more questions about FF versus DX

[supercool2]

Before I pull the trigger, and buy a D600 to replace my D7100 I have one (ok maybe a few) questions. My main reason for wanting a D600 (besides budget and not affording any other FF camera right now) is when I put on a 35mm lens I want the picture view/field of view to *BE* 35mm ! And so on,etc.. I just want FULL frame pictures,and then I'll crop them afterward, only IF needed. But here is my question. I read that full frame has has a shallower depth of field. I can't remember what "shallow" means if that means there is more, OR LESS bokeh when trying to take close up pictures of far away things (at an open aperture like 1.8-3ish ) and having the background blurry,or with portraits.

So does it mean less or more bokeh ? Or am I understanding it all wrong? I want the camera to have more bokeh in the picture , and not just a cropped version of what it could have been, if that makes sense. But even if it's less bokeh on a FF, as long as its not a huge difference, i think i can live with that.
Honestly I can't afford two very nice cameras so after I get it and make sure everything works fine, I'm planning to sell my D7100. I have buyers remorse because I had no idea i could have spent a few hundred dollars more on a refurbished/used D600, than this brand new D7100 from B&H photos. Basically the way I'm looking at it, it's swapping almost the same camera &settings (with some slight differences) for another but with a bigger senser & is full frame. I wish I had taken my time and been more patient, and i would have probably got it in the first place and saved some money. because it looks like the "used" ones on Ebay are not selling for what i just paid for mine,if i were to try to re-sell it i might not get as much back.

 

[PaulWog]

Yes, the bokeh is better on full frame. Iso performance is better too.

You sound picky though (not a bad thing, just an expensive thing hahaha), so you should be certain you want a d600. Be sure you're wary of the dust problems in the d600. I got a d5200 over the d600 for that reason. I had a bit of buyer's remorse and occasionally wonder what if.... But to be honest, I think the d7100 or similar dx camera is so capable that you should be sticking with it. I'd wait until newer fx offerings come out in the future. But if you have the cash, do what makes you happy.

The most important thing you need to buy is lenses. That's where you should really be picky.

 

[astroNikon]

I have the same concerns that you have.

I've thought about renting a D600 and then comparing everything side by side.
I know with the FF I get true wide angle. But I loose the extra reach.
But cropping the FF ... would it be better than the DX itself if I take pictures of Jupiter or Saturn ?

I know the next step up telescope that I would like is worth several FF cameras. So does the further reach (better, same, worse than) cropping a FF picture?

 

[KmH]

You know medium and large format are both larger than what we call 'full frame'.

35 mm full frame is known as small format.

Bokeh can't be quantified as more or less. Bokeh is a subjective asthetic quality that results from lens construction and quality.
Bokeh is not adjustable. The only way to change bokeh is to use a different lens make and model.

Depth-of-field (DoF) can be deeper or shallower (less or more), and is actually what you are concerned about.

Bokeh and DoF are not interchangeable terms.

Used camera bodies bought new never sell for the original price, mainly because the standard manufacturers warranty is not not transferable.

 

[supercool2]

So far I'm trying to keep smart, and just be happy with what I have . A little voice in the back of my head keeps whispering "Leave well alone" ,and when I look at lenses online I make sure its FX,and not DX just "in case" I actually get a FF in a year or two. Yes, I'm picky about everything :blushing: . Even though right now I have a *lot* to learn, and more hands on experience to gain, I'm always looking at the future bigger picture , and how what I do now (and what is purchased ) will affect those future plans. Ok, I think I can stop looking online and forget about this for a while. Before I start looking at them again lol.

 

[supercool2]

OK,please tell me what the D7100 has that the D600 doesn't . Comparing the two I only found very minor differences . I'd like to know in case there was something I missed. I'll be doing some more googling too.

 

[Mach0]

OK,please tell me what the D7100 has that the D600 doesn't . Comparing the two I only found very minor differences . I'd like to know in case there was something I missed. I'll be doing some more googling too.

Multicam af3500 is a big difference. Depends what you are shooting.

 

[supercool2]

What is multicam af3500 ? Right now I need to shoot high quality pictures of my life like dolls I sell on ebay (400-1K a piece on a good day if they sell well) . I want professional quality photos of my kids and want to be the photographer who takes those photos. I'm looking into what equipment I need to make a small studio for indoor portraits,but will be taking my time with that,and as $ allows . I like taking good clear portraits of animals/pets, and people with the background blurred out. I want to get into (macro?) very close up pictures of things like bugs (or to show ":skin" painting detail with my doll work) in the future,and have the flexibility to do landscape pictures too,if I'm out traveling to interesting places. In door school events of my kids, out door school events of my kids. portraits,macro, land/city-scape. I read that dx is good for nature and I would love to be able to take great pictures of birds/animals that are not very close to me but I don't see that as something I'd be doing most of the time. It would be portrait stuff first. Then general every day things. Like I said my #1 reason is I like for the field of view to be what the lens is made for. I don't want to have a cropped version of whatever lens I use. I read that with a 50mm I'm really getting a 70 something field of view instead. If i wanted a 75mm, I'd use a 75mm lol. If I'm using a 50mm it needs to be a 50mm view. It sounds silly, but that actually bothers me just a little bit. If I was stuck with the D7100 I'd be very appreciative,and very happy. I do think its an awesome camera. I'm always pleasantly surprised how much nicer the pictures look on my monitor,after looking at them on the lcd screen.
I just have the funds to make a trade off between the two and am deciding whether or not to do that because full frame sounds more appealing . Unless I'm not really understanding right so Im asking these questions to make sure I have the right reasons,and would be making the right choice.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I upgraded from a d7000 to d600 and have been very happy with the choice. By your post it seems like you're only looking at the switch from DX to FX as an upgrade. Just be aware of the benefits of DX over FX before you make the switch. For example, you say you don't want the DX camera to give you a smaller field of view and that you'd rather crop the image yourself later for the same result. But this won't be the case because your crop will only result in a 10 megapixel image. Remember the d7100 and d600 are both 24mp. Just be well informed before you buy the FX body.

 

[kundalini]

I did this one Sunday afternoon with my friend Jose. It might help to confuse your some more.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html

 

[JTPhotography]

For someone wanting to upgrade from crop to FF, I say you are in a perfect position to have the best of both worlds. Unless you are financially strapped and just can't keep your crop body. Why not have both? You will have a back-up (may not seem important to you now, but wait til you really need it). Your lens selection becomes way bigger. You can keep all of your current lenses. And you get the advantages of each. This is what I do. I keep my telezoom 100-400 on my crop body almost exclusively, and shoot my wide landscapes, macro, and midrange general stuff on my FF. All of my lenses can go on my crop body if I need to use it as a back up.

For me the ONLY advantage of crop is the reach it gives me with my zooms. Thinking you can just crop the full frame photo in post processing isn't necessarily the best thing to do, especially if you print big and need resolution. FF sensors will produce better images than crop sensors, as well as have better ISO performance. Once you experience FF, you will know what I mean and you will regret not switching sooner.

KmH was dead on regarding bokeh, it is about quality, not quantity. As I understand it, there is no difference in DOF between the two when using the same lens and setting. The lens is producing a circular image at the sensor plane, how much of that image is captured is based on the size of the sensor. The crop sensor is simply cropping a certain percentage off the edges. If I am wrong there, someone please explain and correct me.

 

[sleist]

buy a D600 to replace my D7100

If you insist on wasting money, just send it to me instead.
If your photos suck on a D7100, then they will still suck on a D600.

Don't be suckered by the camera companies. (and the forum gear-head idiots)

Saw some truly excellent landscapes today on p.net.
Shot on a D5100 and the 18-55mm kit lens ....

Just sayin'

 

[supercool2]

I don't think my photos suck at all ;-) I love them. Although I did recently find out I was using bad composition after I took most of the ones on the website siggy below. You can take a look and tell me if you think they suck or not. Maybe they do, and I don't know it. I am actually usually impressed with how they turn out sometimes, looking on the computer monitor,after thinking they were so so ok on the lcd screen. I was thinking about getting FF for the field of view, not because I think it will make my pictures any better. That is good advice to give people in general who might have that intention. I know its all about the skill level. I saw a D700 on ebay that sold for a really affordable price used. BUT I didn't want a lower megapixel camera,after being used to 24. So the D600 was the next best thing I found. They have them at adorama and cameda(sp?) for around 1600 refurbished. . I bought my camera (that came with a bunch of extras) for 1200 new at B&H photo . I just didn't find out until too late that it would have been a few hundred more to get the refurbished D600 body only.
I was hoping to be talked out of it. I still want it, but I am still trying to convince myself not to get it. It's soo hard lol


I read the thread by Kundalini and it pretty much confirmed what I thought I knew as far as the field of view.
As for keeping both cameras, technically I could if I want my credit card near maxed out. I will feel like a fool if i kept both. Or at least quite embarrassed of myself.

buy a D600 to replace my D7100

If you insist on wasting money, just send it to me instead.
If your photos suck on a D7100, then they will still suck on a D600.

Don't be suckered by the camera companies. (and the forum gear-head idiots)

Saw some truly excellent landscapes today on p.net.
Shot on a D5100 and the 18-55mm kit lens ....

Just sayin'

 

[kundalini]

You'll be ahead of the game if you were to invest in your lens collection rather than falling prey to the MP marketing theory. I've squeezed some excellent prints out of my lowly 12MP cameras.

Just my 2¢.

 

[astroNikon]

You're in the same boat as me. It would be credit card to get it and I simply couldn't keep both even though I would love to keep both.
I've also looked at the used market like the D700 and older pro models, but I love using the Video mode too and the older DSLRs don't have video like the D700.

Think I'll go outside now with my Nikon 500 Reflex lens and take a few pictures .. later