# Was FX worth the upgrade to you?



## CaptainNapalm (Feb 20, 2013)

For those of you who upgraded from DX to FX, did you find the upgrade worth it?

The Nikon D7K and D600 are very similar in features with the exception of one being DX and one being FX sensor but the cost difference is about a $1,000 which is double.  Obviously future FX glass would also be more expensive.  Im trying to figure if FX is worth it in the long run.  I shoot as a hobby. I literally shoot everything, from landscapes, to wildlife, to insects, to architecture, to people, food, portraits and street photography.  I have high standards for my pictures, always trying to improve, and have been trying to learn as much as I can about photography since I got my first DSLR the D5100.

I also know that photography will be something I will be doing as a hobby for a very long time hopefully since Ive always been into it so I know its not a passive thing.  Everywhere I read it raves how much better picture quality and low light performance is on FX vs. DX, but is it worth the upgrade to the serious hobbyist?  Thoughts?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 20, 2013)

It was worth it for me, but I already had the lenses. The main advantages are shallower DOF, and better low light sensitivity (lower noise at High ISO). I don't think a hobbyist really needs it... unless the hobbyist really wants it. You will need to replace every lens you have, if you are as picky as I am.

Personally, I would stick with the D7000... and seriously upgrade your lenses.


----------



## cwcaesar (Feb 20, 2013)

It was worth it to me, but I already had a couple of FX lenses.  I really like the D600 over the D7000 in low light.  I really wanted the shallower depth of field as well.  Sometimes I do miss the 'length' of DX, but I can always crop for the similar results.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 20, 2013)

If the D600 will do things _for you_ that the D7000 cannot, then it's worth looking into making the jump. If not, stick with the D7000.


----------



## KmH (Feb 20, 2013)

The D600 is a D7000 but with a full frame image sensor.

As far as the $1000, it cost about 4 times more to make a single FF image sensor than it costs to make a single APS-C size image sensor.

To upgrade or not would depend on the serious hobby photographer's goals for their photographs.

I would suggest more image quality gains can be had by upgrading the photographer's knowledge and skill than by upgrading gear.
DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side



> Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
> 
> The cost of a digital sensor rises dramatically as its area increases. This means that a sensor with twice the area will cost more than twice as much, so you are effectively paying more per unit "sensor real estate" as you move to larger sizes.
> 
> ...


----------



## spacefuzz (Feb 20, 2013)

It really depends on your photography. If you need shallow DOF or need to make 60" prints, then its worth upgrading. If the D7000 isnt holding you back then theres no reason.


----------



## KmH (Feb 20, 2013)

I had both - DX (D300) and FX (D3) cameras.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

I've said it before,but I'll say it again.....spec wise I don't see the 600 as an upgrade to the 7000.Other than FF why is it an upgrade? It could easily be argued to be a lesser camera.Same build,less shutter speed,less FPS.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 20, 2013)

Isnt this a hard quaetion to answer ?

From what you are telling us it looks like photography has a very big part in your life and is very important for you so I think deep in your heart you know the answer.
Everybody agrees that the FF body of the D600 gives better results then a DX body so the question if to get it or not, if the difference between already good camera to an even better camera in your case is obvious.
You want the D600 and in your case it looks to me like you will bring it to good use.
Stop torturing yourself and get the bloody D600.

I have a D7000 and I asked myself the same question, the D600 is my dream camera, the D800 is too expensive for me and is an OVER-UBER kill for my novice skills but at the end of the day I know in my heart as much as I want the D600 the D7000 is the camera for my level, the D600 will be waisted on my talent, I rather save the money and in few years buy another upgraded DX body.
For those who are really good and photography is such a huge part of their life an FF body is the right companion for them.

As for me I will sit here, drool and be jelous at those who own FF body cameras but I know in my heart I have the right camera for my novice needs.

Bottom line get the camera, get the D600 :hail:


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 20, 2013)

Wider angle, shallower DOF, and lesser high ISO noise were the reasons for me to upgrade.  In perfect light, low ISO, and small aperture it's hard to tell the quality between D600 and D7000.  At 3200ISO however, it's not even close in comparison.


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 20, 2013)

I still have both. The high ISO performance was the most important to me. There is a very noticeable difference.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

Ok...Goodguy is onto me...lol.Vtec,looking at your list of equipment,I guess this is really where my questions come in.If I were to shell out that kind of jingle for the 600,would I be better off shelling out a little more for the 800 (used)?As far as noise,isn't that really becoming a non-issue with the development of software (Imay be way wrong here)?So now were down to wider angle,shallower DoF. I have no argument for that...lol.


----------



## Mach0 (Feb 20, 2013)

ratssass said:


> Ok...Goodguy is onto me...lol.Vtec,looking at your list of equipment,I guess this is really where my questions come in.If I were to shell out that kind of jingle for the 600,would I be better off shelling out a little more for the 800 (used)?As far as noise,isn't that really becoming a non-issue with the development of software (Imay be way wrong here)?So now were down to wider angle,shallower DoF. I have no argument for that...lol.




Software as in post production ? If so, I will say this, the better the image SOOC, the better off your results will be in post.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

Goodguy....Mrs. Rats said she would surely embrace the idea of my owning a 600,so long as Goodguy buys it.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

Mach0 said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...Goodguy is onto me...lol.Vtec,looking at your list of equipment,I guess this is really where my questions come in.If I were to shell out that kind of jingle for the 600,would I be better off shelling out a little more for the 800 (used)?As far as noise,isn't that really becoming a non-issue with the development of software (Imay be way wrong here)?So now were down to wider angle,shallower DoF. I have no argument for that...lol.
> ...



agreed........


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 20, 2013)

just get a Lytro


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> just get a Lytro



can't seem to find ken rockwell's review on it.....


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 20, 2013)

ratssass said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > just get a Lytro
> ...



must not be very good if Rockwell didnt review it.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 20, 2013)

I've danced around with the idea of FF too.  For me it would be just too big of an investment right now to replace my DX lenses and, I really haven't run up against that many limitations with my D7000.  It's a lot like switching from a Shure to a Neumann recording microphone.  Yes there is a difference but I'm not willing to shell out $5K to get it and by the time I bought the body and lenses, I'd have more than that in it.  (Now watch me turn around and buy a FF next month......lol)


----------



## goodguy (Feb 20, 2013)

I see you are thinking of the D800, from what I read the D800 has advantages for the pro, for people who use this as a hobby the D800 has little advantages, its files are huge and the overall picture quality isnt much better then the D600.

Get the D600 and smile you lucky guy!!!

BTW I know people better then I know cameras, I can read most people well, I find most of us are the same and our needs and wishes are same.
Our brain many times makes us want stuff we need more or less, I was all into buying stuff to get that sutisfaction.
I was into fountain pens and I invested a furtune in it, yes more then most invest in their photography equipment.
I am glad I got this collection under control and thats another eason I didnt get the D600, I didnt want to get equipment I dont know how to use or cant use well just for the satisfaction.
In your case it looks like you really will be able to use the D600 as it was intended to.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

....much as i appreciate the encouragement,i think you read way to far into this.First,I don't have that disposable income.Second,I too am a hobbyist.I guess I'm just saying there is not enough to me to justify a 600.That being said,I really don't know,as I've never even held a FF.In reality,I think,for what I'm trying to accomplish,another used 200 and some triggers would make me happy.


----------



## bhop (Feb 20, 2013)

I don't have a FX digital camera, but I can tell a big difference between my F100 and D300 images, as far as DOF, that makes me want to go FX digital... i'd probably save money and get a used D700 body though.


----------



## Vtec44 (Feb 20, 2013)

ratssass said:


> Ok...Goodguy is onto me...lol.Vtec,looking at your list of equipment,I guess this is really where my questions come in.If I were to shell out that kind of jingle for the 600,would I be better off shelling out a little more for the 800 (used)?As far as noise,isn't that really becoming a non-issue with the development of software (Imay be way wrong here)?So now were down to wider angle,shallower DoF. I have no argument for that...lol.



To be honest, the D600 is hell of a great deal for the quality image that it produces.  I got it during the bundle deal for 2k with a 24-85vr lens and sold the lens for $400.  So I got the camera for $1600 with a bunch of free stuff.  The D600 has even lower noise compare to the D800 at 3200 and 6400 ISO.  If you don't need the full magnesium body then get the D600.  It's faster, lighter, and can produce images that are just as good as the D800.  However, a few features that I like in the D800 that's not available in the D600 are one click zoom to 100%, full magnesium body, sync port.  The D800 is also prone to motion blur.  I typically shoot it at around 1/160 shutter speed without flash,  vs 1/90 on D7000 and D600.


----------



## TamiAz (Feb 20, 2013)

I'm a hobbyist who owned a D5100 and recently upgraded to a D600 and I'm loving it. Did it make me a better photographer? No, but I definitely see a difference in the quality of my images, especially in low light. I also love the Kelvin white balance.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 20, 2013)

If money is an issue we are at the same boat, you can get the D600 refurbished by Nikon for 1600$ body only and thats amazing but if you think the D600 is an over kill for you then I guess the D7000 is the right camera for you.


----------



## Ballistics (Feb 20, 2013)

TamiAz said:


> Did it make me a better photographer? No, but I definitely see a difference in the quality of my images



By difference in quality, do you mean better quality?


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 20, 2013)

The night before I got my D600, I sat down with the specs of both the D600 and the D800. I wanted to see if I should keep my powder dry and save up a bit more for the D800.

I went through and crossed out all the stuff that's basically equal between them.  What was left was, of course, the big differences.  Line by line, I compared the two, and asked myself which set of specs better fit my style of shooting.  In the end, the D800 couldn't hold a candle to the D600.  But that's a valid remark _only in my case_..... YMMV.

In short, I couldn't justify the extra expense of the D800 as the D600 did what I needed a camera to do.  While _overall_ the D800 may be 'better', is wasn't worth my hard-earned scratch.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

_



			In short, I couldn't justify the extra expense of the D800 as the D600 did what I needed a camera to do. While overall the D800 may be 'better', is wasn't worth my hard-earned scratch.

Click to expand...


...I guess thats my only point of the 600 over the 7000....eventually,i'll play with a 600,and if it blows me away,it will go on my wishlist.If it doesn't,I can easily spend $1600 that I don't have on other items,that I don't have._


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 20, 2013)

ratssass said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yet there are things that are important to me that the D600 can do that the D7000 cannot.  That's how I justified the D600.

The D600 didn't 'blow me away'..... It did what I really wanted my D7000 to do but just couldn't.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 20, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> It was worth it for me, but I already had the lenses. The main advantages are shallower DOF, and better low light sensitivity (lower noise at High ISO). I don't think a hobbyist really needs it... unless the hobbyist really wants it. You will need to replace every lens you have, if you are as picky as I am.
> 
> Personally, I would stick with the D7000... and seriously upgrade your lenses.



What he said.

I didn't go D800 until I had the 24-70 and the 70-200.  Not that you have to go THAT crazy, but you need the FF lenses or it's not worth having the FF camera.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 20, 2013)

i have been gearing toward a FF.I have the 24-70 sigma and the 70-200.The obligatory 50.Its bound to happen.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 20, 2013)

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

I did a gradual jump. First, I bought 24-70 (for my Dx). About 6mn later, bought the camera. Honestly, not looking back. I like my d300s, d90, d200 and d70s, *but* Fx is a different animal. Handling alone just blew me away. IQ is great, ESPECIALLY at higher ISOs. 

I think it depends on need and budget.

Good Luck
J


----------



## Andrewnguyen972 (Feb 20, 2013)

Get the D600.  Don't see your self short and have a cropped sensor and wish you had a ff.  I'm never going back to cropped sensor ever again.  I love the images it produces so far and haven't had too many problems with it yet.


----------



## JDFlood (Feb 21, 2013)

Fortunately I switched from the D200 a couple years after buying it to the D700. I kept the D200 and a couple $K worth of lenses for a couple years saying I would use them... but never using them. I gave them away. If your serious about photography full frame is the only way to go. JD


----------



## poker_jake (Feb 21, 2013)

JDFlood said:


> Fortunately I switched from the D200 a couple years after buying it to the D700. I kept the D200 and a couple $K worth of lenses for a couple years saying I would use them... but never using them. I gave them away. If your serious about photography full frame is the only way to go. JD



Exactly, once you try full frame, the image quality just puts DX to shame. I thought I would keep my old D90 for the "added length" for airshows and wildlife but it didn't last, cropping the full frame image provided better IQ than shooting DX. That's the biggest improvement, not to mention low light performance, viewfinder size, build quality, wider fov, features, it's worth every penny.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Feb 21, 2013)

Thanks everyone for the extensive feedback.  I think within the next few months the d600 is in the picture for me.


----------



## slow231 (Feb 21, 2013)

nice, you'll enjoy it.


----------

