale going on....