I just yesterday purchased a Nikon D600 FX full frame body (hot off the presses) to upgrade from a Nikon D90 DX crop frame body.
Christmas wasn't all it should have been, so I thought I'd share my initial experience for anyone looking to go forward along the same upgrade path.
First of all, *killer* upgrade. My Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro lens absolutely loves this new body. The two couldn't be happier together. The 105mm actually becomes far more usable as a portrait lens. A much more reasonable zoom factor means you're not backing against a wall to get your 1/4 and face shots. Qualitatively, noise is very reasonable, well within workable ranges.
Now here's the gotcha, especially relevant to DX shooters with their bag full of beautiful inexpensive DX lenses. You're going to hate those lenses.
My 18-200mm is my [former] best-friend-lens, it's an amazing walk around lens. You really get hooked on that range. I rent a 28-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 for events and commisioned jobs, but for my personal work (which is the mass majority of my photos), this has been an outstanding lens.
Unfortunately, the 12mp-24mp upgrade *really* brings out the detail in the noise that's always been in the lens, but has hidden in the lower resolution of the D90. The D600 shines a bright light on that, *especially* in low light, which is my new favourite shooting style, and one of the *main* reasons I upgraded to the D600 in the first place.
So, if you're shooting DX glass, you may have to shell out some serious extra coin to reach your upgrade goals.
My goals were:
1) gain a wider angle with my existing glass
results: I gain this on my 105mm FX lens, but *not* on my 18-200mm DX lens. While the D600 provides a DX mode that casts a DX crop frame HUD through your viewfinder, you're not getting the visual zoom factor that I've favoured for in-camera cropping and composing of my images. I will need to spend more $ to get wider than I was before.
2) gain far better low light capabilities
results: Total win with my existing 105mm FX lens, total bust with my existing 18-200mm DX lens. Lightroom noise reduction tests are pending, wait for part 2 of my review.
3) higher resolution for moving into professional reproductions and fine art photography
results: Total win, but the glass to reach this goal is going to cost me $$$$.
So, here's my personal plan, based on those goals... it's an expensive one, but it has a promising ending.
At an extra cost of ~$2000-$2500+taxes (and that's a liberal estimate, with all the replacement goodies): I sell my Nikon D90 and 18-200mm (any takers?), buy a Nikon 28-300mm with the proceeds (sidegrade with *extra* noise? grrr!), then spend $1400 on a Nikon 16-35mm, +$350 for UV and circular polarizer filters for both lenses (I already have a variable NDX for the 77mm, yay!).
*Then* I end up with the camera I wanted, plus a stunning ultra-wide lens as a bonus, but only one body. I'd be looking at an extra ~$1000+ for another body down the road if I want the luxury of 2 bodies for event shooting; that seems cheap since I started pricing replacement lenses yesterday. VISA likes me.
Conclusions (Part 1):
Considering that the Nikon D600 is blatantly positioned as an [outstanding] upgrade path for DX users, it's surprising that Nikon did not provide an electronic viewfinder for superimposing a cropped DX view. Near-obsolescense and potential poor low light noise when using some old DX lenses are 2 definite caveats that existing DX shooters will need to consider before purchasing.
The D600 may be better positioned as second body for a professional FX shooter, or even as an upgrade for a serious compact shooter looking to leapfrog into a semi-professional system (Panasonix Lumix users, take note, this upgrade is a worthy successor to the quality that you've come to expect).
As with any full frame (FX) system, expect to pay more for a much narrower selection of lenses... a *LOT* more. I'd recommend doubling your body upgrade budget for lenses and filters, and warm up your eBay tools.
Stay tuned for part 2 of my initial Nikon D600 review, which will cover Lightroom efforts to address the preliminary low light noise issues, and comparisons of images from both Nikon D90 and Nikon D600..
For a sample of images that I've been achieving with my existing Nikon D90 and 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 DX lens, check out my images on or before 17 Sep 2012; those are all off the D90, and all but a few (the macro shots) are using the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6: Cameron Knowlton Nikon D90 images
All in all, a worthy upgrade that I'm still coming to terms with. Can't wait to really try this camera out.
@cameronknowlton I have been reliably informed that the DX lens are working at a much lower resolution and not taking advantage of the higher resolution that the FX cameras offer which will cause the noise problems that you are experiencing. On the D800 a DX lens works at 5MP
As one about to pull the trigger to go D600 from D7000, I greatly appreciate your insights. I have two D7000 bodies so will likely keep one to use with the only one or two DX lenses I already have. Will stay tuned for your next installation. Thanks so much!
I did a quick math calculation on the Nikon D600 by formatting a fresh card, then checking the available exposure count in both DX and FX modes, at RAW/Large, using a single 16GB card. (Did I mention the D600 takes 2 cards, for either mirror backup or overflow? Awesome!)
The D600 estimates:
296 exposure in FX mode (36x24)
670 exposures in DX mode (24x16)
If FX mode represents 24.3mp, then the DX mode is recording at 10.7. There's no guarantee that the sensor is recording at full resolution, i.e. file resolution need not equal sensor resolution, but it can't be any *better* than 10.7, unless I've missed something here...
A 24x16 is 2/3 of a 36x24, so why are we not getting a 16.2mp result? This must be that new math they're talking about these days.
To convert FX to DX resolutions, you have to divide by the crop factor twice, once for horizontal and once for vertical. For the D600, 24mp/1.5/1.5 = 10.6mp
For the D800 36mp/1.5/1.5 = 16mp
Thanks for the great information. If cost was not an object, I would love to upgrade to a D600 but I am aware that all FX bodies really need FX glass, which is expensive compared to DX.
I plan on going full frame soon and have been planning that pretty much all along so ive only bought fx lens. There are way more fx lens choices available then dx because you can buy tons of used lens that are just one generation old but still perform wonderfully on fx.
Cameron, thanks for the insights! I too have been looking at the D600 and the D800. I currently shoot a D7000, and have a D200 as well. I know what you mean about the 18-200mm - killer walk around lens. I have numerous lenses so upgrading to full FX will be a pain, but I'll probably get around to doing this early next year. Have you had a chance to shoot any video yet? I'm interested in your part 2 when available! Thanks again!
Thanks, @mikegifford, Great feedback. I've only fired my first exploratory shots tonight; yesterday were test shots that inadvertantly and blessedly got erased by accident... having 2 SDHC/SDXC slots can trip you up, a reminder to not take a new body out expecting pictures until you've come to full terms with it. I feel like I just bought a new motorcycle; it takes time to get the feel for it.
This FX 105mm 2.8 macro is turning out to be a very capable lens on this body's zoom factor; it never held my interest on my DX D90 other than bug shots, but now it's opened itself up as a decent walkaround prime. I can't wait to try it out as a portrait lens and bug hunter. It was definitely purpose built for an FX body; you'll be amazed what your FX lenses become on this body.
I don't understand this talk about noise in DX lenses. Noise is a digital sensor artifact, nothing to do with your lenses? If you shoot in DX mode on your D600, you're just cropping the image circle, shouldn't increase noise. Possibly lesser lenses have less resolution and you can start to see loss of sharpness? Or if you have slower lenses you may be forced to underexpose, and that would bring out more noise.
Anyway, besides the 28-300, there are some decent mid-range zooms, from the 24-85, 24-120, 35-70mm. You can get these at reasonable prices second hand. Most are sharper than the 18-200, just don't have quite the range.
Oh, the noise just amplifies with the DX on and FX render. Trust me, hit me out of the blue. My D90 was a better combination with that lens than that higher resolution D600. It's more than a digital crop, its a physics and optical nightmare... kiss your viewfinder composition finesse goodbye.
I do love short range zooms, but try to get that range on lenses you mentioned on an FX, and you'll be mortgaging your house. The 28-300mm is going to be a worthwhile 'upgrade' to keep my personal style intact, on a body that will do wonders for those shots. It's an amazingly liberating zoom range.
Well, I wish I could share more about this wonderful Nikon D600, but it appears there's no support from Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Layman's terms: no Adobe Lightroom support. For how long? That is the question.
Yes, people will find all these hocus pocus ways to get an image to jump through hoops and finally find its way into your editor, but this is about production, people. I'm not shooting 500 images at an event, then going through contortions to edit each image.
So, now I'm sitting on this camera that I can't use, wondering what to do with it. How long until it's supported? A day? A week? 3 months?
$2100+ and not a single picture to show for it. That's not right.
@cameronknowlton - Download Nikon View NX. it'll allow you to do basic modifications in RAW, then batch convert to jpeg. It's free, and it should help get you by while waiting for the next ACR update.
I guess I'll shoot jpegs until a new Adobe Camera Raw comes out. I see that the last update was 29 May 2012, so we're due. I'm guessing they're shaking out both the Nikon D600 and the Canon 6D. Let's hope I'm right, I'm not waiting until December to start shooting properly.
What a shame to buy such a nice camera, and then throw 6 out of 14 bits into the trash with every photo.
I finally got a raw shot out of this new Nikon D600, this is my first image brought into my computer, SOOC to give you an idea of what you might expect:ISO 100, f/4, 1/400 sec, Nikon 105mm f/2.8 macro lens
Thanks Cameron. I hadn't thought of the Lightroom issue either. Adobe is usually pretty good at updates to support major/popular cameras and the D600 and 6D are hot off the press so maybe 30-45 days???
It would be so nice if camera makers would give the option to shoot in the universal dng raw format so that you wouldn't have to wait to update the raw converters every single camera release. Some cameras let you shoot dng but not many. I know some of the specific camera related settings such as active D lighting wouldnt be available in dng but who cares at least you could shoot raw and usually have smaller file sizes.
good insights, @soia, thanks! I've shot Nikon .NEF since I switched to raw, so it's good to know how the other half lives. Lightroom's exposure control in the shadows just isn't the same when you're not feeding it a raw file.
This is my first attempt at a quality picture out of my new Nikon D600. I shot this in raw, passed it into Nikon ViewNX 2 (where I tweaked the raw settings slightly), exported as a TIFF, then imported into Lightroom for the final edits.
Converting to TIFF definitely impedes your ability to later pull out detail in the shadows in Lightroom, so I'm hoping for more control once ACR catches up to this new Nikon model.
Long exposures bring out amazing colour saturation, so I actually had to *reduce* saturation and highlights to bring it back to this.
25 seconds at f/16, ISO 100, using a Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro lens with a circular polarizer.
I recommend you zoom in fullscreen to see the detail that the D600 is delivering. 24mp goes a long way.
A high res version of this photo, and additonal raw images from the Nikon D600 can be seen at my Flickr catalog:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/igods/sets/72157631590164726/
Nikon D600 updates for: @wardie@andysg@coastandcactus@jgilker@sudweeks@soboy5@mikew@soia@mikegifford
@cameronknowlton - I pulled out my old photos where I used my old D3 with a friends Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens, but I still can't figure out what you mean when you talk about noise in the lens using DX format.
When I shot in DX mode, I saw no excess noise. (All the images I I have were shot at ISO 200 - the base ISO for the D3) When I shot in FX mode @ 200mm, I saw a bit darker and softer edges, but the center was relatively sharp and there was no noise anywhere in the frame. When I shot near 18mm using FX, the edges went black, so I had to use center weighted or spot metering so that the black edges didn't throw off the metering. But the center was still relatively sharp and there was no noise.
The big difference between my old D3 and your D600, is megapixels. I was just over 5MP in DX mode where you're around 10.6, but you're still lower resolution than your 12mp D90 so you're not out resolving the lens with the D600. I'd like to see your sample images to try to understand what you mean.
I should have clarified, the example I mentioned was in [very] low light, pushing the D600 to about ISO 1250. I'll do some test shots and post them, thanks for the request. I like your 18mm, it makes me feel like a sniper ;)
Thanks for the great info. I have been stalking this camera since the rumors starting flying months ago. I have three DX bodies right now and a pile of lenses that I don't want to keep. I'm planning to sell off a bunch and buy a D600 body. Right now the only lens I really want to keep is the 105mm 2.8 macro. I do have a few other FX lenses, but I rarely use them.
@snipsnap, you will absolutely love that 105mm macro lens on an FX body. when it comes to FX lenses, they're made for their native zoom factor(s), so getting a 105 back to a 105 makes it shine. buying used lenses rarely saves much money, so the good news is, selling them doesn't lose much, either. you will appreciate your FX lenses, but be warned, weight goes way up. not so bad when the body does, too, as they balance. but expect to get sore wrists for a while.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
The D600 estimates:
296 exposure in FX mode (36x24)
670 exposures in DX mode (24x16)
If FX mode represents 24.3mp, then the DX mode is recording at 10.7. There's no guarantee that the sensor is recording at full resolution, i.e. file resolution need not equal sensor resolution, but it can't be any *better* than 10.7, unless I've missed something here...
A 24x16 is 2/3 of a 36x24, so why are we not getting a 16.2mp result? This must be that new math they're talking about these days.
For the D800 36mp/1.5/1.5 = 16mp
This FX 105mm 2.8 macro is turning out to be a very capable lens on this body's zoom factor; it never held my interest on my DX D90 other than bug shots, but now it's opened itself up as a decent walkaround prime. I can't wait to try it out as a portrait lens and bug hunter. It was definitely purpose built for an FX body; you'll be amazed what your FX lenses become on this body.
Anyway, besides the 28-300, there are some decent mid-range zooms, from the 24-85, 24-120, 35-70mm. You can get these at reasonable prices second hand. Most are sharper than the 18-200, just don't have quite the range.
I do love short range zooms, but try to get that range on lenses you mentioned on an FX, and you'll be mortgaging your house. The 28-300mm is going to be a worthwhile 'upgrade' to keep my personal style intact, on a body that will do wonders for those shots. It's an amazingly liberating zoom range.
Yes, people will find all these hocus pocus ways to get an image to jump through hoops and finally find its way into your editor, but this is about production, people. I'm not shooting 500 images at an event, then going through contortions to edit each image.
So, now I'm sitting on this camera that I can't use, wondering what to do with it. How long until it's supported? A day? A week? 3 months?
$2100+ and not a single picture to show for it. That's not right.
What a shame to buy such a nice camera, and then throw 6 out of 14 bits into the trash with every photo.
Converting to TIFF definitely impedes your ability to later pull out detail in the shadows in Lightroom, so I'm hoping for more control once ACR catches up to this new Nikon model.
Long exposures bring out amazing colour saturation, so I actually had to *reduce* saturation and highlights to bring it back to this.
25 seconds at f/16, ISO 100, using a Nikon 105mm 2.8 macro lens with a circular polarizer.
I recommend you zoom in fullscreen to see the detail that the D600 is delivering. 24mp goes a long way.
A high res version of this photo, and additonal raw images from the Nikon D600 can be seen at my Flickr catalog:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/igods/sets/72157631590164726/
Nikon D600 updates for: @wardie @andysg @coastandcactus @jgilker @sudweeks @soboy5 @mikew @soia @mikegifford
When I shot in DX mode, I saw no excess noise. (All the images I I have were shot at ISO 200 - the base ISO for the D3) When I shot in FX mode @ 200mm, I saw a bit darker and softer edges, but the center was relatively sharp and there was no noise anywhere in the frame. When I shot near 18mm using FX, the edges went black, so I had to use center weighted or spot metering so that the black edges didn't throw off the metering. But the center was still relatively sharp and there was no noise.
The big difference between my old D3 and your D600, is megapixels. I was just over 5MP in DX mode where you're around 10.6, but you're still lower resolution than your 12mp D90 so you're not out resolving the lens with the D600. I'd like to see your sample images to try to understand what you mean.
@18mm - http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8033/8017443875_7981e92391_o.jpg
@ 200mm - http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/8017447884_765a0e783d_o.jpg
Not great shots, and I've got a dirty sensor, but no noticeable noise.
If I had owned this lens, I think I'd shave the lens hood, as I hear you get about 200 degrees with FX.