I've been working with a Nikon D50 for quite some time. It still is the bomb when taking outdoor pictures, but recently we've had an addition to our family and I've been taking a lot of indoor pics and the D50 just ain't cutting it. I realize in about 2-3 years, we'll be taking outdoor pictures again as our son grows up to be the next greatest sports star since sliced Wonderbread. I also like to take pics of landscape. I am an enthusiast and this is not my job.

I've been saving for a while and I'm looking at two different cameras with which to upgrade. Both are Nikon. D600 (Full frame) and D7100 (DX). The D600 would be great because of the full frame sensor. However, it does have an AA filter and it does have the dust/oil issue. I don't see that as much of an issue, as I'll be willing to clean the sensor myself.

The D7100 is nice because it is cheaper, no dust issues as of yet, supposedly better focusing mechanism, and apparently can crop the sensory and zoom even more than a normal DX sensor will. No AA filter. However, it is DX and not full frame.

Any real world experience with either of these cameras? Does the filter vs no filter really make a big difference? Anything else I'm missing? Anything else I should be considering? I'd like to stay with Nikon.

I'm tending towards the D600 with full frame in order to get better pics at low light. Don't care too much about the faster focusing 'cuase I read somewhere's that the 7100 isn't THAT much faster??? Any thoughts welcome, whether it be pros and cons or to further organize my thoughts...

If you aren't going to be making money, stay with a DX, IMHO. They take fabulous pictures.

I have a Nikon D90, traded up from a D50. Very good grain at high ISO, much better than the D50--though perhaps not as good as the latest generation. It does 12 MP but I actually keep it dialed back to 6mp because I just don't need to pack my hard drive with huge image files for family pics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2013 10:31AM by Acer.

I've been saving for a while and I'm looking at two different cameras with which to upgrade. Both are Nikon. D600 (Full frame) and D7100 (DX). The D600 would be great because of the full frame sensor.
However, it does have an AA filter and it does have the dust/oil issue. I don't see that as much of an issue, as I'll be willing to clean the sensor myself.

The D600 oil spot issue is real but doesn't show up in every shot. If you are cleaning the sensor yourself, read up on how to do it as to not smear the oil.



The D7100 is nice because it is cheaper, no dust issues as of yet, supposedly better focusing mechanism, and apparently can crop the sensory and zoom even more than a normal DX sensor will. No AA filter. However, it is DX and not full frame.

The AF sensor in the D7100 is new and not in any other Nikon model. Until it is tested it is difficult to be sure how accurate it is. It is supposed to be better than the D700 AF unit. If you are not shooting a lot of low light or action shots, the AF sensor in either camera should keep up.

Any real world experience with either of these cameras? Does the filter vs no filter really make a big difference? Anything else I'm missing? Anything else I should be considering? I'd like to stay with Nikon.

The AA filter issue is yet to be determined. If the non AA D800E is any indication, items such as fabrics, bricks or other patterns may need post processing correction. Some have theorized that Nikon has found a way around this issue. I remain skeptical until I see real world tests.

I'm tending towards the D600 with full frame in order to get better pics at low light. Don't care too much about the faster focusing 'cuase I read somewhere's that the 7100 isn't THAT much faster??? Any thoughts welcome, whether it be pros and cons or to further organize my thoughts...

Full frame may not necessarily give you better low light results visible to the naked eye in prints you make no larger than 8x10. Moving to full frame would require full frame lenses. The cost of image quality vs. extra cost is going to have to be your call. Full frame lenses tend to cost more and weigh more. The solid advantage to full frame is the depth of field isolation though blurred background may be achieved with certain lenses for DX.

If you have DX lenses and are looking for better low light image quality performance, check out a refurb D7000. It is not a slouch. I have used this camera for general use at about two years now and am pretty pleased. It has a lower pixel density than the D7100 and lots of features.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

Best thing for indoors is a fast lens - f2.8 or better. f2.8 zooms can get pricey quick so you may want to pick up a prime. A 50 f1.8 can be gotten for fairly cheap. With a DX sensor a 50mm may not be wide enough indoors so also look at 35mm and/or 28mm lenses.

Quote
MEG
Best thing for indoors is a fast lens - f2.8 or better. f2.8 zooms can get pricey quick so you may want to pick up a prime. A 50 f1.8 can be gotten for fairly cheap. With a DX sensor a 50mm may not be wide enough indoors so also look at 35mm and/or 28mm lenses.

Meg is right, A lens such as the DX 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 SWM will feed the AF sensor more light for better accuracy. If you want DX and a great AF module, the D300 and D300s use the D3 AF unit which is outstanding. The main difference between the D300 and D300s is the 720p movie mode. The AF speed increase is negligible. I recently sold off my D300s since I felt the D7000 was a bit lighter for my general use. At times I miss the more accurate AF sensor but I usually use higher end cameras for sports/action/low light.


D300s in the used market have hit the $500-600 price point and the D7000 refurb is $750.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

The whole non-AA business is just silly IMHO. Sensors and lenses are plenty sharp. Images are plenty sharp. 12-18mp is adequate resolution. When I shoot portraits, I find myself softening and removing blemished and imperfections. I don't see how the removal of the AA filter and inviting rainbow moire into the equation is helpful at all.

If you will be shooting action, get a used D300S. If you want great performance at a low price, get a D7000. If you love absolute sharpness (allegedly), D7100. If you like full frame look and feel of shallow DOF then get the D600. If you want it all get the D800. It actually doubles as a 16mp DX camera and the AF sensor is the one they use on the D4.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

Thank you all for the responses!

I do not think you need to go full frame to get great low light shots. Sure, in the extreme FF will give better results but I've made prints much larger than 8x12 from a m4/3rds sensor (smaller than nikon DX) at high iso with good results. Stick with cheaper, smaller and ligher DX, IMHO.

I went full frame to the D600, after having owned the D300 and the D50. The main differences between the D300 and D50 is that the D300 is much better at autofocus and low light photography. You should expect good photos at iso1600 on the d300, whereas the D50 has acceptable images at iOS1600. Going up to a d600, I found that I can get good images at iso6400 while the d300 is only acceptable (although sometimes, I was surprised by the d300's low light capability).

I can't discern much of a difference between the d300 and d600 autofocus speeds. As I tend to shoot birds in flight, I would say that you shouldn't see any difference. Just make sure to set the d600 up properly.

A major difference is the weight of the d600 vs d300. The d300 weighs much more...which is great for ruggedness, but bad if you spend a day at the park or amusement park...the d600's low weight is great.

I think the only question that you need to answer is what lenses you have. If you have some fast glass that is full frame, go d600 if you have dx lenses, go d300 (or d300s). I read that the d300s is a little better than the d300 in terms of low light Iso.


However, if you are an enthusiast and want great family pictures,I'd say you should consider getting better glass. I already owned the tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens. I recently traded my Nikon for the sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and have been thrilled with the combination.

Last thing to consider, if you plan on getting better lenses, then get the d600, as you can always shoot in DX crop mode with your older lenses and get a 10megapixel picture...which is what I sometimes do with my sigma10-20. This way, you can slowly add lenses to your collection.

Hope this helps.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2013 04:37PM by wowzer.