Need some advice from the pros

I currently have a D5000 and several inexpensive DX lenses and it has been an awesome learning tool, but with all the new DSLR's released recently I've been getting the urge to upgrade.

I had pretty much made my mind up that the D7100 was what I wanted because of the lenses but got to looking at the D600 and am now confused.
I've never shot with a full frame camera so I have no idea about the differences in quality, etc. but have researched this area a lot. I will go to a camera shop and try one before making final decision but there's nothing compared to going out on a shoot, I like landscape and then coming home with LR and PS and looking at the finished product.

So my question now is if you had a $2K-$4K budget and wanted to upgrade what camera/equipment would you purchase and why?

Y'all have influenced me a lot in previous decisions and would appreciate any advice.

I think if you do landscapes then a larger format is in order. It isn't just a matter of resolution but dynamic range (pulling detail out of shadows, etc.) and the kind of greater "depth" and richness that the larger format produces. I would wait though with the D600 until the dust issue is resolved. But with that budget, and doing landscapes, a D800 would be a natural choice. You could sell your DX lenses and get one or two G lenses or even less expensive AI-S lenses to tie you over since you don't need autofocus for landscapes, and of course you can use your DX lenses in the meantime.

Both are fine cameras, however, I'm getting the feeling that the D7000 might have a few advantages that the D7100 doesn't have and given the now large difference in price, it might be a good idea to put the D7000 on your list, too.

While I would normally advise people to move to a full-frame camera, I'm not sure that would make sense for someone with several DX lenses. A full-frame can deliver a better noise to signal ratio, due to sensor size, but you have to have full-frame lenses to match.

The question that needs to be asked is how willing are you to purchase new lenses vs. buying a camera that utilizes your current stock?

Well, let me get adjusted in my armchair here....... lol No one on here is a "pro" - that word just may go to some peoples heads. Look, if you have invested in a bunch of DX glass, stick with DX and get yourself a 7100. From what i have read, it is a great camera and a very good upgrade from a D5000. With the extra money that you will have left over in your budget, kit yourself out with some great lenses (a nice prime, a nice telephoto). If you want to go the way of FX, your looking at buying new lenses, which are not going to be cheap at all - DX glass just does not work well on FX. Out of the Nikkor lens line up currently (from their website) there are 17 DX lenses to choose from, ranging from $199 up to $1500. When you look at the FX line up, you have 63 choices ranging from $134 to $18000.00. Out of that 63, only 17 are zooms. The rest are primes. The nice thing is, you can use FX lenses on your DX camera no problem; therefore, you get more lens choice with a DX camera. Therefore, if i were you, spend a grand on the D7100 and kit yourself out with a nice line up of lenses. That is my humble opinion. Good luck.

mikeh32217 said:

I will go to a camera shop and try one before making final decision but there's nothing compared to going out on a shoot, I like landscape and then coming home with LR and PS and looking at the finished product.

Click to expand...

Do that first. First hand experience will clear things up and less confusing.

mikeh32217 said:

So my question now is if you had a $2K-$4K budget and wanted to upgrade what camera/equipment would you purchase and why?

Click to expand...

If you are staying with DX, D7100 offers more resolution and has a weaker AA filter which offers more acuity when it comes to images. Match it with a Nikon 16-85mm or 17-55mm f2.8 will get you most of the images that you would like to take.

A refurbished Nikon D800 is what I would lean over followed by a D600. More features with the D800 and it is the ultimate landscape camera. FX is the way to go if you prefer wide angle lenses.

Before you get more confused, do try the cameras first including the lenses.

Personally, if I had up to $4K to spend on upgrading, I'd go FX and never look back. I could go a long, long time on nothing more than a D800 or D600 with a "nifty-50" or 85mm prime. But I'm a minimalist at heart and take a very "light and fast" approach to photography.

I agree with the last two posters above.

First go get some hands on experience.

Then go Fx D800 and grab a 50mm and maybe something in the 100mm +/- range (maybe the 105mm Micro) and go shoot til your eyes water - I know I would lol.

Seriously - if you're planning to go Fx at some point, the only real question is which one do you want. Currently the D800 is the digital full frame camera for landscapes, but that don't mean much if it doesn't have the things you want on it and/or don't like it for whatever reason. In which case I would just wait til there is one I like with the lenses I want for it now. You know there is a sequel coming, it's just a question of when and what you want to do in the meantime - providing the D800 doesn't wow you.

My 2c about landscape cameras - Fx and the more resolution the better - which is why I'm going Medium Format for 'serious' work. This is another option for you (**edit - just to get you even more confused - but it is an option if you are serious about landscapes) - without going into details as this is a Nikon forum lol.

mikeh32217 said:

I currently have a D5000 and several inexpensive DX lenses and it has been an awesome learning tool, but with all the new DSLR's released recently I've been getting the urge to upgrade.

I had pretty much made my mind up that the D7100 was what I wanted because of the lenses but got to looking at the D600 and am now confused.

Click to expand...

FX and DX are just different. Not really about quality, but about how they are used.

You likely will have to buy new lenses for FX, in that DX lens don't cover the full frame. This will be a pretty big deal. The FX cameras do have a menu option to shot DX format however.

DX means that you have 1.5x multiplier on the 'effective' focal length, which makes the lens view compare like a 1.5x telephoto lens on FX. This DX telephoto effect tends to be good for sports and wildlife.

FX means that your wide angle lens is truly wide angle, much wider than on DX. A 24 mm lens for example, is truly 24mm on FX, but the telephoto effect only acts like a 24x1.5 = 36mm effective on DX bodies. So, it is pretty hard to get extreme wide angle on DX. This must be the so-called FX landscape advantage.

It is not about "image quality". We are talking about the SAME lens. There is no other actual difference, just the sensor size. Larger FX sensors can have large pixels and lower noise, but not necessarily realized, since the new ones have more megapixels (smaller pixels). However, the new ones are still quite good about noise too, allowing higher ISO, whether it is D800 or D7100.

See FX - DX Lens Crop Factor for more about these differences.

Here's a good place to start:

Read Thom Hogan's post from yesterday entitled "How to Choose a Camera (Intro With Homework). Thom Hogan's Nikon Camera, DSLR, Lens, Flash, and Book site

For me, if you shoot wildlife or sport go DX. If you shoot landscape primarily and to a lesser extent wildlife and sport go D800. I say that over D600 as the crop on a D600 is less than a D7000 or even my D300. I had a D600 and it took beautiful images, but it is a FX only camera in my book. If that's what you want that's ok.

The D800 is fine but not if you're taking loads of pictures as it takes ages to transfer them and they will show weaknesses in any sub spec PC. I've actually been using my D300s for some things over the D800 because it take perfectly good images that are a quarter of the size.

If you have that sort of budget and you're not convinced you want FX get a 7100 and a 70-200 2.8 lens. That will also do FX and it's a fantastic lens. You could even get the F4 version and something else nice lens wise.

Fx and some good fast primes. I would rather have the D600 or D800 with a couple good primes than Dx and all the lenses made. At one point I had just the D600 and the 50mm 1.8g ($220.00) was happy as can be when I saw the results. You can get the 1.8g trio for about $1400. Plus a D600 or D800 and still be in your budget.

Like others have said, try them in the store if you can.

WayneF said:

..... This must be the so-called FX landscape advantage.

It is not about "image quality". We are talking about the SAME lens. There is no other actual difference, just the sensor size....

Click to expand...

Compare 20 Million pixels on a Dx sensor, to 20 Million on a Fx sensor - and then compare them both to say - 20 Million on a Medium Format Phase One P25 sensor. If you really want to go bug-eyed check out the P60+ or a Better Light scanning back. The difference is not only visible (even on the web), it is breathtaking especially in person staring you in the face. This is the "FX Landscape Advantage", fine detail resolution - IOW very much so image quality. This has been true since film days when serious landscape photographers shot Large Format 4"x5" or 8"x10" slabs of film. Of course - a poor quality lens will limit that response, (or make it even more pronounced) ... but the difference will still be there in spades.

Akiviri said:

Compare 20 Million pixels on a Dx sensor, to 20 Million on a Fx sensor - and then compare them both to say - 20 Million on a Medium Format Phase One P25 sensor. If you really want to go bug-eyed check out the P60+ or a Better Light scanning back. The difference is not only visible (even on the web), it is breathtaking especially in person staring you in the face. This is the "FX Landscape Advantage", fine detail resolution - IOW very much so image quality. This has been true since film days when serious landscape photographers shot Large Format 4"x5" or 8"x10" slabs of film. Of course - a poor quality lens will limit that response, (or make it even more pronounced) ... but the difference will still be there in spades.

Click to expand...

Maybe not (in spades).

Are you discussing film or digital? You mention large film having more resolution. But if it is the same type of film, of course it doesn't, it's the same film. But prints from large negatives certainly do suffer less enlargement, and the lower enlargement degree certainly is a plus factor.

In digital, if both FX and DX have 20 pixels, again, that is again the same resolution. FX sensors are 1.5x larger, so again, they do suffer only 0.67 the enlargement to print size. Which is far from the same extreme degree as 4x5 inch film being so much larger than 35mm, but there is mild degree. But at 20 megapixels, both are already larger (more pixels) than we typically need. An 8x10 inch print only needs 7 megapixels, at most.

Both the D600 and D7100 have 24 megapixels. But the D800 has 36, which is not a huge difference, but resolution certainly is impressive. We would expect more noise, yet its smaller pixels still seem to handily win the DxO tests, over either size of 24 megapixels. So obviously, there are also other factors, it is not a simple formula. The newness of the sensor design is a big factor.

One of the reasons Fx is better for landscapes is less sensor diffraction at the same f stop. The Fx sensor is about 2.3 times larger than the Dx in surface area. When comparing the same 24mp in Fx to Dx, you have better light gathering ability than the smaller pixels of Dx. This means greater ISO perfprmance, dynamic range, less noise and less sensor diffraction.

Rick M said:

One of the reasons Fx is better for landscapes is less sensor diffraction at the same f stop. The Fx sensor is about 2.3 times larger than the Dx in surface area. When comparing the same 24mp in Fx to Dx, you have better light gathering ability than the smaller pixels of Dx. This means greater ISO perfprmance, dynamic range, less noise and less sensor diffraction.

Click to expand...

And yet, the 36 megapixel D800 is better than any of them, even the 24 mp D600 or 12 mp D700. That seems a complication to simple logic.

Diffraction is caused by the lens, not the sensor. The same lens and aperture on both FX and DX will obviously see the same diffraction. You might read about Airy Disk on Wikipedia, where it explains that diffraction depends on the aperture diameter. This Airy Disk is one way to measure it. It limits resolution.

The only relation to a digital sensor is that the Airy Disk diameter can compare to the size of one pixel. If we imagine it is perfectly aligned (this point source with Airy Disk size) to fall on exactly one pixel, then when it gets larger, it may fall on more than one pixel. But it would not be aligned in the first place, it likely already is on multiple pixels. Regardless, it is the size it is, and diffraction depends on the lens, not on the sensor. Smaller pixels of greater megapixels would simply resolve the Airy Disk better, but its presence does not depend on if we can resolve it or not.

WayneF said:

And yet, the 36 megapixel D800 is better than any of them, even the 24 mp D600 or 12 mp D700. That seems a complication to simple logic.

Diffraction is caused by the lens, not the sensor. The same lens and aperture on both FX and DX will obviously see the same diffraction. You might read about Airy Disk on Wikipedia, where it explains that diffraction depends on the aperture diameter. This Airy Disk is one way to measure it. It limits resolution.

The only relation to a digital sensor is that the Airy Disk diameter can compare to the size of one pixel. If we imagine it is perfectly aligned (this point source with Airy Disk size) to fall on exactly one pixel, then when it gets larger, it may fall on more than one pixel. But it would not be aligned in the first place, it likely already is on multiple pixels. Regardless, it is the size it is, and diffraction depends on the lens, not on the sensor. Smaller pixels of greater megapixels would simply resolve the Airy Disk better, but its presence does not depend on if we can resolve it or not.

Click to expand...

See here how sensor size and pixel density effects diffraction. Diffraction sets in much earlier (lower f stop) when using the same lens on a Dx sensor:

Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast

The calculator yields some interesting results!

Rick M said:

See here how sensor size and pixel density effects diffraction. Diffraction sets in much earlier (lower f stop) when using the same lens on a Dx sensor:

Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast

The calculator yields some interesting results!

Click to expand...

No way I care to try to defend that site. However, read it again, it does not say the sensor causes diffraction.

Diffraction is caused by the lens diameter. Period. Diffraction does not depend on the sensor.

That site assumes 1) magically the point source and Airy Disk is somehow perfectly aligned on the center of the pixel, and 2) it ignores the sensor is a Bayer pattern... some pixels are red, some are green, and some are blue (a much larger area), which will later be recombined into one RGB pixel.

Less resolution so we cannot clearly see the same diffraction does not increase resolution.

The bottom line is - more smaller pixels is always greater resolution. It is true that lens diffraction limits that resolution, but greater sensor resolution just better resolves the Airy Disk, which is always still present regardless if we can resolve it or not.

It was the same thing with film. Fine grain film did not increase diffraction. We NEVER heard that, and Airy Disk was known before film. The diffraction is present regardless of film grain size and resolution, and depended only on the lens diameter.

I think it comes down to how the sensor handles the diffraction regardless of the cause. From my useage of both formats, the larger "negative" has always given me better results.

Rick M said:

I think it comes down to how the sensor handles the diffraction regardless of the cause. From my useage of both formats, the larger "negative" has always given me better results.

Click to expand...

Two factors:

A larger negative does not have to be enlarged as much to print the same size print.
So by definition, smaller Circle of Confusion. We don't see the problems as well when not enlarged as much. This is the advantage of larger film sizes.

But also, larger film used longer lens. F/number = focal length / diameter.
So if F/number is assumed the same on a longer lens, then the diameter is larger too, in same proportion. A larger lens diameter is a smaller Airy Disk, and is less diffraction.
But the only contribution of the film was the use of the longer lens.

This would hold between FX and DX too, same view on FX uses a 1.5x longer lens, but the sensor size difference is greatly smaller than it was with film, hardly significant now (speaking FX/DX, and excepting tiny compact cameras maybe).

Diffraction is not a lens aberration I beg to differ...