D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
You need to brush up on your reading :-)

MikeInIndy wrote:

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote:

And that's giving you the benefit of your argument that we must compare a stop faster lenses.

Here I think is the crux of the matter: We want to compare prices of lenses giving the same real life performance, while you bring up price comparisons of lenses which deliver different performances.

And yes, you really do need one stop faster lenses on DX to be able to deliver the same performance. That is not some oddball idea, it is a very real consequence of having half the sensor area

There's really only one thing you need a stop faster lens for, depth of field control. Getting into light sensitivity would be like saying back in the day we compared lenses differently based on what film was behind them.  At the end of the day a lens is a lens, it's performance is fixed, the performance of the thing it's attached to is not other than depth of field and focal length,

I think you have some reading to do

Or even simpler, actually try a DX and a FX camera side by side (with comparable sensor technology). It might be very educating.

With half the surface to capture light, you really do need either twice as long shutter speed or twice as large aperture to get the same image performance (noise, DR etc) in the end. That is how it works, pure and simple.

you two keep setting up straw men arguments as to why FX is somehow "cheaper" than DX.  In the technical ultimate image quality sense, yes, it is, because DX just plain can't compete at the top end.  But in the "relevant to a thread where some guy asks do I buy a D7100 or a D600" sense, it's just an exercise in semantics.

No, it most certainly is not. And as for the context of the OP question, it was asked in the "Nikon FX SLR" forum

But the basics remain, you just do not seem to grasp the very real differences which do exist between sensor sizes. Sensor area does affect performance in a very real way, and if you cut the area in half, you will lose something which the lens need to compensate for. In optical systems, as in life in general, there are no free lunches.

As I said in my other post, if your argument was that persuasive DX lenses would be marked in 35mm equivalent focal lengths and apertures, or people would be clamoring to make them be marked as such because anything else is deceptive.  Perhaps you guys should get together and sue Canon and Nikon for false advertising.

Eh, what?

-- 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