Worth changing my DX Nikon + good lenses, for FX Nikon?
Discussion
This post contains a combination of 'man maths' and requests for advice 
At present I have a D7000 an a collection of decent DX lenses, however to be honest I'm not using them all that much. For various reasons I have a full-frame FX itch that I need to scratch in order to be satisfied!
I have promised myself that I wouldn't plough any more money into photo gear than I already have, as really I'm just a keen amateur who sometimes loves to snap a a load of shots, then not bother for a little while, so I'm looking at my options whilst keeping a budget in mind.
The D600 has really caught my eye. It is essentially a full-frame D7000. Since I love pretty much everything about my 7000 (handling, body, functions, features, dual SD card slots, user presents etc) then the D600 would appear to be the next camera for me.
My main reason for wanting to go full frame is that whilst 75% of my shots are handheld in good daylight or on a tripod at night where I can keep ISO low, the other 25% is now handheld night/low light stuff where I often feel frustrated with the high ISO performance of the 7000. To my eye, once you exceed 3200 and head upwards, the photos begin to look messy. I have invested heavily in fast glass to keep the ISO down in lower light but there is only so much you can do I guess.
I would like to be able to shoot more in lower light and have confidence in the results, hence looking at FX.
Man maths part: I have the following gear all mint, low use, boxed etc- D7000 with battery grip, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 17-55 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, various speedlights, and a Nikon 50 1.8.
If I flog all that lot (and keep the 50mm 1.8) I will hopefully have around £1300 in cash, maybe more.
A D600 in my local photography shop is £1099 for the body.
I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!
So... thoughts and opinions please! You can see the setup I already have with decent glass, and I'm wondering how a D600 with a 'compromise' zoom lens such as the 28-300 on a D600 would compare with regards to IQ and higher ISO handling. I'll still have the 50 1.8 as well I guess!
Sorry for the long post! I'm just at a bit of a quandary!
At present I have a D7000 an a collection of decent DX lenses, however to be honest I'm not using them all that much. For various reasons I have a full-frame FX itch that I need to scratch in order to be satisfied!
I have promised myself that I wouldn't plough any more money into photo gear than I already have, as really I'm just a keen amateur who sometimes loves to snap a a load of shots, then not bother for a little while, so I'm looking at my options whilst keeping a budget in mind.
The D600 has really caught my eye. It is essentially a full-frame D7000. Since I love pretty much everything about my 7000 (handling, body, functions, features, dual SD card slots, user presents etc) then the D600 would appear to be the next camera for me.
My main reason for wanting to go full frame is that whilst 75% of my shots are handheld in good daylight or on a tripod at night where I can keep ISO low, the other 25% is now handheld night/low light stuff where I often feel frustrated with the high ISO performance of the 7000. To my eye, once you exceed 3200 and head upwards, the photos begin to look messy. I have invested heavily in fast glass to keep the ISO down in lower light but there is only so much you can do I guess.
I would like to be able to shoot more in lower light and have confidence in the results, hence looking at FX.
Man maths part: I have the following gear all mint, low use, boxed etc- D7000 with battery grip, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 17-55 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, various speedlights, and a Nikon 50 1.8.
If I flog all that lot (and keep the 50mm 1.8) I will hopefully have around £1300 in cash, maybe more.
A D600 in my local photography shop is £1099 for the body.
I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!
So... thoughts and opinions please! You can see the setup I already have with decent glass, and I'm wondering how a D600 with a 'compromise' zoom lens such as the 28-300 on a D600 would compare with regards to IQ and higher ISO handling. I'll still have the 50 1.8 as well I guess!
Sorry for the long post! I'm just at a bit of a quandary!
It was quite good up until:
I think this is like buying a Ferrari and then running it on supermarket petrol. FX cameras demand higher quality lenses - and they cost money - so if your budget is £200 frankly I'd stay with the D7000 and brush up on noise reduction software.
NB: As I understand it the D7000 is very good in low light so are you trying to achieve something which it not actually achievable?
NinjaPower said:
a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements.
You say your prime motive for moving to FX is better low light performance, and have some fast glass to help in this respect. So you will buy an FX camera and promptly compromise it by sticking an f3.5-5.6 lens on it? And VR as you probably know won't stop subject movement.I think this is like buying a Ferrari and then running it on supermarket petrol. FX cameras demand higher quality lenses - and they cost money - so if your budget is £200 frankly I'd stay with the D7000 and brush up on noise reduction software.
NB: As I understand it the D7000 is very good in low light so are you trying to achieve something which it not actually achievable?
So I bought a D600 just over a year ago having used a D90 for a number of years. I didn't sell anything to fund it however as you'll see my lens collection isn't optimised for FX
Now this trade show will test any camera. It's for DJ and club equipment so think low, unpredictable light - most of the time shooting in any sort of auto mode is not happening.
Anyhoo, for some reason decided to try the 17-55mm on the D600 and was astounded by the results. Granted they are only 10MP (the D90 is 12MP) and you have to remember to look at the overlayed DX frame.
However the drop in MP more than made up for the ISO performance and dynamic range. Unless you're wanting to print images > A3 the 17-55mm is just great on the D600.
In my limited tests you could push the D600 to 1600 ISO and have about the same noise as the D90 @ 400. I have no issues with pushing the D600 to 3200 ISO if I need to.
Admittedly the D7000 is better than the D90 but only slightly (I've used them side by side).
Basically if you can afford to keep the 17-55mm until you can save up for other lenses then this *is* an option.
Now I'm starting to build up my FX collection, I've got a 28mm 1.8 on the way and next up will probably be the 85mm 1.8. One day I'll get the 25-70mm but, for now, I'm happy using the 17-55mm DX lens if I need to.
- DX 35mm 1.8
- 50mm 1.8
- DX 17-55mm 1.8
- DX 18-200mm VR (which keep meaning to sell)
- 70-300mm VR
Now this trade show will test any camera. It's for DJ and club equipment so think low, unpredictable light - most of the time shooting in any sort of auto mode is not happening.
Anyhoo, for some reason decided to try the 17-55mm on the D600 and was astounded by the results. Granted they are only 10MP (the D90 is 12MP) and you have to remember to look at the overlayed DX frame.
However the drop in MP more than made up for the ISO performance and dynamic range. Unless you're wanting to print images > A3 the 17-55mm is just great on the D600.
In my limited tests you could push the D600 to 1600 ISO and have about the same noise as the D90 @ 400. I have no issues with pushing the D600 to 3200 ISO if I need to.
Admittedly the D7000 is better than the D90 but only slightly (I've used them side by side).
Basically if you can afford to keep the 17-55mm until you can save up for other lenses then this *is* an option.
Now I'm starting to build up my FX collection, I've got a 28mm 1.8 on the way and next up will probably be the 85mm 1.8. One day I'll get the 25-70mm but, for now, I'm happy using the 17-55mm DX lens if I need to.
Early this year I went from a D200 with MDB10 battery grip sold for £250, 17-55 f2.8 sold for £475, 70-300 VR sold for £300, 50 f1.8 was kept, Sigma 10-20 sold for £225 f4 and Sigma 150-500 which I kept to a D600 initially with the 50 f1.8 then with the 28-300 f3.5 which was really sharp up to 70mm and then soft at 250-300mm, even sent it back to Nikon for re-calibration and it was a bit sharper at the top end then recently bought the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8...........Hmmm! It is not sharp!! read all the reviews... stunning performance...best lens ever....the dogs doodahs..!
Not on my D600 it aint so now having to try AF fine focus adjustment for each individual lens otherwise the whole lot will be returned to Nikon for them to clean the oil spots, chaange the mirror assembly and then match the body to the lenses. Should be fun!
Like you I thought I had a Fx itch that needed scratching...D600 = £1300, 28-300 = £650, 24-70 = £1250
so add in a spare battery and two 32gb SD cards at roughly £100 and I'm out £3,300 with an offset against the sold equipment of £1250!
The D600 is a lovely camera to use and the high ISO is good but it is relatively slow to focus (it is bloody difficult to get the Bigma to fast focus) and for me it has to be matched to the lenses and cleaned of oil spots....and the high pixel count shows up your errors really quick. But what would be the alternative - D300s = old technology - D7000/7100 = new technology but still Dx the only alternative was a used D700 at circa £1050 on ebay or a D800 which is way outside my level.
I love the D600 but it needs time to get used to and it does produce some stunning images but I discard many more than I keep but the ratio is getting better. It also needs higher shutter speeds than the reciprocal of the lens, my mate with his 5D Mk111 reckons he has to double the reciprocal speed.
Good luck with whatever you choose
YB
Not on my D600 it aint so now having to try AF fine focus adjustment for each individual lens otherwise the whole lot will be returned to Nikon for them to clean the oil spots, chaange the mirror assembly and then match the body to the lenses. Should be fun!
Like you I thought I had a Fx itch that needed scratching...D600 = £1300, 28-300 = £650, 24-70 = £1250
so add in a spare battery and two 32gb SD cards at roughly £100 and I'm out £3,300 with an offset against the sold equipment of £1250!
The D600 is a lovely camera to use and the high ISO is good but it is relatively slow to focus (it is bloody difficult to get the Bigma to fast focus) and for me it has to be matched to the lenses and cleaned of oil spots....and the high pixel count shows up your errors really quick. But what would be the alternative - D300s = old technology - D7000/7100 = new technology but still Dx the only alternative was a used D700 at circa £1050 on ebay or a D800 which is way outside my level.
I love the D600 but it needs time to get used to and it does produce some stunning images but I discard many more than I keep but the ratio is getting better. It also needs higher shutter speeds than the reciprocal of the lens, my mate with his 5D Mk111 reckons he has to double the reciprocal speed.
Good luck with whatever you choose
YB
davidd said:
If you are essentially starting from scratch why not look at Canon or Sony?
..or poke yourself in the eye with a blunt farming implement 
Seriously... Moving from DX to FX is a whole bunch 'a money. I did it and never looked back, but my accountant hasn't spoken to me since.
^^^
Believe it or not, this is my more sensible mode, 'cos I really know the camera and lens you should bankrupt yourself with, but.......
There's a few of us around these parts who were in it long before anybody dreamt of DX. Hell, when someone says "APS C-sized sensor" we can remember when "Advanced Photo System" was ...... well ..... "advanced"!
Then going to digital was a move and then "getting-back-full-frame" is, like, so, you-know..... happening' Man.
(And some of us have glass that was blown on the ark... but that's just for Simpo Two to laugh at
)
But it's a different kettle of fishy stuff looking at FX from either the Pro or "Old" end of the barrel. If you haven't been building system with that in mind, you've got to go back to the bottom of the learning curve in terms of what your focal length means, you're (nowadays) into BIG files for storing and chewing and you're clearly on the slippery slope of NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) which is only marginally better than On-line Poker addiction.
Honestly, DX scale stuff is just brilliant enough - step away from the keyboard, go and shoot stuff..........
Believe it or not, this is my more sensible mode, 'cos I really know the camera and lens you should bankrupt yourself with, but.......
There's a few of us around these parts who were in it long before anybody dreamt of DX. Hell, when someone says "APS C-sized sensor" we can remember when "Advanced Photo System" was ...... well ..... "advanced"!
Then going to digital was a move and then "getting-back-full-frame" is, like, so, you-know..... happening' Man.
(And some of us have glass that was blown on the ark... but that's just for Simpo Two to laugh at
)But it's a different kettle of fishy stuff looking at FX from either the Pro or "Old" end of the barrel. If you haven't been building system with that in mind, you've got to go back to the bottom of the learning curve in terms of what your focal length means, you're (nowadays) into BIG files for storing and chewing and you're clearly on the slippery slope of NAS (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) which is only marginally better than On-line Poker addiction.
Honestly, DX scale stuff is just brilliant enough - step away from the keyboard, go and shoot stuff..........
NinjaPower said:
Man maths part: I have the following gear all mint, low use, boxed etc- D7000 with battery grip, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 17-55 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, various speedlights, and a Nikon 50 1.8.
If I flog all that lot (and keep the 50mm 1.8) I will hopefully have around £1300 in cash, maybe more.
A D600 in my local photography shop is £1099 for the body.
I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!
Your man maths does not work. If I flog all that lot (and keep the 50mm 1.8) I will hopefully have around £1300 in cash, maybe more.
A D600 in my local photography shop is £1099 for the body.
I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!
You are thinking of chopping high end f/2.8 gear for consumer grade f/3.5-5.6 gear. OK the new gear will have VR, but it will still be consumer grade and you already have a DX 18-200 with VR. The Nikon 24-70 is f
king amazing. If you have the urge to spend more cash, you could buy that lens and continue to use it on DX. It will still be fking amazing. If you are going to do it, do it properly and get a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 plus another FX f/2.8 lens, but that will cost s
tloads of cash. Basically, I'd stick with DX.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff