Stick with DX or go ff ( nikon)

Mark twiglet

Mark twiglet

Messages
2,826
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I shoot landscapes and portraits mostly and currently have a D7100 and have been asked to swap for a D600 which is not going to cost me a penny! Should I or shouldn't i?
 
What lenses do you have? Are they full frame compatible? That would be the deciding factor if it's a cost neutral upgrade. The benefits of full frame are the shallow depth of focus (good for portraits), better ISO performance too. The AF on the d600 doesn't cover as large an area as the d7100 and it's the lower 39 point system but that probably wouldn't bother you with landscape/portraits. Only you can decide if it's worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
My 10.5 fisheye will go! My sigma 10-20 will go and so will my sigma 18-35 1.8 lens! I'm getting with the d600 a 14mm swa and a 24-85 nikkor and I can use my 50mm 1.8 and 80-200 2.8 so I shouldn't need anything else really
 
Yeah I will be! I'm just dubious going from top of range DX to bottom fx!
 
A lot of the D7100 bits are in the D610 (AF module for one), and the form factor is identical as you'll probably know. But the image IQ, shadow recovery and high iso work from the D610 will blow the D7100 out of the water.
 
stumeech said:
A lot of the D7100 bits are in the D610 (AF module for one), and the form factor is identical as you'll probably know. But the image IQ, shadow recovery and high iso work from the D610 will blow the D7100 out of the water.
Click to expand...

The d600/D610 has 39 point AF whilst the D7100 has 51 point AF. The d600/610AF is more similar to the D7000. One of the improvements of the D7100 was the upgrade in AF. That said for the OP the change between AF systems probably wouldn't matter. If I was the OP doing portraits/landscapes the D600 would be the one to go with. I have thought about a d600 as a second body to a d800 for a planned trip to skomer.

From Nikons website:

D7000

Nikon Multi-CAM 4800DX autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, finetuning, 39 focus points (including 9 cross-type sensors), and AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 0.5 to 3 m/1 ft. 8 in. to 9 ft. 10 in.)

D7100

Nikon Advanced Multi-CAM 3500DX autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, 51 focus points (including 15 cross-type sensors; the center point is available at apertures slower than f/5.6 and faster than f/8 or at f/8), and AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 0.5 to 3 m/1 ft 8 in. to 9 ft 10 in.)

D610

Nikon Multi-CAM 4800 autofocus sensor module with TTL phase detection, fine-tuning, 39 focus points (including 9 cross-type sensors; the center 33 points are available at apertures slower than f/5.6 and faster than f/8, while the center 7 points are available at f/8), and AF-assist illuminator (range approx. 0.5 to 3 m/1 ft 8 in. to 9 ft 10 in.)
 
Last edited:
The thing is, only YOU can decide if the jump is worth it to YOU.

Make the swap and then make up your own mind.
 
For landscapes I certainly wouldn't bother swapping, where higher ISO is needed then maybe (but the D600 is crap at focusing in places where you'd need really high ISO anyway)

DX gives you a little more DoF for the same aperture as FX, for most that means you can shoot at or around most lenses' 'sweet spot' F8, f11, rather than having to go to f16, f22 where all lenses get softer and diffraction may become an issue; though of course focus stacking is easy now so maybe that's irrelevant too

So for landscapes really you're swapping a good 24mp camera for a good 24mp camera, swapping cameras will be the least effective thing possible to improve your photography

I'd be looking more at the lenses, if the DX or FX options are sharper corner to corner then I'd go with whichever has the best lenses, but unless one set really are poor that'll be a tricky one to judge too unless you print large and view from inches away

Summary - I very much doubt you'll see that either is better than the other, and as its a swap (so no money wasted) its really just down to which do you think you'd prefer; sometimes 'improvement' are more in the mind than the reality, if swapping makes you happier then go for it :)

Dave
 
Last edited:
I'm also thinking along the same lines as Dave, Your gains are minimal... I have the 7100 as a 2nd camera & it truly is excellent...
 
DG Phototraining said:
For landscapes I certainly wouldn't bother swapping, where higher ISO is needed then maybe (but the D600 is crap at focusing in places where you'd need really high ISO anyway)

DX gives you a little more DoF for the same aperture as FX, for most that means you can shoot at or around most lenses' 'sweet spot' F8, f11, rather than having to go to f16, f22 where all lenses get softer and diffraction may become an issue; though of course focus stacking is easy now so maybe that's irrelevant too

So for landscapes really you're swapping a good 24mp camera for a good 24mp camera, swapping cameras will be the least effective thing possible to improve your photography

I'd be looking more at the lenses, if the DX or FX options are sharper corner to corner then I'd go with whichever has the best lenses, but unless one set really are poor that'll be a tricky one to judge too unless you print large and view from inches away

Summary - I very much doubt you'll see that either is better than the other, and as its a swap (so no money wasted) its really just down to which do you think you'd prefer; sometimes 'improvement' are more in the mind than the reality, if swapping makes you happier then go for it :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Megapixels don't really mean anything. A 24mp FF will resolve more detail than a 24mp crop.

And for landscapes the benefits of FF is huge - better resolved detail, better dynamic range, better colour rendition (particularly blues) better shadow recovery.

The D600 is a no brainer if you're into landscapes.

That not to say you can't get good landscapes with the crop, of course you can, but the FF will give the images the edge, and far more flexibility in post process.
 
Last edited:
Dynamic range difference according to DxO is D7100 13.7 Evs while the D600 scores 14.2 Evs - 'huge' ???

I'm not going to bother getting into any form of techie argument on what are both excellent cameras, but the only 'huge' difference is between tech spec charts and use in the real world. How anyone captures & processes their images makes a HUGE difference, not what some spec chart says. If the same person uses both cameras in the same way at the same time, processes them in the same way and prints them the same too then yes you may see a difference, which is best will still depend on personal viewpoint rather than the spec of the sensor

As a camera club judge I've seen some average prints from a D800 and some great ones from a D7000, but in general I'd have to say you can't say what's been shot on what as capture technique and processing/printing skill matters more

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Dynamic range difference according to DxO is D7100 13.7 Evs while the D600 scores 14.2 Evs - 'huge' ???

I'm not going to bother getting into any form of techie argument on what are both excellent cameras, but the only 'huge' difference is between tech spec charts and use in the real world. How anyone captures & processes their images makes a HUGE difference, not what some spec chart says. If the same person uses both cameras in the same way at the same time, processes them in the same way and prints them the same too then yes you may see a difference, which is best will still depend on personal viewpoint rather than the spec of the sensor

As a camera club judge I've seen some average prints from a D800 and some great ones from a D7000, but in general I'd have to say you can't say what's been shot on what as capture technique and processing/printing skill matters more

Dave
Click to expand...


I wish people would Stop looking at DXO and look at photos.

Having crops and an FF body, I do see a very markable difference in the images, especially processing raws. No one should be surprised by that.

And given the choice for landscapes, at no cost, why not take the advantageous camera?

And "huge" was the word used to describe the overall benefits, not just DR.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Megapixels don't really mean anything. A 24mp FF will resolve more detail than a 24mp crop.
Click to expand...


That's slightly misleading as it is lens dependent.

Lenses don't have to work so hard to resolve detail with FF as the magnification is lower which results in higher contrast and therefore higher perceived sharpness. This is true.

However, given you will have to use a different lens (or a different zoom setting) to get the same filed of view the comparison isn't that straightforward.

Also, everyone is fixated on getting the best whereas in truth pretty much all modern cameras are good enough and it is the photographer and their ability (and I don't just mean knowing which settings to use and which knobs to twiddle) that really makes the difference.

Still, most people at some point have to scratch the FF itch so why the hell not if it won't cost anything? I did only it cost me a LOT of money...
 
Last edited:
holty said:
i had them both and sold the 600 but kept the d7100 along with my d700 ff
Click to expand...
OMG!

Lol I had a d7k before the d7k1 and regretted upgrading! My critique expert( wife) noticed my images had slipped so suggested going back to the d7k! I've wanted to go ff for a while so think I'm gonna take the plunge!
 
[emoji48] did it show! I do studio portraits and landies so don't need long lenses! 14mm samyang and 50mm1.8 and an 80-200 2.8 should suffice ! Oh and a 28-85 kit lens......
 
Yeah could be on the shopping list! In time..... The kit lens is a thrown in bonus for the swao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top