D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,580
Re: Try again

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir 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

You mean it is great that for almost any focal length, the cheapest FX option is more expensive than the focal-length equivalent DX option?

Which one has more reach - D800 or D300s?

And that is the point, to cover any set of focal lengths, you will have almost universally pay more for a FX set than a DX set.

that is the exact type of myth that is dispelled here.

Show me three examples that contradict what I said. Only three.

(BTW, I have a FF camera, so I don't want to diss them. I just hate when people think they are smart because they disagree with the consensus.)

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