D600 kit vs D7200 kit - SPECULATION

KnockKnock

What do people think the differences will be in terms of resulting images. Part of this is trying to wrap my brain around FF vs DX in terms of perspective, distortion, DOF etc. The other part is a question of lens quality and interaction with their respective sensors in terms of diffraction or other issue. I'll also suggest ignoring the extra reach the DX setup would have as that's just obvious, as is high-iso noise.

D600 with the 24-85mm VR.
D7200 with the current 16-85mm VR, assuming the D7200 has a 24MP sensor much like the D5200's.

I would guess that most mid-tele shots at F8 would be hard to distinguish. Where would the DX kit equal (or better?) the FX kit? Where would the FX kit beat out the DX?

Thanks!

KnockKnock

I guess I could have just as easily titled this D600 vs D5200, since I'm really just thinking about IQ.

Msmoto

Full frame has 2.25 times as much area...it will kill DX every time. But, more money for lenses. If you are not concerned about the money..full frame. If money is an issue, crop sensor. And, you will find that for about 90% of the shots one cannot tell the difference. Look at shots on PAD and examine the Exif data.

So, the D600 is going to be the choice providing one has the money for the lenses.

PB_PM

@KnockKnock One thing to watch out for though, last year there was a patent for a new AF-S 16-85mm F4 VR (DX) lens. I bet that lens is lined up to be the kit for the D7200/D400.

spraynpray

What's your main genre KnockKnock?

KnockKnock

At this point. Food / Portraiture.

@PB_PM - thx for the heads up, hopefully we'll see that lens soon with new bodies!

spraynpray

I'd say that with the exception of better bokeh on FX for portraits, you don't need to go for FX if you don't want to. Food is not challenging.

KnockKnock

It hasn't moved on me yet.

Msmoto

On NRF we have a lot of opinions...actually, for food, I would go a larger format to get more color. I used to shoot food on 4" x 5" transparency and a Hasselblad in a few rare cases. Mainly the larger format will make the detail more easily seen and the subtlety of the color can be better managed. However, if this is not for print in a magazine, etc., the DX may be fine for small prints. I was shooting for everything from a package cover to a billboard.

OK, for portraits, well, I like the ability to use a slightly longer lens exactly for the reason spraynpray stated.

I really think it all comes down to one's budget. DX will allow an almost identical image for half to two-thirds the cost of full frame, lenses considered. Of course one can use the full frame lenses on DX and not save as much.

heartyfisher

It hasn't moved on me yet.

You should try "gagh"

KnockKnock

GAGH! heh.

So far in DX, I've found that most of my food shots are happy at ~f2.8 since I'm pretty close. Any more shallow it's just weird. Portraits like the 50mm 1.4G, and I lust for the 50mm1.8G. So I'm pretty well served by the existing primes should I spend a little on the latter, but I don't really know what I'm missing here - the mystery of buttery bokeh is tempting.

I think a little zoom envy whispers to me that I would get better walk-around results in FF than DX because of the shallower DOF with any lens, including the 24-85. But since walk-around tourism with FF is at least down at #3 on my priorities list, DX keeps coming back as the sensible choice.

spraynpray

I think most people are not getting the best out of what they've got let alone be actually able to take their images from fantastic DX shots to fantastic FX shots. I class myself among them BTW. As stated on the D400 thread I just saw some fabulous work done with a D300 that lacked nothing at all in 99% of the shots.

As you have it already, my thought is why not stay with DX until you can plainly see that it is holding you back?

sevencrossing

. Part of this is trying to wrap my brain around FF vs DX in terms of perspective, distortion, DOF etc. !

In term of perspective; there will be no different at all
in terms of distortion and DOF; with a kit lens, the differences will be minimum

The advantages of FX will only start to show in difficult conditions

You would see a big difference in DOF , if, in the future, you wanted to use say the 24mm f 1.4
were there is no DX equivalent

To start with, you will probably see be very little difference but in time your are likely to become more critical and will start to see differences

Advantages of the D600
1 It exists ( the D7200 does not and may never, exist )
2 If you decide to "upgrade" to a D800 or D4 in the future; all your glass will be FX compatible
3 FX camers have bigger view finders
4 better results in poor lighting conditions
5 Will take full advantage of all of Nikon FX Glass ( Yes, Fx glass can be used on a DX camera but you be "wasting" half the usable image produced by an fx lens)

Remember a FX image can be easily cropped to Dx in post , but you cannot go the other way round

KnockKnock

and I lust for the 50mm1.8G

That should have said 85mm 1.8G.

I think the source of much of my FF angst is that I was loaned a 5Dmkiii with a 24-70 2.8 (non-VR). Took a snap at an ice cream parlor - I'll have to dig it up to read the specs, but I think it was ~50mm f2.8 ISO1600-ish. (Good exercise to practice posting things here.)

My girfriend (graphic designer) pulled it up on Photoshop and could instantly see 'something' was better about it than anything my D60 gives - her terms were depth of color, vibrancy, dimensionality. I resist thinking it's Canon magic.

When the woman you live with recognizes the benefits of $5000 of gear, it kinda goes to your head :> So I question DX. My brief stint with a D7000 showed me it's massively improved over my D60, but I'm not so sure I saw that 'magic'.

Msmoto

I think most people are not getting the best out of what they've got let alone be actually able to take their images from fantastic DX shots to fantastic FX shots. I class myself among them BTW. As stated on the D400 thread I just saw some fabulous work done with a D300 that lacked nothing at all in 99% of the shots.

As you have it already, my thought is why not stay with DX until you can plainly see that it is holding you back?

I think this is as true as it gets. Most of us, me included, do not get out of our gear anything like it can actual do. And, with this in mind, unless we are shooting big name clients who demand the absolute best...or the client simply specifies a certain size file which will come only from a full frame body, then the end result for all but the huge images will be quite adequate using DX.

Some of us, again, I include myself, are caught between our past and reality. And, when I actually worked for a living years ago in photography, 35mm was for certain work and the rest was always larger format. Today, i have to remember that with the DX sensors, we can produce phenomenal results, this proven by many on PAD

Hessephoto

Dx can definitely produce fine results, we have d7000 and d800 and I just find it is alot easier to get great results with full frame. For me the d600 is Soo cheap now you'd be crazy not to go full frame especially if the new dx camera is nearly the same price as the d600!

JJ_SO

You're right, but for those FX bodies one needs proper lenses...

spraynpray

'proper lenses' (:| I would say you need lenses with FX written on them.....

sevencrossing

'proper lenses' (:| I would say you need lenses with FX written on them.....

+1
I would the word "Nikon" as well

Msmoto

@ sevencrossing

+1, +1

Hessephoto

Everyone seems to love shooting fx lenses on their dx cameras anyway, and im only interested in fx long term so I won't be buying dx lenses. Probably worth considering that you will buy fx with either kit.