привет мике Given that the D600 is an IQ equal or more compared to the D3x, we all can assume image quality is as good as it is going to get for a while. So why are you not overwhelmed by the IQ? Possibly because any improvements over the D90 is incremental and finer and finer judging criteria is needed to see a difference except where high resolution images are displayed at their native image size. Were you viewing the photos printed very large? That is where the 24mpx would shine but on a 72dpi typical monitor of 19 inches diagonally is not going to show the advantage of high res unless zooming in to the same equivalent size.
Another factor that impacts the results is of course the lenses. Putting the same lenses on both the D90 and D600, the lenses will be more of a limiting factor on the D600 than the D90. Before anyone considers switching their whole system to FX, they will only see the results improve in a meaningful way if they have quality lenses. That is the most expensive part of photography and the real line of demarcation between DX and FX. In total system investment, the body is the easy part, the cheapest part of the system change, except lighting. My advice is to ask oneself if they are really prepared for the system change by having lenses and tripods suitable for the relatively low cost of the camera body. Survey the average FX shooter and you will probably find at least $10,000 invested in lenses and if they are wildlife or worse, BIF, shooters that is likely much higher. The cost for incremental steps in any field gets higher for less and less difference when approaching the current state of the art. A hi-fi enthusiast might spend an order of magnatude more for system elements for improvements that are extremely minute and argued about as to whether any change at all takes place. A $10,000 amplifier is only likely to be a tiny bit better and with a barely discernible difference from a $1,000 amplifier. A $40 amplifier and $400 amplifier would have a much larger step difference. The same goes for cars, which go to the millions of dollars for each step that few people could notice when the difference between a $7,000 car and $70,000 car is significant. So wringing the potential capability from these great low cost cameras available today, the support system of lenses, tripods etc, have significant cost steps. If a $2000 body is a stretch, you are simply not going to get the significant improvement expected. It is an incremental improvement that becomes noticed in the extremes of conditions but not in typical uses. A D90 with optimal lighting will produce better images than a D600 or D4 or whatever in bad light. Looking at your gallery I would suggest a good lighting workshop for a lot less would produce more noticeable, large step improvement than changing bodies. That is not a criticism of your images but generally for anyone who has not wrung out the very best from their existing system. The harsh mid-day sun in many of your images are not going to become more pleasing if shot with a D600. Some daylight fill light or a reflector would make a big difference in most of those images that a camera can't. Very few people on this forum, myself included, would not benefit more from learning new methods of getting the best from what they have, than they would get from a new body. Good example. I have a D7000 and have always liked it. I got a D800 in May and really like it. I started getting better images with the D800 because, as I discovered, I had to slow down and think about shots since it was an entirely new camera for me. I learned to optimize some of the small techniques that improved individual frames. When shooting an important social event where people were counting on the images a couple weeks ago, I used both the D800 and the D7000 both with good lenses. When the results were viewed large and some printed very large, the results were very gratifying. But in subjective judgement, when the images were not identified by camera, no one, noticed any difference between the D7000 images and D800, both were excellent. In fact the person most concerned with the image quality and look picked one of the candid shots from the D7000 for a large print on canvas as the symbol for the event. Why were the D7000 images so good? Because the things I learned by slowing down and thinking a bit more critically BEFORE the shot, as learned with the D800, improved images from both cameras.
Last Thursday was an event that had 250 attendees from all over the world, a formal social and networking banquet and dance for young professionals and consul generals form 6 countries. I was invited as a member but took my camera bag. About mid way through the evening I got my camera out. The event was being recorded by two professional event photographers but when the images from all three of us were combined and picked for publication, and for the event web site, of the 100 images selected, 73 of the 121 frames I took were included. They took many hundreds of frames with 5DIII and 1DsIII, probably 800. Why? I was shooting slowly and using the time to think about the shots before releasing the shutter. I used a 70-200 on the D7000 and 24-70 or 85 1.4 on the D800, again, both cameras were represented by the picked favorite images. Of real improvements that come from all upgrades, the upgrades of the photographer are the most visible. Stan St Petersburg Russia