D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Try again

MikeInIndy 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

Or you can buy a D3200, 18-55 VR and a flash for the OP's application and put the other oh, I dunno, 1400 dollars or so, in your pocket.

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?

All you "FX is cheaper" guys need to quit pretending like DX somehow HAS to reach an equivalency to FX,

Who said that?

or that somehow DX is so grossly inferior that no one will ever be able to take a good picture with it.

Who said that?

I mean surely no one ever made a good picture with a D200...

How can you be so sure?

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