D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
MikeInIndy Senior Member • Posts: 1,077
Re: Yes, its about light, that is what we are trying to explain :-)

Grevture wrote:

MikeInIndy wrote: It's becoming clear that you guys are only interested in a numbers and technology game, rather than a realistic comparison of OUTPUT from these cameras.  Last time I checked photography was about photos.

Everyone today appears to be off on this "just buy a killer FX camera" tangent instead of actually learning what photography is about, which is LIGHT. 

This from the guy who says my D7000 needs twice the exposure time as my D600...

To get the same level of DR and noise from a sensor half as big you do need twice the exposure. The fact that you do not seem to grasp that very basic fact and at the same time rather pompously declare "photography is about LIGHT" makes it a bit hard to take your arguments seriously

Yes, photography is indeed about capturing light, the more the merrier, and one of the easiest ways of capturing more light is to use as large a capturing area as possible. Increasing the area mean you need less extreme lenses to achieve the same end result (a image of a given quality level).

If sensor area is - as you appear to claim - so irrelevant for DR, noise and other aspects of image quality, why do you even bother with DX and FX cameras instead of much smaller and ligher compact cameras?

It's not irrelevant, it's just not nearly as relevant as you want it to be to prove your arguments.  Below ISO 1600 the output of these two cameras is indistinguishable using a reasonable metric to assess them.  Specifically, I base that on DXOMarks results, their ISO score is based on an ISO standard for assessing noise and ISO rating of sensor or film speed and a bar that is set for visually acceptable based on a 12x8 300 dpi print.  The D7100 scores 1256, the D600 scores nearly 3000, that's where your stop of "better" comes into play.  Until you get to ISO 1600 the D7100's image quality would still be considered excellent by normal people.  To put it another way, pictures taken with both cameras with the same settings up to ISO 1600 will be for all purposes indistinguishable other than a difference in DOF, presuming one uses a 50% longer lens for FX.  So again, your argument can only hang its hat on performance above ISO 1600, and DOF.  You can beat the horse dead all you want, and point to numbers and formulas all day, but photography is still all about output.  And again, I point you to the proof in the pudding, which is use THIS SITES STUDIO COMPARISON TOOL and compare the cameras at ISO 1600.

-- hide signature --


 MikeInIndy's gear list:MikeInIndy's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Canon PowerShot G3 Nikon 1 V2 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow