Buy D7000 w FX lenses or go directly for D600?

Hi there!

I've been on Pentax since I was 9 years old in the early 1980s and so I stuck with Pentax w/o even thinking when I went digital last year. I got the K-r and was somewhat disappointed: edial stopped working and there seems to be front focus problem that Pentax is aware of but unwilling to fix. But most of all, I came to realize that the vast majority of photographers is talking about Canon and Nikon, and nothing else. I've come to see the advantages too and decided I want to switch to Nikon.

So now I'm looking at the D7000 and the D600. I've read quite some discussions asking a similar question, but I'm still not sure whether the D600 is an overkill for me or not. So here are my thoughts and I'd be happy to hear your opinion and advice:

There's obviously a huge price difference between the two bodies, but I don't want to save money when I will end up moving to full frame anyway. The problem is, I don't know whether I will. I kind of sense that even if the D7000 would be a huge improvement comapred to my K-r, I will probably be curious what the next upgrad might bring. But perhaps that will only be in a couple of years? So I wonder if it would make sense to go for the D7000 but get FX lenses from the start so that I will not have to change those when I go full frame. What do you think? -- On the other side: buying those expensive lenses only makes sense if I know I will go full frame. But if I already know it, why not do it straight away? Everybody is all stoked with the D600, so for once, there seems to be a product where you cant do much wrong buying it. Not something you have everyday.

So one way to solve that dilemma might be to think about a certain sum of money that I want to spend now, and see whether a substantial amount should go into the D600 body or something else.

I haven't really been thinking so much about a sum of money as I am basically prepared to spend what it takes to get decent gear so that I will stop waisting my time surfing for those products that I could possibly maybe buy. I wanna focus on the photography and not worry about gear. But just to play along with the game I just suggested, let's say I'm ready to spend 4000, maybe 5000. It doesnt really matter whether you read that as US Dollars or Euros, since much of the equipment tends to cost the same in Euros as in Dollars (I will come back to that issue below).

So what do I need?

• Tripod
• Speedlight (SB-700), possibly a second one, but that can wait
• Battery pack
• wireless flash transmitter or at least a cable for off camera flash
• camera bag/backpack
• anything else?

Of theses items, the tripod is the big chunk of money. I haven't looked at any specific one yet, but it looks like I have to spend around 800 in order to be able to forget about tripods for w while. The other stuff might be another 800 or so, rather a bit below that. What do you think? As I said, I havent spent so much time on that yet.

An now for the lenses:

The D600, I would probably buy with the kit lens, I guess. But with the D7000, I'm not sure. That's part of my question here: should I buy an FX lens for the D7000?

Number two would probably be a 70-200 f2.8, but here I'm pretty sure that the Nikkor would be an overkill for me (as much as I would love to have it) so I was thinking about the Sigma, which also got great reviews (except in low light, which is a bit of a bummer, but the price difference is just so huge!).

Number three, I'm very curious to try both a very angle lens and a 50 mm prime lens, but I think one will have to wait, so I think the 50 mm will be my priority. f1.8 should do.

Let's stop here. Need to keep some goodies for later. So how much ist that?  Maybe 1700 for all three FX lenses?

So, I'm kinda starting to answer my own question by doing some maths: 1500 +1700 = 3200 excluding body. So there's basically just about room for the D7000. Unless I go up to 5000. But is it worth it? And if it isnt, why do I buy FX lenses?

So I guess, what I'm asking here is: does it make sense to go full frame if you're an amateur and always will stay one? No ambition whatsoever to earn money with this. In addition, I might say that I think I'm a tele guy (although yesterday I did a shot, where I would have liked a wider angle, so I guess it depends. But if you want to sort people into those who like to shot "the whole picture" and those obsessed with details, I'm in the latter category. Jay Maisel said that something like wide angle gives him responsibility for to much real estate to take care of, so he prefers tele.Same with me. So I'm thinking I might be happier with DX altogether, where that 70-200 becomes a 105-350! I'm kinda worried that I will experience the 70-200 as a drawback compared to the 18-350 I currently use. But then again, Jay Maisel also said something like "Your feet are your best tele zoom".

So anyway, the last thing I wanted to throw in to complicate things a bit further has to do with the so much cheaper prices in North America (than in Europe). I am probably going to spend two years in Canada from 2014 and I though that might be a good opportunity to stock up on gear (you don't have to pay tax or duty when you actually lived in overseas and then move back to Europe!) So that might be a reason to wait and buy the D600 and perhaps even the FX lenses then. But what do I do with the DX ones that I would buy in the meantime?

Okay, I'll stop here and I'm very curious to hear your advice.

Christoph

P.S. It is allowed to write an answer that is actually shorter than the question ;-)