D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,580
Re: Additions to the list...

chlamchowder wrote:

If it wasn't obvious, I only considered lenses that can be bought new, that all had AF and where available I only considered the versions of lenses with AF-S and VR/OS. There are enough people who only buy new and once you allow for used lenses, you are really opening a can of worms because there is such a vast array of options with difficult to obtain prices and such big differences in quality and features. And we all know that old WA often do poorly on digital, so instead of getting into an unsolvable argument over which lens is better (or equivalent), just drawing a simple line and restricting oneself to only what is available as new is the cleanest way to deal with this issue.

However, when you're merely talking about getting to a certain focal length and throw equivalent image quality out the window, one of FX's biggest advantages is having a huge selection of used lenses from the film area. Most of those lenses give very good image quality when used on full frame (which is what they're designed for).

Most 'old' tele lenses do similarly good on DX as on FX (and are by definition cheaper on DX because a shorter focal lengths are generally cheaper).

"Old WA often do poorly on digital"...well, maybe an old $100 UWA won't give the corner performance of a new $700 DX UWA, but being cheaper is the point. If you want awesome FX UWA performance, that can be had for $300 with a Samyang 14/2.8. No AF, but you don't need AF because pretty much everything will be in focus anyways.

Getting a 14 mm as your first UWA is not the most practical solution, most people will make more use of something not quite as extreme. And I doubt that those having spend good money on a FX camera will really go for a $100 WA and get worse IQ than they got from their DX system. Very few people switch to systems that produce worse IQ than their current ones (except when getting something noticeably smaller). In my opinion, most people that switch to FX do so to get better IQ not to get cheaper lenses, and generally if you want increase your quality level you will be willing to pay more and thus in reality do spend more.

And if you want to take IQ into consideration, you have to take the superior noise performance of FX sensors into account. The D600 is more than a stop ahead, so when you're not in bright sunlight, it's like having a lens that's a stop faster.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. You either get the same light gathering (eg, f/2.8 on DX vs. f/4 on FX) and possibly save money doing so, or you get better light gathering (lower noise) by replacing a f/2.8 DX lens with a f/2.8 FX lens but then you you pay more.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51398092 for a discussion on trying to obtain equivalent IQ...DX only wins for telephoto and macro.

Which illustrates my point that people switch to FX to get better IQ not to get something cheaper.

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