D90 upgrade - DX or FF

D

darkeeboy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
137
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hi All

Been thinking about replacing my D90 with a new camera and have narrowed it down to two options, both actually quite close in funding requirements.

Current equipment:
Nikon 17-55 F2.8
Nikon 35mm AFS
Nikon 50mm F1.8D
Nikon 70-300 VR

Option 1 - Get the Nikon D7100, to be paired with the above lenses.

Option 2 - Get the Nikon D600, sell the 17-55mm and 35mm to fund the gap, and purchase the Tamron 28-75 F2.8.

Basicall Im trying to figure out what would be a better overall kit, the D7100+nikon lens or the D600+tamron lens.

With current cashbacks and selling on unused kit would mean cost to change c£700..

Ive used the 17-55 for the last three months and it's great, I love the sharpness and clarity it produces even on the D90.

Anyone use the tamron 28-75?
 
i had tamron 28-75mm on D7000. i heard it's good that's why i bought it. but my copy was very bad. AF issues. got it from ebay so sent it back. i guess it's just depends...
 
Recently "moved up" from d90 to d600 and very pleased. Also have the Tamron 28-75, paired with the d600, which has now become my most used setup.
 
Thats good to hear, Id definately buy new so that I can take account of Tamron's potential QC issues...
 
If you do go the D600, make sure you have a powerful pc, as it will impact whilst using lightroom or photoshop.
 
Upgraded from the D7000 to a D600 and I'm very pleased with the bump in IQ, not had much chance to use it in low light yet but I've been taking some photos in the house of my old D7000 for advertising and its really good.

I would think that whether you go for a D600 or D7100 your likely to need similar PC requirements for Lightroom/Photoshop due to both being 24MP.
 
PC should be ok, I guess my main reservation is a drop in the perceived quality of lens from the Nikon 17-55 to the Tamron 28-75...
 
Only you can judge whether the Tamron's IQ is up to what you expect, so try the actual lens you'll be buying before you fork out for it.

For me, the wide angle aspect of FF were what made me upgrade - I already used a 12-24 on my old D70 but on FF I knew it was almost insanely wide (I had also used it for a while on my 35mm film bodies)!
 
Nod said:
For me, the wide angle aspect of FF were what made me upgrade - I already used a 12-24 on my old D70 but on FF I knew it was almost insanely wide (I had also used it for a while on my 35mm film bodies)!
Click to expand...

I believe the widest angle with least amount of barrel distortion actually belongs on a crop sensor body - sigma 8-16mm.

I don't think the wide angle is a factor when considering FF. And with the high MP / ability to crop in post now, neither is reduced equivalent focal length.
 
Phil Young said:
I believe the widest angle with least amount of barrel distortion actually belongs on a crop sensor body - sigma 8-16mm.
Click to expand...

8mm on 1.5 crop has the same field of view as 12mm on FF so it's a tie :cool:
 
Both cameras will be a step up in quality.

As for overall IQ. From what I have seen and read, as low ISO they are very similar. But at higher ISO the D600 is superior.

The focus area on the D600 is small, non problem as composing and reframing is not an issue.

Having handled both, size and weight difference is pretty much the same. Build quality is about the same. Although the D7100 did feel a bit better as doors and covers all sat flush.

Both are excellent cameras and Nikon really has made choosing between them difficult!
 
FTR, a straight line near the top of the frame on a 12mm shot on FF using the Sigma 12-24 is straight on an A3+ print and while the 8-16 may be AS straight, I'm not sure that it can be straighter!
 
Nod said:
FTR, a straight line near the top of the frame on a 12mm shot on FF using the Sigma 12-24 is straight on an A3+ print and while the 8-16 may be AS straight, I'm not sure that it can be straighter!
Click to expand...

The main point that could be missed is that with current sensors, FOV isn't such a huge thing to take into consideration in crop vs FF because you can get just as wide on crop and you can just crop a FF image to get the equivalent distance the crop sensor outputs.

For the record OP, I'd personally go for the D600 because even though I hate the AF area coverage, the ISO handling is more useful to me in a lot of circumstances than the AF of the D7100.

But I could definitely understand why people would go for the D7100.
 
Thanks all, I guess one other factor (that shouldnt make or break a deal) is that I would say the D600 has a higher residual value than the D7100 in 3 or 4 years time...
Do I move away from the great 17-55 lens though as I know I cannot afford the 24-70!
 
darkeeboy said:
Thanks all, I guess one other factor (that shouldnt make or break a deal) is that I would say the D600 has a higher residual value than the D7100 in 3 or 4 years time...
Do I move away from the great 17-55 lens though as I know I cannot afford the 24-70!
Click to expand...

Had the Tamron, a good lens value for money wise but the 24-70 is far better. What about going for a D700 and 24-70??? I use that a lot and its a perfect combo. Used, it may cost a bit more than a D600 and 28-75 but imo would be perfect.
 
Ive pretty well made my mind up to go for the 7100, saving time and hassle selling lenses to fund the D600, and its got better af & screen.... but....its not FF, in reality what does this really matter?
 
OP - do you have budget limitation now and going forward (i.e when buying lenses in future)? Do you have designs on getting long, fast lenses in future?

If so, I think DX probably gives you a more budget-conscious route into getting more bang for your buck. Yes, there are compromises about FOV and DoF but I think most people can live with this if they are sensible.

You have some very good lenses already (the 17-5mm in particular) that will stand up well against FX offerings.

Have you considered the D7000? Used, it's a bargain....
 
Given the price differential I'd have to say jump to the D600 and get a good Tamron lens. I just sold mine and whilst the Nikon 24-70 is definitely the better lens, for the price you can pick up the Tamron for, you really can't grumble at the IQ!
 
It just shows how close these two models are, recon the suggestions are 50:50!
Budget limitation, yes as its just a hobby so cannot justifty £2k of kit walking around parks with my 2 year old. I did consider the D7000 but thought it wasnt a big enough jump up as its nearly 3 years old now..
 
darkeeboy said:
It just shows how close these two models are, recon the suggestions are 50:50!
Budget limitation, yes as its just a hobby so cannot justifty £2k of kit walking around parks with my 2 year old. I did consider the D7000 but thought it wasnt a big enough jump up as its nearly 3 years old now..
Click to expand...

Is the D7100 much more of a jump???
 
Got to be honest, tried the D7100, in fact I traded a D300 and a D90 towards it. Tried it for a month but didn't get on with it. I admit that I have a D3 as a main camera so maybe I'm biased. But I think you will really appreciate the difference against your D90. I wouldn't ignore a secondhand D300 though.
 
Levidog said:
Got to be honest, tried the D7100, in fact I traded a D300 and a D90 towards it. Tried it for a month but didn't get on with it. I admit that I have a D3 as a main camera so maybe I'm biased. But I think you will really appreciate the difference against your D90. I wouldn't ignore a secondhand D300 though.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you like the D7100 ? The D3, D300, and D90 are all long in the tooth in comparison .
 
darkeeboy said:
It just shows how close these two models are, recon the suggestions are 50:50!
Budget limitation, yes as its just a hobby so cannot justifty £2k of kit walking around parks with my 2 year old. I did consider the D7000 but thought it wasnt a big enough jump up as its nearly 3 years old now..
Click to expand...

I think it's about marginal gains here. if you want to go from banging flint together to make a flame, to a fully fuelled Zippo then splash out and go D800/D4.

But that's way out of budget.

So look at what's important - I think this clearly shows the advantages, however small, that come from moving to a D7000.

If it were me and I was looking at is purely as a hobby, I'd get something like a D7000 because of the low price (especially used) an then look at the lenses that can be had with the change....
 
Boldonian said:
Why didn't you like the D7100 ? The D3, D300, and D90 are all long in the tooth in comparison .
Click to expand...
Firstly it felt plastic and cheap, secondly the buffer is quite poor (improved though by using the best memory cards). Thirdly, I could not get used to the fps compared to the D300 and D3. Even when doing portraits I found that I missed the expression I was looking for whilst the camera took a tea break.
On the plus side the D7100 produces some gorgeous sunsets and deals with black dogs very well.

As I said I just didn't gel with it but the fact that I traded it for a D3s probably tells you what I needed really.
 
asaspasas6 said:
just a quick check between cameras:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D600-vs-Nikon-D7100
Click to expand...

No offence, but I wish people would just stop using snapsort. It's the most unreliable comparison site I can think of. I remember when I first bought my D90 they made like it was the best thing since sliced bread. The scores drop drastically as the cameras age, it's a bit of a joke really.

In saying that, I went from a D90 to D800E and found the difference amazing. In every way.
 
This is simple.


Do you print your images big? If so, go FF. If not, don't.
 
Most photos are only printed in a 20x15 book by blurb so no need for huge prints..
 
Pookeyhead said:
This is simple.

Do you print your images big? If so, go FF. If not, don't.
Click to expand...

Why's that then? Don't get me wrong, I love the prints from my D700, but then again my D3200 has twice as many pixels so is in theory sharper at large print sizes. I can't tell the difference between either at A3+.
 
To answer the OP's question - you don't say what it is about the D90 that is hindering your photography. Poor high ISO detail? Go full frame D700 or D3, because hi ISO is usually only relevant for action, so you need good focussing and mega frame rates rather than loads of pixels. Or are you lacking in the pixel race? In which case you need 24mp for a significant upgrade, but I'd stick with DX - D3200 or D5200. The D7100 has similar sensor but upgraded AF, but if you need the AF you should really be going D700.
 
I'd say the D90 isnt limiting my photography, just that having it for four years means Im pining for an upgrade!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top