Upgraded from D7000 to D600. WOW.

What a difference.  Biggest improvement for me though is color and skintones.  Then probably ISO/Noise.  3rd would probably be the fact I am getting less almost zero soft shots.  Anyone on the fence wondering if theres much of a difference.  There is.

Heckuva buy on sale, no doubt about it!

Nice!  What lens are you using with it?

--
i make cool pictures...sometimes.

I think he is using 18-55 VRII.

Why would you ask?

Your comment is what scares me. LOL

I'm guessing that upgrading from a D90, I'd see a pretty significant improvement in a lot of areas. :
) I'm mostly concerned with better High ISO and video. I'm also looking forward to having built in time lapse features.

Of course, the hangups for me are:

(1) I really enjoy my D90 and the 17-55 lens combo, and just am having a hard time parting with it

(2) I'm really curious what the next iteration high end DX is going to be, and want to know all my options before diving into a new body. Of course, by waiting, I'm giving up some serious deals on these D600 kits and instant savings on a 70-200VR2 and SB700 added to the mix.

(3) The old favorite - Money. Don't have a lot of it right now since my wife just had major surgery on Monday (hysterectomy and bladder surgery) and a $4,000 tummy tuck. LOL But I'm like, hey, we can spend $4K on an elective surgery for you, I'm spending $4k on some new camera gear!! So as soon as we get it, that next $4k is earmarked for something new for me! Haha.

--
Nikon D90, Nikon 17-55 F2.8, Nikon 18-105, Nikon 35mm F1.8 - Sony NX5U - Adobe CS5 Production Premium

I believe curiosity is what compelled me to ask him.  I'm always interested in learning which lenses people are using with their products when they rave about them.

--
i make cool pictures...sometimes.

There is more to a switch to FF than just buying a camera body. None of the Nikon full frame constant aperture zoom lenses are inexpensive. A Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G alone is almost $2000! And then there is the size and weight issues of FF lenses.

Ummm... no thanks.

- Jon

How so? JPEG out of camera? what do you mean by this?

Why would image sharpness be any different to DX? What do you mean by this?

The primary difference being double the price.

OP mentioned improvement in sharpness etc. Of course the question on lens selection does matter if such is discussed, We do not know if OP is using kit lenses with both systems, or better quality lenses with the new FF system.

That would make a significant difference.

Not saying that the D600 will not improve certain areas, but sharpness is questionable, unless one considers 'perceived' sharpness re contrast / resolution of the FF at same size of APS-C... ot unless better lenese are being used, in which case better lenses WILL make a significant difference.

--
.....Just from an amateur......''Sometimes it's to your advantage for people to think you're crazy.”

Are you shooting jpeg then ? You can get pretty much any colour/skintone you like from any Nikon shooting raw. I think most users of the D7000 or the D600 will be shooting in raw mode.

ISO/Noise no doubt is better on the newer sensor. Not better than the higher res D800 though it seems.

Well if you are getting more soft images with the D7000, than D600 the most likely problem is shot discipline. Pixel density is higher on the D7000 & thus more sensitive to poor technique.

Regards

John

As for the zero soft shots...this only tells me that your D7000 was back focusing with the lens that you were using...you should have tuned it better with the microfocus adjustments...

this shouldn't be a way to differentiate between cameras, as no camera should give you soft shots...that is a sign of badly adjusted lens/camera!

--
Pushing the Nikon D90
http://floppyrom.deviantart.com/gallery/

Very little difference if any in color.

The main differences are iso performance and larger files that will result in slightly more detailed image if compared at the same size. If printing large that matters. Now D800 is different beast and it is truely sharper than D7000 still color is pretty much the same which is nice.

No offense intended, but how could you not have been getting spectacularly good image quality from your D7000? I don't see how you would get significantly better results from the D600 except maybe in really low light.

How do you use your cameras that you're seeing such a big difference?

John

--
https://picasaweb.google.com/jpdenk60477/SomeOfMyFavoriteNatureShots

The D600 is a great camera, no doubt.

But unless you have some nice glass on it like a 24-70 2.8 or the 70-200 2.8 and mainly shoot in high ISO's, you cannot tell the difference. I had a D700 with the 28-300 lens, and the photos compared to my D7000 with the 17-55 2.8 were horrendous.

The skin tones/saturations can be modded in the D7000 or in post-processing to your liking.

I don't have an FF Nikon only D300 but I tried them all.

When I check the comparometer on Imagine Resource's great site where they use the same method (RAW) same lens and everything is the same and I ask for the same image shot with the same ISO and the same resolution DX D3200 and FX D600 I don't see almost any difference in low ISO.

Both picture is 24Mpixel. The D600 shot has slightly lower noise in the shadow area. That is it.

If the ISO goes up there is a max 1-1,5 stop difference in noise and not more than that.

One stop of less noise could be a lot in certain circumstances but in a studio environment where there is ample light it just means nothing.

Nobody should expect wonders from the FX sensors. Other question is that other things could be better as well like AF, but strictly talking about the sensor the reality I think is that there is not THAT much difference between FX and DX.

But please convince me that I am wrong.

I am keeping my D5100 as a backup.  On the D600 I will be mainly using the 50 1.8g and the 85 1.8g.  If I need to I can use my 35 1.8g but the 35 is a DX lens so I will have some vignette to deal with.  I was going to hold out on selling my D7000 until I used the D600 for a while to make sure it was worth the upgrade.  Because I bought it at bestbuy and theres a return policy.  But I decided to go ahead and sell the D7000.  Theres a huge difference.  One is the AF.  Moving objects are alot easier to freeze now.

I don't get nearly as many blurred shots.  I did a test with my wife on a swing.  All shots sharp.  Like 8 in a row.  With my D7000 I may have gotten one in focus.  Most of the time with my D7k I could get sharp shots don't get me wrong.  But moving objects were a problem.  I even did a photoshoot a few days ago with the D600 where the child was walking towards me.  Came out very sharp.  My d7k struggled with this.  My technique hasn't changed.  I used AF-C and still do.
Skin tones.  Way better.  I always had to adjust them because of a major green/yellow tint on my D7k.  Not on my D600.  They come out great.  I still adjust them a little but not nearly as much.  Color overall just looks way better.  It's not as greenish.  Also almost every photo is really sharp as long as I use a decent shutter speed.  My keeper rate is dramaticly increased.

Shadows on peoples faces look way better now.  No more ugly grainy shadows.  Atleast it' snot as bad as it use to be.  Everything just looks so much more natural.  It's night and day for me.  By the time I sell the lens that came with it and my D7000 I think I will only be out about $500 for the upgrade.  People just look smoother yet more detailed at the same time.  Less noise, cleaner shots, more detail.  I am so glad I upgraded.

These are JPGs straight from the cam's...

Yes the D600 is very slightly sharper.

I think in RAW it will be even less...

rockjano

I don't doubt the photos on Image Resources site would show a big difference.  Heck I don't see a big difference between a D3 and a D7000 going by those photos.  I would guess the D600 blows away a D3200 for low light, noise, color and DR.  Look at the difference in the size of the sensor.  I would actually prefer a D7000 over a D3200 I doublt the D3200 can even keep up with the D7000 in low light.  I'm not bashing your camera.  But trying to compare the IQ to a D600 is almost comical.

Yes but for DR and Lowlight capabilities the D600 will be far better.

But there's so little to gain from getting a D600 instead of a D7000, no? Isn't that what anyone will tell you?

On a serious note, take a shot at ISO1600, under-exposed by 1 stop, and boost it in post. Try that with a D7000, and see which one falls apart in the noise department.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Home page: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Story-telling: http://imagesbyeduardo.com/main/wedding-photography-los-angeles-story-telling/