D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,860
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

There's really only one thing you need a stop faster lens for, depth of field control.

This really shows your lack of understanding of the whole thing. It is not just about DOF, it is also about end resulting IQ which is a lot more important.

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?

That would make you very silly wouldn't it?

If I solely took pictures in a cave maybe.

why would you need 70-200 F4 in a cave?

If I upgraded to a D7100, the subject of this thread, I'd really like you to explain to me how my images would be worse at 100mm on the d7100 than 150mm on the d600, other than the slight loss of subject isolation, which is irrelevant for my use anyways.

it is worse when you need certain SS to freeze the subject, and DOf is not an issue. at the same  ISO as D600 will have better IQ and this advantage gets more apparent as you go up in ISO.

"straw men" argument is exactly what you are doing. you fail to understand that sensor size dicates IQ and it must be taken into consideration when comparing resulting IQ.

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

Even if we assume there is no difference at base ISO - if IQ of X is better than IQ of Y sometimes and X is never worse than Y, then it is not incorrect to say IQ of X is better than IQ of  Y.

But truth is there is still some difference at base ISO, see DXO for the difference. whether you care for that difference is another issue altogether.

In the technical ultimate image quality sense, yes, it is, because DX just plain can't compete at the top end.  But in the "relevant to a thread where some guy asks do I buy a D7100 or a D600" sense, it's just an exercise in semantics.

No it is not. It is all about money for IQ. beyond the initial higher body price, the FF system offers more bang for the buck.

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.

I know even you know such claim is pure absurdity.  Are 24-140 3.5-5.6, 24-85 VR, 50 f1.8 and 85 F1.8 dedicated for caves or razor thin DOF?

As I said in my other post, if your argument was that persuasive DX lenses would be marked in 35mm equivalent focal lengths and apertures, or people would be clamoring to make them be marked as such because anything else is deceptive.

This argument is nonsensical. it would be inappropriate because Focal length is focal length. Furthermore there is no such a need because people who care will be smart enough to work out the equivalent FL and F-ratio, those who cannot work it out probably do not care anyway. god bless them just the same.

Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture,

Good, so stop with this false advertising claim.

and I still haven't seen any real proof that even given the equivalencies FX is significantly cheaper lens for lens,

This thread is full of them, plenty of examples have been given by me and others. Unless you are completely blind you really cannot claim that you haven't seen any. At best you can claim you have a mental block that you are not convinced despite these evidence have been put before you. What is true is that so far you have not been able to disprove the validity of these proofs within this thread.

let alone considering the above "initial higher body price" which BEST CASE is 800 bucks or so more.

I bought my D600 4 month ago for 2000 bucks including over 100 bucks of accessory and a 500 dollar lens rendering the body cost around 1400 or less. For mm the "initial higher body price" compared to D7100 is about 200 bucks.

Perhaps you guys should get together and sue Canon and Nikon for false advertising.

There is no false advertising because neither ever claimed APS-C would perform the same as FF when using the same lens. However you could be sued for defamation for calling canon and nikon false advertising, and for misrepresenting APs-C performance with your fallacious claims that they equal to FF.

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."

If yo acknowledge that APS-C performance does not equal to FF, then you would acknowledge that to get the same performance you would need a more expensive lens for aps-c or a cheaper lens for FF, if so when it is pretty clear that for the same given performance it may well cost less to buy lenses for FF. So where in this logical reasoning did you get stuck I honestly do not know.

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