Upgrading to FX

[Jonny1*2]

I've been contemplating this for a while now and when Nikon brought out the more affordable D600 it is pushing me further into buying one. Currently my kit consist of;

D7000 with MB-D11 Vertical grip
Nikkor DX 35mm f1.8
Nikkor DX 12-24mm f4
Nikkor 28-70mm f2.8
Nikkor 70-300mm Telephoto

The plan would be to sell the camera/grip/12-24mm/35mm and put that towards the D600. Another option is to sell the 28-70mm also and get the kit instead, but i'm sure i'd miss the spead of the lense.

After reading reviews on this body it does sound very impressive, and the price is much better than the D800. What are the main benefits/drawbacks people have experienced from moving to FX? Don't get me wrong, the D7000 is a brilliant camera, but the main reason for change is that I feel the crop sensor struggles at high ISO in low light situations, where the larger FX sensor should excell.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

 

[Brazo]

I suppose it depends on what you shoot, if you need great low light ability and/or greater control over depth of field then the d600 makes a great choice. Given 99% of my own shots are at base iso on a tripod with full depth of field I can't see a reason to upgrade to full frame.

 

[Jonny1*2]

I shoot a variety of stuff in all honesty, but I find it doesn't provide me with the confidence when I use it at indoor events like weddings etc. I don't like shooting flash, so ISO performance and image quality at high ISO is key.

 

[Niall]

The photos from full frame cameras just look better too if that makes sense. When I used a 5D Mark II I noticed how smooth the bokeh was too. I wouldn’t hesitate if you can afford it.

 

[ukaskew]

The main drawback for me (being somebody who loves buying gear) is that full frame can be staggeringly expensive. To make proper use of it you need very good glass, this leads onto the second drawback for me, the lack of crop factor makes any sort of long reach very difficult to obtain without spending a staggering amount of money.

I don't regret trying it, as I would always have wondered what it was like otherwise, but I also don't regret selling it all. After the initial buzz and novelty of staggeringly thin depth of field (which can be an overused), the cost, weight and annoyance of micro AF adjustments etc was too much for me considering I don't shoot for a living.

The high ISO performance of the D7000 is very, very good (I know people who still shoot weddings professionally without flash with Canon 5D Mk1s with no problems, the D7000 will be 'better' than those). A few years ago people would have killed for that kind of high ISO performance. The D600 will be better in that respect, but personally I would invest in faster glass rather than changing body.

 

[Jonny1*2]

I see where you're liming from mate. I have always looked at the FX bodies and thought the ergonomics were a bit cumbersome. However with the d600 being essentially the same body as the d7000 which I find very comfy to use, it takes this negative aspect away. Price wise it isn't bad really considering the d700 still sells for ~£1000 on eBay. It is a big step up in price from DX though I have to admit.

Its more the image quality at high ISO that bugs me. The noise/grain makes the shots look poor. Either that or I need to try a different method while shooting.

What faster glass would you recommend as the stuff I'm using isn't exactly slow?

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

I've never regretted moving to FX. As mentioned, don't get s**t glass for it though....

I'm not too familiar with the 70-300, but that's really not going to do the D600 justice at all.

Regarding faster glass.....Nikon 70-200

 

[Brazo]

The photos from full frame cameras just look better too if that makes sense. When I used a 5D Mark II I noticed how smooth the bokeh was too. I wouldn’t hesitate if you can afford it.

Niall does make a good point, that fullframe images do have a certain 'special' look about them which is hard to quantify or explain.

A quick check on DXO mark shows the D600 has approximately 1.3 stops more low light ability than the D7000. Effectively iso 800 on the D7k would be iso 320 on the D600.

Its not as big a leap as some might think and faster glass would more than make up for it, Nialls point above not withstanding.

Oh yes and Dans point, don't get a 24meg sensor and 'feed' it with average glass. I have a 24meg APS-C sensor which is massively more demanding than a D800 even (as mine would be a 56meg full frame sensor if you upscaled it) and good glass is so important!

 

[Jonny1*2]

I take the point about good glass guys. I wouldn't use the telephoto indoors anyway, so speed is a little less critical in some respects. 70-200 VR 2 would be nice, but its a beast, albeit an impressive one. The 28-70mm is a brilliant lense and more than quick enough really. The kit lense with the d600 does get good review though for an f3.5-4.5.

 

[JJ!]

ISO performance is pretty good on the D7000, I don't think the D600 will blow you away compared to the D7000 TBH.

 

[Jonny1*2]

I'm not expecting it to be massively different, but as Niall said, full frame pictures do have a little extra to them, and the improved performance at low light/ISO is tempting me the most. I went into Calumet last night to have a feel of it, and it feels slightly larger than the 7000, but not by much. In comparison to the D800 it is much more ergonomic. It frustrates me when pictures look grainy at high ISO which shouldn't be as bad with an improved sensor and higher pixels in theory.

 

[Brazo]

I would say if you want one, get one. That is all the justification you need so go for it !