D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 2,083Gear list
Like?
Let's simplify this
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

When simply trying to cover a focal length, irrespective of IQ, DX can often do it for a lower price as long as the focal length of concern is not between 28mm and 80mm, because there are $20 options available for FX that DX can't match. (and 20mm, because there's a $100 Tamron 19-35 that DX can't match either)

When trying to obtain equivalent DOF and ISO performance (factoring in equivalent aperture), FX wins with one exception: getting a 75mm or 85mm f/2. DX has the 50/1.4 for $200 used, but with FX, a 85/1.8 costs about $300.

So yes, you can set up kit with DX that covers the same focal lengths as a more expensive FX kit. But you'll be losing DOF control, and will have a harder time in low light. (and most of the time will have less resolution too).

I own a D7000 and a D600, I use both behind a 70-200 f4 most regularly.  So I should throw out the D7000 because the IQ is worse?  If I solely took pictures in a cave maybe.

Taking pictures in a cave is not what high ISO is for. You would use a cable release and a tripod for that to obtain nice, bright long exposure ISO 100 (or ISO 25 if you desired) images.

High ISO is for freezing fast action in marginal light. Let's say you're at a stage performance, and they dim the stage lights. But performers are moving around, and you can't pull a low shutter speed and rely on good handholding technique to save you. You still want sharp shots (so at least 1/250s with good panning). You're at ISO 6400 before you know it.

Or if they turn off the lights on a dance floor. You're hitting ISO 12800 or 25600. Plenty of real life scenarios call for high ISOs (basically anything that's indoors and deals with moving stuff).

At elevated ISO, sure, at base ISO, I'd love for you to prove that assertion

That's the whole point - at elevated ISO, FX is better.

But at base ISO, FX is also better, providing more DR. And having a lower pixel density while having the same resolution means it demands less from lenses.

The initial body price being 1000 dollars more, and the more bang for the buck being if you shoot pictures in a cave or need razor thin DOF.

Again, pictures in a cave = very poor argument.

Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture, and I still haven't seen any real proof that even given the equivalencies FX is significantly cheaper lens for lens, let alone considering the above "initial higher body price" which BEST CASE is 800 bucks or so more.

Ok, let's go cheapest way to cover focal lengths, completely ignoring IQ/low light ability:

  • Standard 28-80 type zoom: Tamron 28-80/3.5-5.6 - $25 used from KEH
  • DX equivalent: 18-55/3.5-5.6, about $80 used even looking at the non-VR version (ebay)
  • Getting a 15mm wide angle: Samyang 14/2.8 for $350
  • DX equivalent: 10-20/4-5.6, about $400 used from ebay
  • Getting a 20mm wide angle: Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 - about $100 from KEH
  • DX equivalent: Some 14mm lens? $350 for Samyang 14/2.8?

I never said APS-C performance is equal to FF.  The post that started all of this said "FX lenses cost more" you two then propped up the argument "FX lenses don't cost more when you factor in performance of the camera they're attached to."

That's exactly the argument. How can you consider lenses without also considering differences in camera body? A DX sensor behind a 55/2.8 lens is collecting about half as much light as a FX sensor behind a 80/2.8 lens.

 chlamchowder's gear list:chlamchowder's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A580 Nikon D600 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow