Is purchasing a D600 justified?

[speedy mate]

I am new to the forum and this is my first post, so I would like to say thank you for having me. I would like some opinions from owners of D600s and those with experience on the fence of purchasing their first full frame.

So, I have been a DX shooter for a few years using D90 and D7000 bodies with a Nikon DX 17-55 and Nikon 70-200 VR. I find that the 70-200 is way too tight at the short end shooting portraits and physically backing up is often times a pain and sometimes not possible. Seeing as how I already own the Nikon 70-200, I think it is kind of pointless to buy a third party lens to get the 70-200 equivalent on DX. I do get paid for my work so at some point I figure I'll make up for the investment.

In your honest opinion, would it be worth ditching the D90 and some of my DX lenses and buying a D600 based on the above? I figure it would cost me about $1000 out of pocket for a D600 kit after selling the D90 and some DX lenses. I would keep the D7000 and 17-55.

Thank you

 

[JOrmsby]

I bought a D600 earlier this year, jumping up from a D5100, and absolutely love it so far. For your purposes, I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. The reason I went full-frame instead of with the D7100 is because I mostly like to shoot landscapes, so the extra dynamic range and greater true wide-angle lens options sealed the deal for me. The new 18-35G lens alongside a 70-xxx is a great combo. Add a 50 1.8 in the middle and you can do a lot of fun shooting. The D7100 looks also to be a great camera if you want to keep your DX glass.

 

[Anteaus]

I think it is. I went from a D7000 to a D600 and I never once regretted it. It controls exactly the same as the D7000 so it will feel very familier. There is a pretty good chance the D400 will be announced soon so since you're a pro you might want to take a look there first.

 

[D Knisely]

It is certainly true that a true (full frame) 70-200mm is an ideal range for a lot of portraiture. The cost of the D600 is probably the least of your concerns compared to replacing any other DX lenses that you have.

Is it strictly worth it? Probably not in the grand scale of humanity. Only you can say if spending the money is a better investment than all the other things you could do with it.

Doug

 

[jfriend00]

If 70mm on DX is not wide enough, why does the long end of the 17-55 not work for you? You pretty much have the whole range from 17-200 (on DX) covered (with a small exception of 55-70 which is a pretty tiny range) with two quality lenses so I'm not really understanding what problem you're really trying to solve.

If you really just want your 70-200 to act differently, then yes you can get an FX body to accomplish that. But, you also could just get another DX lens that solves your problem and keep your existing system. If you really just want FX for other reasons, then that's all fine (and you should just realize that you really just want FX), but you don't need to split your kit between FX and DX to solve a portraiture focal length issue. FX simply isn't needed for that.

FX is particularly good at lower noise at very high ISO or thin DOF at a given aperture or going wide or going very high resolution. DX general offers more features for the money or same features for less money (often leaving more $$ for lenses), the ability to use either FX or DX lenses, greater DOF in some circumstances, more reach with telephotos, etc...

FX has no particular advantages for portraiture over any modern DX camera unless you're trying to use very thin DOF.

 

[speedy mate]

jfriend00 wrote:

If 70mm on DX is not wide enough, why does the long end of the 17-55 not work for you? You pretty much have the whole range from 17-200 (on DX) covered (with a small exception of 55-70 which is a pretty tiny range) with two quality lenses so I'm not really understanding what problem you're really trying to solve.

If you really just want your 70-200 to act differently, then yes you can get an FX body to accomplish that. But, you also could just get another DX lens that solves your problem and keep your existing system. If you really just want FX for other reasons, then that's all fine (and you should just realize that you really just want FX), but you don't need to split your kit between FX and DX to solve a portraiture focal length issue. FX simply isn't needed for that.

FX is particularly good at lower noise at very high ISO or thin DOF at a given aperture or going wide or going very high resolution. DX general offers more features for the money or same features for less money (often leaving more $$ for lenses), the ability to use either FX or DX lenses, greater DOF in some circumstances, more reach with telephotos, etc...

FX has no particular advantages for portraiture over any modern DX camera unless you're trying to use very thin DOF.

 

[The Big One]

Just a thought... why not sell the 70-200 and buy the Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS? You would probably actually save some money (the 50-150 is about $1000 new IIRC, and a 70-200 would go for more than that used). Then you have a very nice 17-55 / 50-150 range on two DX bodies. Most reviews on the 50-150 OS say that it is one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

Of course if you are just looking for an excuse to go FX, then the above doesn't make sense at all ;-) Going FX would give you more DOF control, better sensor, and a lighter wallet!

Cheers

 

[j_photo]

speedy mate wrote:
Back to topic though and to answer your questions. The long end of the 17-55 does work for me, but it is my opinion that the quality of images and compression is much better from the short end of the 70-200. I get consistent feedback from my clients who prefer their portraits when I used the 70-200. So while yes, I am covered from a DX focal range… what I am wanting is the 70-200 image quality without the DX crop factor. Physically backing up solves that problem, but backing up is not always an option and to be honest, I don't like being too far away from my subject unless I have to be.

speedy: I vote for the upgrade. You will get the lens into the FOV range you need and that it's really intended for. In addition, you will see a big improvement in image IQ. Given that the 70-200 seems to be your lens of choice I think this makes all kinds of sense.

 

[jfriend00]

j_photo wrote:

speedy: I vote for the upgrade. You will get the lens into the FOV range you need and that it's really intended for. In addition, you will see a big improvement in image IQ. Given that the 70-200 seems to be your lens of choice I think this makes all kinds of sense.

I'm just curious why you think there will be a "big improvement in image IQ" for portraits?

Portraits generally aren't DR challenged or high ISO challenged. Where does this big improvement in IQ come from? Further, the 70-200 will now be used across the whole FX image circle and not just in the center where it might have been sharper.

 

[j_photo]

jfriend00 wrote:

j_photo wrote:

speedy: I vote for the upgrade. You will get the lens into the FOV range you need and that it's really intended for. In addition, you will see a big improvement in image IQ. Given that the 70-200 seems to be your lens of choice I think this makes all kinds of sense.

I'm just curious why you think there will be a "big improvement in image IQ" for portraits?

Portraits generally aren't DR challenged or high ISO challenged. Where does this big improvement in IQ come from? Further, the 70-200 will now be used across the whole FX image circle and not just in the center where it might have been sharper.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com

I upgraded from D7000 to D800. There was a big improvement in image IQ, even under normal shooting conditions. When I wrote the above, I was thinking of your move from d90 to d600. Did I get that wrong?

Regarding using the fuller image circle, I suppose you could be right that corners may not be quite as good in full frame as in dx. But I don't know how much, and if you are shooting portraits and such, the corners shouldn't be a big concern in any case. But on this point, there are others here who probably could say more about this.

Lastly, I would add that I have kept my d7000 as a second body. For events, I shoot with the 24-70 on the d800 and an 80-200 on the d7000. This is driving me nuts because I find myself with the same problem you described, of the 80-200 being too long on the short end when on a cropped sensor. So I'm sympathetic.

I still say get the ff body.

 

[Petroglyph]

+1, Then with the extra money he can trade that D7000 for a new D7100.

 

[jfriend00]

j_photo wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

j_photo wrote:

speedy: I vote for the upgrade. You will get the lens into the FOV range you need and that it's really intended for. In addition, you will see a big improvement in image IQ. Given that the 70-200 seems to be your lens of choice I think this makes all kinds of sense.

I'm just curious why you think there will be a "big improvement in image IQ" for portraits?

Portraits generally aren't DR challenged or high ISO challenged. Where does this big improvement in IQ come from? Further, the 70-200 will now be used across the whole FX image circle and not just in the center where it might have been sharper.

 

[ultimitsu]

speedy mate wrote:

In your honest opinion, would it be worth ditching the D90 and some of my DX lenses and buying a D600 based on the above? I figure it would cost me about $1000 out of pocket for a D600 kit after selling the D90 and some DX lenses. I would keep the D7000 and 17-55.

You should also ditch 17-55. D600 with 24-85 easily matches D7000 + 17-55, and you get VR.

Those who think there is no IQ difference between FF and APS-C portrait shooting probably have not used FF or have not done a proper comparison. The difference is very noticeable. On paper they may appear to have little difference but in practice there is quite obvious colour depth difference as well as sharpness difference.

Why is there a colour depth difference? lets look at it this way. We all know that smaller sensors recieve less light therefore to maintain the same ISO standard there is more amplification applied to the image. a 2x crop sensor receives 4 times the amplification, a 5x crop sensor receives 32 times the amplification. That is why at ISO 3200 today's FF camera's image look as good as cellphone's iso 100. APS-C sensors are 1.5 crop, therefore it gets 2.25 times the amplification as FF's image. in other words, D7100's ISO 100 is about as good as D600's ISO225. While the difference between D600's ISO100 and ISO225 (and D7100's ISO100) is small, the difference is there.

Why is there a sharpness difference? this is because with FF, the pixels are larger, they are less affected by lens's imperfection. It is pretty obvious when you look at DXO's pmp figures, for a given lens, FF cameras always produce more resolution than APS-C camera with the same MP count.

People can argue if the difference is worth the money for themselves. But they cannot argue the difference doesn't exist. If it didn't, why are these high end fashion photographers shoot medium format?

 

[LynchpinH]

I made the jump from D7000 to D600 a month or so ago - best thing I've done since picking up a DSLR a bit over a year ago.

Brilliant camera, and the FF aesthetic is really worth it in my opinion.

 

[lock]

..and you do not mind cleaning the sensor yourself, by all means, take the d600.

If you do not like the cleaning and you would like the best AF and better ergonomics, spend some more and get a d800.



llock

 

[grazuncle]

jfriend00 wrote:

j_photo wrote:

jfriend00 wrote:

j_photo wrote:

speedy: I vote for the upgrade. You will get the lens into the FOV range you need and that it's really intended for. In addition, you will see a big improvement in image IQ. Given that the 70-200 seems to be your lens of choice I think this makes all kinds of sense.

I'm just curious why you think there will be a "big improvement in image IQ" for portraits?

Portraits generally aren't DR challenged or high ISO challenged. Where does this big improvement in IQ come from? Further, the 70-200 will now be used across the whole FX image circle and not just in the center where it might have been sharper.

 

[grazuncle]

lock wrote:

..and you do not mind cleaning the sensor yourself, by all means, take the d600.

If you do not like the cleaning and you would like the best AF and better ergonomics, spend some more and get a d800.

llock

I get paid for my work too...

approx 1870 clcks

 

[seahawk]

Is it a VRI or VRII 70-200? The VRI has problems with the FF sensor.

 

[speedy mate]

seahawk wrote:

Is it a VRI or VRII 70-200? The VRI has problems with the FF sensor.

 

[lock]

Are you talking about the vignetting ? I've got the VRI and I never had an issue with it.

lock