D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
rhlpetrus
Forum ProPosts: 23,482Gear list
Like?
I'd go with D7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, Apr 29, 2013

Cheaper, lighter, smaller, smaller lenses, cheaper lenses, almost same IQ, better AF system for action.

If you are going to shoot landscapes, then D600 may be interesting, but I doubt you'll see any difference in results.

The D7100 is an excellent camera. The D600 is too, but the price difference is not justifiable if you are mostly going to take family shots, vacation, etc.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to ultimitsu, Apr 29, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

And why would you do that? does 1400 bucks in your pocket make you happier or take better photos? Why go with D3200 and 18-55? why not get a fuji JZ100 for 81 bucks?\

Does an FX camera make you take better photos?  Does spending 2500 dollars on a camera make YOU happier?

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to Grevture, Apr 29, 2013

Grevture wrote:

Me and some others just pointed out that the common blanket argument "DX does the same thing cheaper" is not entirely accurate. You pay different prices for different things, and depending on the perspective FX often can be cheaper (to provide a given result).

You seem to take this as some sort of personal insult.

Nobody claimed DX is inferior (except - indirectly - you). We just pointed out that in terms of bang-for-the-buck DX is not always cheaper.

Except nobody made that argument.  Someone said FX lenses cost more, and then we got into some convoluted ridiculous argument about relative performance and relative lens price.  Some guy comes in and asks "should I buy a D7100 or a D600" the first thing that comes to my mind is not "this guy needs ultimate performance better make sure he doesn't screw up and save 1000 bucks on that D7100 because that last stop of sensitivity and that 1 stop equivalent thinner DOF will make a lot of difference to his photography".

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,094Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, Apr 29, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Me and some others just pointed out that the common blanket argument "DX does the same thing cheaper" is not entirely accurate. You pay different prices for different things, and depending on the perspective FX often can be cheaper (to provide a given result).

You seem to take this as some sort of personal insult.

Nobody claimed DX is inferior (except - indirectly - you). We just pointed out that in terms of bang-for-the-buck DX is not always cheaper.

Except nobody made that argument.

I did.

Someone said FX lenses cost more, and then we got into some convoluted ridiculous argument about relative performance and relative lens price.

If you find facts ridiculous, it is of course entirely up to you, but others might find them helpful

Some guy comes in and asks "should I buy a D7100 or a D600" the first thing that comes to my mind is not "this guy needs ultimate performance better make sure he doesn't screw up and save 1000 bucks on that D7100 because that last stop of sensitivity and that 1 stop equivalent thinner DOF will make a lot of difference to his photography".

I for one also made a direct response to the OP regarding his question, where I argued he would probably be better of getting the cheaper camera and spend the difference on lenses instead. Maybe you should try reading what people actually write before you criticise them.

In every discussion, subthreads evolve, and this particular subthread was not really aimed at the OP (which I think is obvious to most readers). What I, and several others, objected to is the tiresome and often repeated blanket statement that FX lenses are always more expensive. They are not. Which for some reason you seem to find very offending

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to Grevture, Apr 29, 2013

Grevture wrote:


In every discussion, subthreads evolve, and this particular subthread was not really aimed at the OP (which I think is obvious to most readers). What I, and several others, objected to is the tiresome and often repeated blanket statement that FX lenses are always more expensive. They are not. Which for some reason you seem to find very offending

Except they are, unless one applies your particular exception that requires factoring in sensor performance and DOF.  And sensor performance is a moving target, the highest DX cams of today are within a stop of first gen FX cameras and have greater DR at base ISO.  Also while true, not everyone thinks shallow DOF is a "good" thing.  The only fixed "difference" that isn't a matter of taste is focal length to achieve equivalent FOV, and comparable focal length and aperture vs comparable focal length and aperture, I really don't think you'll be able to find one lens where an FX model is cheaper than it's DX equivalent.

Subthread or not you guys attacked a poster who boiled down to the least common denominator the idea that everything for a D600 is more expensive and based that on a valid, but irrelevant idea that FX is cheaper if ultimate performance is your measure.  My bottom line is your argument was off topic to this thread and is based on a subjective ideal.  If one wants to be an available light art portrait shooter, no DX probably isn't the best solution.  If some guy wants to shoot snapshots of his kid a D600 is overkill any way you slice it.

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RichLI
Regular MemberPosts: 109Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, Apr 29, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:


In every discussion, subthreads evolve, and this particular subthread was not really aimed at the OP (which I think is obvious to most readers). What I, and several others, objected to is the tiresome and often repeated blanket statement that FX lenses are always more expensive. They are not. Which for some reason you seem to find very offending

Except they are, unless one applies your particular exception that requires factoring in sensor performance and DOF.  And sensor performance is a moving target, the highest DX cams of today are within a stop of first gen FX cameras and have greater DR at base ISO.  Also while true, not everyone thinks shallow DOF is a "good" thing.  The only fixed "difference" that isn't a matter of taste is focal length to achieve equivalent FOV, and comparable focal length and aperture vs comparable focal length and aperture, I really don't think you'll be able to find one lens where an FX model is cheaper than it's DX equivalent.

Subthread or not you guys attacked a poster who boiled down to the least common denominator the idea that everything for a D600 is more expensive and based that on a valid, but irrelevant idea that FX is cheaper if ultimate performance is your measure.  My bottom line is your argument was off topic to this thread and is based on a subjective ideal.  If one wants to be an available light art portrait shooter, no DX probably isn't the best solution.  If some guy wants to shoot snapshots of his kid a D600 is overkill any way you slice it.

-- hide signature --

-Mike

As a generally positive D600 owner, the snapshooter is also not going to be pleased with the smaller focus area.

-- hide signature --

Rich

 RichLI's gear list:RichLI's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm F3.5-4.5G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Canon Pixma Pro-100 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,094Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, Apr 29, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:


In every discussion, subthreads evolve, and this particular subthread was not really aimed at the OP (which I think is obvious to most readers). What I, and several others, objected to is the tiresome and often repeated blanket statement that FX lenses are always more expensive. They are not. Which for some reason you seem to find very offending

Except they are, unless one applies your particular exception that requires factoring in sensor performance and DOF.

Well, I look at performance at a whole, if you choose to look at some aspects of performance you care less about as "exceptions" it becomes very hard to have any constructive discussion at all. For me and for many others, it is the overall performance of the system which is interesting, and that does indeed include DOF control and light gathering performance.

And sensor performance is a moving target, the highest DX cams of today are within a stop of first gen FX cameras and have greater DR at base ISO.

It indeed is moving, one of few things which remains constant is FX sensors being 2.25 times bigger then APS-C sensors which mean they will always be ahead in some key aspects no matter how far sensor technology advances.

Also while true, not everyone thinks shallow DOF is a "good" thing.

What DOF is appropriate varies with the situation, but more DOF control is never be a bad thing.

The only fixed "difference" that isn't a matter of taste is focal length to achieve equivalent FOV, and comparable focal length and aperture vs comparable focal length and aperture, I really don't think you'll be able to find one lens where an FX model is cheaper than it's DX equivalent.

That is true - according to your taste, not necessarily to others. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about other peoples needs based on your own priories.

Subthread or not you guys attacked a poster

So pointing out that someone made a inaccurate statement equals "attacking" him/her? No wonder you seem so offended that we do not share your views

who boiled down to the least common denominator the idea that everything for a D600 is more expensive and based that on a valid, but irrelevant idea that FX is cheaper if ultimate performance is your measure.

Well, I for one happen to think performance actually is a factor. You might think of DOF and low light performance as "ultimate" (whatever that means in this context), and that is entirely up to you. But you probably will have to get used to other people thinking differently then you. Also in this very forum.

My bottom line is your argument was off topic to this thread and is based on a subjective ideal.

Now you got me curious: What ideals are not subjective?

But yes, you and me seem to have different views on what performance in a camera system which does matter or not. Your opinions are not any less valid then mine, but I have the same right to express my views as you have to express yours.

And the OP specifically asked about D600 and said it was within budget, so how can the differences in performance between FX and DX be off topic?

If one wants to be an available light art portrait shooter, no DX probably isn't the best solution.  If some guy wants to shoot snapshots of his kid a D600 is overkill any way you slice it.

What is overkill or not depends entirely on the budget and personal priorities. So no, I don't accept this is a universal "any way you slice it" scenario. Just as it is false to say that FX lenses always are more expensive. It is a matter of ones budget and priorities. Any way you slice it ...

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,788
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 1, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

And why would you do that? does 1400 bucks in your pocket make you happier or take better photos? Why go with D3200 and 18-55? why not get a fuji JZ100 for 81 bucks?\

Does an FX camera make you take better photos?

Of course it does. why else do people buy them?

Does spending 2500 dollars on a camera make YOU happier?

Of course it does. My money do not serve me by staying in my pocket, they serve me by turning into things that improve what I do. I buy better lens to get better picture, I buy better rifles to shooter more accurately, I buy better cars to travel more comfortably. I do not get pleasure looking at a fatter pocket.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,788
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 1, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:


In every discussion, subthreads evolve, and this particular subthread was not really aimed at the OP (which I think is obvious to most readers). What I, and several others, objected to is the tiresome and often repeated blanket statement that FX lenses are always more expensive. They are not. Which for some reason you seem to find very offending

Except they are,

Repeating falsity does not make it truth.

unless one applies your particular exception that requires factoring in sensor performance and DOF.

That is the only way to compare.

And sensor performance is a moving target, the highest DX cams of today are within a stop of first gen FX cameras and have greater DR at base ISO.

We are not comparing "highest DX cams of today are within a stop of first gen FX" are we? because that would be stupid and irrelevant. We are comparing D600 and D7100, both being today's cameras.

Also while true, not everyone thinks shallow DOF is a "good" thing.

This would be a logically incorrect proposition. There are those who know how to make good use of shallow DOF and those who don't.

The only fixed "difference" that isn't a matter of taste is focal length to achieve equivalent FOV, and comparable focal length and aperture vs comparable focal length and aperture, I really don't think you'll be able to find one lens where an FX model is cheaper than it's DX equivalent.

24-85 vs 17-55, 50 F1.8 vs 35 F1.4.

My bottom line is your argument was off topic to this thread and is based on a subjective ideal.

It is not a subjective ideal. it is the only correct way to make any comparison.

If some guy wants to shoot snapshots of his kid a D600 is overkill any way you slice it.

So is D7100 + 17-55, isnt it?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,160
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to ultimitsu, May 1, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

The point is to have more choices. With an FF body you can choose:

  • buy cheap and save money while still get same performance as DX with much more expensive lens, or
  • buy similarly expensive lens and get much better performance, or
  • get the middle ground, buy mid range lenses and get moderate better performance than DX with top end lens.

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Isn't that great? Even in worst case scenario you are still better off with FF

You mean it is great that for almost any focal length, the cheapest FX option is more expensive than the focal-length equivalent DX option?

And that is the point, to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,788
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to noirdesir, May 1, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

But that is the whole point, FX is more expensive but you get also better capabilities. If you could duplicate the capabilities of FX completely with DX, there would be no point in going FX (yes there other things like base ISO performance, larger viewfinder).

The point is to have more choices. With an FF body you can choose:

  • buy cheap and save money while still get same performance as DX with much more expensive lens, or
  • buy similarly expensive lens and get much better performance, or
  • get the middle ground, buy mid range lenses and get moderate better performance than DX with top end lens.

Put another way, there are no FX equivalents to the 'slow' DX wide-angle zooms, nor to the slow kit zooms (or even the 'slow' 16-85 mm).

Isn't that great? Even in worst case scenario you are still better off with FF

You mean it is great that for almost any focal length, the cheapest FX option is more expensive than the focal-length equivalent DX option?

Which one has more reach - D800 or D300s?

And that is the point, to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set.

that is the exact type of myth that is dispelled here.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lock
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,890
Like?
What couldn't the d7100 do for you?
In reply to Just Having Fun, May 2, 2013

Was the d7100 hi iso performance not good enough to provide a proper shutter speed?

How about you DOF? Was it sufficient with FX?

Lock

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to ultimitsu, May 2, 2013

24-85 vs 17-55, 50 F1.8 vs 35 F1.4.

A variable aperture consumer kit zoom with significant distortion and made of plastic is not comparable to a metal constant aperture lens, and the 35 f1.4 is full frame just like the 50.  Nikon doesn't make a directly comparable lens to the 17-55, but Canon makes one that's pretty close, and it's the same price, the 24-70 IS f4.  Nikons closest lens is the 24-120 f4 which is a little cheaper but has a lot of distortion and is not built to the same quality standard.  And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

-- hide signature --

-Mike

 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon Coolpix 950 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D600 +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lock
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,890
Like?
If these quality aspects are decisive, than let's have a look at zooms on Fx and Dx
In reply to Grevture, May 2, 2013

Just to make a start. We could do the same with primes, but this table is about zooms. We could also do it with mid to long end zooms or even primes, but maybe next time.

I'm interested in your opinion about the various combo's, it's quality considering the prices, because I'm trying to decide myself what I should do next. As an example I will pick one comparsion of Dx:FX from the table below, but you can do the same for any kind of set.
The only thing I try do to is the define sets with lenses using the same effective focal range. I did not list anything about VC/OS or VR because that only complicates things. Prices are all in euro's.

One point you made about quality refers to DOF control. Let me use the comparison of a d7100 with the sigma 8-16 (total price 1770.-) and a D600 with the much faster nikon 14-24 2.8 (3100,-). I could also use the slower Sigma, but I think the comparison would become less clear then. DOF control: what will the 14-24 give you on a D600 compare to d7100 with the 8-16?

At 14 mm wide open and 2 mtrs the DOF range is 1.6 to 2.8 mtrs. With the sigma (on the d7100) it is .5 mtrs to infinity.
At 14 mm wide open, at 5 mtrs distance the DOF on the Nikon is 1.6 to infinity. With the Sigma at 8 mm you will get a range of 0.6 to infinity.
At 14 mm wide open, at 30 mtrs distance the Nikon DOF is 2.2 to infinity. With the Sigma at 8mm you will get a range of 0.7 to infinity.

At 24 mm wide open and 2 mtrs the DOF range is 1.1 to 14.3 mtrs. With the sigma (on the d7100) it is 1.2 mtrs to 16.2.
At 24 mm wide open, at 5 mtrs distance the DOF on the Nikon is 2.9 to 18.7. With the Sigma at 8 mm you will get a range of 1.6 to infinity.
At 24 mm wide open, at 30 mtrs distance the Nikon DOF is 5.5 to infinity. With the Sigma at 8mm you will get a range of 2.1 to infinity.

Will these DOF differences be an issue for you, given your purposes of using a wide angle ? If so, why ? Is there anything else that will make you decide to take the full frame route given the price differences of these combinations ? Did I miss a lens (and combo) ?

Let me point this out very clearly: i'm not debating any choises here. We all have our preferences. I'm just asking for arguments so I can chose wisely. Price is only one source of information that will help me to decide (although it is an important one).

lock

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RickD
Contributing MemberPosts: 830Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, May 2, 2013

Here are a few thoughts that may help.

Both the D600 and D7100 are great choices.  Nikon menus and controls are pretty similar across the range.  Consequently, you won't find a higher end camera more difficult to use, but may be paying for features and capability you won't appreciate.

The kit you will want to get good pictures of your 1 year old should include 1) a good lens, 2) a flash and light modifier, and 3) a camera body.   I would prioritize in that order.

1) A lens is an investment that will outlast whichever camera body you choose.  Get the best one you can afford.  A "fast" F2.8 zoom will focus much better than a kit lens (think fast moving kid).  It will also give you nicer picture quality and bokeh, particularly if you go full frame.  If you are thinking of getting into photography seriously, consider a FF lens even if you choose the DX body.

2) Get a good "bounce capable" flash and modifier.  SB700 is a great choice for Nikon.

3) If you have the above, either camera body is capable of giving you really great pictures.  And whichever you choose, your lens and flash will still work when you decide to upgrade the camera body.

Good luck, and look forward to you posting some pictures.

-- hide signature --

RickD

 RickD's gear list:RickD's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fred Mueller
Senior MemberPosts: 2,346Gear list
Like?
having a child ...
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, May 2, 2013

I'm always amazed that a person having a child on the way and presumably about to incur lasting financial obligation is about to spend what seems to be such a hefty sum on a camera system to simply "take shots of said child" ... of course I have no idea how well positioned the OP is financially, but there is a little voice in the back of my head that wants to recommend something a lot less expensive ... how about $500 for a Panasonic LX 7 ???  Put the nearly $2000 in the savings account and do the right thing ....

there I said it

 Fred Mueller's gear list:Fred Mueller's gear list
Nikon D600
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,094Gear list
Like?
Re: If these quality aspects are decisive, than let's have a look at zooms on Fx and Dx
In reply to lock, May 2, 2013

lock wrote:

Just to make a start. We could do the same with primes, but this table is about zooms. We could also do it with mid to long end zooms or even primes, but maybe next time.

I'm interested in your opinion about the various combo's, it's quality considering the prices, because I'm trying to decide myself what I should do next. As an example I will pick one comparsion of Dx:FX from the table below, but you can do the same for any kind of set.
The only thing I try do to is the define sets with lenses using the same effective focal range. I did not list anything about VC/OS or VR because that only complicates things. Prices are all in euro's.

One point you made about quality refers to DOF control. Let me use the comparison of a d7100 with the sigma 8-16 (total price 1770.-) and a D600 with the much faster nikon 14-24 2.8 (3100,-). I could also use the slower Sigma, but I think the comparison would become less clear then. DOF control: what will the 14-24 give you on a D600 compare to d7100 with the 8-16?

To get the corresponding DOF control and light gathering of a 14-24/2.8 on FX with a DX lens you would need at least something like a 9-16/2.0. Or if you look at midrange, look at 16-85 vs 24-120 (which gives more or less the same AOV range) - you would need at least a 16-85/2.8 on DX to match a 24-120/4 on FX.

The DX lenses covering the same AOV (or AOV range for a zoom) are cheaper, but they provide less, or much less DOF control and light gathering. Often this is a useful compromise, but for equal over all performance, it is actually difficult to argue that FX lenses are always more expensive. Often there are no real (in all performance aspects) DX counterparts available to compare with.

Will these DOF differences be an issue for you, given your purposes of using a wide angle ? If so, why ? Is there anything else that will make you decide to take the full frame route given the price differences of these combinations ? Did I miss a lens (and combo) ?

Among many other things, I tend to often use wide angle lenses to shoot closeups of things or people and have some background visible, but blurred. So yes, I want all the DOF control I can get. And also, I often shoot in weak light, and there I would need - for the same noise performance in the final image - at least one stop faster DX lenses then FX lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor.

Let me point this out very clearly: i'm not debating any choises here. We all have our preferences. I'm just asking for arguments so I can chose wisely. Price is only one source of information that will help me to decide (although it is an important one).

Just to put this in very generic terms, and to give the issue some perspective: There are some reasons some people still shoot medium format, in spite of very high prices and some aspects of performance severely lacking. One important reason is DOF control. And looking in the other direction: Often a good quality compact camera is very useful, like when you have good light and do not care much about DOF control. Looking at compacts versus medium format cameras are of course extreme points, but they illustrate the issue in general terms. The difference between FX and DX is smaller, but it still exists and is noticeable.

If this matters to you is hard to tell - for many it really does not matter that much (and for their needs, it could be said that DX lenses are generally cheaper). For me it certainly matter since I often shoot in very weak light and often want maximum background blur.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lock
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,890
Like?
Re: If these quality aspects are decisive, than let's have a look at zooms on Fx and Dx
In reply to Grevture, May 2, 2013

Grevture wrote:

lock wrote:

Just to make a start. We could do the same with primes, but this table is about zooms. We could also do it with mid to long end zooms or even primes, but maybe next time.

I'm interested in your opinion about the various combo's, it's quality considering the prices, because I'm trying to decide myself what I should do next. As an example I will pick one comparsion of Dx:FX from the table below, but you can do the same for any kind of set.
The only thing I try do to is the define sets with lenses using the same effective focal range. I did not list anything about VC/OS or VR because that only complicates things. Prices are all in euro's.

One point you made about quality refers to DOF control. Let me use the comparison of a d7100 with the sigma 8-16 (total price 1770.-) and a D600 with the much faster nikon 14-24 2.8 (3100,-). I could also use the slower Sigma, but I think the comparison would become less clear then. DOF control: what will the 14-24 give you on a D600 compare to d7100 with the 8-16?

To get the corresponding DOF control and light gathering of a 14-24/2.8 on FX with a DX lens you would need at least something like a 9-16/2.0. Or if you look at midrange, look at 16-85 vs 24-120 (which gives more or less the same AOV range) - you would need at least a 16-85/2.8 on DX to match a 24-120/4 on FX.

Thanks for the feedback !

The only one close to that lens is the Tokina but it doesn't provide the demanded maximum aperture. However, would it matter much? From 11 to 16 mm wide open at 10 mtrs the DOF goes from 1.8/3.1 mtrs to infinity. The 12-24 Fx goes from 1.5/4/0 to infinity. You do not gain much more control in terms of DOF do you ?

The DX lenses covering the same AOV (or AOV range for a zoom) are cheaper, but they provide less, or much less DOF control and light gathering. Often this is a useful compromise, but for equal over all performance, it is actually difficult to argue that FX lenses are always more expensive. Often there are no real (in all performance aspects) DX counterparts available to compare with.

If you stick to the same DOF you can get on FX, you are correct. There is no counterpart in Dx because they do not go below f/2.8. Basically, this the major issue: if you need slim DOF your road is Fx. But you have to remember there is a price. If i go all Nikon, the d7100 with the 17-55 would match the 24-70 on a d600 pretty well. The latter may be better, but is it worth the price difference of 619 euros ? I don't know...

Will these DOF differences be an issue for you, given your purposes of using a wide angle ? If so, why ? Is there anything else that will make you decide to take the full frame route given the price differences of these combinations ? Did I miss a lens (and combo) ?

Among many other things, I tend to often use wide angle lenses to shoot closeups of things or people and have some background visible, but blurred. So yes, I want all the DOF control I can get. And also, I often shoot in weak light, and there I would need - for the same noise performance in the final image - at least one stop faster DX lenses then FX lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor.

True. And for the purpose you mentioned above, you are correct. But isn't the wide end used mostly for landscapes ? And would it matter that much given that in most cases everything is within the DOF range  up to infinity ? I have to admit if I do closeup of people, I do not use wide angle lenses. One of these preferences....

Let me point this out very clearly: i'm not debating any choises here. We all have our preferences. I'm just asking for arguments so I can chose wisely. Price is only one source of information that will help me to decide (although it is an important one).

Just to put this in very generic terms, and to give the issue some perspective: There are some reasons some people still shoot medium format, in spite of very high prices and some aspects of performance severely lacking. One important reason is DOF control. And looking in the other direction: Often a good quality compact camera is very useful, like when you have good light and do not care much about DOF control. Looking at compacts versus medium format cameras are of course extreme points, but they illustrate the issue in general terms. The difference between FX and DX is smaller, but it still exists and is noticeable.

If this matters to you is hard to tell - for many it really does not matter that much (and for their needs, it could be said that DX lenses are generally cheaper). For me it certainly matter since I often shoot in very weak light and often want maximum background blur.

I also do a lot of stuff in low light, so I need fast lenses and good hi iso performance. I had a d600 for about 6 months but I returned it. I know how good it was at higher isos, and I will no doubt miss that if I would go back to Dx. But if I look at the other side of my field of interest, I need long lenses too. Cropping the Dx out of an Fx picture really doesn't help to maintain the iso advantage. I do not have the money to buy the big and fast lenses like the sigma 120-300. It's a hobby, you know.

lock

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Future user
Forum MemberPosts: 66
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, May 2, 2013

D7100 is better for action and wildlife thanks to the higher pixel density and better AF system. Therefore, since a 1 year old is within both action and wildlife genres, get D7100....IMHO.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,094Gear list
Like?
Re: If these quality aspects are decisive, than let's have a look at zooms on Fx and Dx
In reply to lock, May 2, 2013

lock wrote:

Thanks for the feedback !

The only one close to that lens is the Tokina but it doesn't provide the demanded maximum aperture. However, would it matter much? From 11 to 16 mm wide open at 10 mtrs the DOF goes from 1.8/3.1 mtrs to infinity. The 12-24 Fx goes from 1.5/4/0 to infinity. You do not gain much more control in terms of DOF do you ?

To be honest, I do not look much into DOF tables like that ... I look at images  One can calculate DOF back and forth, but there is a multitude of other factors at play too, like different OOF characteristics of different lenses.

But to give a short answer, yes there is a visible difference, enough to affect how you end up shooting.

If you stick to the same DOF you can get on FX, you are correct. There is no counterpart in Dx because they do not go below f/2.8. Basically, this the major issue: if you need slim DOF your road is Fx. But you have to remember there is a price. If i go all Nikon, the d7100 with the 17-55 would match the 24-70 on a d600 pretty well. The latter may be better, but is it worth the price difference of 619 euros ? I don't know...

Yep, it really is hard to give universal answers ... If it is worth it will vary hugely with budget, what and how you shoot and also with personal taste.

True. And for the purpose you mentioned above, you are correct. But isn't the wide end used mostly for landscapes ? And would it matter that much given that in most cases everything is within the DOF range  up to infinity ? I have to admit if I do closeup of people, I do not use wide angle lenses. One of these preferences....

I shoot a lot of events where I out of necessity end up shooting people up close with fairly wide lenses. And just to throw a bit of a curveball into this discussion - one lens I use a lot on my D3 is actually the DX 35/1.8, works great up close Also at events I shoot stuff (gifts, flower arrangements, details in general) up close where I want the background to be there, but also nicely blurred.

I also shoot a lot of action with wide lenses where I either go for small apertures and a lot of DOF, or widest aperture possible for background blur.

On the other hand, for landscape and macro use (which I rarely shoot), the deeper DOF is often more of a feature then a problem.

I also do a lot of stuff in low light, so I need fast lenses and good hi iso performance. I had a d600 for about 6 months but I returned it. I know how good it was at higher isos, and I will no doubt miss that if I would go back to Dx. But if I look at the other side of my field of interest, I need long lenses too. Cropping the Dx out of an Fx picture really doesn't help to maintain the iso advantage. I do not have the money to buy the big and fast lenses like the sigma 120-300. It's a hobby, you know.

I probably will catch some flack over this ... But with one exception, you can mimic having a DX camera easily with you long lenses - just use a 1.4x teleconverter with your FX camera. You get essentially the same AOV, the same DOF and the same noise performance as you would have gotten with a DX camera and the same lens (but without the converter). The one thing you do not get is the AF performance (both in terms of AF speed and the DX bonus of better frame coverage). Now, comparing the D7100 and D600 this issue get a bit blurred since the D7100 have a better AF system then the D600 which means the AF advantage get significant.

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads