D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
DX lens prices vs FX lens prices

MikeInIndy wrote:

And anyone saying FX is cheaper needs to better explain that one.

What was said, was that FX lenses are not necessarily more expensive. This as a response to a poster who in rather unspecified terms claimed that FX lenses were more expensive then DX ones. Weighing in performance, the issue is a bit more convoluted then what appears on the surface. There is (still) a clear price difference between a DX system and a FX system as a whole, but most of that difference comes from the cameras, not the lenses (like the $800 difference between a D7100 and a D600).

Many people look at lens specifications alone, and forget that the sensor size actually play a role: If you are aiming for the same performance in resolution, in depth-of-field control and in light gathering performance, then FX lenses often actually is cheaper then DX lenses. The exception being when you shoot a lot with longer telephoto lenses where DX often is more cost effective.

But if one accepts less depth-of-field control and less good performance in low light, then DX certainly can be more cost effective.

-- 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
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow