Swap my Nikon DX + good glass, for FX + poorer glass?

TimB

TimB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
104
Edit My Images
No
This post contains a combination of 'man maths' and requests for advice

At present I have a D7000 an a collection of decent DX lenses, however to be honest I'm not using them all that much. For various reasons I have a full-frame FX itch that I need to scratch in order to be satisfied!

I have promised myself that I wouldn't plough any more money into photo gear than I already have, as really I'm just a keen amateur who sometimes loves to snap a a load of shots, then not bother for a little while, so I'm looking at my options whilst keeping a budget in mind.

The D600 has really caught my eye. It is essentially a full-frame D7000. Since I love pretty much everything about my 7000 (handling, body, functions, features, dual SD card slots, user presents etc) then the D600 would appear to be the next camera for me.

My main reason for wanting to go full frame is that whilst 75% of my shots are handheld in good daylight or on a tripod at night where I can keep ISO low, the other 25% is now handheld night/low light stuff where I often feel frustrated with the high ISO performance of the 7000. To my eye, once you exceed 3200 and head upwards, the photos begin to look messy. I have invested heavily in fast glass to keep the ISO down in lower light but there is only so much you can do I guess.

I would like to be able to shoot more in lower light and have confidence in the results, hence looking at FX.

Man maths part: I have the following gear all mint, low use, boxed etc- D7000 with battery grip, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 17-55 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, various speedlights, and a Nikon 50 1.8.

If I flog all that lot (and keep the 50mm 1.8) I will hopefully have around £1300 in cash, maybe more.

A D600 in my local photography shop is £1099 for the body.

I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!


So... thoughts and opinions please! You can see the setup I already have with decent glass, and I'm wondering how a D600 with a 'compromise' zoom lens such as the 28-300 on a D600 would compare with regards to IQ and higher ISO handling. I'll still have the 50 1.8 as well I guess!

Sorry for the long post! I'm just at a bit of a quandary!
 
If you have no glass then what is the point? I would really really not want to use a superzoom.

So why don't you keep your pretty good d7000 with 11-16 and 50mm? Then swap out 17-55 for 24-70mm (you have a little extra for this already), and flog 18-200 (or get cheap old sigma 70-200). Now you are set for full frame when you save up next year
 
As much as I should be telling you to get good glass first etc, I say if you want to go FF do it!

With the left over £200 i'd look for a Tamron 28-75 (ideally the non built in motor one). It's simply a stunning lens for the price, and a real winner on Nikon FF cameras.

With that and your 50mm, you'll have a nice couple of lenses for the D600.
 
I say do it too, however is a 28-300 suitable? It's not too wide, so would this not be an issue?

To be honest, I've been having a zoom lens dilemma too and have decided to stick with the 24-85 that's come with my camera. I'm starting to like its quality more than I expected and there's nothing that would do the same job unless I start spending double to quadruple its value. Like you, I'm just a keen amateur so for me, I have to keep the money sensible.
 
My thought is will you really see a significant improvement in shots above ISO 3200, most DSLRs still don't produce images that look particulary great above this...BTW I own the D800 and whilst it's good at high ISO I'd still rather keep away from ISO6400 and above.

Maybe see if you can loan a D600 to test your theory before spending more cash

Simon
 
Could you not get a uses full frame camera? Also, remember the field of view (think thats the correct term) of your 50mm will be different on the FF. Is that ok for your needs?

In the situation you've described, I wouldn't do it. I have a D7000 which I've just acquired and it's a good camera, especially with good glass like yours.
The D600 is clearly better but you'll not be using ita full potential with a cheaper zoom.

If you can pick up a used D600 or D700 maybe, then use the money for better glass.

I loved my Canon 5DII but only with the primes, especially the 85mm 1.8.
 
Hate to be a spoilsport but I cannot see you picking up a Nikon 28-300 VR for even twice your £200 budget. Though I'd love to be proven wrong!

So I think I'd second Greg's suggestion of the Tamron or even maybe consider going for an old manual focus prime if you just want a high quality lens. Depends what you shoot of course.

I suppose there is also 24-85 VR to consider.
 
TimB said:
This post contains a combination of 'man maths' and requests for advice

At present I have a D7000 an a collection of decent DX lenses, however to be honest I'm not using them all that much. For various reasons I have a full-frame FX itch that I need to scratch in order to be satisfied!

I have promised myself that I wouldn't plough any more money into photo gear than I already have, as really I'm just a keen amateur who sometimes loves to snap a a load of shots, then not bother for a little while, so I'm looking at my options whilst keeping a budget in mind.

The D600 has really caught my eye. It is essentially a full-frame D7000. Since I love pretty much everything about my 7000 (handling, body, functions, features, dual SD card slots, user presents etc) then the D600 would appear to be the next camera for me.

My main reason for wanting to go full frame is that whilst 75% of my shots are handheld in good daylight or on a tripod at night where I can keep ISO low, the other 25% is now handheld night/low light stuff where I often feel frustrated with the high ISO performance of the 7000. To my eye, once you exceed 3200 and head upwards, the photos begin to look messy. I have invested heavily in fast glass to keep the ISO down in lower light but there is only so much you can do I guess.

I would like to be able to shoot more in lower light and have confidence in the results, hence looking at FX.

Man maths part: I have the following gear all mint, low use, boxed etc- D7000 with battery grip, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 17-55 2.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, various speedlights, and a Nikon 50 1.8.

If I flog all that lot (and keep the 50mm 1.8) I will hopefully have around £1300 in cash, maybe more.

A D600 in my local photography shop is £1099 for the body.

I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!

So... thoughts and opinions please! You can see the setup I already have with decent glass, and I'm wondering how a D600 with a 'compromise' zoom lens such as the 28-300 on a D600 would compare with regards to IQ and higher ISO handling. I'll still have the 50 1.8 as well I guess!

Sorry for the long post! I'm just at a bit of a quandary!
Click to expand...

I'd do exactly what you propose. You'll get more glass in due time and nikons superzooms are top notch. For everything else you'll have your standard lens.
 
So you want to have the option of better low-light performance, and your solution to that is to get rid of your excellent f/2.8 lenses? Makes no sense to me. Sorry.
 
StewartR said:
So you want to have the option of better low-light performance, and your solution to that is to get rid of your excellent f/2.8 lenses? Makes no sense to me. Sorry.
Click to expand...

He'll only lose half a stop in relative terms as the D600 is 1.5 stops better performance than the D7000. Add on top of that slower shutter speeds for still subjects, he won't notice a difference in that respect.

Extra glass can always be added.
 
Glass first every time.

In your case you're giving up a whole range of lenses for what is described by the reviewers as 'X amount of high ISO improvement"

You'll give some of this improvement back straight away with slower lenses, so a bit of a backwards step there.

You've also got to take these high ISO improvements with a pinch of salt. I've lost count of the number of reviews I've read stating that the latest model has "1 stop of high ISO improvement" or something similar. If that was genuinly the case we'd all be able to shoot at ridiculously high settings now compared with a few years ago - it's really not like that away from the test charts

We all love new gear, but unfortunately I think your GAS is ruling your head on this one
 
StewartR said:
Sure. But his whole argument is that he wants an improvement.
Click to expand...

This is true...let me rephrase, I am assuming op will buy fast glsss for FX.

Tim: as it stands, the only improvement you'll notice is when using the 50mm. Your ISO800 now will be similar to ISO2000 on the D600. And you'll be able to shoot at 1/50th instead of 1/80th.

If you are thinking about buying better FX glass in the future (near future) then you'll probably not miss the sacrifice but if you can't afford it...you're mad.
 
Last edited:
I can see where you are coming from wanting higher iso image quality but think you would be making a mistake to change

You have good F2.8 lenses it would be a mistake to swap them for slower lenses full frame versions
I've got the Canon fit version of your Tokina 11 16 its a superb lens it would be expensive I imagine to get a full frame equivalent with as good image quality
I would only swap if you could afford to get equivalent quality lenses for the full frame body
 
Last edited:
TimB said:
My main reason for wanting to go full frame is that whilst 75% of my shots are handheld in good daylight or on a tripod at night where I can keep ISO low, the other 25% is now handheld night/low light stuff where I often feel frustrated with the high ISO performance of the 7000. To my eye, once you exceed 3200 and head upwards, the photos begin to look messy. I have invested heavily in fast glass to keep the ISO down in lower light but there is only so much you can do I guess.

I would like to be able to shoot more in lower light and have confidence in the results, hence looking at FX....

I will then have a D600 with a 50mm 1.8, plus about £200 to put towards a zoom lens (probably a used Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR) which should fulfil all my walkabout/travel and general purpose lens requirements. But I really don't want to go buying anything else!
Click to expand...

I'm going to against the grain and say that superzooms aren't that bad an idea if you go in with your eyes open and realise the +/-.

With a superzoom you'll probably get more distortion and narrower apertures and probably less ultimate image quality but you gain convenience and some flexibility.

If you tend to use wider apertures then obviously the superzoom can't match the wider aperture lenses but if you tend to stop down a little and can stop yourself obsessing over any distortion then any loss in ultimate image quality may be very hard to actually see.

I suppose what to do depends on what and how you shoot. If switching from APS-C to FF you may find yourself using smaller apertures due to focal length / DoF considerations and that may lead to you using higher ISO's which may negate at least to a degree the noise performance of the FF body.

I think you'll have to think hard about how you shoot now and how you'll shoot with a FF body and the implications for you concerns about noise. My own experience going from 20D to 5D was that it was worth it but your cameras are different :D
 
Not being funny, but the glass you have can easily be bettered by buying used FX glass. Even some older D models and cheap G primes, like the 85

Go for it, life's too short for grinding ;)
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Not being funny, but the glass you have can easily be bettered by buying used FX glass. Even some older D models and cheap G primes, like the 85

Go for it, life's too short for grinding ;)
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on Nikon glass, I've mainly had Canon but which zoom would easily beat the 17-55mm 2.8? I had the Canon version and its been by far my favourite zoom lens. That's comparing to the 24-105mm f/4 along with a few crop sensor lenses.

I agree that a prime such as the 85mm would be better but its not the general use/flexible lens he needs.
 
Tim B - you say 25% of your shooting is in low light/night time.... will this percentage rise with the use of FX or is it a case of making that percentage of your photography that bit better through improved sensor etc?

What kind of thing are you shooting at night?

Do you continuously hit maximum aperture on your lenses and therefore you need more 'cleaner' ISO?

looking at your current glass, you have two of the best crop-format lenses on the market in the 11-16mm and the 17-55mm and I doubt you'll get anywhere near the performance of them in FX format with the remainder of your budget after buying a D600. Personally I'd re-evaluate how much budget you have, possibly through further saving, because I can't see a massive difference being gained by doing what you've said. That unless you change your FX lens criteria and go for something like a Tamron 28-75mm, which leaves your zoom range seriously different to what you have on DX.

BTW, I like that phrase "man maths" :)
 
Last edited:
I went from the D7100 (16-85. 70-300 & 50 1.8g) to the D600.

I have kept the 70-300 & 50, and bought a Tamron 28-75 (brilliant lens).

So happy with the upgrade TBH.
 
There are some 28-75's on ebay for around £200.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Moot point, I was mistakenly talking about Canon.
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly moot. Canon or Nikon equivalent, an f/2.8 full frame zoom lens is well over the specified budget.
 
JJ! said:
I went from the D7100 (16-85. 70-300 & 50 1.8g) to the D600.

I have kept the 70-300 & 50, and bought a Tamron 28-75 (brilliant lens).

So happy with the upgrade TBH.
Click to expand...

But I don't think your experience is particularly relevant to the OP, unfortunately. Your only DX lens was the slow, so-so 16-85. He has the 17-55 and 11-16 which are both fast and very good. He has a lot more DX capability to lose than you did.
 
Maybe worth mentioning that the 11-16 can be used at 16mm on FX so you could still have your ultrawide covered with that, I know of a couple of people using it on FX after moving up from DX.
 
FX is where a lot of us what to be, you've got to the stage where you perceive your current kit as not good enough so go for it would be my advice

I'd love to go full frame just to see how much my IQ would improve but to buy a body and lenses would mean a massive outlay.

My current kit is probably worth about the same as yours but I would want a D800 and at least a Sigma 12-24 for landscape work and a Tamron 24-70 walkaround.
So in other words £1500-£2000 more outlay which I can't afford at the moment or justify at my current skill level
 
I really want to thank everyone for the input so far, given me a fair bit to think about.

I suppose I'm in a similar situation to quite a few people where I have almost completely maxed out crop sensor bodies and glass by getting my hands on almost the best DX stuff there is and yet I'm still feeling like I need a bit more 'performance'.

But... That step to FX really is a big financial jump due to the lenses, even though the bodies like a D600 are terrific value now.

I realised that top glass really made the difference when I started buying stuff like the 17-55 2.8. It was like having a new camera when I looked at the shots!

As for the question of what I'm shooting in low light, it's mostly 2 things:

Night time/evening motorsport events where I usually know a few guys competing and snap a lot of the trackside/pit garage action for them (got a night race coming up at Teesside Autodrome this weekend as it happens). There is often poor or artificial lighting at these events and even though I'm at 2.8 and a minimum shutter speed of 1/40 or 1/50 for example to try to limit handheld blur, the ISO is creeping from 3200 upwards and the noise gets bad.

I also shoot few nightclub events for other friends who put on events, and after getting some help on here I got fairly good at it using manual settings and manual fill flash, but even so, when I stray up to 3200 I just want things a little less grainy.

Maybe I'm just being a fussy b****r!?
 
If me, I'd do it, sell everything and buy the D600 and keep the 50mm, life's too short to umm and arghh.

Regarding zooms, I'd buy Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Lens with it's constant f2.8 it's a no brainer on a tight budget for a mere £250.

Then save up for a 70-20 f2.8 later on in life, either tamron or sigma if funds are tight.
 
This is ISO 6400 at f2.8 on the D600 if this helps...

10294383974_baeb033bc5_c.jpg
 
specialman said:
But that looks to be pretty decent light on a not-too difficult scene, not the horrific scenes you get in dark nightclubs.
Click to expand...

I think the idea was to show how much (or little) noise there is at ISO6400. The available light doesnt really matter when showing this as the level of noise at 6400 will be the same in decent light compared with worse light. The shutter speed wil vary (or aperture) so it will be different in that way, but not noise levels.
 
Phall82 said:
I think the idea was to show how much (or little) noise there is at ISO6400. The available light doesnt really matter when showing this as the level of noise at 6400 will be the same in decent light compared with worse light. The shutter speed wil vary (or aperture) so it will be different in that way, but not noise levels.
Click to expand...


This is only my experience, not a scientific test, but I've always found there is a big difference in noise when shooting a well lit scene at a high ISO, such as the one above compared with a real world low light scenario. The way the blacks / shadows are lit in reality always seen to me to lead to greater noise issues - far more than a set up studio type shot. In the above shot there is plenty of light on the dog - this will not be the case in nightclubs or race pits.

I've no doubt the shot above was a genuine effort to help, and thats got to be thanked, but I really don't believe it should be taken as gospel in 'this is how a standard shot will look at ISO 6400'.

There is no doubting that the D600 will be better than the D7100 IQ wise, but without the correct lenses, you are going down the 'Emperors new clothes' route.
 
I owner a d600 and wouldn't use the photos I took at 6400 in really low light. It's a good sensor but it's not worth pushing It that far as it loses all that dynamic range and a disgusting amount of colour information. The noise is also terrible when shooting in such conditions.

ISO performance isn't everything
 
pooley said:
.....I've always found there is a big difference in noise when shooting a well lit scene at a high ISO, such as the one above compared with a real world low light scenario. The way the blacks / shadows are lit in reality always seen to me to lead to greater noise issues - far more than a set up studio type shot. In the above shot there is plenty of light on the dog - this will not be the case in nightclubs or race pits.....
Click to expand...

A much more eloquent way of saying what i was attempting to say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top