Moving to full frame - D600?

Steven001

Steven001

Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

I've had my Nikon D90 for many years now and I've been itching to move to full frame for long time. I considered what's available and it was a between the D600 and D700, but I think the D600's newer sensor and better low light performance wins it for me. I shoot mainly landscape photography and currently have the following lenses for my D90: Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 17-50mm, Nikon 35mm 1.8 and Nikon 55-200mm. Although I love my D90, I find myself disappointed in the image quality when I zoom in too 100% and see its lacking detail/sharpness, particularity in the shadows. I would also like to start taking more night/astro photos and feel the ISO performance of the D90 holding me back. I've worked out that I could sell all my current gear and buy a (used) Nikon D600 along with a wide angle prime (if I put some cash towards it).

Do you think I will benefit from upgrading to the D600?
 
I'm in no position to offer a detailed opinion but I can't fault the d700 I bought a few months ago, it goes with my d7200.
Both are upgrades from d3200 and d7000
 
When you don't pixel peep and zoom in 100% are the images ok?
Do you print a lot at 100% size?
If you answer no and then yes then it will be a worthwhile upgrade.
Otherwise spend the money on a holiday and take lots of pictures with your current kit!
Of course that's just my opinion but could be an option for you. :)
 
As you want to do landscape heres my opinions.
1, Buy second hand D7100 + Nikon 17-55, and maybe Nikon 70-300. def keep the Sigma 10-20 , ditch the 35 ,55-200 and 17-50.
or
2, Buy a good low milage D700 + 16-35 + 24-70 +70-200.
Of course this all depends on your funds.. Be prepared, if going for FX , expect this to be the more expensive root for glass.
just my thoughts.
 
Hi @Steven001, I did exactly the same move a few years ago, going D90 to D700+grip - and I haven't looked back!

I'm now considering selling one of my D700s (16k actuations) + grip to move to a D750, so might have one for sale soon if you're interested. All photos taken on my website are D700.
 
Photopaque said:
When you don't pixel peep and zoom in 100% are the images ok?
Do you print a lot at 100% size?
If you answer no and then yes then it will be a worthwhile upgrade.
Otherwise spend the money on a holiday and take lots of pictures with your current kit!
Of course that's just my opinion but could be an option for you. :)
Click to expand...
It's not just about that (the 100% pixel peeping is a bit of a cliche nowadays), there's a lot more than being able to see improvements at pixel level. For one thing, the OP is a landscape shooter the added DR will be a huge benefit.
 
Last edited:
Steven I've owned both the D600 and the D610, the IQ is excellent, a noticeable jump up from my previous D7000. The D600 has a rep as splattering oil on the sensor (mine did) so a D610 may be a better choice as it was fixed in this version, again my D610 was free of the oil spatter issue.
 
Photopaque said:
When you don't pixel peep and zoom in 100% are the images ok?
Do you print a lot at 100% size?
If you answer no and then yes then it will be a worthwhile upgrade.
Otherwise spend the money on a holiday and take lots of pictures with your current kit!
Of course that's just my opinion but could be an option for you. :)
Click to expand...

Mostly yes and no.

I get where you are coming from - there will be people who say the D90 is a professional quality and is not worth upgrading unless I am printing extremely large photographs. However, my brother for example, has bought a new mirror less camera (can't remember what model) and the detail it can capture is incredible. Surely all that extra detail must make a difference to the final print, even if the image was only printed at 16x20?

Rocket said:
As you want to do landscape heres my opinions.
1, Buy second hand D7100 + Nikon 17-55, and maybe Nikon 70-300. def keep the Sigma 10-20 , ditch the 35 ,55-200 and 17-50.
or
2, Buy a good low milage D700 + 16-35 + 24-70 +70-200.
Of course this all depends on your funds.. Be prepared, if going for FX , expect this to be the more expensive root for glass.
just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

My Tamron is by far my most lens for landscapes so I wouldn't want to get rid of it if I stayed with a crop system. I think eventually I would like to switch to full frame and I'm not sure it makes sense to invest in another crop senor body.

I'm aware of the of glass for full frame and that's the real negative aspect of switching to full frame. At the moment I shoot only as a hobby and can't afford to spend thousands on lenses, but I am happy to invest money over time.

The D7100 does get some fantastic reviews though!

benners said:
Hi @Steven001, I did exactly the same move a few years ago, going D90 to D700+grip - and I haven't looked back!

I'm now considering selling one of my D700s (16k actuations) + grip to move to a D750, so might have one for sale soon if you're interested. All photos taken on my website are D700.
Click to expand...

The D700 does get very good reviews, but it is getting old now and is quite heavy. Quite often I take my camera equipment up mountains with camping equipment, so I'd like it to be as light weight as possible. I'm not sure which of the two would be the best upgrade to be honest.

odd jim said:
It's not just about that (the 100% pixel peeping is a bit of a cliche nowadays), there's a lot more than being able to see improvements at pixel level. For one thing, the OP is a landscape shooter the added DR will be a huge benefit.
Click to expand...

That's a good point Jim, the D600 had almost 2 more stops of dynamic range which would make quite a difference.

PaulButler said:
Steven I've owned both the D600 and the D610, the IQ is excellent, a noticeable jump up from my previous D7000. The D600 has a rep as splattering oil on the sensor (mine did) so a D610 may be a better choice as it was fixed in this version, again my D610 was free of the oil spatter issue.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul, I don't fancy getting oil on the sensor! I hadn't heard about that issue but I'll certainly look into the D610. I know there are better options than the D600 out there, but I am restricted by my budget. What's the weather sealing like on the D600?
 
Last edited:
I tried the D600 as I was looking for a lighter return to dslr's, but the smaller af area of the D600 was too limiting for me, along with some other issues. I looked for an used D800 but found a D800e and am very pleased. Happy to accept a small weight penalty in exchange for better af and all those pixels and cropability!
 
I thought the AF on the d600 was the same as the d800 - just more AF points.

I recently got a d600 - had a d700 previously and the improvements are way better. AF was good, ISO was acceptable (i try not to go over 3200 - but would be happy to use 6400 at a gig), I prefer a slightly bigger camera for feel and weight so I have added the grip, I don't mind using SD cards (you get 2 slots), the buttons need a little getting use to but would of liked the placements of the D700/ D800.

Also why is there no D600 thread...?
 
I wouldn't swap your body and all your lenses for a full frame body and one prime you'll soon be spending even more cash once you realise what you've lost in focal length options!

Buy a newer crop sensor body and look to upgrade your lenses. The lure of full frame is 90% in your head!
 
a1ex2001 said:
I wouldn't swap your body and all your lenses for a full frame body and one prime you'll soon be spending even more cash once you realise what you've lost in focal length options!

Buy a newer crop sensor body and look to upgrade your lenses. The lure of full frame is 90% in your head!
Click to expand...

I've actually been sitting contemplating this for a while now. If I'm being honest, I don't really have the avaliable funds to make the most of the D600. I'd love a 16-35 f4 and a 24-70 2.8 but combined with the camera cost, it amounts to a small fortune. I already have a couple of fairly decent dx lenses and I'm wondering if I would notice an increase in quality (sharpness, dynamic range and low light performance) if I upgraded to a D7100.
 
Just to balance the argument, go full frame!

Even if you don't print large and only view at web sizes the files are more enjoyable to look at and work with, not a lot, and other factors will make more of a difference. But, we do this hobby for fun, and the first time you open up a full frame raw file at full size will be enjoyable, they are also more malleable in processing.

I know nothing about Nikon steam powered cameras other than that the files from the d810 and d750 that I have processed were incredible, and very nearly enough to make me leave canon after 15years!
 
Craig_85 said:
Just to balance the argument, go full frame!

Even if you don't print large and only view at web sizes the files are more enjoyable to look at and work with, not a lot, and other factors will make more of a difference. But, we do this hobby for fun, and the first time you open up a full frame raw file at full size will be enjoyable, they are also more malleable in processing.

I know nothing about Nikon steam powered cameras other than that the files from the d810 and d750 that I have processed were incredible, and very nearly enough to make me leave canon after 15years!
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Craig ;) You are right though, there are lots of advantages to upgrading to a full frame system like the D600, the only negative I can see is the cost of good glass and the thought of spending over £1200 on two used lenses!

sk66 said:
IMO, most of your lenses are ok, but not great. And most of the best lenses are FF compatible. I would suggest upgrading lenses first and see where it goes...
Click to expand...

I know my lenses aren't great, but to be honest I'm not sure of any other DX lenses which are worth the upgrade (other than primes). I shoot mostly on the wide scale of my lenses, between 12-25mm would be my most used focal length. What would you recommend for a lens upgrade?
 
Steven001 said:
I know my lenses aren't great, but to be honest I'm not sure of any other DX lenses which are worth the upgrade (other than primes). I shoot mostly on the wide scale of my lenses, between 12-25mm would be my most used focal length. What would you recommend for a lens upgrade?
Click to expand...
Don't get DX lenses, get FF ones. Lenses like the 16-35, 14-24, and 24 PC-E are all wide landscape favorites. You said you'd like to get a 16-35... it will work on the D90.
 
The 18-35mm also seems to perform well on FF bodies at a cheaper cost than the 16-35mm.

Not sure if available on the D600/610, but as you build up lenses you can also use the DX lenses in DX mode. It's available on the D750 / D810 cameras. It ties you over as you build up your lenses.
 
Last edited:
If are thinking of going full frame in the future slowly upgrading your lens to fx compatible lenses is the way to go, and you get the benefit of using them on your d90 in the meantime (a crop sensor only uses the centre part of a fx lens which is usually the best part).

If it's a case of using a fx camera only with dx lens in dx mode with no fx lenses I wouldn't bother changing.

I was in a similar position a few years back, I slowly upgraded my dx lenses to fx lenses making the jump to fx easier when the time came.

Another option is to keep your dx lenses and upgrade the d90 to a d7100 or d7200.
 
Steven001 said:
What would you recommend for a lens upgrade?
Click to expand...

If landscapes is what you do it's worth looking at the 24-120 f4. It's unlikely you would need f2.8-f4 with landscapes so you can save a bit on a 24-70 that you could put towards a 16-35 f4. If you get into IR landscapes the 16-35 is supposed to be good, I've found the 24-120 to be excellent too. The 24-70 is supposed to be affected by IR hotspots. so it's worth thinking about.

If you use 12-25mm on a crop camera most of the time you will be looking at focal lengths around 18-38mm on full frame. Dont forget landscapes isn't all about ultra wide, longer focal lengths can work well too. I love using my 70-200 to isolate part of a landscape. On a recent trip to the lakes I used a 24-120 about 90% of the time, it's a bit of a goldilocks lens for me as it's wide enough at 24mm but with the added benefit of 120mm at the long end meaning swapping to the 70-200 it's needed so often.
 
sk66 said:
Don't get DX lenses, get FF ones. Lenses like the 16-35, 14-24, and 24 PC-E are all wide landscape favorites. You said you'd like to get a 16-35... it will work on the D90.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I don't know why I didn't think of getting FX lenses, I think I thought they wouldn't perform as good on a DX body.

rob-nikon said:
If are thinking of going full frame in the future slowly upgrading your lens to fx compatible lenses is the way to go, and you get the benefit of using them on your d90 in the meantime (a crop sensor only uses the centre part of a fx lens which is usually the best part).

If it's a case of using a fx camera only with dx lens in dx mode with no fx lenses I wouldn't bother changing.

I was in a similar position a few years back, I slowly upgraded my dx lenses to fx lenses making the jump to fx easier when the time came.

Another option is to keep your dx lenses and upgrade the d90 to a d7100 or d7200.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rob, that seems like a very sensible idea. I was wondering, what do you think would give the best results - using a good FX lens like a 16-35mm f4 on a D90 or using equivalent focal length on say my Tamron 17-50mm shot on a D7100?

Do you think I would notice a significant improvement with a good quality FX lens on my D90?

rob-nikon said:
If landscapes is what you do it's worth looking at the 24-120 f4. It's unlikely you would need f2.8-f4 with landscapes so you can save a bit on a 24-70 that you could put towards a 16-35 f4. If you get into IR landscapes the 16-35 is supposed to be good, I've found the 24-120 to be excellent too. The 24-70 is supposed to be affected by IR hotspots. so it's worth thinking about.

If you use 12-25mm on a crop camera most of the time you will be looking at focal lengths around 18-38mm on full frame. Dont forget landscapes isn't all about ultra wide, longer focal lengths can work well too. I love using my 70-200 to isolate part of a landscape. On a recent trip to the lakes I used a 24-120 about 90% of the time, it's a bit of a goldilocks lens for me as it's wide enough at 24mm but with the added benefit of 120mm at the long end meaning swapping to the 70-200 it's needed so often.
Click to expand...

Thanks again Rob, I will look into the 24-120 f4. It's not something I had thought of to be honest. I would like a fast lens to be able to do some astro photography, but I could always get a fast prime sometime in the future if I went down that route.

I know what you mean, I do tent to restrict myself bellow 50mm for landscapes as the 55-200mm is a pretty terrible lens (it was the first aditional lens I bought, years ago now). For that reason the 24-120 could be a definite contender.
 
Last edited:
Steven001 said:
Thanks - I don't know why I didn't think of getting FX lenses, I think I thought they wouldn't perform as good on a DX body.

....what do you think would give the best results - using a good FX lens like a 16-35mm f4 on a D90 or using equivalent focal length on say my Tamron 17-50mm shot on a D7100?

Do you think I would notice a significant improvement with a good quality FX lens on my D90?
Click to expand...
FF lenses tend to be "better" on DX because you are using only the center of the image circle. But that isn't always the case. FWIW, there are very few lenses that can resolve fine enough for 24MP APS... and they can only do it at apertures f/4 or wider (f/4 theoretical, ~f/2.8 more typical). Actually, I'm not sure that *any* lens can resolve to that level... even the Zeiss 135/2 can only deliver 20MP at f/2 on DX (w/o an AA filter).

In that specific comparison, I think you might *potentially* see more gains from using your Tamron on a D7100... but they will be hard to come by. The general rule is that better lenses on a lower level body is the better choice.

There is always the question as to having any real need for FF... Landscape work isn't that demanding of a camera/sensor in general (excessive DR can be addressed w/ multiple exposures/filters). I tend to do (very little) landscape type photography with my Nikon 1 system, but if I have hopes of doing something special with the image I will use my D810 (sell, print large/fine art).
 
Last edited:
OP I usually always advise going full frame in situation like this but there's one post that is making me suggest sticking with crop, or even changing completely and going to an APS-C mirrorless system and that's because you said the thing that's putting you off the D700 is weight as you hike a lot and want the camera to be as light as possible. FF cameras are generally bigger and heavier, and so are the lenses. Upgrading to something like a D7100/7200 would see quite a large improvement, and DR and noise handling of these cameras is very good.

You could also swap to something like the Fuji mirrorless, excellent IQ and great lenses. You don't need to worry about AF performance for landscapes and Astro ;)
 
Swanseajack said:
The 18-35mm also seems to perform well on FF bodies at a cheaper cost than the 16-35mm. Not sure if available on the D600/610, but as you build up lenses you can also use the DX lenses in DX mode. It's available on the D750 D810 cameras. It ties you over as you build up your lenses.
Click to expand...

I have the 18-35mm AF-S on my D700 and I reckon it is one of THE great lenses. Sharp, lightweight, inexpensive, fast enough considering the focal length and seems to suffer from no optical weakesses. Load the profile in Lightroom and you're laughing.

I chuck my 85mm AF-D on the other D700 when I'm doing a job and that's me done and dusted for the day.
 
If you can't afford the lenses for FF I would stick with DX, the latest generation of sensors (D7200) is fantastic and would give better results that a D700 with good lenses.

As has been said, the lure of FF is mostly in the head which I know because having spent a few years with Nikon going from DX (D60, D90) to FF (D700, D610) I am now a happy m43 user - sharpness and image quality are mostly down to the quality of the lenses and high quality FF lenses are expensive, big and heavy.
 
Like @Nawty says, if you don't have the budget for fx lenses then staying with a crop sensor makes much more sense.

@Steven001 if you are looking for them odd improvement with either only one lens or camera swap then a more modern d7200 is going to give you it over a d90. It's a few generations on so there will be some improvements there. I'm not sure how the 55-200 compares to the 70-300 vr but I found the 70-300 vr to be pretty good considering the price it can be got second hand.

@snerkler is right, there will be much more weight to carry moving to full frame. Both lenses and cameras are heavier than crop equivalents. Lenses like 16-35, 24-120 and 24-70 are going to be 700-800g each. The 70-200 f2.8 weighs in at 1500g!
 
sk66 said:
FF lenses tend to be "better" on DX because you are using only the center of the image circle. But that isn't always the case. FWIW, there are very few lenses that can resolve fine enough for 24MP APS... and they can only do it at apertures f/4 or wider (f/4 theoretical, ~f/2.8 more typical). Actually, I'm not sure that *any* lens can resolve to that level... even the Zeiss 135/2 can only deliver 20MP at f/2 on DX (w/o an AA filter).

In that specific comparison, I think you might *potentially* see more gains from using your Tamron on a D7100... but they will be hard to come by. The general rule is that better lenses on a lower level body is the better choice.

There is always the question as to having any real need for FF... Landscape work isn't that demanding of a camera/sensor in general (excessive DR can be addressed w/ multiple exposures/filters). I tend to do (very little) landscape type photography with my Nikon 1 system, but if I have hopes of doing something special with the image I will use my D810 (sell, print large/fine art).
Click to expand...

Thanks for that - I suppose my only real want for full frame would be to make use of the better lenses avaliable. Now I know the FX lenses will work on a DX camera, but with the crop factor applied the focal length chances and it because a completely different lens.

snerkler said:
OP I usually always advise going full frame in situation like this but there's one post that is making me suggest sticking with crop, or even changing completely and going to an APS-C mirrorless system and that's because you said the thing that's putting you off the D700 is weight as you hike a lot and want the camera to be as light as possible. FF cameras are generally bigger and heavier, and so are the lenses. Upgrading to something like a D7100/7200 would see quite a large improvement, and DR and noise handling of these cameras is very good.

You could also swap to something like the Fuji mirrorless, excellent IQ and great lenses. You don't need to worry about AF performance for landscapes and Astro ;)
Click to expand...

That's a very good suggestion as well, my brother has a Fuji TX-10 and he loves the styling and image quality. It is a great option in terms of the weight etc but it again means an investment in a new system which would cost significantly more (the Fuji lenses look amazing but they are expensive). The 14mm :cool:

MissingMan said:
I have the 18-35mm AF-S on my D700 and I reckon it is one of THE great lenses. Sharp, lightweight, inexpensive, fast enough considering the focal length and seems to suffer from no optical weakesses. Load the profile in Lightroom and you're laughing.

I chuck my 85mm AF-D on the other D700 when I'm doing a job and that's me done and dusted for the day.
Click to expand...

I had a look and the 18-35 gets some brilliant writeups, it's also much cheaper than the alternatives.

Nawty said:
If you can't afford the lenses for FF I would stick with DX, the latest generation of sensors (D7200) is fantastic and would give better results that a D700 with good lenses.

As has been said, the lure of FF is mostly in the head which I know because having spent a few years with Nikon going from DX (D60, D90) to FF (D700, D610) I am now a happy m43 user - sharpness and image quality are mostly down to the quality of the lenses and high quality FF lenses are expensive, big and heavy.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, it is in my head. Like I said the main reason is for the low light performance and the lenses that are avaliable.

rob-nikon said:
Like @Nawty says, if you don't have the budget for fx lenses then staying with a crop sensor makes much more sense.

@Steven001 if you are looking for them odd improvement with either only one lens or camera swap then a more modern d7200 is going to give you it over a d90. It's a few generations on so there will be some improvements there. I'm not sure how the 55-200 compares to the 70-300 vr but I found the 70-300 vr to be pretty good considering the price it can be got second hand.

@snerkler is right, there will be much more weight to carry moving to full frame. Both lenses and cameras are heavier than crop equivalents. Lenses like 16-35, 24-120 and 24-70 are going to be 700-800g each. The 70-200 f2.8 weighs in at 1500g!
Click to expand...

1500! That's a heavy ass lens! The 70-300mm VR is supposed to be head and shoulders above the 55-200mm.

Although the lure of a D600 will probably remain, I think you're right and the best option is probably to upgrade to a D7100 and see if I am happy with the results. I've managed to find one for sale for £375 in excellent condition with only 10k shutter count.

*Thank you to everyone has taken the time to comment
 
Last edited:
Steven001 said:
The 70-300mm VR is supposed to be head and shoulders above the 55-200mm.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say head and shoulders, it is noticeably better in terms of contrast and in particular AF speed, the 55-200 VR is a surprisingly capable lens.
 
Steven001 said:
That's a very good suggestion as well, my brother has a Fuji TX-10 and he loves the styling and image quality. It is a great option in terms of the weight etc but it again means an investment in a new system which would cost significantly more (the Fuji lenses look amazing but they are expensive). The 14mm :cool:
Click to expand...
Yep true, I only mentioned it as an alternative to going FF as you'd have to swap everything for that too ;)



I had a look and the 18-35 gets some brilliant writeups, it's also much cheaper than the alternatives.
Click to expand...
It's a great lens, I have it and can't fault it. Don't forget though that on a crop it'll only be effectively 27mm at the wide end which is not that wide.



You're probably right, it is in my head. Like I said the main reason is for the low light performance and the lenses that are avaliable.
Click to expand...
It's not in your head, like for like FF will perform better in terms of IQ, and something like the D600 will be a huge leap over the D90. However, the D7100/D7200 will be a big step up over the D90 and the difference between the D7100/D7200 and D600 isn't that big. The D600 is only about 1 stop better in noise at high ISO, I would be happy to use the D7200 at 6400 ISO.
 
As far as I know it's really worth trying to get the D7200 over the D7100 if you can, the improvements are significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top