D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,394Gear list
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 16, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

d3xmeister wrote:

The only true phenomenon in his clueless story is:

you are the clueless one.

Keep telling yourself that

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.

Really ? Taking pictures with them counts ? How about controlled tests ? Lab tests ? Do you really believe the Tamron 28-75mm is a better lens than the 17--55mm ? You said that not me. And I'm not talking about resolution (your fixation)

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.

Sigmas and Tamrons vs Nikons. Enough said !

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.

What's the point ? That FX combo still cost double the DX combo.

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

that proves you are confused

My 18-55mm VR beats the hell out of it in AF, side-to-side resolution, flare resistance, micro-contrast, colour rendition. Yes the sigma on FX gathers much more light, but still rubbish.

The same with a Tamron 70-200mm.

that proves you are confused

Have you used that lens ? (the old one)

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

that proves you are confused

?????? You mean I forgot the lenses I shot with ?

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.

Not those lenses specifically, but you keep offering second hand old Tamrons and Sigmas as Nikons pro lenses alternative, just to prove your cost point. And you say they are superior when used on FX. That proves you know nothing about this.

What IQ means to you exactly ? Old Sigmas and Tamrons don't even come close to Nikons or Canons, even when mounted on medium format. And anyway what stops me from using the same lenses on DX ? FF body will have better IQ with those, but also costs double, so what's the point again ? Do you really think a lens poor on DX will magically become a good lens on FF ? Are you kidding ?

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.

Yes you can, who argued with that ? But at what cost ? My D5100 with the 35mm f/1.8 cost less than $650, and a D600 with a 50mm f/1.8 cost $2200. No the DX combo does not give the same IQ by any means, but cost difference is HUGE.

Do you think anybody would be able to tell if I took those pictures with the D5100+35mm vs the D600+50mm ? I think nobody if not looking at the EXIF, or not trying to print a wallpaper from it.

Let's do a final exercise, trying to keep it simple:

D7100 + Tamron 17-50mm VC f/2.8 = $1800

Not enlighten us again, what one can buy in that price range to be comparable. And I mean new lens, and VC which is hugely important for video and not only. And I'm not counting the D7100 much superior AF performance and coverage, and better ergonomics.

Let's put the 35mm f/1.8 into the mix, and we're at $2000. The D600 body alone cost that.

Let us know again, how FX is CHEAPER than DX ?

P.S. I'm guessing you won't come back, or you'll try to change the subject. Anyone care to bet ?

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