Was FX worth the upgrade to you?

[CaptainNapalm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Silicon Wafer
(divided into large sensors)

Silicon Wafer
(divided into small sensors)[
​

One can understand this by looking at how manufacturers make their digital sensors. Each sensor is cut from a larger sheet of silicon material called a wafer, which may contain thousands of individual chips. Each wafer is extremely expensive (thousands of dollars), therefore fewer chips per wafer result in a much higher cost per chip. Furthermore, the chance of an irreparable defect (too many hot pixels or otherwise) ending up in a given sensor increases with sensor area, therefore the percentage of usable sensors goes down with increasing sensor area (yield per wafer). Assuming these factors (chips per wafer and yield) are most important, costs increase proportional to the square of sensor area (a sensor 2X as big costs 4X as much). Real-world manufacturing has a more complicated size versus cost relationship, but this gives you an idea of skyrocketing costs.
This is not to say though that certain sized sensors will always be prohibitively expensive; their price may eventually drop, but the relative cost of a larger sensor is likely to remain significantly more expensive (per unit area) when compared to some smaller size.

 

[spacefuzz]

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]

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

 

[ratssass]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ratssass]

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]

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]

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

 

[ratssass]

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.

agreed........