Is purchasing a D600 justified?

[speedy mate]

I'm not the OP (I'm just another contributor) and I'm not sure you're experience going to a D800 is 100% comparable to someone else going to a D600. I rather doubt there's a big IQ difference for portraits between a D7000 and a D600. There's just not much a difference in MP and portraits aren't normally DR or ISO challenged in any way (where FF has its main IQ advantages).
The OP may decide to go FF just to shift the field of view on the 70-200 (if they want), but I rather doubt IQ for portraits is a big reason to make the change.

 

[speedy mate]

The Big One wrote:

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

I am hesitant to get rid of my 70-200 and pick up the Sigma 50-150 to solve this problem. I have become very fond of this lens and the quality it produces with every picture. Is the Sigma as good as the 70-200 VRI?

I think longer term it might be best to keep the 70-200. Even though I currently have no real reason to switch to FX other than solving my field of view question, having the option in the future to shoot the 70-200 on a crop sensor would be nice for sports/action.

If I wanted an excuse to go FX, I probably would have bought one by now Given that I would be able to sell my D90 and some DX lenses and pay only about $1000 USD out of pocket for the D600 kit, I am just wanting to know if it makes any sense whatsoever to buy FX for the shift in focal range.

 

[Henrik 1963]

You are making money - I´m only spending money on camera gear

Moving from D90 to D700 made a huge difference for my 70-200 2.8 VR2. It was good on D90 but a dream on D700.

Now I use it on my D800. There is not a huge difference in image quality going to D800 from a D700. The big difference comes from going FF.

If you have to jump - jump all the way to D800. AF system alone will blow you away - night and day.

On the sensor side of things the difference between D600 and D800 is probably small - I don´t know how the D600 performs first hand but would buy one if it had a D700/D800 body. Hint: There is a reason for D300 users not jumping to D7000/D71000 - sensor is not everything

If you do jump all the way you will find that you will never use D90 or D7000 - Sell them right away

A lot of good advice from others too - Best of luck

 

[seahawk]

Yes, Vignetting and corner softness.

 

[speedy mate]

ultimitsu wrote:

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.

I would prefer stopping down from the the constant 2.8 aperture on the 17-55 with no VR than having VR on the 24-85. Not to mention I could keep the 17-55 mounted on the D7000 and the 70-200 on the D600 and not worry about having to switch lenses.

 

[Toccata47]

speedy mate wrote:

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

If you're getting paid, isn't it reasonable to assume you have a solid working knowledge of the most basic question about your working gear?

 

[TOF guy]

seahawk wrote:

Yes, Vignetting and corner softness.

My copy does not have these issues.

 

[mgblack74]

Yes. Sell your D90. Your 17-55 on the D7000 and 70-200 on a D600 will be a killer combo. You will not miss your D90.
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
_______________________________

 

[lock]

If you have a VRI, paying $1000 extra to get the VRII isn`t worth the difference.

Lock

 

[lorenzo de medici]

Yes. Nikon's full frame sensor is so much better than their DX sensor that you'll kick yourself for not doing it earlier. A D600 and your 70-200 lens will be a fantastic combination, and great for portraits.

 

[Adrian Van]

Absolutely better than D7100 for portrait use and you have the 70-200mm.

Has double the Low Light score of any new DX (or more).

Do not have D600. However, I have had the D700 for several years, and it still has a high DXOmark low light advantage nearly double of any DX including it is still much better than the new D7100 for low light. A D600, like the D700, would also offer crisp sharp images with most all FX lens and improved dynamic range and good saturation of colours. As much as the D7100 is a very good camera, FX is in another league. Noise levels are much, much better and easy to clear out remaining noise in modest post processing (in Lightroom or DXO Optics Pro) and retain details, and exposure adjustments to files are very friendly to adjust, without adding too much noise from lightening exposures in shadows.

D600 has even much higher scores for low light advantage, dynamic range, over my FX D700. Use the camera comparison in DXOmark to see advantages of any new Nikon DX to FX and also compare your D7000.

A D600, or a lightly used D700 are good buys. Or a D800 (some refurbished ones out there right now closer to the price of new D600). Also check out B&H Photo or Amazon.

ISO score in this link.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D600-vs-Nikon-D7100

ISO low light scores from snapshot

D600 = 2980 iso (D800 low light iso score almost the same)

D7100 = 1256 iso

D700 = 2303 iso

When my D700 camera starts to go, a D800 will likely be my next choice, unless something new in FX is out by then in a Pro body.

 

[seahawk]

Good to know. I have heard a number of complaints about the VRI on a FX sensor. (on a very high level that is)

 

[speedy mate]

Toccata47 wrote:

If you're getting paid, isn't it reasonable to assume you have a solid working knowledge of the most basic question about your working gear?

This comment provides no value to the thread. Isn't reasonable that a post should provide some insight or suggestion to help the OP rather than question their knowledge or abilities?

 

[speedy mate]

mgblack74 wrote:

Yes. Sell your D90. Your 17-55 on the D7000 and 70-200 on a D600 will be a killer combo. You will not miss your D90.
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
_______________________________

Certainly tempting me to pull the trigger

 

[Brian Caslis]

speedy mate wrote:

mgblack74 wrote:

Yes. Sell your D90. Your 17-55 on the D7000 and 70-200 on a D600 will be a killer combo. You will not miss your D90.
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
_______________________________

Certainly tempting me to pull the trigger

I don't have the 70-200 but I like the D600 the best of Nikon bodies I've had so far. A small FX body with incredible image quality. Coming from a D7000 or D90 the body is going to feel familiar yet better.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Having owned an 80-200 since 1994 (and currently using a 70-200F2.8), I know exactly what you mean about the 70-200 being too tight on DX. I finally just stopped carrying mine altogether (in favor of an 80-400AF-D).

Once I moved from DX to FX (D700), that 80-200 became wonderful again. In that respect, you'll love the D600. It pairs much better with a 70-200 than any DX camera.

Aside from specific lens 'fits' to FX, you'll see that the D600 opens up more options for shooting in lower light. That's about the only reason to move from DX to FX, unless you are also chasing shallow depth of field. You will of course have to realign your lenses to the camera.

Having shot a n8008s/n90s mix, then a D200/D300 mix for years, it was interesting moving to a DX/FX mix (D300/D700). Because of the lens alignments, it really was not a good mix for me. I like to shoot with one body over each shoulder, with complementary lenses. (24-70 / 80-200, or 12-24 / 24-70). That mix rarely works with FX/DX, though it might in your case, with 17-55 on DX and 70-200 on FX.

Once I got my D700, I only used the D300 for wildlife. Once I got a D800e, I don't use the D300 for anything, and I'm trying to justify keeping it. I barely use the D700 as well, since the D800e does so well. You might or might not end up the same, with one camera (probably D600) getting the bulk of the use, and the other serving some sort of specialized function.

 

[speedy mate]

PHXAZCRAIG wrote:

Having owned an 80-200 since 1994 (and currently using a 70-200F2.8), I know exactly what you mean about the 70-200 being too tight on DX. I finally just stopped carrying mine altogether (in favor of an 80-400AF-D).

Once I moved from DX to FX (D700), that 80-200 became wonderful again. In that respect, you'll love the D600. It pairs much better with a 70-200 than any DX camera.

Aside from specific lens 'fits' to FX, you'll see that the D600 opens up more options for shooting in lower light. That's about the only reason to move from DX to FX, unless you are also chasing shallow depth of field. You will of course have to realign your lenses to the camera.

Having shot a n8008s/n90s mix, then a D200/D300 mix for years, it was interesting moving to a DX/FX mix (D300/D700). Because of the lens alignments, it really was not a good mix for me. I like to shoot with one body over each shoulder, with complementary lenses. (24-70 / 80-200, or 12-24 / 24-70). That mix rarely works with FX/DX, though it might in your case, with 17-55 on DX and 70-200 on FX.

Once I got my D700, I only used the D300 for wildlife. Once I got a D800e, I don't use the D300 for anything, and I'm trying to justify keeping it. I barely use the D700 as well, since the D800e does so well. You might or might not end up the same, with one camera (probably D600) getting the bulk of the use, and the other serving some sort of specialized function.

 

[Robin Casady]

seahawk wrote:

Good to know. I have heard a number of complaints about the VRI on a FX sensor. (on a very high level that is)

The VRI does vignette at wide apertures on FX. It is also soft in the extreme corners. In practical terms, it shouldn't matter much with portraits, and landscape shooters are probably using f/8 or f/11.

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
— Bertrand Russell

 

[Robin Casady]

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.

Your complaint about 70mm not being wide enough for portrature on DX is something I find puzzling. The FOV factor for DX to FX is 1.5x which makes 70mm DX equivalent to 105mm FX.

With portraiture some perspective compression is desirable as it tends to be more flattering (flattening is flattering ;-) ). Using wider than 85mm FX tends to make the nose look large and the eyes look small. 105mm has long been considered an ideal portraiture focal length for 35mm film (FX).

 

[speedy mate]

Robin Casady wrote:

Your complaint about 70mm not being wide enough for portrature on DX is something I find puzzling. The FOV factor for DX to FX is 1.5x which makes 70mm DX equivalent to 105mm FX.

With portraiture some perspective compression is desirable as it tends to be more flattering (flattening is flattering ;-) ). Using wider than 85mm FX tends to make the nose look large and the eyes look small. 105mm has long been considered an ideal portraiture focal length for 35mm film (FX).