D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,579
Like?
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects
In reply to ultimitsu, May 10, 2013

Again, for the record, I plan to go FX this year, so fanboy of what ? Could be that you are a blind fanboy of FX ?

You must be really blind, how else could I explain your attitude and all the rubbish you write here ? I specifically said the FX combo will be better in IQ, but you obviously cannot read very well.

Don't pretend that 16mm ultra wide is the same as 18mm ultra wide. In UWA any mm makes a huge difference. You compare the 70-300mm VR with the 70-300mm G PLASTIC, really ?

And the most important thing, why do you compare slower lenses on FX ?  That cancel any ISO advantage, and in many cases the resolution advantage,  so what's the point again ?

Take my example, I want to go FX for the advantages I already pointed out. Now if I use your recommended lenses, I'm in the same place as with DX. It's obvious even for a 5 year old (are you more then 5?) that to get an advantage in noise, resolution and DOF control, I have to use lenses at least with the same aperture and quality as with DX. If I only get ,,equivalent,, lenses, I'm stuck with the same performance as with DX. Now I really want to see your comment to the above.

Now seriously, it's something wrong with you ? For the life of me I cannot explain how you don't understand a few basic facts.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AZBlue
Contributing MemberPosts: 865Gear list
Like?
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects
In reply to d3xmeister, May 10, 2013

Comical

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AZBlue
Contributing MemberPosts: 865Gear list
Like?
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects
In reply to d3xmeister, May 10, 2013

Edited - not worth the time

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AZBlue
Contributing MemberPosts: 865Gear list
Like?
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects
In reply to d3xmeister, May 10, 2013

d3xmeister wrote:

Again, for the record, I plan to go FX this year, so fanboy of what ? Could be that you are a blind fanboy of FX ?

You must be really blind, how else could I explain your attitude and all the rubbish you write here ? I specifically said the FX combo will be better in IQ, but you obviously cannot read very well.

Don't pretend that 16mm ultra wide is the same as 18mm ultra wide. In UWA any mm makes a huge difference. You compare the 70-300mm VR with the 70-300mm G PLASTIC, really ?

And the most important thing, why do you compare slower lenses on FX ?  That cancel any ISO advantage, and in many cases the resolution advantage,  so what's the point again ?

Take my example, I want to go FX for the advantages I already pointed out. Now if I use your recommended lenses, I'm in the same place as with DX. It's obvious even for a 5 year old (are you more then 5?) that to get an advantage in noise, resolution and DOF control, I have to use lenses at least with the same aperture and quality as with DX. If I only get ,,equivalent,, lenses, I'm stuck with the same performance as with DX. Now I really want to see your comment to the above.

Now seriously, it's something wrong with you ? For the life of me I cannot explain how you don't understand a few basic facts.

Different strokes for different folks.

-- hide signature --

"I've been in more laps than a napkin" - Mae West

 AZBlue's gear list:AZBlue's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,579
Like?
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects
In reply to AZBlue, May 10, 2013

Yes for some people FX is magical. Even when using slower poor lense it's still better than DX. I shot FX and DX, I know the differences and I can see when someone is BS.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,047
Like?
"It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 10, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models. I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,579
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 11, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

Bahahahahahahahaha !!!!!! Really ? Tell us more !

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Andy Cam
Regular MemberPosts: 284
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, May 11, 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.

Neither. Both camera's are overkill for your intended use. Buy a far cheaper camera and put the savings away for your kid's education.

The reason for getting these semi-pro cameras is for the extra build quality and features. A camera at a fraction of cost will serve just as well for high quality family snaps.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,673
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 13, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models.

not at all. the sigma 17-35 HSM is reputed to be a sharp lens. what I am saying is although there are no direct comparison of the two around it is still pretty safe to say the sigma is going to provide more resolution on FF than tokina on aps-c

I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

go on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,673
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 13, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models. I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,579
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 13, 2013

I'm sold ! Can you point me to the store that sells the sigma 17-35mm and the Tamron 28-75mm ?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lock
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,851
Like?
Aotearoa NZ
In reply to d3xmeister, May 13, 2013

But of course you knew that...

lock

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,047
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 13, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm.

It is better, because image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX.

This is equivalent to saying a larger displacement engine has more power than one with less displacement when asked to compare two specific models. I should stop right here. Give them enough rope and ....

Given that the Sigma was tested on a 22 MP body and the Tokina on a 18 MP body, the resolution numbers (ie, the P-Mpix ratings) are not directly comparable. If you scale them with the ratio of number of MP (22.12/17.92 = 1.235), ie, 9 * 1.235 = 11.1, both lenses resolve the same number of 'MP' (as defined by DxO).
You can also look at more bodies where these lenses were tested on and compare how much Mpix per MP they get: Sigma on 5D 8 (12) vs. Tokina on 40D 6 (10), or Sigma on 1DsIII 9 (21) -  Tokina 7 (15). Overall, given the same amount of MP on the sensor behind both lenses, both lenses achieve about the same final resolution.
Thus, for this lens pair, your premise of bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) evidently does not apply and your statement about the Sigma having "much more detail" was not proven to be correct.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
eNo
eNo
Forum ProPosts: 11,732
Like?
Re: having a child ...
In reply to Fred Mueller, May 13, 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" ...

Right. Because taking photos of "said child" is a much lower priority task, with less lasting value, than say, photographing birds in flight or chimps at the Zoo. To put it another way: what, exactly, is wrong with wanting the best camera to record precious, fleeting memories with "said child"? If the OP can afford the best for "said child", including a nice, safe crib, why not a nice camera?

-- hide signature --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://imagesbyeduardo.com/
Los Angeles wedding photography that seeks the heart and spirit in each image

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,673
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 13, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

Given that the Sigma was tested on a 22 MP body and the Tokina on a 18 MP body, the resolution numbers (ie, the P-Mpix ratings) are not directly comparable. If you scale them with the ratio of number of MP (22.12/17.92 = 1.235), ie, 9 * 1.235 = 11.1, both lenses resolve the same number of 'MP' (as defined by DxO).
You can also look at more bodies where these lenses were tested on and compare how much Mpix per MP they get: Sigma on 5D 8 (12) vs. Tokina on 40D 6 (10), or Sigma on 1DsIII 9 (21) -  Tokina 7 (15). Overall, given the same amount of MP on the sensor behind both lenses, both lenses achieve about the same final resolution.

so worst case scenario the Sigma gives you the same resolution as the tokina but is cheaper. right?

Thus, for this lens pair, your premise of bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) evidently does not apply and your statement about the Sigma having "much more detail" was not proven to be correct.

bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) is only one attribute makes FF images sharper, there are obviously other attributes at play. you are taking things out of context by holding it to be an absolute rule.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,047
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 13, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

Given that the Sigma was tested on a 22 MP body and the Tokina on a 18 MP body, the resolution numbers (ie, the P-Mpix ratings) are not directly comparable. If you scale them with the ratio of number of MP (22.12/17.92 = 1.235), ie, 9 * 1.235 = 11.1, both lenses resolve the same number of 'MP' (as defined by DxO).
You can also look at more bodies where these lenses were tested on and compare how much Mpix per MP they get: Sigma on 5D 8 (12) vs. Tokina on 40D 6 (10), or Sigma on 1DsIII 9 (21) -  Tokina 7 (15). Overall, given the same amount of MP on the sensor behind both lenses, both lenses achieve about the same final resolution.

so worst case scenario the Sigma gives you the same resolution as the tokina but is cheaper. right?

Thus, for this lens pair, your premise of bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) evidently does not apply and your statement about the Sigma having "much more detail" was not proven to be correct.

bigger (image circle) = better (resolution) is only one attribute makes FF images sharper, there are obviously other attributes at play. you are taking things out of context by holding it to be an absolute rule.

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kayone
Regular MemberPosts: 316Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 vs d7100
In reply to Pingpongrallyon, May 13, 2013

Please respond to everyone's input, it is incredibly rude to post a broad question and not respond to those who are trying to help you out with more specific questions.  At the same time letting this thread get flooded with endless minutae technical discussion that will probably have no meaning for someone at your level anyway.

This kind of posting makes me so angry.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,673
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 14, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

you should read posts in their totality. following that passage i also wrote:

But when compared to FX lens it is very difficult for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

I did not write

But when compared to FX lens it is impossible for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 11,047
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 14, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

No, I asked you about the relative performance of two specific lenses and you said:

"It [lens A] is better because [its] image circle is larger the resulting image has much more detail, a native strength of being FX."

Then you trot out a lens test that supposedly shows this but which at closer analysis actually disproves it. You were the one who used the larger image circle as an absolute rule to supposedly prove that the Sigma is a better lens than the Tokina.

you should read posts in their totality. following that passage i also wrote:

But when compared to FX lens it is very difficult for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

I did not write

But when compared to FX lens it is impossible for 11-16 to beat them on total resolution and speed.

You first said that a specific FX lens is better than the Tokina. Then you made a general statement that it is difficult to for Tokina to beat any FX lens. So, you opened the possibility that the Tokina could be better than some FX lenses. These are separate statements, first a specific comparison and second a comparison with the whole body of FX lenses. The second statement is not controversial because terms like 'difficult' can span a wide range of conditions and overall larger formats produce better lens performance. And thus, I did not criticise your second statement.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,579
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 14, 2013

The only true phenomenon in his clueless story is:

The D7100 has ,,pixels,, roughly twice as small than the D600. That means a lens should be able to resolve twice the resolution on the D7100 to get you the same resolution as on the D600. Some lenses can, most lenses cannot really, but that doesn't mean they are twice as bad, only if their maximum resolution would be 24MP on FX. That would make them useless on a D800 or any future cameras. So there are lenses that get you same resolution on both cameras, some that will do better on the D600, some will come very close, and some that will be rubbish on both cameras.

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.

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.

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. I borrowed a sigma 28-70mm and it was rubbish on both bodies. The same with a Tamron 70-200mm. Had a 70-300mm VR and borrowed a Nikon 70-200mm. The D300 + 70-200mm f/2.8 combo was blowing away the D700 + 70-300mm VR combo in every way. The 70-200mm f/2.8 had much better edges and less vignetting on DX, and it was about the same in the centre. But you did get about 1.5 stops of low light performance from the D700.

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. What helped a lot was a SB-900 remotely triggered.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads