D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,673
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to d3xmeister, May 15, 2013

d3xmeister wrote:

The only true phenomenon in his clueless story is:

you are the clueless one.

But lens resolution is not everything. In fact many agree that is not even the most important thing. Good lenses have many qualities over cheap lenses. They have much better separation (not DOF), nice colours, micro contrast, bokeh quality etc, edge performance. They also have better T-Stop, which means they let more light in than cheaper lenses, even at the same aperture. And there is also the mechanical build, durability, the autofocus, how manual focus works etc.

except you cannot identify what of these qualities the said DX lenses actually have over the FX lenses, you are just making generalisation to mask you lack of actual understanding.

That's why Ultimitsu is plain wrong. He said that an old, second hand, cheap, plastic, low-end, amateur level third party lens is better than a pro level high quality lens, just because you mount it on FX. That is just rubbish.

what is plain rubbish is your confusion over what is compared to what. go back and read again.

I used the FX Nikon D700 and the DX Nikon D300. Yes the D700 was a better camera in IQ, but only if you mounted the same lenses.

rubbish. try 35 F1.8 on Dx vs 50 f1.8 on FX.

I borrowed a sigma 28-70mm and it was rubbish on both bodies.

that proves you are confused

The same with a Tamron 70-200mm.

that proves you are confused

Had a 70-300mm VR and borrowed a Nikon 70-200mm.

that proves you are confused

The D300 + 70-200mm f/2.8 combo was blowing away the D700 + 70-300mm VR combo in every way.

did anyone say anything about these combos?

And here is the core of your messed up understanding of the whole argument. no one said FX with the worst lens is still better than DX with the best lens. the point is for the same resulting IQ you can obtain it from a cheaper FX lens than DX lens. or for the same money you can get better IQ in FX than DX. read this 100 times and maybe then it will sip into that rock on the top of your neck.

Also worth mentioning the FX only have an advantage in low light if you can afford to lose DOF. For example I was shooting my two kids at my house yesterday. After a few shots I realised I would need at least f/4 on DX to get them both in focus. FF would not help in this situation, because I would need to stop down to f/5.6 to get the same DOF. So FF would have no advantage if you need DOF.

See how you are still completely confused? the argument is you can use slower lens on FX and get the same IQ.

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