D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions
sshoihet
Senior MemberPosts: 2,220Gear list
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to d3xmeister, May 15, 2013

The biggest flaw in the argument is that not everyone requires the equivalence (that one really seems to be popular lately) of FX on DX.  Not everyone needs to work at large apertures with razor thin dof.  Not everyone needs the extra ~stop of low light performance. Many of us want more dof and that is what constrains us.

As you noted, it's not much good to shoot in low light at a large aperture if you're trying to capture a street scene where you want as much dof as possible.  In many cases, FX loses it's benefit here because you need to stop down an additional stop to get the same dof.  Many of the cheaper lenses are horrible on the edges too when shot wide open and you have to stop down if you need good edge-edge sharpness anyway.

I needed a second body recently and after much consideration i ended up getting the D7100 over the D600. I would have picked up a D700 but couldn't find one at the time. Why did I buy the D7100?  Not because of price but because I felt that by buying the D600 I was giving up too many features just to get a larger sensor and it wasn't worth it to me.  I'd love to have a D800E but at this time, it doesn't make sense for me to spend 3x the price of a D7100.

I'm somewhat amused at how long people have said lenses are better on DX because the DX is using the "sweet spot" and within the last 6 months we've changed to saying that DX needs much better lenses than FX because of the higher pixel density.

FX and DX both have benefits and there is no reason that they have to be equivalent; not being equivalent means that in many cases, DX is cheaper.

 sshoihet's gear list:sshoihet's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Nikon D7100 +14 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to sshoihet, May 15, 2013

sshoihet wrote:

The biggest flaw in the argument is that not everyone requires the equivalence (that one really seems to be popular lately) of FX on DX.

But the rest of your argument is based on equivalent conditions.

Not everyone needs to work at large apertures with razor thin dof.  Not everyone needs the extra ~stop of low light performance.

It isnt always about needs, it is also about wants, FF gives you that option.

Many of us want more dof and that is what constrains us.

what you mean more DOF? it is pretty easy to get infinite DOF for wide angle lenses.

In many cases, FX loses it's benefit here because you need to stop down an additional stop to get the same dof.

no Dr or resolution benefit if you are on base iso.

Many of the cheaper lenses are horrible on the edges too when shot wide open and you have to stop down if you need good edge-edge sharpness anyway.

Exactly, so with FF you may well end up saving money because you stop down the cheap lenses to get sufficient DOF

I needed a second body recently and after much consideration i ended up getting the D7100 over the D600. I would have picked up a D700 but couldn't find one at the time. Why did I buy the D7100?  Not because of price but because I felt that by buying the D600 I was giving up too many features just to get a larger sensor and it wasn't worth it to me.

Why would you not have lost them if you got D700?

FX and DX both have benefits and there is no reason that they have to be equivalent; not being equivalent means that in many cases, DX is cheaper.

I dont think you understood that equivalent means.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 15, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

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.

under a general rule.

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.

that is when I said nothing specific about the sigma.

These are separate statements, first a specific comparison and second a comparison with the whole body of FX lenses.

I said nothing specific about the sigma. other than the fact that it is an FF lens and has larger image circle.

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.

It is not about you did nto criticise the second statement, it is about you should read the first and second statement togather to understand the first statement was not meant as an absolute rule.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to d3xmeister, May 15, 2013

d3xmeister wrote:

The only true phenomenon in his clueless story is:

you are the clueless one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that proves you are confused

The same with a Tamron 70-200mm.

that proves you are confused

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

that proves you are confused

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

did anyone say anything about these combos?

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

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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
noirdesir
Forum ProPosts: 10,809
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 15, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

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.

under a general rule.

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.

that is when I said nothing specific about the sigma.

Yes, you did. I said that I don't know whether the Sigma is better or worse than the Tokina. Any you replied to that sentence with: "Yes, it is better, because ...".

These are separate statements, first a specific comparison and second a comparison with the whole body of FX lenses.

I said nothing specific about the sigma. other than the fact that it is an FF lens and has larger image circle.

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.

It is not about you did nto criticise the second statement, it is about you should read the first and second statement togather to understand the first statement was not meant as an absolute rule.

So, what was your first statement exactly? And what was your second statement? Because if your first sentence there was not specific about the Sigma there would not be two separate statements.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
d3xmeister
Senior MemberPosts: 1,394Gear list
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to ultimitsu, May 16, 2013

ultimitsu wrote:

d3xmeister wrote:

The only true phenomenon in his clueless story is:

you are the clueless one.

Keep telling yourself that

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

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

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

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

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

Sigmas and Tamrons vs Nikons. Enough said !

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

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

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

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

that proves you are confused

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

The same with a Tamron 70-200mm.

that proves you are confused

Have you used that lens ? (the old one)

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

that proves you are confused

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
DesertLefty
Regular MemberPosts: 351Gear list
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to d3xmeister, May 16, 2013

D7100 has a better autofocus module than the D600. This is critical for taking pictures of moving subjects.

I say: D7100 plus the excellent, all-round AF-S 16-85mm VR lens.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Skiies
Regular MemberPosts: 153
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to DesertLefty, May 16, 2013

which camera focuses more accurate in low light tho?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to noirdesir, May 16, 2013

noirdesir wrote:

So, what was your first statement exactly?

a general rule

And what was your second statement?

not saying the first rule is absolute

Because if your first sentence there was not specific about the Sigma there would not be two separate statements.

that makes no sense.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: "It is better, because image circle is larger" - enough said
In reply to d3xmeister, May 16, 2013

d3xmeister wrote:

Keep telling yourself that

you keep proving it.

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

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

Really ? Taking pictures with them counts ?

where is your pictures?

How about controlled tests ?

Where?

Lab tests ?

where?

Do you really believe the Tamron 28-75mm is a better lens than the 17--55mm ? You said that not me. And I'm not talking about resolution (your fixation)

where?

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

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

Sigmas and Tamrons vs Nikons. Enough said !

no it is not, you are confused.

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

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

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

see how you are confused?

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

that proves you are confused

My 18-55mm VR beats the hell out of it in AF, side-to-side resolution, flare resistance, micro-contrast, colour rendition.

see how you are still confused?

The same with a Tamron 70-200mm.

that proves you are confused

Have you used that lens ? (the old one)

Compared to ?

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

that proves you are confused

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

You have no clue what point in this discussion you are attacking, you have made up an imaginery enemy and yelling like a madman.

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

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

Not those lenses specifically, but you keep offering second hand old Tamrons and Sigmas as Nikons pro lenses alternative, just to prove your cost point.

that is not the point of my post, see how you are getting even more confused with every post? time to take a pill.

And you say they are superior when used on FX.

Check exactly what I said.

That proves you know nothing about this.

I know nothing of your imaginary arguments.

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

you are gone, son.

Are you kidding ?

You are losing.

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

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

Yes you can, who argued with that ?

LOL!!!

But at what cost ? My D5100 with the 35mm f/1.8 cost less than $650, and a D600 with a 50mm f/1.8 cost $2200.

You really need to understand what is being argued.

No the DX combo does not give the same IQ by any means, but cost difference is HUGE.

LOL

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

LOL

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

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

One lens is all you ever buy?

Not enlighten us again,

You cannot be enlightened.

what one can buy in that price range to be comparable.

is one lens all you ever have?

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

Lets put 35 F1.4 instead to match 50 f1.8 on D600. lets put 24 F1.8 to come close to 35 F1.4 on D600.

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

It is.

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

LOL

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads