D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 2,068Gear list
Like?
Re: You need to brush up on your reading :-)
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

I'd suggest maybe you want to go look at the "studio test shots" on this very website and compare the D7100 and D600.  I think you'll be hard pressed at base ISO to discern a significant difference between the two.

With properly exposed JPGs on a low DR scene, and no post processing, you're right that the difference is minimal. But that's not always the case.

But we're not always at base ISO. Not all shots are going to be taken in bright sunlight, or involve still subjects that you can use a tripod with. Try a dimly lit dance floor...you're at ISO 6400 before you know it.

And ISO is ISO, you don't need to change exposure or aperture to compensate if the rated ISO's between the cameras are the same.  The "half the light" penalty is factored in, but is not a major issue at base ISO.  Is there more DR, sure (a whopping half stop, from 13.7 to 14.2 EV, either one of which destroys any camera made up until a year or two ago in this segment), is there less noise, maybe a little, is it going to be discernible in any realistic use of the photo in question, probably not.

Image brightness comes out the same, but the DX camera will show more noise. That's what we're talking about. To get the DX camera's noise performance up to a similar level, you'll have to double the exposure time with the DX camera, or use a lens that's a stop faster.

Everyone today appears to be off on this "just buy a killer FX camera" tangent instead of actually learning what photography is about, which is LIGHT.  20 years ago they still took pictures when about the highest ISO film available was 1600 and it didn't look very good.

Poor high ISO performance was a restriction that limited what photographers could capture 20 years ago. That's why sports pictures from the film era most of the time honestly look like...garbage. Yeah, they still took pictures, but they didn't come out well, simply because they were limited by the technology available. But it's 2013 now, and we expect better. Much better.

It's becoming clear that you guys are only interested in a numbers and technology game, rather than a realistic comparison of OUTPUT from these cameras.  Last time I checked photography was about photos.  A DX camera and a good flash will do anything an FX cam can do for this guys kid pictures until his kid is old enough to be in stage plays or something where flash is a no no or he's too far away.

Flash...stop right there. It's true that a $50 compact with a flash will produce clean images in any setting, but flash isn't practical for a lot of reasons:

  • It attracts too much attention, and flash is banned all over the place
  • Once subjects are too far away, flash is useless (as you mention)
  • Flash creates an artificial look with a different color balance than the environment.
  • Flash creates weird shadows unless you have multiple flashes set up to fill those shadows (not always possible)
  • Flash consumes quite a bit of battery power if used often
It's a numbers and technology game, precisely because better numbers/technology enable better photos.

This from the guy who says my D7000 needs twice the exposure time as my D600...

For the same high noise performance, yes, especially as you get to the high end of the ISO range.

 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