Upgrading from D90 to FX camera. What to buy?

[Two23]

<p>For sports I would not buy a D600/610. It's AF system is not that great. If you aren't doing many sports at night a D7100 would be a much better choice. (I use a pair for weddings & portraits.) If you do plan on shooting a lot of sports at night, a D800 is now much cheaper than a D750. Remember that you also need lenses for it, and those cost three times as much as the camera. For sports at night, the minimum is a 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1, and on an FX you'll probably quickly find you need something more like 300mm f2.8 as that camera will not have as much pixel density. Why haven't I gone to a D800 for my paid work? I've put my money into lenses and lighting instead. Remember that money put into camera gear is that less money you have to advertise your business or put in your pocket. It's easy to get carried away buying gear that might not really make any difference. Sports at night is one place where a D800 would make a difference, IF you also have the long fast lenses it requires. I have used a borrowed D600, and I wouldn't even consider it for sports, mainly because of the AF system not being that "solid." D7100 is way better in that regard.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>Remember that you also need lenses for it, and those cost three times as much as the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, the OP's first post says he owns several FX lenses, including the 70-200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4. He has mentioned those lenses several times. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you check for dates after the D750 announcement/release you'll see they're less. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I see at least two classified listings in Pacific NW for D600 cameras under $1200. It will be interesting to see what happens with the D600 used prices. D700 prices have been remarkably resilient. With the reported D600 issues and a lack of cult following, I wonder if D600 will soon drop below the $1000 level for used bodies. This could be significant for a lot of amateurs seeking entry to the world of FX.</p>

<p> </p>

[steven_pink]

<p>Thanks, Kent. I understand that spending money on any equipment is burning up assets. However, I'm overdue for a body upgrade. My D90 has started feeling limiting to me and I have been budgeting money for an upgrade for some time now. As I said before, I've planned ahead with lenses and I already own a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR 1 and a 300mm f/4 (which is overkill for everything I do on my crop sensor). If I were to upgrade with another DX camera such as the D7100, I would need to replace some lenses with more fitting DX lenses. (IE: 50mm f/1.8 with 35mm f/1.4 for portraits)<br /> I could only hope, Chip. I saw a D600 on my local craigslist for $1000 this week but it was sold in less than an hour.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, can someone who has used both a D90 and D600 give me an AF performance comparison between the two?</p>

[Two23]

<p><<I see no reason to spend ~$750 on a used D7100 (which I did consider for awhile) when a used D600 could be purchased for a little over $250 more and give me the full frame perks like better bokeh (for portraits), improved IQ, better high ISO performance, etc>></p>

<p>You will see no difference at all in bokeh between D7100 and D600. Bokeh comes from the lens, not the camera. I have shot many, many paid portraits over the past three years and I can guarantee you not ONE customer can tell any difference between shots made with any of Nikon's current cameras (D3300 to D4s). Not one. They are just too close in that regard. Lighting will make a huge difference in comparision. Lenses, somewhat. On message boards we go on endlessly about "bokeh" etc., but I have yet to hear an actual customer even know it when they saw it. As for the D600, I just don't see that camera working for sports, and I have used one. The AF system just isn't quite there for paid work. Your cheapest option for paid work using FX is D800, now hitting $1,500. You will still need a long f2.8 lenses for any night sports though. Your best option is most likely a D7100, especially considering your low budget. The difference between it and D90 is definitely noticeable in image quality, AF speed, and ease of use. With the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1, this camera will focus on airborne soccer balls! The AF is pretty much instantaneous. The D600 not so much.</p>

<p>Below shot, HS soccer,<br>

D7100, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>You will see no difference at all in bokeh between D7100 and D600.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can absolutely see a bokeh difference between pictures shot on my D90 and my friend's D3 when we shoot events together. I know a client can't necessarily tell the difference, but I believe the bokeh delivered by a full frame camera (due to the crop factor) looks much better in portraits. Also, the noise in your soccer picture is pretty rough, I personally wouldn't consider a photo with that much noise a keeper unless I couldn't possibly capture a better image.<br>

Here's a comparison (f/2.2 on full frame giving the same bokeh as a crop sensor at f/1.4):<br /> <img src="http://www.photographerslounge.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=150&d=1279405092" alt="" width="1066" height="800" /></p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>Out of curiosity, can someone who has used both a D90 and D600 give me an AF performance comparison between the two?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steven, have you been satisfied with the AF performance from the D90? I haven't used either camera, but the D90 uses the Multi-Cam 1000 module with 11 points. The D600 uses a 39 point Multi-Cam 4800 unit. I would be shocked if D600 does not give you significantly better AF speed and tracking for sports. Since you have already shot sports with the D90, you may find that you don't need Nikon's best AF to meet your needs. This forum can be helpful to solicit other opinions, but is there any way you can rent or borrow a D600? That would be ideal in finding what works best for your needs.</p>

[Two23]

<p><< I would need to replace some lenses with more fitting DX lenses. (IE: 50mm f/1.8 with 35mm f/1.4 for portraits)>></p>

<p>I have never shoot a portrait with a 35mm lens, myself. I have taken group photos at weddings etc. but only use two lenses--Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 V R-1. This greatly simplifies things. For photo'ing children especially, a fast zoom is the way to go. (I mostly do location portraits, with an assistant to hold lights.) You are talking about having to buy a <$300 lens for DX rather than a $5,000 one (300mm f2.8) for FX here. You haven't mentioned your lighting system yet, and in my own experience professional portraits are more about a solid lighting system than anything else. Camera comes last.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p><<Also, the noise in your soccer picture is pretty rough, I personally wouldn't consider a photo with that much noise a keeper unless I couldn't possibly capture a better image.>></p>

<p>Soccer image was shot with no noise reduction, just to show base. It's actually saleable as is for that matter. You used two different lenses for you shots above, so we are testing the lenses here, not the cameras. Both are pretty old models at that. It's not a valid test of bokeh.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Steven, Good luck with your photography journey. Just to throw in my 2¢ worth. I shoot high school sports, and my back up camera is a D700 with an 80-200 2.8D zoom. It is perfectly capable for getting good shots, even in dark high school stadiums. Here's a shot from last Friday night's game.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Forums/Scramble.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This shot happened to be one of the "Top 30 football pictures" for this week at the paper I shoot for.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[steven_pink]

<p>Those weren't mine, just an internet example. I wanted to show the actual amount of background blur difference between full frame and crop. I've got myself covered for the full frame lenses and a full frame camera just seems logical for what I do. A D7100 is a great camera, but not what I want. I have extremely high standards for all my photos. This is an unedited/cropped copy of one of my worst photos that I have ever used (it was printed in Propeller Magazine) due to it being the only photo I had of the driver who broke a record:</p>

<p><img src="http://stevenppink.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/orangecup-41.jpg?w=1200&h=" alt="" width="1200" height="900" /></p>

<p>This is my definition of "keeper" quality... Minimal to no noise and tack sharp - no editing required:<br /> <img src="http://stevenppink.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/geese.jpg?w=1200&h=" alt="" width="1200" height="797" /></p>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>This shot happened to be one of the "Top 30 football pictures" for this week at the paper I shoot for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Tim! I noticed the exif data for your photo was gone... Do you remember the ISO on that shot?</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>I wanted to show the actual amount of background blur difference between full frame and crop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steven, I would not worry about Kent's comment re bokeh. Maybe he meant "no practical" differences in bokeh, I do not know. You seem to already be aware of the FX advantage for shallow DOF. </p>

[steven_pink]

<p>Correct, Chip. I have NOTHING against DX cameras, but I want a full frame (as the OP specified) for what I do. I wish I knew someone who could loan me a D600 as you said earlier... I hate to rent one because it would mean less money to spend when actually buying one.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Bokeh is how a LENS renders out of focus areas. The two shots posted above were from DIFFERENT lenses. Thus, what was posted was a sample of how one particular lens renders OOF areas vs how another lens does. To get a valid comparision, you need to be using the SAME lens to rule out that variable. I would also use two current modern generation sensors, not something 8 years old. There is a difference in DoF per f-stop between DX and FX, and that has to do with image size. The difference is about a stop. I would stop short of calling one better than another though, as it depends on the circumstance. For example, shooting sports, the DX crop will give you more DoF at f2.8 than an FX will, and that would generally be a good thing as you would have more action in focus. To get the same DoF an FX camera would be shooting one stop slower--might not be a good thing depending on light levels. It can go the other way too. Sometimes I want to isolate a bride & groom from others present. To do this I have to shoot wide open at f2.8. Theoretically I could run into problems in bright light (running out of top end shutter speed,) but in the real world this hasn't happened to me yet (and I would pull out an ND if it did.)</p>

<p><<Maybe he meant "no practical" differences in bokeh, I do not know>><br /> <br /> As a practical matter, no customer ever seems to notice this sort of thing. They do notice (1) expression on faces (2) lighting. Last year I started using historic lenses on my 4x5 to take portraits. I make some nice money for this! I'm talking about Civil War era Petzvals and WW1 era Heliars/Dagors here. There is a very significant difference in how these lenses render an image, but it has a LOT more to it than simple bokeh. My own experience in the field tells me there is no noticeable difference to customers between images made with FX vs. DX. The differences are just too small to see. I keep coming back to if they can't see the difference, won't pay me more the difference, why would I spend the difference?<br /> <br /> Kent in SD<br /> <br /> Below shot:<br /> Chamonix 045n,<br /> Ilford HP5,<br /> Heliar 15cm (c.1912)<br>

(The Heliar might be the <br>

smoothest portrait lens<br>

ever made.)</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Your cheapest option for paid work using FX is D800</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, the OP is getting paid work <em>right now</em> with his d90, and has indicated 4.5 fps is enough for him, so it's probably safe to say he's not shooting HS sports. also safe to say a d800 is not required to shoot paid portraits, and a healthy d600 would do just fine in that regard. my concern regarding the d600 was around the sticky oil issue, which is one reason prices are low. if you're seeing them for $1200 used, isn't it worth it to pay an extra $150 to know if you do have a problem, nikon will fix it?<br>

<br>

re: bokeh: yes, there is a difference between DX and FX, and it's apparent on wide-aperture lenses shot at wide apertures. if a 70-200 is your bread and butter lens, it's probably worth upgrading to FX to get better subject isolation if that's what you're after. <br>

<br>

also, the cost of FX lenses doesnt have to be astronomical. the Tamron 28-75 has a surprisingly good rep on FX, and is one of the better deals in 2.8 zoom lenses. i personally find it a _little_ soft at 2.8, but sometimes you want a slightly soft focus for portraiture, as when shooting portraits of women. in any event, it sharpens up nicely by f/4. if you're currently using a 50/1.8 AF-D, i would upgrade to the G version or the Sigma 1.4 as soon as you can. the nikkor 50 D's bokeh is pretty harsh.</p>

[User_4754088]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you remember the ISO on that shot?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Steven, Here's the info on that shot.</p>

<p>Nikon D700, AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D, ISO 3200, 200mm, f2.8, 1/640 sec, AWB, RAW</p>

<p>I try to keep the ISO to 3200 or below, though in a pinch I let it climb a bit higher. ISO 6400 is really the top end for usability. </p>

<p>It's certainly no D4, but the D700 has served me well for five years now.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>Kent, the OP is getting paid work <em>right now</em> with his d90, and has indicated 4.5 fps is enough for him, so it's probably safe to say he's not shooting HS sports. also safe to say a d800 is not required to shoot paid portraits, and a healthy d600 would do just fine in that regard. my concern regarding the d600 was around the sticky oil issue, which is one reason prices are low. if you're seeing them for $1200 used, isn't it worth it to pay an extra $150 to know if you do have a problem, nikon will fix it?<br /><br />re: bokeh: yes, there is a difference between DX and FX, and it's apparent on wide-aperture lenses shot at wide apertures. if a 70-200 is your bread and butter lens, it's probably worth upgrading to FX to get better subject isolation if that's what you're after. <br /><br />also, the cost of FX lenses doesnt have to be astronomical. the Tamron 28-75 has a surprisingly good rep on FX, and is one of the better deals in 2.8 zoom lenses. i personally find it a _little_ soft at 2.8, but sometimes you want a slightly soft focus for portraiture, as when shooting portraits of women. in any event, it sharpens up nicely by f/4. if you're currently using a 50/1.8 AF-D, i would upgrade to the G version or the Sigma 1.4 as soon as you can. the nikkor 50 D's bokeh is pretty harsh.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people selling D600s on eBay are selling them after they've had the sensor oil issue fixed and I would only buy one if the owner had proof the issue had been fixed. This evening a D600 (with freshly replaced shutter mechanism and sensor) was listed on my local craigslist for $1100 with an 85mm f/1.8 or $950 without the lens and it's pretty hard to beat a price like that. Also, I've considered the sigma 1.4 to replace my 50mm f/1.8G. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hi Steven, Here's the info on that shot.<br>

Nikon D700, AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D, ISO 3200, 200mm, f2.8, 1/640 sec, AWB, RAW<br>

I try to keep the ISO to 3200 or below, though in a pinch I let it climb a bit higher. ISO 6400 is really the top end for usability.<br>

It's certainly no D4, but the D700 has served me well for five years now.<br>

Best,<br />-Tim</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, Tim! </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Steven, I hope you still find time to use that FE2. I just picked one up and I absolutely love it.</p>

<p>Also - killer deal on the D600 + 85mm, especially if it is the new G version.</p>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>Steven, I hope you still find time to use that FE2. I just picked one up and I absolutely love it.<br>

Also - killer deal on the D600 + 85mm, especially if it is the new G version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sadly, my FE2's film advancing mechanism broke...<br>

And the 85mm f/1.8 isn't the G version.</p>

[Two23]

<p>OK, I went back and reread the past two pages. Here's what I think is going on. Some here are confusing the terms "bokeh" and Depth of Field (DoF). First, DoF. Let's say you have three different 50mm f1.4 lenses: Zeiss Planar 1.4, Nikon af-D, Sigma Art. These are all pretty comparable pro quality, and in current production. Will anyone disagree if I say they will EACH have the SAME amount of DoF? Obviously, they do. They are 50mm f1.4 lenses--same physics apply. Now it gets trickier. BOKEH has to do ONLY with how the lenses render the out of focus area. Each of these lenses will have the same amount of OOF area, but there will be a difference in bokeh. This is because the lenses are constructed differently--different lens design, different number of aperture blades, etc. The Sigma & Zeiss have 9 blades, the Nikon only 7. The Nikon & Zeiss design is 7 elements in 6 groups, the Sigma is 13/8. While these differences do NOT affect the DoF, they DO affect the bokeh. I'll go to a more extreme example to get this concept across. Let's take a 100mm Hermagis Petzval f2.8 lens made in 1854, a 105mm f3.5 Heliar lens made in 1924, and a 105mm f2.8 Nikon lens made in 2014. These are all 100mm lenses. Let's shoot them at f4--same aperture. Which would you predict will have the smoothest rendering of the out of focus area? The answer is the Petzval. It has no iris blades at all, just a perfectly round hole! Extremely smooth! Next would be the Heliar. These have something like 14 iris blades. Having 14 makes for a nearly perfectly round hole as the lens is stopped down. The Nikon has only 7 diaphragm blades. The Hermagis has a perfectly round hole, the Heliar a nearly perfectly round one, and the Nikon is rougher. Does this affect how each lens renders the out of focus area? You betcha! There are other factors affecting bokeh, but let's NOT confuse bokeh with depth of field.</p>

<p>Now for the important question. Will a customer actually see the differences in bokeh between lenses? I'm saying 99.9% will not. Absolutely not. My reasoning is you would have be even be aware it exists, and have experience/knowledge of how different lenses render bokeh. Yes, if you know what you are looking for it becomes easy to see the difference in bokeh between an 1854 Hermagis lens vs. a 2014 Nikon lens, but the difference between Nikon/Sigma/Zeiss 50mm f1.4 lenses? Ha! Is there a difference in BOKEH depending on what camera is used? I'm thinking not, since bokeh is lens dependent. DoF, yes. Bokeh, no. All of this is WAY too esoteric for any of my customers (usually well educated medical staff at large hospital.) I would bet $500 not one could tell if a image was made with a Zeiss/Nikon/Sigma lens. Or and FX vs. DX for that matter or Canon/Nikon.</p>

<p>If we aren't talking about shooting sports at night here, really there is no discernible advantage for a D7100 over a D600, or the other way around. They will perform the same from a practical standpoint. And both will have the same bokeh when using the same lens. (Just Dof will be affected, sometimes favorably for one, sometimes not. It's a wash.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[steven_pink]

<p>I slightly misused the term bokeh when I said,<br>

"...the smaller sensor produces less creamy bokeh than a FX sensor would"<br>

but under the same shooting situation, it is true that a DX sensor's bokeh would be less "creamy" than an FX sensor... I know a client doesn't look at the quality of bokeh, but it is very apparent when a photo has the thin DoF (resulting in a more creamy blur) delivered by a full frame sensor. Now that we can disregard the terminology dispute, I would greatly appreciate any more input anyone can offer contrasting the pros and cons between the D600 and D700.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Kent, after using adapted Nikkor lenses on a Micro 4/3 camera, I can tell you they behaved differently between the different formats. I don't pretend to understand the physics and circle of confusion stuff, that is above my head. But I think maybe you are being a little too simplistic in your analysis. </p>

<p>You may be correct about some customers not knowing. On the other hand, maybe they can appreciate the differences even if they can't say exactly why. Do your customers appreciate the rendering of the antique lenses you use? Or is that too esoteric for them?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>"What Nikon FX camera is the best performance for the value? "<br>

<br>

D3.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<Kent, after using adapted Nikkor lenses on a Micro 4/3 camera, I can tell you they behaved differently between the different formats. I don't pretend to understand the physics and circle of confusion stuff, that is above my head. But I think maybe you are being a little too simplistic in your analysis.>></p>

<p>I do know about CoC (circles of confusion) etc., and did mention that there is more involved in bokeh than just number of diaphragm blades. However, rather than type a page full of formulas which would have everyone's eyes rolling in their heads, I stuck to the basics of how bokeh and DoF are different. I don't think I was being at all simplistic though--the concept is a simple one: DoF refers to how much is in focus, bokeh refers to how the OOF area is rendered. Again, all of this is WAY too esoteric to matter in real life. As for DX vs FX bokeh I have not seen any practical difference in modern lenses. There would be a difference if you are talking about early designs (e.g. Tessar) because the DX would crop off more of the less sharp edges. In fact, that's exactly how early lenses were used. The Petzval is currently all the rage for "art" photographers and the "arty" portrait crowd because of the "swirly bokeh" a Petzval will give the OOF areas. If you you look at portraits from the 19th century (almost certainly made with a Petzval,) they don't have that swirliness to them. That's because at that time you would crop out the center portion and just use that. I have a cute little Darlot Petzval (c.1870s) put into F-mount by SK Grimes and have tried it on a D800. The D7100 crops off the OOF part as I mentioned where the D800 keeps it. I didn't notice any difference other than that though. If it was there, it was just to subtle. I keep going back to my own practical experience, and that is that customers only seem to notice facial expression and lighting. None of mine could ever tell what digital camera I used, the brand of the camera, brand of the lens, or FX vs. DX. They just don't care about that kind of stuff. They can immediately tell differences in how I lit a portrait though, so that's why I say put money into lights rather than cameras. Take a trip to the $10 portrait places at Walmart, Pennys etc. You will find a very cheap Canon Rebel camera, a cheap 18-55mm kit lens, and some pretty decent quality lights/stands/softbox etc. They have figured out that customers can't see any difference in cameras, but CAN see cheap lighting*. They are making millions of dollars a year with this, so I paid attention. ;-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD<br /> *cheap = generally harsh</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>This evening a D600 (with freshly replaced shutter mechanism and sensor) was listed on my local craigslist for $1100 with an 85mm f/1.8 or $950 without the lens and it's pretty hard to beat a price like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

i would snap that up then. an 85 is nice on FX.</p>