D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 2,083Gear list
Like?
Matching up for equivalent looking images
In reply to lock, May 2, 2013

With equivalent focal lengths, APS-C is about a stop behind FF both in terms of DOF control and ISO performance. So, ignoring resolution for now (which I think FF has an advantage in), here's a chart made with getting low light capability/DOF equivalence in mind:

  • Red = FF has advantage (something DX can't even do), but at a high cost
  • Blue = FF has cost advantage
  • Green: APS-C has cost advantage

Ignoring shallow DOF/low light capability that DX can't do (because there aren't any f/1.0 primes or f/2.0 zooms floating around to match the FX f/1.4 primes and f/2.0 zooms), we have FX and DX trading blows as you go down the chart.

  • If you just want to get a 12mm FF equivalent field of view, the Sigma 8-16mm will get you there for a lower price than the Sigma 12-24 on FX.
  • If you want a moderately fast 75mm or 85mm portrait lens, the Nikon 50/1.4 on DX will get you there for less than a 85/1.8 on FX. But FX wins if you want a fast 50mm.
  • If you want a low cost standard zoom, FX wins, and wins tremendously because of low priced f/2.8 options like the Tamron 28-75/2.8 that DX can't compete with. There's a Sigma 18-35/1.8 coming out soon, but that's a pretty limited focal length range and will probably cost more.

I didn't put a chart up for telephoto ranges, but here's the jist of what would happen:

  • Just getting a longer focal length: DX wins hands down, because of the crop factor. Any lens you can pick up for FX just gets longer on DX. 
  • Getting low light performance/DOF control: FX wins hands down, because f/2.8 lenses often can't be matched by f/2 lenses on DX.
  • The only exception is that the 200mm f/2 does allow DX to match FX's 300mm f/2.8 for less ($5400 vs. $5800), but a complicating factor is that an old 300/2.8 AF-I can deliver that on FX for $2000. 

So in summary:

  • With new lenses, FX and DX trade blows. For someone like the OP who probably just wants to get to certain focal lengths without too much concern about DOF or low light capability, DX provides a cost advantage.
  • With old lenses, FX has an advantage because of used lenses.
  • FX gives low light/DOF control abilities not available with DX, but often at a really high price.
 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
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,857
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 2, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:


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

A variable aperture consumer kit zoom

Variable aperture does not matter the slightest. at wide end it is faster than 17-55 by 1/3 stop at long end it is slower by 1/4 stop.

with significant distortion

D600 can afford distortion correction and still have more resolution left than APS-C with 17-55.

and made of plastic

does metal body make you happier? if so then you may well find 17-55 better value.

is not comparable to a metal constant aperture lens,

IQ is comparable, which is what the debate is all about.

and the 35 f1.4 is full frame just like the 50.

It is , but to achieve the DOf and low light ability of 50 F1.8 on FF you have no other option but to go with 35 F1.4

Nikon doesn't make a directly comparable lens to the 17-55,

Because who would want a F4 zoom with no VR?

but Canon makes one that's pretty close, and it's the same price, the 24-70 IS f4.

The 24-70 F4 is overpriced, it is not very well received. but despite that it is a better lens than 17-55. it has IS and it has by far the best light transmission of all F4 zooms, on the other hand 17-55 loses about 0.3 stops of light (which is still good, but 24-70 is better)

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.

24-120 F4 has significantly more range. But what we can also compare is 16-85 against 24-120 F3.5-F5.6. the 24-120 is one stop faster and is about 1/2 the price.

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

It is the only way to compare.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,857
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:

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...

the counterpart to D7100 + 17-55 would be D600 + 24-85, which is about 400 bucks cheaper if there is no deals on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
WellyNZ
New MemberPosts: 19Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, May 3, 2013

Pingpongrallyon wrote:

Hi. I am looking to buy a Dslr for taking photo of my 1 year old son. I can afford either a d600 or a d7100. Which one should I get? Thanks.

Get either or get none. Taking photographs of your 1 year old son could be done on a smart phone.

 WellyNZ's gear list:WellyNZ's gear list
Nikon D700 +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,219
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to ultimitsu, May 3, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

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.

Show me three examples that contradict what I said. Only three.

(BTW, I have a FF camera, so I don't want to diss them. I just hate when people think they are smart because they disagree with the consensus.)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,857
Like?
Re: Try again
In reply to noirdesir, May 3, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

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.

Show me three examples that contradict what I said. Only three.

Lets first answer the question,  Which one has more reach - D800 or D300s?

(BTW, I have a FF camera, so I don't want to diss them. I just hate when people think they are smart because they disagree with the consensus.)

Then there are people who does not know what the consensus is but follows one not because they thnk it is right but  because they think it is the consensus. I don't hate them, hate is too strong, I pity them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,129Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area.

-- 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
Demontis
Forum MemberPosts: 72
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to lera ion, May 3, 2013

lera ion wrote:

D7000 or D800! D7100 poor color, D 600 dust and oil.

-- hide signature --

   D7100 poor color  ?? anyone else get to such conclusions? sounds weired....so i could say D7000 poor WB?

patrick

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lera ion
Regular MemberPosts: 149Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Demontis, May 3, 2013

Demontis wrote:

lera ion wrote:

D7000 or D800! D7100 poor color, D 600 dust and oil.

-- hide signature --

   D7100 poor color  ?? anyone else get to such conclusions? sounds weired....so i could say D7000 poor WB?

patrick

My impression, color chrome is poor from D7000, D600, D700, D800, Canon and Sony.

 lera ion's gear list:lera ion's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 Nikon D600 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to ultimitsu, May 3, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:


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

A variable aperture consumer kit zoom

Variable aperture does not matter the slightest. at wide end it is faster than 17-55 by 1/3 stop at long end it is slower by 1/4 stop.

Actually, yeah it does, most professionals and video users would strongly prefer the fixed aperture since the exposure changes as you zoom with a variable aperture lens.

with significant distortion

D600 can afford distortion correction and still have more resolution left than APS-C with 17-55.

Which slows the camera down for processing, and perhaps you've forgotten the cameras we're comparing have the same resolution?

and made of plastic

does metal body make you happier? if so then you may well find 17-55 better value.

No but if you bang it into something it has a better chance of survival

is not comparable to a metal constant aperture lens,

IQ is comparable, which is what the debate is all about.

Ignoring every factor other than sharpness, they're relatively close sure...

and the 35 f1.4 is full frame just like the 50.

It is , but to achieve the DOf and low light ability of 50 F1.8 on FF you have no other option but to go with 35 F1.4

No, you have the option not to subvert the argument by making a false comparison, the argument is DX lenses are cheaper than FX lenses or vice versa, you can't use 2 FX lenses to make that argument.  This would be like me saying "oh well how about the 18-55, oh, they don't have that for FX, well you'll have to compare that 150 dollar lens to a 600 dollar 24-85 since that's the closest FX can get" which is kinda the point, there's a number of excellently sharp 200 dollar lenses that cover most of the important range for DX.  FX can't even come close to that value.

Nikon doesn't make a directly comparable lens to the 17-55,

Because who would want a F4 zoom with no VR?

but Canon makes one that's pretty close, and it's the same price, the 24-70 IS f4.

The 24-70 F4 is overpriced, it is not very well received. but despite that it is a better lens than 17-55. it has IS and it has by far the best light transmission of all F4 zooms, on the other hand 17-55 loses about 0.3 stops of light (which is still good, but 24-70 is better)

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.

24-120 F4 has significantly more range. But what we can also compare is 16-85 against 24-120 F3.5-F5.6. the 24-120 is one stop faster and is about 1/2 the price.

The 24-120 variable is again not in the same league of as the 16-85 in really any measurable performance category other than aperture

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

It is the only way to compare.

If it was the only way to compare DX only lenses would be marked with their 35mm equivalent focal length.  And their apertures would be "de-rated" to their 35mm equivalents too.

-- 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, May 3, 2013

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area

There's really only one thing you need a stop faster lens for, depth of field control.  Getting into light sensitivity would be like saying back in the day we compared lenses differently based on what film was behind them.  At the end of the day a lens is a lens, it's performance is fixed, the performance of the thing it's attached to is not other than depth of field and focal length, you two keep setting up straw men arguments as to why FX is somehow "cheaper" than DX.  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.  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.  Perhaps you guys should get together and sue Canon and Nikon for false advertising.

-- 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
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,857
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Variable aperture does not matter the slightest. at wide end it is faster than 17-55 by 1/3 stop at long end it is slower by 1/4 stop.

Actually, yeah it does, most professionals and video users would strongly prefer the fixed aperture since the exposure changes as you zoom with a variable aperture lens.

we are talking about photography not video here, aren't we? If video is your priority then you should not be looking at D600 or D7100 full stop, GH3 is a much better suited.

with significant distortion

D600 can afford distortion correction and still have more resolution left than APS-C with 17-55.

Which slows the camera down for processing,

distortion correction takes almost no time in LR. and it is not like you do nto do distortion correction with 17-55 at all.

and perhaps you've forgotten the cameras we're comparing have the same resolution?

D7100 with 17-55 will result in less resolution that  D600 with 24-85 notwithstanding the cameras have same MP count. If you cannot understand why then lets stop here.

and made of plastic

does metal body make you happier? if so then you may well find 17-55 better value.

No but if you bang it into something it has a better chance of survival

Do you bang your lens? and how do you know metal is more shock absorbent and flexible than plastic? is your cars bumper metal or plastic? how about workman's helmet?

is not comparable to a metal constant aperture lens,

IQ is comparable, which is what the debate is all about.

Ignoring every factor other than sharpness, they're relatively close sure...

And why would you ignore the sharpness?

and the 35 f1.4 is full frame just like the 50.

It is , but to achieve the DOf and low light ability of 50 F1.8 on FF you have no other option but to go with 35 F1.4

No, you have the option not to subvert the argument by making a false comparison, the argument is DX lenses are cheaper than FX lenses or vice versa, you can't use 2 FX lenses to make that argument.

Why not?

This would be like me saying "oh well how about the 18-55, oh, they don't have that for FX,

Correct, because it would be too crappy.

well you'll have to compare that 150 dollar lens to a 600 dollar 24-85 since that's the closest FX can get" which is kinda the point,

No. If someone did want to save 500 bucks from a 2500 dollar purchase he can buy the D600 body and a 20 dollar secondhand 28-85, which is  still faster than 18-55.

there's a number of excellently sharp 200 dollar lenses that cover most of the important range for DX.  FX can't even come close to that value.

This is so comically wrong. what other 200 dollar lenses are there? for the same money, you almost always end up with a better value lens on the secondhand market.

Nikon doesn't make a directly comparable lens to the 17-55,

Because who would want a F4 zoom with no VR?

Your answer to this question please.

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.

24-120 F4 has significantly more range. But what we can also compare is 16-85 against 24-120 F3.5-F5.6. the 24-120 is one stop faster and is about 1/2 the price.

The 24-120 variable is again not in the same league of as the 16-85 in really any measurable performance category other than aperture

they are in the same league except the 24-120 is significantly sharper and faster

24-120 on FF

16-85 on APs-C

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

It is the only way to compare.

If it was the only way to compare DX only lenses would be marked with their 35mm equivalent focal length.  And their apertures would be "de-rated" to their 35mm equivalents too.

FL is FL, and aperture ratio is aperture diameter/FL. APS-C lenses are entitled to have correct FL and apeture ratio marked on them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,857
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area

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.

Getting into light sensitivity would be like saying back in the day we compared lenses differently based on what film was behind them.

That is essentially the issue.

At the end of the day a lens is a lens, it's performance is fixed,

But the sensor behind it get better performance for being larger.

you two keep setting up straw men arguments as to why FX is somehow "cheaper" than DX.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MikeInIndy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075Gear list
Like?
Re: Why so defensive?
In reply to ultimitsu, May 3, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area

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?  If I solely took pictures in a cave maybe.  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.

Getting into light sensitivity would be like saying back in the day we compared lenses differently based on what film was behind them.

That is essentially the issue.

At the end of the day a lens is a lens, it's performance is fixed,

But the sensor behind it get better performance for being larger.

you two keep setting up straw men arguments as to why FX is somehow "cheaper" than DX.

"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

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.

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, and I still haven't seen any real proof that even given the equivalencies FX is significantly cheaper lens for lens, let alone considering the above "initial higher body price" which BEST CASE is 800 bucks or so more.

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."

-- 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
malabito
Senior MemberPosts: 1,155Gear list
Like?
Re: having a child ...
In reply to Fred Mueller, May 3, 2013

Fred Mueller wrote:

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

Even thou i tend to think that if you have the money I see no problem in buying a D4 even if you are a newbie, in this case i will completely agree with you. I haven't been a dad but can imagine and from what i seen my friends gone through is a time consuming event. so how are you going to get the time to learn to use the camera and carry that bulky thing everywhere you go. I had a friend that just ask me the same and i ended recommending him a nikon V1. Still can be find on a good price, image quality is more then good enough, and has fast focusing. Also fits right there on the diaper bag. What else do you need?

 malabito's gear list:malabito's gear list
Sony RX1 Nikon D800 Leica M Typ 240 Nikon Df Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 2,083Gear list
Like?
Let's simplify this
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

When simply trying to cover a focal length, irrespective of IQ, DX can often do it for a lower price as long as the focal length of concern is not between 28mm and 80mm, because there are $20 options available for FX that DX can't match. (and 20mm, because there's a $100 Tamron 19-35 that DX can't match either)

When trying to obtain equivalent DOF and ISO performance (factoring in equivalent aperture), FX wins with one exception: getting a 75mm or 85mm f/2. DX has the 50/1.4 for $200 used, but with FX, a 85/1.8 costs about $300.

So yes, you can set up kit with DX that covers the same focal lengths as a more expensive FX kit. But you'll be losing DOF control, and will have a harder time in low light. (and most of the time will have less resolution too).

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?  If I solely took pictures in a cave maybe.

Taking pictures in a cave is not what high ISO is for. You would use a cable release and a tripod for that to obtain nice, bright long exposure ISO 100 (or ISO 25 if you desired) images.

High ISO is for freezing fast action in marginal light. Let's say you're at a stage performance, and they dim the stage lights. But performers are moving around, and you can't pull a low shutter speed and rely on good handholding technique to save you. You still want sharp shots (so at least 1/250s with good panning). You're at ISO 6400 before you know it.

Or if they turn off the lights on a dance floor. You're hitting ISO 12800 or 25600. Plenty of real life scenarios call for high ISOs (basically anything that's indoors and deals with moving stuff).

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

That's the whole point - at elevated ISO, FX is better.

But at base ISO, FX is also better, providing more DR. And having a lower pixel density while having the same resolution means it demands less from lenses.

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.

Again, pictures in a cave = very poor argument.

Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture, and I still haven't seen any real proof that even given the equivalencies FX is significantly cheaper lens for lens, let alone considering the above "initial higher body price" which BEST CASE is 800 bucks or so more.

Ok, let's go cheapest way to cover focal lengths, completely ignoring IQ/low light ability:

  • Standard 28-80 type zoom: Tamron 28-80/3.5-5.6 - $25 used from KEH
  • DX equivalent: 18-55/3.5-5.6, about $80 used even looking at the non-VR version (ebay)
  • Getting a 15mm wide angle: Samyang 14/2.8 for $350
  • DX equivalent: 10-20/4-5.6, about $400 used from ebay
  • Getting a 20mm wide angle: Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 - about $100 from KEH
  • DX equivalent: Some 14mm lens? $350 for Samyang 14/2.8?

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."

That's exactly the argument. How can you consider lenses without also considering differences in camera body? A DX sensor behind a 55/2.8 lens is collecting about half as much light as a FX sensor behind a 80/2.8 lens.

 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
Grevture
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,129Gear list
Like?
You need to brush up on your reading :-)
In reply to MikeInIndy, May 3, 2013

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area

There's really only one thing you need a stop faster lens for, depth of field control. Getting into light sensitivity would be like saying back in the day we compared lenses differently based on what film was behind them.  At the end of the day a lens is a lens, it's performance is fixed, the performance of the thing it's attached to is not other than depth of field and focal length,

I think you have some reading to do

Or even simpler, actually try a DX and a FX camera side by side (with comparable sensor technology). It might be very educating.

With half the surface to capture light, you really do need either twice as long shutter speed or twice as large aperture to get the same image performance (noise, DR etc) in the end. That is how it works, pure and simple.

you two keep setting up straw men arguments as to why FX is somehow "cheaper" than DX.  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 most certainly is not. And as for the context of the OP question, it was asked in the "Nikon FX SLR" forum

But the basics remain, you just do not seem to grasp the very real differences which do exist between sensor sizes. Sensor area does affect performance in a very real way, and if you cut the area in half, you will lose something which the lens need to compensate for. In optical systems, as in life in general, there are no free lunches.

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

Eh, what?

-- 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: You need to brush up on your reading :-)
In reply to Grevture, May 3, 2013

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area

There's really only one thing you need a stop faster lens for, depth of field control. Getting into light sensitivity would be like saying back in the day we compared lenses differently based on what film was behind them.  At the end of the day a lens is a lens, it's performance is fixed, the performance of the thing it's attached to is not other than depth of field and focal length,

I think you have some reading to do

Or even simpler, actually try a DX and a FX camera side by side (with comparable sensor technology). It might be very educating.

With half the surface to capture light, you really do need either twice as long shutter speed or twice as large aperture to get the same image performance (noise, DR etc) in the end. That is how it works, pure and simple.

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.  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.

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.  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.

you two keep setting up straw men arguments as to why FX is somehow "cheaper" than DX.  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 most certainly is not. And as for the context of the OP question, it was asked in the "Nikon FX SLR" forum

But the basics remain, you just do not seem to grasp the very real differences which do exist between sensor sizes. Sensor area does affect performance in a very real way, and if you cut the area in half, you will lose something which the lens need to compensate for. In optical systems, as in life in general, there are no free lunches.

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

-- 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: Let's simplify this
In reply to chlamchowder, May 3, 2013

chlamchowder wrote:

When simply trying to cover a focal length, irrespective of IQ, DX can often do it for a lower price as long as the focal length of concern is not between 28mm and 80mm, because there are $20 options available for FX that DX can't match. (and 20mm, because there's a $100 Tamron 19-35 that DX can't match either)

When trying to obtain equivalent DOF and ISO performance (factoring in equivalent aperture), FX wins with one exception: getting a 75mm or 85mm f/2. DX has the 50/1.4 for $200 used, but with FX, a 85/1.8 costs about $300.

So yes, you can set up kit with DX that covers the same focal lengths as a more expensive FX kit. But you'll be losing DOF control, and will have a harder time in low light. (and most of the time will have less resolution too).

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?  If I solely took pictures in a cave maybe.

Taking pictures in a cave is not what high ISO is for. You would use a cable release and a tripod for that to obtain nice, bright long exposure ISO 100 (or ISO 25 if you desired) images.

High ISO is for freezing fast action in marginal light. Let's say you're at a stage performance, and they dim the stage lights. But performers are moving around, and you can't pull a low shutter speed and rely on good handholding technique to save you. You still want sharp shots (so at least 1/250s with good panning). You're at ISO 6400 before you know it.

Or if they turn off the lights on a dance floor. You're hitting ISO 12800 or 25600. Plenty of real life scenarios call for high ISOs (basically anything that's indoors and deals with moving stuff).

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

That's the whole point - at elevated ISO, FX is better.

But at base ISO, FX is also better, providing more DR. And having a lower pixel density while having the same resolution means it demands less from lenses.

Half a stop of DR as I said above

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.

Again, pictures in a cave = very poor argument.

Sarcasm my friend

Focal length is focal length, aperture is aperture, and I still haven't seen any real proof that even given the equivalencies FX is significantly cheaper lens for lens, let alone considering the above "initial higher body price" which BEST CASE is 800 bucks or so more.

Ok, let's go cheapest way to cover focal lengths, completely ignoring IQ/low light ability:

  • Standard 28-80 type zoom: Tamron 28-80/3.5-5.6 - $25 used from KEH
  • DX equivalent: 18-55/3.5-5.6, about $80 used even looking at the non-VR version (ebay)

You're forgetting the Sigma 18-50, which can be had for 35 bucks or less

  • Getting a 15mm wide angle: Samyang 14/2.8 for $350
  • DX equivalent: 10-20/4-5.6, about $400 used from ebay

Tokinas 12-24 regularly sells for 250 for the version 1, granted it's not quite as wide, it's still pretty darn wide, but that's one of FX's big advantages, just like DX has long lens advantage, FX has the "really wide" advantage

  • Getting a 20mm wide angle: Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 - about $100 from KEH
  • DX equivalent: Some 14mm lens? $350 for Samyang 14/2.8?

See above.

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."

That's exactly the argument. How can you consider lenses without also considering differences in camera body? A DX sensor behind a 55/2.8 lens is collecting about half as much light as a FX sensor behind a 80/2.8 lens.

Except at base ISO the "one stop better" argument falls apart on anything other than for DOF control.

-- 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
chlamchowder
Senior MemberPosts: 2,083Gear 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads