D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
lock Veteran Member • Posts: 6,202
Re: If these quality aspects are decisive, than let's have a look at zooms on Fx and Dx

Grevture wrote:

lock wrote:

Just to make a start. We could do the same with primes, but this table is about zooms. We could also do it with mid to long end zooms or even primes, but maybe next time.

I'm interested in your opinion about the various combo's, it's quality considering the prices, because I'm trying to decide myself what I should do next. As an example I will pick one comparsion of Dx:FX from the table below, but you can do the same for any kind of set.
The only thing I try do to is the define sets with lenses using the same effective focal range. I did not list anything about VC/OS or VR because that only complicates things. Prices are all in euro's.

One point you made about quality refers to DOF control. Let me use the comparison of a d7100 with the sigma 8-16 (total price 1770.-) and a D600 with the much faster nikon 14-24 2.8 (3100,-). I could also use the slower Sigma, but I think the comparison would become less clear then. DOF control: what will the 14-24 give you on a D600 compare to d7100 with the 8-16?

To get the corresponding DOF control and light gathering of a 14-24/2.8 on FX with a DX lens you would need at least something like a 9-16/2.0. Or if you look at midrange, look at 16-85 vs 24-120 (which gives more or less the same AOV range) - you would need at least a 16-85/2.8 on DX to match a 24-120/4 on FX.

Thanks for the feedback !

The only one close to that lens is the Tokina but it doesn't provide the demanded maximum aperture. However, would it matter much? From 11 to 16 mm wide open at 10 mtrs the DOF goes from 1.8/3.1 mtrs to infinity. The 12-24 Fx goes from 1.5/4/0 to infinity. You do not gain much more control in terms of DOF do you ?

The DX lenses covering the same AOV (or AOV range for a zoom) are cheaper, but they provide less, or much less DOF control and light gathering. Often this is a useful compromise, but for equal over all performance, it is actually difficult to argue that FX lenses are always more expensive. Often there are no real (in all performance aspects) DX counterparts available to compare with.

If you stick to the same DOF you can get on FX, you are correct. There is no counterpart in Dx because they do not go below f/2.8. 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...

Will these DOF differences be an issue for you, given your purposes of using a wide angle ? If so, why ? Is there anything else that will make you decide to take the full frame route given the price differences of these combinations ? Did I miss a lens (and combo) ?

Among many other things, I tend to often use wide angle lenses to shoot closeups of things or people and have some background visible, but blurred. So yes, I want all the DOF control I can get. And also, I often shoot in weak light, and there I would need - for the same noise performance in the final image - at least one stop faster DX lenses then FX lenses to compensate for the smaller sensor.

True. And for the purpose you mentioned above, you are correct. But isn't the wide end used mostly for landscapes ? And would it matter that much given that in most cases everything is within the DOF range  up to infinity ? I have to admit if I do closeup of people, I do not use wide angle lenses. One of these preferences....

Let me point this out very clearly: i'm not debating any choises here. We all have our preferences. I'm just asking for arguments so I can chose wisely. Price is only one source of information that will help me to decide (although it is an important one).

Just to put this in very generic terms, and to give the issue some perspective: There are some reasons some people still shoot medium format, in spite of very high prices and some aspects of performance severely lacking. One important reason is DOF control. And looking in the other direction: Often a good quality compact camera is very useful, like when you have good light and do not care much about DOF control. Looking at compacts versus medium format cameras are of course extreme points, but they illustrate the issue in general terms. The difference between FX and DX is smaller, but it still exists and is noticeable.

If this matters to you is hard to tell - for many it really does not matter that much (and for their needs, it could be said that DX lenses are generally cheaper). For me it certainly matter since I often shoot in very weak light and often want maximum background blur.

I also do a lot of stuff in low light, so I need fast lenses and good hi iso performance. I had a d600 for about 6 months but I returned it. I know how good it was at higher isos, and I will no doubt miss that if I would go back to Dx. But if I look at the other side of my field of interest, I need long lenses too. Cropping the Dx out of an Fx picture really doesn't help to maintain the iso advantage. I do not have the money to buy the big and fast lenses like the sigma 120-300. It's a hobby, you know.


-- 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

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