p.2 #1 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Dan,
I updated from DX to FX recently, i really stuck it out with a D3100, yes a D3100 for years waiting with baited breath for the D300s replacement to surface. In the end i just couldn't wait any longer, i pulled the trigger on a used D700 with a 1700K shutter count and i can honestly say it's one of the best decisions i have ever made and the difference is huge.
My issue with the D300s as an upgrade was the sensor, it's old tech and didn't look great over ISO800, the D7000 was plagued with AF issues, i really pulled everything apart here because i didn't want to make the wrong decision on a £1000 body.
The pro's:
1) Remember this is a format change, it's very different to DX in the sense that the crop factor is missing. In real world it now means that where you may have been shooting up close with f/1.8, on FX you need to be around f/4-5.6 so a bump in ISO is required to achieve the same DOF.
2) The D700 makes moderate ISO on the D3100 look like crap, i see intrusive noise on my old D3100 images at ISO800 whereas the D700 on ISO3200 looks much better.
3) The overall mage quality and feel and contrast to the images is far better on the D700, a good analogy is take a TV show that shoots with crystal clear cameras, now take a film that was shot in Panavision. The film looks softer but in a better, filmic, softer less 3D way, this is how i would describe the difference.
4) The 24-70 was good, but was amazing on the FF camera.
The cons:
1) You have to work hard and think about your DOF, it would be very easy on FX to go too shallow where it would have been ok on DX.
2) Vignetting is now something you have to deal with but, it's easily fixed in any editor.
In short, a D600, D700 is going to make a considerable difference to the D5100, your pictures will really come alive. I personally went for a D700 because i wanted the pro body but i'm sure the D600 would be a step up again. The D7100 will no doubt be a good DX performer but i really have no desire for DX any longer other than for taking pics of the kids and using it as a walk around.
May 09, 2013 at 04:50 PM
DavidWEGS Offline [X]
p.2 #2 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
I think the D600 has a better sensor, for sure. However, if you have yet to exhaust the ability of the d5100 from the POV of your skills, the D600 won't do that much for you.
I have (had) both of these bodies, and while the 600 is considerably better in some respects, the lack of articulating screen makes the D5100 a great creative tool. Also, the d5100 files are very good.
D5100 used in the studio with kids is a great tool - if they bust it, its cheaper.
p.2 #3 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
I would strongly suggest that the OP consider both a D5200 for its 24MP and much better high-ISO performance, and a D7100 for its additional controls and better ergonomics (as well as the aforementioned 24MP and better high-ISO performance).
A D7100 upgrade, for example, would lead to significantly better image quality and improved ergonomics. It would also cost roughly $600-$700 instead of $1500. The remaining $800-$900 saved could be put to other, potentially much better uses.
Any price difference that big needs to be evaluated very carefully.
May 10, 2013 at 12:32 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I would strongly suggest that the OP consider both a D5200 for its 24MP and much better high-ISO performance, and a D7100 for its additional controls and better ergonomics (as well as the aforementioned 24MP and better high-ISO performance).
A D7100 upgrade, for example, would lead to significantly better image quality and improved ergonomics. It would also cost roughly $600-$700 instead of $1500. The remaining $800-$900 saved could be put to other, potentially much better uses.
Any price difference that big needs to be evaluated very carefully.
p.2 #5 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Kerry Pierce wrote:
How soon do you think that the future displays will have the resolution of a d800, at 7,360 × 4,912? My current display is several years old ( maybe 6 or 7 years old, can't remember ) and is 1,920 x 1,200, native. Looking at some google results, it looks like the hot monitors of today, such as the Dell u2711 is 2,560 x 1,440 and costs about $900. That doesn't seem like a huge increase in resolution, given the age of my monitor, which is an HP LP2475, considered a good monitor in its day.
Then you really need to consider TVs, since many more folks own TVs rather than high res monitors. AFAIK, the best TVs of today have lower resolution than my monitor. Seems likely to me that I'll be in the ground long before a TV will have the d800's resolution. But, I could be wrong.
4K and 8K TV's have just started rolling out. Those resolutions will dwarf standard monitors resolution easily. It'll be great for displaying photos and watching super hi-def videos.
p.2 #6 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
I'd say 4K TV's "have just started rolling out". I'm aware of a couple of models at $25,000 and one or two Sonys at $5,000. 8K is still a long-term deal IMHO.
And by the time 4K becomes mainstream, cameras will have even more pixels.
p.2 #7 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
@ David - your reply and image sample has convinced me to stay with D5100 for now. I have only been shooting DSLR for about a year - so I have a long way to go in terms of learning. I have noticed the difference with better lenses however. Perhaps i spend my money on FX lenses first, and then upgrade to FX body later.
p.2 #8 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Then you really need to consider TVs, since many more folks own TVs rather than high res monitors. AFAIK, the best TVs of today have lower resolution than my monitor. Seems likely to me that I'll be in the ground long before a TV will have the d800's resolution. But, I could be wrong.
4K tvs are very real and WILL be everywhere in the next few years. Anyone who says otherwise, or says 4K is unnecessary is clueless.
Also 8K in cinema is very realistic down the line. They already have 8K tvs. 8K is pretty much D800 resolution.
4K is astonishing. Not just a resolution bump either.
p.2 #9 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
canondoc wrote:
4K tvs are very real and WILL be everywhere in the next few years. Anyone who says otherwise, or says 4K is unnecessary is clueless.
I'm going to disagree with you on that last part. 4K is not just unnecessary, it's totally unnecessary.
That doesn't mean it won't happen, of course: it will become the next standard and it'll eventually go mainstream. But it'll do so because people want "better" and, as with any other product, gradually more people become willing to pay for that much "better" and gradually the technology costs come down as the learning and implementation curve progresses. Then the majority gets into it... but also to get something better, not because they need it.
I'm sure 4K will go mainstream, but I doubt it'll be "in the next few years" if that means 3-5 years. They'll be an expensive novelty for the next 2-3 years at least IMHO, with less than 1% market acceptance. Between 4-6 years from now, we may hit as much as 10% switchover to 4K. I'd bet they become mainstream (> 30% market share) sometime in the next 10 years, but not before 6-7 years.
That's what my crystal ball says, and I'm sticking to it.
p.2 #11 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I'm going to disagree with you on that last part. 4K is not just unnecessary, it's totally unnecessary.
I am also going to (partially) disagree. 4K for average, smaller TV's viewed at reasonable (not too close) distances is going to be a marginal improvement, if noticeable at all. But 4K for big TV's, and projectors it will be VERY noticeable. Whether it's necessary is of course a matter of individual opinion. That said....4K is most definitely usable for DESKTOP monitors....and that is where I'd rather see it first. I desperately want something like a 4K 27-30" desktop monitor. I'd certainly consider that more necessary than an average TV at 4K.
The fact of the matter is that 4K is 1080 HD all over again. You can argue that it's more necessary for TV manufacturers than for consumers, but it's coming no matter what. Time will make it all come down in price anyway, and any argument against will become moot. Distribution of 4K video content is of course a whole 'nother can of worms....
May 10, 2013 at 03:54 PM
DavidWEGS Offline [X]
p.2 #12 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
dpbingham wrote:
@ David - your reply and image sample has convinced me to stay with D5100 for now. I have only been shooting DSLR for about a year - so I have a long way to go in terms of learning. I have noticed the difference with better lenses however. Perhaps i spend my money on FX lenses first, and then upgrade to FX body later.
You already have a great set of lenses and the 24-70 is an excellent lens of FF when you eventually go that way, if you do.
I use a kit zoom for the studio stuff like that too. (55-200 IIRC) They are not brilliant lenses, but very good value for a setup that you can drop without feeling like you just had a heart attack.
p.2 #13 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
dpbingham wrote:
Nikon 24-70 (36-105 on DX)
The 24-70 FX lens is still a 24-70 lens on a DX camera. In other words, if you took a 24-70 DX lens, it would have the same angle of view range as the 24-70 FX lens if both were on a DX camera.
p.2 #14 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
To continue the monitor sidetrack ...
Monitors were actually higher resolution before HD came along. Then the companies involved realized they could sell monitors with less pixels and call them "HD" and charge more for them than the higher res "non-HD". (A 4:3 ratio 24" monitor has more pixels than a 16:9 ratio 24" monitor.)
Personally, I am very glad that 4K has come along, because I think / hope it will finally get us past this silly 1900x1080 barrier we have had to live for quite some time now. Yes, there are a few larger monitors, but as was pointed out, they are disproportionately expensive for what you are getting, pixel wise.
p.2 #16 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Silenus wrote:
That said....4K is most definitely usable for DESKTOP monitors....and that is where I'd rather see it first. I desperately want something like a 4K 27-30" desktop monitor.
I'm with you 100% on this. It may not be necessary, but it'll definitely be a huge improvement and I'm going to stand in line as soon as I can afford it.
p.2 #17 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
I'm with you 100% on this. It may not be necessary, but it'll definitely be a huge improvement and I'm going to stand in line as soon as I can afford it.
I am standing in line right now! What 6 numbers should I use?
Not sure how many will notice much difference in a 4k monitor?
I just moved up from an HD (1920x1080) monitor to an XD (2560x1600).
I think the first comment will be" Why are the fonts so small?
p.2 #18 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
binary visions wrote:
Well, the thing about displays is that monitor resolution hits a point of diminishing returns. A 36mp monitor isn't useful because it's so much more pixel density than your eye can resolve. In order to make more megapixels useful, you have to have an increase in output size, and that's more of a functional limitation than a technical one.
Not, of course, that I'm doubting constant gains in resolution - just that the ultimate measurement is actually pixels per inch, not just pixels, and at a certain point we start to bump up against the limits of our ability to see individual pixels....Show more →
We do but screens are getting bigger (mine is 30") and that is equivalent for a 25.5"ish print viewed from a very close distance.
p.2 #20 · D5100 vs. D600 with same 24-70 lens - huge IQ difference?
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Then you really need to consider TVs, since many more folks own TVs rather than high res monitors. AFAIK, the best TVs of today have lower resolution than my monitor. Seems likely to me that I'll be in the ground long before a TV will have the d800's resolution. But, I could be wrong.
canondoc wrote:
4K tvs are very real and WILL be everywhere in the next few years. Anyone who says otherwise, or says 4K is unnecessary is clueless.
Also 8K in cinema is very realistic down the line. They already have 8K tvs. 8K is pretty much D800 resolution.
4K is astonishing. Not just a resolution bump either.
What you say about 4k may well be true, but given the resolution of the d800 at 7,360 × 4,912, compared to a $7,000 US 65" Sony TV at 3,840 x 2,160 resolution, I think that my point statement still stands. How large and how costly would an 8k TV have to be?
IMO, looking too far into the future isn't productive. Lots of things could happen in 10 or 20 years, that few today can predict. Bringing it all back to the OP, the 8mp difference in the d5100 and d600 is simply not that significant for most folks, IMO.
I think that the OP's plan to keep the d5100 and invest in higher quality lenses, is the smart thing to do.
