[viggen]

Thinking about upgrading my camera this year. 

Purchased D90 and 17-55mm f2.8 in 2008.  Been itching to upgrade to D600.  I like to upgrade to FX for the low noise high iso since I do a lot of landscape shots in the dark.  D600's form factor is good since it's just a smidge larger than the D90.  I will just have to invest in a FX lens most probably a 24mm f2.8 prime.  Also, got a kid this year so want to take more indoor shots.  The D90 isn't good upwards for 640iso handheld is blurry and is noisy.  Indoor shots early morning with blinds closed hasn't been very good thus far.

Not going with D600 just because of the sensor issue.  And, the D700 seems to have even better form factor (more useful buttons) as it has more out-of-gui controls plus it has better AF system which should benefit for low light shooting.  Love the view finder with the big glass too. Hate that it uses CF storage which means I will have a stash of SDHC cards to get rid of.

IF I go with the D7100, I will have a camera with as good low light performance as D700 and D600.  However, I after reading up more about the D700, I love the viewfinder and would love to have the extra controls.  The D700 is larger, heavier and means I have to buy new lens(es).  With D7100, I keep the same lens and SDHC cards. 

Other differences I can think of is D700 should have wider DOF than D7100, so more of the picture will be in focus, am i right?  Not sure about how I feel about the megapixel difference.  Never wanted more than D90's 12mp in fact I use it at 6mp most of the time thinking I get less noise that way (theoretically but never really tested).

Anyways, 80% sure I will be going with the D7100 and just waiting for BFD for a good deal.  But, sorta want to convince myself to get a D700.  Pragmatically speaking, D7100 is cheaper and easier to transition to.  But, I want the D700 slightly bit more.

Comments?  Thanks.

[NIGHTFALL1970]

Check out www.kenrockwell.com.
He has a lot of helpful articles and reviews.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2013-04-09-dslrs/index.htm

[viggen]

thanks.  been reading him for quite a few years now.  actually did come across that article a few weeks ago.  good read.

[Jon L]

It's a shame that the D600 turned out the way it did, especially because its noise performance was quite a bit better than D7100 which was better than D700.  A good direction comparison here:

http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/high-iso-comparison-d7100-vs-d7000-d600.html


If I was buying Nikon, I'd clearly want the D600 all things considered, less the sensor issue.  If you are not in a hurry, a D610 is supposed to be coming, mainly to address the sensor oil spot problem:

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/08/29/rumor-nikon-preparing-to-announce-new-d5300-and-d610-dslr-cameras.aspx/

[low.pfile]

...Other differences I can think of is D700 should have wider DOF than D7100, so more of the picture will be in focus, am i right? ....

Viggen, For a given Field of View--say 35mm lens on full frame (D700) which nearly has an equivalent FOV as a 24mm lens on a D7100-- full frame cameras will have LESS Total Depth of Field than a crop sensor camera. From  http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html







D700  vs. D7100
1.04ft vs. 1.51ft
Total depth of field example

I would go with newer technology when possible. But, I feel it is extremely important, that you try out the controls, button layout, and grip of the two different sized cameras you are considering. Specs only tell part of the story.

[thunderbrick]

I've heard both arguments that sensor size affects DOF, and neither make sense to me.  Here's my take, and if I'm wrong please help me understand why.........

A lens at a given focal length/distance/aperture projects a specific image/DOF regardless of the film/digital sensor size.

A FF 24mm lens on a FF camera the image will have specific DOF characteristics.  If I put the same lens on a crop camera the image characteristics will remain the same, but not the field of view, since the smaller sensor only records roughly 60% of the lens coverage.  Within that 60% the image should be 100% identical.

Now if someone wants to argue that DOF is better/worse because of the sensor size I say nonsense.  It may seem better because of the wider field of view, but within the center image it should be identical.    OTOH if we were to compare a 35mm/FF vs 24mm/CC and both images blown up to an 8x10, would the DOF be the same and the argument moot? 

[Early B.]

OP -- I agree the D7100 is your best option, especially since you already possess the phenomenal 17-55mm lens. The dynamic range and low light performance of the D7100 is several generations ahead of your D90. I was also strongly considering full frame, but I ended up with a D7000 and I'm very happy with its perfomance.

[FullRangeMan]

These cameras are suited to macro photos? (with the usual factory lenses)
The minimum focus distance is the 24/35mm mentioned above??

[Doublej]

Check out www.kenrockwell.com.
He has a lot of helpful articles and reviews.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2013-04-09-dslrs/index.htm

Did you know Ken does audio reviews as well? A couple of Bose with some quotable gems.

"Sure, you can pay more for something like the Acoustimass 16 we also own, and you'll get somewhat better sound — but you'll spend at least a weekend trying to install it (or pay someone to) and configure a receiver get it to go. The (Bose) CineMate is ideal for just installign and enjoying big sound immediaitly. "

[thunderbrick]

These cameras are suited to macro photos? (with the usual factory lenses)
The minimum focus distance is the 24/35mm mentioned above??

No, those are the focal length.  How close they can focus is up to the manufacturer.

On a 35mm or FF digital camera a 35mm is a slight wide angle, and 24mm is wider still.

The same lenses installed on a crop camera would be a "normal" lens, no longer a wide.  The 24mm would then become a slight wide angle instead of a fairly wide lens.

If you were to look through a full frame camera with a 35mm lens on it, and a crop camera with a 24mm, the field of view would be almost exactly the same.

[NIGHTFALL1970]

Doublej,
I read Kens articles on cameras and I think he knows what he is talking about with cameras and accessories,
But I find his advice on all things audio to be comic relief.

I think he wrote that there was no audible difference between mp3 and a redbook CD. He also wrote that early 1980s CDs sounded exactly like the original master tapes. Right.

[JohnR]

If you were to look through a full frame camera with a 35mm lens on it, and a crop camera with a 24mm, the field of view would be almost exactly the same.

Yes but the DoF won't DoF is determined by the magnification. That's all it comes down to. In this example the smaller sensor with the 24mm lens will have lower magnification, hence greater DoF.

However, I'm not sure there's a practical difference between DX and FX. I suppose if I had an FX camera I'd know 

[low.pfile]

Folks,
Check out these image sample comparisons. he did the comparisons both ways cropped FX to match the DX Field of View and lens focal length appropriate for each sensor size to match the Field of View...

Depth of Field Comparisons Between Full 35mm Frame (FX) vs. APS-C / (DX)
http://www.jimgamblin.com/blog/?p=209

[thunderbrick]

Yes but the DoF won't DoF is determined by the magnification. That's all it comes down to. In this example the smaller sensor with the 24mm lens will have lower magnification, hence greater DoF.

DOF is based on distance to subject/focal length/aperture for the original image.  Blowing it up should exacerbate noise and make all of it a little soft, but how can that change the area of focus in the original image?   

[FullRangeMan]

OK, thanks Thunderbrick.

[JohnR]

DOF is based on distance to subject/focal length/aperture for the original image.

For a given aperture, DoF is determined by magnification. The distance and focal length determine magnification, but thinking about it in terms of distance and focal length leads to confusion... which is easily sorted out by just going back to magnification

  Blowing it up should exacerbate noise and make all of it a little soft, but how can that change the area of focus in the original image?   

It doesn't. But in your example above, you changed the lens focal length from 35mm to 24mm to make the FoV the same. Hence, you reduced the magnification, therefore you increased the DoF.

As you pointed out, if the same lens is used on a DX or FX camera, the DoF is the same (for the same aperture and subject distance), but the FoV is different. But when people talk about the sensor size affecting DoF, they mean for the same FoV. The DoF has to change because you need a different magnification to get the same FoV on different-sized sensors.

[thunderbrick]

For a given aperture, DoF is determined by magnification. The distance and focal length determine magnification, but thinking about it in terms of distance and focal length leads to confusion... which is easily sorted out by just going back to magnification

It doesn't. But in your example above, you changed the lens focal length from 35mm to 24mm to make the FoV the same. Hence, you reduced the magnification, therefore you increased the DoF.

As you pointed out, if the same lens is used on a DX or FX camera, the DoF is the same (for the same aperture and subject distance), but the FoV is different. But when people talk about the sensor size affecting DoF, they mean for the same FoV. The DoF has to change because you need a different magnification to get the same FoV on different-sized sensors.

I agree 100%, John!     I've just heard too many people state that DOF changed on sensor size only, without taking into account FOV/magnification.  They didn't get/give the whole story.

Thanks!

'brick

[rklein]

I will defer to the  great comments and advice/info already given here regarding FX vs DX... 

However, I will comment on the sensor issue in regards to the D600.  I have the D600 and love this camera!!  Is there a dust issue?  Well, yes.  Are there techniques to cleaning your sensors... well, yes.  There is a multitude of very good products out there for this.

For paranoid folks who are afraid to touch the sensor - you are NOT touching the sensor! You are touching a low pass glass filter... Just make sure you use a good cleaning product such as Copper Hill.

ALL sensors, no matter what "super technology" they use - are going to get dirty and will need some cleaning, so learn how to clean it properly, turn off your computer and go out shooting... Oh, and don't forget to have fun... 

Regards,

Randy

[viggen]

Thank you for all the awesome discussion and suggestions!

I guess I can wait for the D610 if it doesn't take TOO long.  My baby won't stay a baby forever.  If BFD has an amazing deal on D7100, I think I will bite.  Oh, another strike against D7100 is they seem to add a bunch of superfluous picture modes and made buttons for them to be directly accessible next to the shutter button.  D700 is more attractive to me by this virtue because I never use picture modes and certainly don't want buttons for them on the body.

Regarding the DOF, I played around with the link provided, and, MOST of the calculations I got is FX has wider range of getting subjects of varying distance in focus.  This translates to less bokeh given the same lens and same distance away from subject using the same F stop, right?

[viggen]

Randy, I guess I am not worried about dust.  It's the oil that I don't want to deal with. 

After many years with the D90, I only used a blower on the sensor like once or twice.