Moving from DX to FX
- Thread starter Ray the Skinny Boy
- Start date
If the previous generation of D3/D3s/D700 users have managed to get by with 1/8000s at base iso of 200, surely a D600 user can get by with 1/4000s since its base iso is 100
Sorry Guys and Girls,
But enlighten me with the talk on 1/8000 at 200 and 1/4000 at 200. I'm confused.
But enlighten me with the talk on 1/8000 at 200 and 1/4000 at 200. I'm confused.
Let's say you are taking a picture in bright sun and you wish to use a wide aperture. You are currently at iso 200, f1.4, 1/4000s and you find that you are 1 stop overexposed.
If you are using a D700, you can't lower your iso anymore (unless you go to lo 1), but you can raise shutter speed to 1/8000s to get the correct exposure.
If you are using a D600 you can't raise your shutter speed anymore but you can lower your iso to 100 for thr same effect.
What I am saying is that the lower base iso of the D600 helps to make up for the lower max shutter speed.
If you are using a D700, you can't lower your iso anymore (unless you go to lo 1), but you can raise shutter speed to 1/8000s to get the correct exposure.
If you are using a D600 you can't raise your shutter speed anymore but you can lower your iso to 100 for thr same effect.
What I am saying is that the lower base iso of the D600 helps to make up for the lower max shutter speed.
Max shutter speed is not that big a problem due to the lower base ISO. I would think people will have more problems with the lower flash sync speed.
?? when I am using D700, f1.4 ISO200 with 1/8000 I get overexposed shots in bright sunlight.
I don't see how you "get by" other than not shooting f1.4. I usually shoot at ISO200 f2.0 1/8000 in bright sunlight with D700.
I think CorneliusK is just throwing some numbers out as an example... It also depends on the angle of the light, cloud cover, time of the day, etc etc etc.. don't think there is a need to go nuts over some numbers.
Hmm correct me if I'm wrong, I remembered that while the Lo1 of our cameras shared the same DR as the cam's base ISO, but the DR band shifts towards the shadows (ie. more sensitive at the shadows, less sensitive at the highlights). If bro dniwkh is shooting at ISO200, f/1.4 and 1/8000s on his D700 and still gets overexposure, maybe going Lo1 helps but he may lose about 1 stop of highlights (but gain 1 stop of shadows). So shooting slightly underexposed RAW at ISO100 to maintain the highlights while recovering the shadow would get the same thing as if shooting at base ISO, but without overexposure.
Well that's what I read before I think... haha.. :embrass:
For wildlife I prefer a smaller sensor than FX to get more detail and reach at lower weight. I'm not a big fan of 600mm FX primes and longer. 
Also, sometimes you need more DoF where FX doesn't help you. For everything else FX is the best choice. File size is no concern these days.
Also, sometimes you need more DoF where FX doesn't help you. For everything else FX is the best choice. File size is no concern these days.
This is the first time I heard that moving to Lo1 you gain shadow detail. Sounds interesting though care to share where you read that?
Anyway, my experience is that for D700/D3, you can recover more from highlights than shadows. At Lo1, I see even more shadow details is lost. That is why I try to expose to the right more than often when shooting landscapes. For D800, never tried it myself since I don't own the camera, from what I read so far, it seems it favors shadows slightly more than highlights.
But I never heard that by shifting to Lo1, you gain more details in shadows.
Last edited:
Hmm I read about it on dpreview forums, there was a discussion about whether there are any losses in IQ if ISO50/Lo1 was used on the D600
Here's the thread and the exact post that says that: A little clarification: Nikon FX SLR (D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
And a histogram illustration between ISO100 and ISO50:
Re: Interesting... question...: Nikon FX SLR (D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Ray, get the camera. I recently moved to a D600 from a D7000 (and i had about 3 Canons before that) and i have no regrets. Don't worry about SD cards - $30 gets you a 16GB Sandisk which gets you ~220 photos in RAW. Maybe you need more or maybe that is enough but its small $ compared to the camera and lenses that you are referencing.
If one really needs to shoot at f/1.4 on a sunny day, then as the others mention you can take the D600 down to ISO 50, but, i have neve found the need to shoot like this. With a full frame camera you have a narrower depth of field than your 5100 so taking the aperture to f/2 or f/2.5 will a) increase the quality of the photo and b) still leave some bokeh. Need more? Add a little in the processing.
You mention a wide array of shooting needs ... street, wildlife, etc. that's ok but remember that you are essentially saying that you want it all. I have found that i shoot less action/sports and more portrait/family/landscape/city etc and in doing so, WIDE and DEEP is better. I love my cheapo 24 mm f/2.8 on the D600, and often it is set at about f/8. But when i need to shoot sports (I play and shoot Ultimate) then i rent a zoom lens, pick a shutter speed accordingly (1/1000?) and RARELY take it below f/5.6. I still get background blur - from the zoom not the aperature - and i am pleased with the results. low light? thats ok the D600 can go to ISO 1600 and still be better than by D7000 at 400. Yep. Serious.
Happy shooting.
If one really needs to shoot at f/1.4 on a sunny day, then as the others mention you can take the D600 down to ISO 50, but, i have neve found the need to shoot like this. With a full frame camera you have a narrower depth of field than your 5100 so taking the aperture to f/2 or f/2.5 will a) increase the quality of the photo and b) still leave some bokeh. Need more? Add a little in the processing.
You mention a wide array of shooting needs ... street, wildlife, etc. that's ok but remember that you are essentially saying that you want it all. I have found that i shoot less action/sports and more portrait/family/landscape/city etc and in doing so, WIDE and DEEP is better. I love my cheapo 24 mm f/2.8 on the D600, and often it is set at about f/8. But when i need to shoot sports (I play and shoot Ultimate) then i rent a zoom lens, pick a shutter speed accordingly (1/1000?) and RARELY take it below f/5.6. I still get background blur - from the zoom not the aperature - and i am pleased with the results. low light? thats ok the D600 can go to ISO 1600 and still be better than by D7000 at 400. Yep. Serious.
Happy shooting.
Have already stocked 4 x 32GB in prep of getting the D600 myself. $38 can get you one piece of 32GB.
D600 has a max calibrated ISO of 6400, not 1600, expendable up to ISO25,600.
Yes you are right about the ISO. I was trying to say that the quality is still great up to 1600 (some people would even say higher...?) and trying to draw a comparison to ability of the D7000
Similar threads
