A question for the Nikon owners amongst us

[andy_coach]

<p>The D600 has caught my eye and I can barely sleep pondering the possibilities. I’ve been a pretty happy Pentax owner for years and have a decent stash of glass from 12 to 400mm but the D600’s size and full frame sensor are calling out to me.<br>

So my question is, I’d like to start light to see how I like it, for that purpose, would the 24-85mm VR lens be sufficient to test it out? My main concerns aside from IQ are focusing speed, kit weight, handling comfort and handling speed. I sometimes use the D90 (35/1.8, 50/1.8, 18-105, and 55-200) for my kid’s sports events but I am guessing the D90 handles quite differently from the D600. <br>

Would appreciate your opinions on this burning question..</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The D90 is roughly the same size, so it would handle a lot like the D600, though there are some changes. Nothing drastic, if you're OK with a D90, you're probably going to be fine with the D600 as well.<br /> The 24-85VR lens looks really good for the price, I'd say it's a good place to get started.<br /> __<br /> P.S. 'Among us' = Pentax users only? In that case, sorry, I don't have any Pentax gear... ! ;-)</p>

[andy_coach]

<blockquote>

<p>P.S. 'Among us' = Pentax users only? In that case, sorry, I don't have any Pentax gear... ! ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are forgiven :) (and thank you for the reply. </p>

<p>That spurred me to compare them side by side at dpreview and the similarities are remarkable;, more than I expected..</p>

 

[personalphotos]

<p>I'm just going to follow this for fun because I wonder what the appeal is for someone who doesn't need a FF camera for work purposes. I shoot with both the D7000 and the D700 and if it's family, fun and personal shooting, I'd much rather use the APSc camera almost every time. So if you have a K-7 or better yet a K5, then I don't know why you'd want to go FF to take pictures of the kids at sporting events or pretty much anything else unless it's work photography.</p>

<p>Btw, the D600 and the D7000 are almost identical in their controls and as a result, very similar to the D90 (I've owned both). </p>

[andy_coach]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know why you'd want to go FF to take pictures of the kids at sporting events or pretty much anything else unless it's work photography.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I never said this was going to be a totally rational decision :).<br>

But, would you care to elaborate on the statement above?</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Wonder if the mirror on the new full-frame Canon 6D will clear the aperture lever on Pentax K lenses any better than the 5D.<br />(The 6D is Canon's competitor to Nikon 600D. Puts yet more pressure on Pentax for FF...)</p>

[Member69643]

<p>When digital APS-C superseded film cameras, nobody stopped to ask what was being lost in the exchange. The "crop factor" seemed to be all there was, and if you didn't shoot much with a wide angle lens, you really weren't losing anything. Then FF cameras started to appear, and the digital camera manufacturers told us how much better FF was, justifying the "modest" price premium - never mind that the film camera gathering dust in your closet had the same capability and cost way less, even factoring in the cost of film.</p>

<p>I wish I'd bought stock in nose-rings a few years ago... :)</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>OK lets assume that 2 cameras are relatively equal in terms of IQ, speed, AF and ease of use/comfort. In this case, the K5 vs the D600 (I don't know what Pentax you own). That the ISO noise up to 3200 is decent on both, good at 1600 and excellent below that.<br>

<br /> Understand that I shoot (literally) thousands of shots a month on a D700 since I'm doing weddings etc full time. I love FF for that use. The real advantage to me with the D700 is 1) DOF, 2) Very good noise at higher ISO's and 3) Tough as they come because I do not baby my gear on a busy and fast changing shooting day.<br>

<br /> So the D600 offers 2 of those 3 feature advantages over an APSc body (Tough, maybe much less so as it's part plastic and part metal like the D7000 and a step down from the other Nikon FF bodies, past and present).<br>

<br /> So DOF for a family, casual and enthusiast shooter is not going to be a big deal much of the time unless you shoot wide open and with very fast glass all the time. Scratch that advantage.<br>

<br /> ISO noise between the D7000. D600 and K5 will not be a big issue at or below 3200. Yes the D600 might be a little cleaner by a stop or so than the other 2 but for most people, this isn't a good enough reason to spend $2600 +tax on a body and one lens that is incompatible with your existing gear.<br>

<br /> What does APSc offer over FF? Crop factor. I don't own a lens over 200mm and usually shoot below 85mm, 70% of the time. So shooting long glass isn't what I'm interested in that much. Your lenses reach up to 400mm on APSc with an effective crop of 600mm with that lens. I assume that since you own it, you have a use for it. Go price a 600mm lens for a FF body and come back to this thread......<br>

<br /> APSc also offers a smaller size as well that many people find appealing and with Pentax, you can't forget the SR in body.</p>

[lwg]

<p>One appeal of the Nikon FX cameras over the DX is the ability to use the older manual focus lenses at the focal length they were designed for. Even the prime selection for the DX cameras is lacking. Sure you can use the FX lenses on the DX cameras, but there aren't really good choices in the traditional focal lengths. That was one of the main reasons I switched to FX.<br>

Of course if you use long telephotos then the DX camera may well be better for you.</p>

[andy_coach]

<p>Peter, thank you for your in-depth reply, I really appreciate it. I guess I should have elaborated more on what I most enjoy shooting, which is low light with decently fast glass (e.g. Canons 50/1.2 and 50/0.95 on my rangefinder bodies or the lovely Pentax 50/1.2 on my LX). I love to play with shallow DOF and extremely low light to get just the right effect. At the same time, being a dad of an athletic 9 year old, obviously a few telephotos are a must (and AF speed is super important, that's one reason I started looking at Nikons). I also enjoy shooting urban and rural landscapes, events and gatherings, street life, and of course travel photos. Sometimes I get asked to shoot portraits by friends which is a LOT of fun. Just started getting into macro photography and can't believe I waited this long. I do it all for fun, of course and consider a day when I don't take a few pics a bit incomplete. So I guess my point should be, will the D600 (with any lens) enhance my enjoyment of photography thanks to its FF-dependent features or will it make no difference at all or worse, will it make taking pictures more burdensome. I am not too worried about the cost, since this is a hobby and I can but the stuff I want at my leisure. I sure hope all of this makes sense :). My Pentax digital bodies are K-5, K-20, and the venerable K-10. </p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Andy, only you can judge this for yourself. Certainly the D600 will outperform the K10 and K20 in almost every respect, most definitely in AF. Between the K5 and D600, can't say since I clearly don't own either.</p>

<p>Since the D600 is a lighter and somewhat smaller body than the other Nikon FF offerings, it might just be the right camera for you. I'll bet that it's the right camera for 100's of thousands of buyers and many are salivating at the chance to test the FF waters at an affordable price. </p>

<p>If it were me and the rental company's get body's in soon, then I'd rent a D600 and a 24-70mm f2.8 (considered by most to be as good as a prime and a stellar lens overall). Play with it for a weekend and decide. The downside of this is the lineup for D600's is going to be long and if you don't get your name on the list, it could be months before there's enough stock to cover the pre-orders.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Peter, your responses are very insightful and a pleasure to read.</p>

<p>Andy, in order to provide guidance whether a new tool will enhance your enjoyment of photography I guess I'd would want to know how you get your pleasures now? How do you currently evaluate your photographs? If it is from prints, what sizes do you generally produce, and how frequently per year? </p>

<p>Also, how savvy are you with post-processing?</p>

<p>I ask because a lot of shooters don't print much these days. Monitor or web-oriented output to me is a less compelling reason to take on a "FF" based infrastructure and workflow, especially with the quality of APS-C-based DSLRs rising so highly and quickly.</p>

<p>I also find that improving one's post-processing skills has a far more significant positive impact on one's enjoyment of photography than any hardware-based approach. But if you are there already, then that's great.</p>

<p>As the father of a 12-year old athlete, I'd recommend you begin evaluating how much sports shooting you expect over the next four years and how "good" at it you'd like to get. It is a somewhat different requirements discussion than this one.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>I know the D800 is $1000 more than the D600 but the points that I am about to make may sway you to go with the D800.<br>

I went with the D800 and after about a year of comparing lenses and what I would have to purchase to get me the same or better than what I have in the K5. I know this will sound stupid and many will disagree with what I am about to say but using the D800 as both a FX and DX format camera, in the long run has saved me weight and cost me next to nothing to upgraded . I have posted this on Dp but I will post it here as its very relevant.<br>

I’ll break this down in Can dollars as I have most of this right in front of me now.<br>

My goal when going over to the FF was to keep what I have with the K5 as far as FOV and lens speeds, the big two are 300mm 2.8 and 200mm 2.8. When I went out the D800 and the 300 2.8 the first thing I noticed was that I now have a dual purpose lens ( I am now going to convert everything over to DX FOV and lens speeds to keep everything the same.<br>

With the 300mm 2.8 on the D800 I have 200mm 1.8( converted to a cropped sensors FOV DOF) or if cropped the D800 to dx I keep what my k5 can do as a 300mm 2.8. Many will say well that’s stupid using the 36mp camera as a 16mp but if you consider what it saves me in weight & cost (this is important to me) it’s not so stupid and most would consider 16mp ample for most uses.<br>

So what do I get using the D800 & 300mm, first the 200mm 1.8 dx equivalent only thing on the market would be the 200mm f2.0 and last I looked they are running around $5000 but that’s not fair as I would not buy this lens. So let’s say the pentax Da 200mm F2.8 @ $1200, I also would need a sigma 300 2.8 @ $3500 and of course a body K5dII $1200 for a total of $5900.<br>

Let’s look at the D800 $2999, the 200mm F1.8 (1.3 stop fast than the pentax 200mm 2.8) no charge and the sigma 300 2.8 @ $3500 for a total of $6499. So for $600 I get the top of the line AF, loss in weight of the 200mm 2.8 and have the option when used as a FF the speed and DR of FF 36mp 300mm 2.8 (I have seen people spend that just to save ½ oz). <br>

We can also swing this to the other end with the wide angles, pentax 16mm F4 $646 to a FF 24mmF2.8 $360 what so you get at half the price with the FF, a 16mm F1.4 (this is used as FF) to 24mm F2.8 (used as a cropped) of coarse all converted to the DOF FOV of a DX format.</p>

[andy_coach]

<p>Michael, I mostly share my photos online but have recently (2-3 years ago) found interest in mounting prints up to 24”x30”. I’ve also discovered that my friends and family really enjoy photo books (e.g. via a service like Blurb), which I find rather fulfilling to create as the process forces me to tell a story with pictures. I try to replace the larger prints every few months with something new. I use mostly Lightroom for post processing, am about 50% on the learning curve there. I am hoping that by acquiring more capable (presumably) hardware, I might also end up needing less gear overall to accomplish what I want. </p>

[andy_coach]

<p>Ian, thank you for your post. I must confess that the conversion math gave me a small headache :) but I get the idea. I think that with a FF body I might for once stop thinking about crop factors and such and just plain enjoy shooting :). </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Michael,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Monitor or web-oriented output to me is a less compelling reason to take on a "FF" based infrastructure and workflow, especially with the quality of APS-C-based DSLRs rising so highly and quickly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A good point, and I think for most people absolutely valid. However, some time ago, I used the "D600 rumour machine with D800 introduction" to grab one of the last new Nikon D700s around... the difference in how fast lenses render between the D700 and the D300 is much more profound than I thought it would be.<br>

I like shooting at very wide apertures, which is the main reason I wanted to get a FF camera (together with the viewfinder). A lens like my 35 f/1.4 (old MF Nikkor) is great on the D300, but on the D700 I find it simply spectacular and a total joy. The OoF rendering is just really different, and in my view, much nicer. So, I don't regret getting a full frame camera at all, as it simply suits my style better and renders visibly nicer results - also at screen sizes. So, in the end, the choice for the bigger sensor is like many things: it all depends on what you want out of it, and how it suits your particular style and wishes. If you just want to go FF because of higher ISOs, I think the current APS-C cameras (certainly the K-5) are about as good, but there are more reasons to go FF.</p>

[andy_coach]

<p>Here is pic of the D600 with the 24-85mm posted on the Photokina report at dpreview. I am having a hard time keeping my wits about me looking at such a handsome kit.. I might need an antidote or at least a distraction :))<br /> <img src="http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/articles/0836837653/P9180065.JPG?v=1584" alt="" width="1600" height="1200" /></p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>When comparing equivalent lens between DX and FX one can see that in the short FL most of the time FX lenses are smaller. I can illustrate this with my K5 and a borrowed Da*16-50 2.8 when compared to even a D800 24-85 3.5 4.5. This is not a great comparison as for the price and built quality but is good to compare similar DOF FOV between the formats. As you can see the size difference is minimal even when compared to the D800 what many would call a beast.<br /><img src="http://isfphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-qxg7fcf/0/XL/i-qxg7fcf-XL.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://isfphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-S8SLj9t/0/X2/i-S8SLj9t-X2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

You can only imagine the difference with the D600</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Sorry Ian, it's a nice couple of photos but in terms of lenses, you are comparing apples and oranges. The 24-85mm is a slower, variable aperture lens vs an f2.8 which by physics alone is going to be physically wider and often longer. Plus this doesn't take into account lens design differences.</p>

<p>For example, compare the Tamron 28-75mm vs the older Nikon 28-70mm, both f2.8 lenses. Similar focal length lenses (especially at the wide end) and given the Tamron being 5mm longer, you would expect it to be a physically longer lens. The Nikon is a much bigger lens.<br /> The Nikon: 89mm W x 124mm and weight of 935g<br /> The Tamron: 73mm W x 92mm and a weight of 508g</p>

<p>So the Nikon is approx 84% heavier and 35% longer. but on paper, these are nearly identical lenses (and they are optically as well). Now to use your example, lets consider the crop factor. 16mm on APSc = 24mm FF and 50mm APSc = 75mm FF (FOV and lets not debate this once again).</p>

<p>So the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 FF lens is the equivalent to the Pentax 16-50mm f2.8 you show above.<br /> Nikon: 83 x 133mm and weight of 902g<br /> Pentax: 84mm x 98.5mm and a weight of 565g (35% shorter or in US terms, over an inch shorter)</p>

<p>The actual fact is, an APSc lens can and often will be smaller (many times very significantly) than a FF lens because the crop circle (sensor size) is smaller. The lens glass doesn't need to be as big to fully illuminate the sensor.</p>

<p>Oh and you are freaking me out putting lenses on their front end down like this. I treat my gear like cr@p compared to most of is but would never do this without a cap and/or hood in place (second photo has no lens caps on).</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>I agree with Peter. Essentially, a FF DSLR will be a substantially weightier setup to be handling- unlike the film-body counterpart!! I mean, 2 lbs or more is the expectation for a FF DSLR body! Same as he says pertaining to the lenses. The lens size advantage for the APS-C size DSLR does, however, become reversed when getting into the wide/ultra wide angle. For instance, a good 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 designed for a film body or FF will be smaller and lighter than a 12-24mm for a DSLR. The FF advantage goes towards wide angle use.</p>

<p>For myself, it is only in the realm of WA to normal lens use that I would have any interest in a FF DSLR. It would be nice to once again have the originally intended FF field of view for my Pentax 43mm Limited lens, as well as my Pentax FA 35mm f/2. But is having that in a DSLR important enough to me that I'd pay at least $2,000 for it, rather than just continue on with my film bodies when this special need arises? I think not for me! </p>

 

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>Pete you should read up on Equivalence I wont even start<br />When jumping between formats one always has to compare Equivalence.. So let’s look in terms of a photo with 24-85 @ 24 F3.5 has an advantage when converted to dx format it’s a 16 F1.7 or 1.8 . So what this means if we take the same photo using the same studio light my Fx 24 F3.5 would really have to be shot at F4 to equal the same DOF FOV for that exposure ( a .3 stop advantage but it’s not worth squabbling over .3 so basically at the short end they are identical). Now let’s look at the long end FF 85 F4.5 in DX 57mm F3.5 ( a .3 stop disadvantage but it’s not worth squabbling over .3 and a gain of 7mm of FL basically at the Short end they are identical) good read on Equivalence here <a href="http://josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm">http://josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/index.htm</a><br>

Pete wrote<br>

So the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 FF lens is the equivalent to the Pentax 16-50mm f2.8 you show above.</p>

<p>This is not the case the equivalent would be a 24-79 F4.5<br />Or look at it this way for pentax to have the equivalent to the 24-70 F2.8 it would have to be 16- 45 F1.4 Now this 16-45 F1.4 could not be produced for the price and the weight of a 24-70 2.8</p>

<p>Even in primes at wide angles are also cheaper and lighter to build Lets look at the small 16mm F4 prime in FF that would be a 24 F 8 If pentax was to produce a true equivalent to lets say a fast 24mm 2.8 (which is about the same size of a 16 f4) they would have to produce a 16 F1.4 and I don’t think it would be below $5000 and under the weight of the FF equivalent.</p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>I will add that 3 copies of the DA*16-50 wide open where not as sharp as the 24 -85 wide open :(</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Andy,<br>

Thanks for the answer about your output preferences. I don't know, maybe you'll notice something really significantly different, maybe not. To paraphrase Peter, without a commercial rationale driving a change in camera systems--especially when you already own and use fine gear--the question is whether that change will be significant in the long run.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am having a hard time keeping my wits about me looking at such a handsome kit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think we all get excited about our gear, especially the idea of buying new <em>better</em> gear, but I have to say (again) equipment is not photography, regardless of what ad copy implies.</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

[personalphotos]

<p>Andy, it's a nice looking camera and I can certainly see the attraction. Honestly, I'll probably buy one myself because the D800 isn't a wedding shooters camera and I can't afford a pair of D4's. So before April next year, I'll be getting a good used D700, a good used D3s and most likely a D600. Btw, to add a bit to your gear lust, Nikon now rules in IQ on <a href="http://fstoppers.com/nikon-compared-to-canon-dxo-mark-best-digital-camera">DoX rankings</a>. They hold the top 3 spots and the 5th spot. The D600 being 3rd behind the D800 and D800E.</p>

<p>Ian, I'm aware of Equivalence and in fact anyone who has heard or understood the term "crop factor" is discussing equivalence even if they have never heard the term. You are missing the point though. Just as 200mm is always 200mm (in terms of magnification), Aperture is still aperture. F2.8 is always f2.8 regardless of the sensor size. What he's saying is, with sensor "A" you get a DOF of "X" at f4 and on sensor "B" you get a different value (range of distance near and far in focus) for the DOF using the same lens on the smaller or larger sensor.</p>

<p>So the aperture remains constant, regardless of the sensor size, the exposure is identical and the only difference is the DOF. The aperture can not and does not allow in more light (IE: "make the lens faster") because it's used on a larger or smaller sensor.</p>

<p>I will prove this point in one simple way. Take two cameras from the same company that share the same mount. Now use 1 lens and take a photo with the APSc camera at say f4, ISO 800 and 1/250th shutter speed. Lets assume that's a correct exposure for the test photo. Now take the Full Frame camera, turn it to manual and use the same settings. Assuming the sensors in each camera are calibrated to <strong>exactly</strong> the same sensitivity values, then the FF camera will expose the scene exactly the same at the same settings. The lens didn't get any "faster". Only the DOF changed and that has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of the lens design and it's size on sensor X vs sensor Y.</p>

<p>I will also state for the record that the article has a number of mistakes and I won't get into it here or on another thread. He also contradicts himself in at least 2 places I noticed and if I wasted the rest of the day reading this, I'm sure I could find more. One example, he makes no mention of the relationship between noise and pixel size, density or design. He claims that the only factors are:</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>The total amount of light falling on the sensor</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>The proportion of the light falling on the sensor that is recorded (QE -- Quantum Efficiency)</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>The additional noise added by the sensor and supporting hardware (read noise)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>The guy is just another photographer, with a very good theoretical and mathematical understanding, who in his own words, wrote an "Essay", not a factual theorem with footnotes and references. I repeat my point, your picture and example is flawed.</p>

<p>I'll also comment on the wider lenses being larger on APSc vs FF. Not always true and very dependant on the lens design. The Nikon 20mm f2.8 is about half the weight and smaller than the Pentax 14mm f2.8 So in some cases it's very true under about 28mm and in other cases it's not like at the really wide end:<br>

The Sigma APSc 10-20mm f4-5.6 (86.4 x 88.9 mm, 520 g) is a smaller lens than the<br>

Sigma FF 12-24mm f4.5-56 (83.82 x 119.38 mm, 670 g) . I'll grant that the 2 are not identical in speed and FOV but they are very close.</p>

<p> </p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>Yes agreed with all your statement a 200mm 2.8 projects the same amount of light regardless wither it’s on a DX or FX but here lies the problem, to be equivalent you have to also apply FOV scaling into the comparison. This explains the why cropped factor is useful for telephoto work and how one would gain the added DOF when cropping a 300mm 2.8 and comparing it to a 450mm 2.8. When comparing sensor size you have to use DOF, FOV and perspective, you only considered DOF and perspective in the comparison of the 200mm 2.8.<br>

Below is a test using a light meter and a constant light source (flash) I then calculated the same DOF, FOV and held the perspective for both photos. The FF I used 24mm F4.5 and on the DX 16mm F2.8 ( when you crop you have to scaling the FOV also changes how also AP when changing FOV)<br>

You tell me which photo is from the DX & FF, if we follow what you describe one should be under exposed while the other would be correct.</p>

<p><img src="http://isfphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-DT4k3Hr/0/X2/i-DT4k3Hr-X2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://isfphotography.smugmug.com/photos/i-gF9sJGz/0/XL/i-gF9sJGz-XL.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>From what I gathered you never really read and understood the link, only when you compare a photo taken with the same DOF, FOV and perceptive you would have equivalency. </p>