Which Nikon Full Frame would i go for

N

New to this

Messages
164
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
So i have made my mind up to upgrade from my D7000 to a full frame but which one ?
i love Nikon so i have 3 choice D600, D700 or the D800 which one would suit someone like me thats not a pro ....?
 
Any of them.

I recently went FX, after using DX models for many years, I was more than ready for it. I happened to have the funds to get the D800, but really, any of the 3 will do the same job. If you go D800, you may need to upgrade your pc/laptop to cope with the huge file sizes, as I did.
 
New to this said:
So i have made my mind up to upgrade from my D7000 to a full frame but which one ?
i love Nikon so i have 3 choice D600, D700 or the D800 which one would suit someone like me thats not a pro ....?
Click to expand...

But what do use your camera for?
 
If you haven't used a pro body and got used to the size,layout and AF the d600 may be fine for you as it will be very similar to the d7000.

If you want the larger size better AF, weather sealing then get a d700 or 800.

The d700 is a great all round camera and is still a high performer and highly praised,even though its getting on now.
If you have the HD space and a computer thats fast,the d800 is a great camera.
Ive owned both the d700 and 800. If money wasn't an issue I would go d800 every time for what I shoot, but the d700 is no slouch.
 
If you want video then forget about the D700. If money is an issue then the cheapest would be a S/H D700. If money isnt an issue then the D800 is the way to go. If size and weight are an issue then get the D600.

Its difficult to say without knowing what you like to shoot.

New to this said:
D600, D700 or the D800 which one would suit someone like me thats not a pro ....?
Click to expand...

by the way, I am not a pro but if money isnt an issue I would get a D4 :D
 
I'd have thought a D600 as it has the best sensor performance out of all the Nikon range to date, matches the D7000 in terms of body design but annoying thing is the AF which would be hard to stomach for me.

D700 loses resolution, quiet mode (which it could use IMO), fps, ability to shoot with DX lenses at a decent resolution, video. Obviously there are gains in ergonomics and build quality. I understand it's a great camera that produces fine images..but as far as progression from the D7000 goes, the argument is going to be "it's full frame".

D800...the 36mp and what goes with that is a bit off-putting. More RAM juice in PS, lenses allegedly showing flaws in technique. If there were an ability to shoot lower res RAW then I'd be all over it...but no. If glass and technique / large files aren't a problem I am sure this wouod be a very good upgrade!

Very different cameras but for me personally, the 1stop in ISO of the D700 doesn't outweigh the losses and the D800's large files would annoy me with the need to have such amazing glass and possibly more processing power (although with a 50mb RAW I'm not sure it would be THAT different...).

Just seems the D600 offers everything a natural progression would but lacking the af points being spread about the VF.

I understand that for some people, 1 stop of reduced noise at high ISO may be enough but I wouldn't get rid of the D7000 for it.

It's an interesting thread because I thought about upgrading but there is always something in the above 3 that is major enough to stop me.
 
I just made the move from D7000 to D700 and am really happy.

I wanted good low light performance / high ISO so the lower MP D700 was best in my opinion for the job. They are also very good value 2nd hand now and it's a proven well loved camera by many pros(On the D700 there is No video, or 2nd memory card slot, smaller 3 inch LCD screen - these weren't issues for me)

I had a play with a D600 and it seemed nice. (Great controls, handled well like the D7000, great 3.2 inch LCD, uses SD memory cards x2)

Cost of the D800 and file size (I shoot RAW) put me off getting one now but if you want ultimate detail and will put some pro glass on this it will give great results.

Lots of good video reviews on digitalrevtv of the D600, D800, older reviews in last few yrs of any good lenses and Kai uses the D700, I'd check them out on youtube
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
D700 the argument is going to be "it's full frame".
Click to expand...

Compared to the D7000????

Significantly lower noise at high ISO.
Much larger sensor.
Significantly larger brighter viewfinder.
More focus points and a much more reliable a.f system, very little if any fine tuning needed, unlike the d7k.
Less shutter lag, around 20% less delay when taking photos.
Pro build quality.
8 fps with the grip.
 
Soda Farl said:
Compared to the D7000????

Significantly lower noise at high ISO.
Debatable - I've owned both, and I didn't find the difference that significant, if at all noticeable.

Much larger sensor.
As a standalone argument, this just means your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter. Pros and cons.

Significantly larger brighter viewfinder.
I can't argue with that.

More focus points and a much more reliable a.f system, very little if any fine tuning needed, unlike the d7k.
I wouldn't say 'much' - but the D700 is better.

Less shutter lag, around 20% less delay when taking photos.
Lag is barely noticeable on either.

Pro build quality.
And pro weight/size. It's a significantly chunkier proposition than the D7000, and won't be to everyone's tastes.

8 fps with the grip.
A fairly niche advantage, let's be honest.
Click to expand...
 
Im sticking it out to see if they update my D300 (probably in vein though), but if in a years time there's still no joy Ill go for a D700 as all my kit (grip, batterys) will still be good to use. Plus its an amazing camera.
If Im feeling flush though, I may push for a D3s :).
Really dont like the look of the D600 and the file size on the D800 is just over kill for me.
 
"Much larger sensor.
As a standalone argument, this just means your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter. Pros and cons."

It means more than that, a lot more, in terms of overall image quality. Crop sensors don't actually give you more reach, they just crop the image down more. You could take a 200mm shot with a D700, and crop it to match a 300mm similar image from the D7000, and the D700 crop may very well be better still.

Of course, if you go D800, you get FX and a better DX crop version cam than a D7000 in one.
 
Cagey75 said:
"Much larger sensor.
As a standalone argument, this just means your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter. Pros and cons."

It means more than that, a lot more, in terms of overall image quality. Crop sensors don't actually give you more reach, they just crop the image down more. You could take a 200mm shot with a D700, and crop it to match a 300mm similar image from the D7000, and the D700 crop may very well be better still.

Of course, if you go D800, you get FX and a better DX crop version cam than a D7000 in one.
Click to expand...

To be honest I do find it difficult to compose a shot in DX mode
 
The file size with the D800 isn't as big a deal as some make out. Unless you shoot 14 bit un compressed RAW all the time, which gives 70mb files. Switch to 12 bit losless compressed RAWand the file size is reduced to an average of 29mb. Any half decent machine will handle these fine, most people have quad core machines for editing these days.
 
Cagey75 said:
"Much larger sensor.
As a standalone argument, this just means your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter. Pros and cons."

It means more than that, a lot more, in terms of overall image quality. Crop sensors don't actually give you more reach, they just crop the image down more. You could take a 200mm shot with a D700, and crop it to match a 300mm similar image from the D7000, and the D700 crop may very well be better still.

Of course, if you go D800, you get FX and a better DX crop version cam than a D7000 in one.
Click to expand...

I find this methology really annoying.

It is not a crop of a larger sensor, It is a crop factor. A division of what would be on a full frame sensor. There is no cropping of an image going on.

One could argue that full frame is a crop of a medium format.

It is a smaller sensor and as a result, FOV is "longer".
 
I'm looking to upgrade my Nikon D40x too, specialising in Sports Photography however, with a bit of Landscapes and Portraiture thrown in their too.

What camera would be best from my point of view?
Looked at the D300 as it was without the Full Frame sensor however I wasn't really convinced as it only has one focus point which is the middle?
 
drfrallyphotos said:
I'm looking to upgrade my Nikon D40x too, specialising in Sports Photography however, with a bit of Landscapes and Portraiture thrown in their too.

What camera would be best from my point of view?
Looked at the D300 as it was without the Full Frame sensor however I wasn't really convinced as it only has one focus point which is the middle?
Click to expand...


The d300 has a 51 point system. If you are specialising in sports photography, they are a bargain, <£400 from mpb at the moment.
 
Rapscallion said:
The d300 has a 51 point system. If you are specialising in sports photography, they are a bargain, <£400 from mpb at the moment.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up on that, I recently had a quick shot of one but could only find the setting to focus in the middle of the frame which isn't helpful for some of the Photojournalism work I do. I must have overlooked the setting change.
Thanks.
 
Phil Young said:
I find this methology really annoying.

It is not a crop of a larger sensor, It is a crop factor. A division of what would be on a full frame sensor. There is no cropping of an image going on.

One could argue that full frame is a crop of a medium format.

It is a smaller sensor and as a result, FOV is "longer".
Click to expand...


You tend to find everything annoying that doesn't go by your logic though Phil ;)

That's just 'my' take on it. You are free to disagree of course. But you're wrong, MF is a different kettle of fish. FX isn't called "cropped" - because it isn't, whereas crop sensors ...

Field of view yes, doesn't change focal length, just crops it.
 
Cagey75 said:
You tend to find everything annoying that doesn't go by your logic though Phil ;)

That's just 'my' take on it. You are free to disagree of course. But you're wrong, MF is a different kettle of fish. FX isn't called "cropped" - because it isn't, whereas crop sensors ...

Field of view yes, doesn't change focal length, just crops it.
Click to expand...

I'm forming a confederation of Phils and agreeing with Phil on this one....
;)
 
Hehe, work away. It's one of those things I don't really care about. I shoot both a D90 & D800, so ... best of both worlds ;)
 
Cagey75 said:
You tend to find everything annoying that doesn't go by your logic though Phil ;)

That's just 'my' take on it. You are free to disagree of course. But you're wrong, MF is a different kettle of fish. FX isn't called "cropped" - because it isn't, whereas crop sensors ...

Field of view yes, doesn't change focal length, just crops it.
Click to expand...

There's no need to be insulting.

People are free to correct my misguidance if I am wrong and I think you missed the point I made.

And no one said anything about the focal length changing.
 
From my understanding (please correct me if Im wrong :))

Wheather its DX or FX, focal length remains the same.

An FX D700 has a resolution of 12.5MP as does the DX D300

The difference is that the sensor on the DX is 1.5x smaller than on the FX. So when both images are viewed at the same size the DX gives the appearence of being taken with a focal length 1.5x longer than the FX, as only the centre of the FX image is being used in DX.

This means that you keep the resolution that you would have lost by cropping the FX image to the same size, but will have poorer noise results as the larger megapixel's on the FX sensor can handle noise better.

Am I right?
 
If you want to blow your prints up big, and maintain as much quality as possible and also like shallower DOF, get a F/F.

If you don't want/need either of those, save your money and stick with a crop :)
 
matt83 said:
From my understanding (please correct me if Im wrong :))

Wheather its DX or FX, focal length remains the same.

An FX D700 has a resolution of 12.5MP as does the DX D300

The difference is that the sensor on the DX is 1.5x smaller than on the FX. So when both images are viewed at the same size the DX gives the appearence of being taken with a focal length 1.5x longer than the FX, as only the centre of the FX image is being used in DX.

This means that you keep the resolution that you would have lost by cropping the FX image to the same size, but will have poorer noise results as the larger megapixel's on the FX sensor can handle noise better.

Am I right?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Not 100% sure on the way you have worded the resolution issue, I think you're right, it just seems oddly worded to me.

Some members on here like making things more complicated than they have to be. I've seen members argue despite them both saying the same thing, just worded differently - therefore the other person is obviously wrong :wacky:
 
Im saying that if both cameras have the same resolution (12.5mp) then to get a picture on FX that looks the same as DX you need to crop it. This means you loose some of those megapixels. So the final FX image will have half the amount of megapixels as the DX image. This means that should you need to crop further (i.e long distance wildlife shots) you can do so much more on a DX image without the worry of the image becoming pixelated.
 
getting back to the original post, if you are used to the layout and handling of the D7000 you will find the D600 the ideal upgrade unless you need something a bit more robust
 
should the OP ever look in here again and frankly, why bother, whats your budget?
 
Pablosammy said:
Originally Posted by Soda Farl
Compared to the D7000????

Significantly lower noise at high ISO.
Debatable - I've owned both, and I didn't find the difference that significant, if at all noticeable.

Much larger sensor.
As a standalone argument, this just means your wide lenses are wider and your long lenses are shorter. Pros and cons.

Significantly larger brighter viewfinder.
I can't argue with that.

More focus points and a much more reliable a.f system, very little if any fine tuning needed, unlike the d7k.
I wouldn't say 'much' - but the D700 is better.

Less shutter lag, around 20% less delay when taking photos.
Lag is barely noticeable on either.

Pro build quality.
And pro weight/size. It's a significantly chunkier proposition than the D7000, and won't be to everyone's tastes.

8 fps with the grip.
A fairly niche advantage, let's be honest.
Click to expand...
you must of had a bad d700 because the d700 is an easy stop better at high iso, as for af the d300 is better than the d7000 and the d700 is better than the d300 so its a far bit.
 
Phil Young said:
There's no need to be insulting.

People are free to correct my misguidance if I am wrong and I think you missed the point I made.

And no one said anything about the focal length changing.
Click to expand...


If you think that's insulting, work on that chin. I never use smilies when I AM being insulting ;) - And I know you don't think I was, so ... well, get over it.

If anything it was factual, you do tend to find issue with almost everything and anything that doesn't fit into your logic/way of thinking. Fact, no smilie this time.
 
Last edited:
starletman said:
I have had a D7000 and a D700,i sold the D7000.End of argument.
Click to expand...

I applaud your debating skills :clap:

I don't suppose you wish to elaborate why you, personally, preferred the D700 over the D7000 and what you felt the D7000's shortcomings were to justify the extra expense of moving to FF?
 
"Full frame is better" is a fallacy it is only good for low light, that is it:bat:. To match a 16mp 1.5 crop sensor(D7000) in full frame you need 36mp.when you have 36mp you do not get the low light value associated with full frame.There is no point in moving from a D7000 to D700 UNLESS you want low light.The d7000 has bags more resolution.It does 6fps WITHOUT a grip. A 300mm f2.8 lens on a D7000 is the same as a 450mm f2.8 on a full frame sensor and is half the wight and two thirds the cost and when you come to crop the photo you have 16mp not 12mp. If the d700 is used in the DX 1.5 crop it has 5.1mp!! v the D7000 at 16mp it is a no brainer .(y)
 
kestral said:
"Full frame is better" is a fallacy it is only good for low light, that is it:bat:. To match a 16mp 1.5 crop sensor(D7000) in full frame you need 36mp.when you have 36mp you do not get the low light value associated with full frame.There is no point in moving from a D7000 to D700 UNLESS you want low light.The d7000 has bags more resolution.It does 6fps WITHOUT a grip. A 300mm f2.8 lens on a D7000 is the same as a 450mm f2.8 on a full frame sensor and is half the wight and two thirds the cost and when you come to crop the photo you have 16mp not 12mp. If the d700 is used in the DX 1.5 crop it has 5.1mp!! v the D7000 at 16mp it is a no brainer .(y)
Click to expand...

The D800/D600 of course gives more resolution at lower ISO and better high ISO when downsized to the same resolution as the D7000.

Optical performance does I'd say need to be considered aswell, in the past most of the talk was of crop cameras benefiting from the "sweet spot" of lenses but more recently I think pixel density has become a much larger factor.

Look for example at these two reviews of the Nikon 28mm 1.8 G...

D3x - http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/751-nikkorafs2818ff?start=1

D7000 - http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/750-nikkorafs2818dx?start=1

Now obviously the D3x has higher total numbers with 8 more megapixels but its also clear that relevant to there own resolution the 28mm 1.8 has far less trouble on it than it does on the D7000 where boarder performance lags way behind until f/5.6.

The obvious explaination to me seems to be that even with those 8 extra megapixels the overall pixel desnity of the D3x is still only around 2/3rds of the D7000.
 
Last edited:
kestral said:
"Full frame is better" is a fallacy it is only good for low light, that is it:bat:. To match a 16mp 1.5 crop sensor(D7000) in full frame you need 36mp.when you have 36mp you do not get the low light value associated with full frame.There is no point in moving from a D7000 to D700 UNLESS you want low light.The d7000 has bags more resolution.It does 6fps WITHOUT a grip. A 300mm f2.8 lens on a D7000 is the same as a 450mm f2.8 on a full frame sensor and is half the wight and two thirds the cost and when you come to crop the photo you have 16mp not 12mp. If the d700 is used in the DX 1.5 crop it has 5.1mp!! v the D7000 at 16mp it is a no brainer .(y)
Click to expand...

:wacky::wacky:
 
kestral said:
"Full frame is better" is a fallacy it is only good for low light, that is it:bat:.
Click to expand...

what rot. Better is subjective but to suggest FF only gives a difference in terms of low light performance is foolish

kestral said:
To match a 16mp 1.5 crop sensor(D7000) in full frame you need 36mp.when you have 36mp you do not get the low light value associated with full frame.
Click to expand...

again, what rubbish. Look at the DXO mark scores for the d800 vs the d7000 (purely for high iso if you want). I know they're not perfect, but they are a qualitative score. And there is a big gap between the two


kestral said:
There is no point in moving from a D7000 to D700 UNLESS you want low light.The d7000 has bags more resolution.It does 6fps WITHOUT a grip. A 300mm f2.8 lens on a D7000 is the same as a 450mm f2.8 on a full frame sensor and is half the wight and two thirds the cost and when you come to crop the photo you have 16mp not 12mp. If the d700 is used in the DX 1.5 crop it has 5.1mp!! v the D7000 at 16mp it is a no brainer .(y)
Click to expand...

no its not a no brainer. Your example is wrong, you'll have the equivalent of a 450 mm f/4.2 lens on FF (yes f stop is also affected by crop factor.) Of course even adding length isn't 'better'. Just different. What if you want wide?

And if a d7000 is used in FF mode how much resolution do you have? Oh wait, you can't ;)
 
To be fair he seems to be commenting from a bird shooting perspective where FF may indeed be of limated benefit but that obviously does not apply to all use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top