D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects

d3xmeister wrote:

Lot of rubbish here.

I know, I had to refrain from laughing when I read them in your post.

Stop comparing those old second hand Tamrons or Sigmas. I used those kind of lense back in the day on my D700 and even the 18-55mm on DX was way better in every way. I'll never shoot those so called lenses again.

You did it wrong.

Now let's say I want to buy a DX or FX system.

D600 + 16-35mm f/4 + Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8VC + Nikon 70-300mmm VR + 50mm f/1.8G

D7100 + Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II + Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8VC + Nikon 55-200mmVR + 35mm f/1.8

FX system costs a whooping $1800 more.

Complete utter  rubbish. the FF lenses you picked are significantly better in each case. you should compare :

18-35 (still a lot better than tokina 11-16), 24-85 (still a lot better than tamron 17-50), 70-300 VR (nothing below this has VR), and 50 F1.8D (still too fast compared to 35 F1.8)

What you get for those $1800:  About 1,3 stops advantage in ISO performance and DOF control (exept with the wide angle setup), bigger and brighter viewfinder (I prefer bright but smaller viewfinder, I see the composition better with DX vf)

you get all that same less money.

used third party glass that I can make in my garage

lets see you do that.

using  slower aperture equiv that negates the advantage of FX is silly.

less money similar performance or same money better performance.

Stop comparing the 17-55mm DX, which is the most overpriced lens in Nikons history, who in the right mind would buy that lens today ?

what else have you got?

If I output on my 32'' HDTV, you really cannot see a difference at even ISO 12800 between D600 and D7100.

utter non-sense. high iso isnt just about resolution it is also about DR and colour. if you cannot see the difference it coud only mean  your TV is 4 bit.

In print, you barely see a half of stop difference but only when you print fairly big, you don't see a difference in 8x10 which is as big as most people print. And looking on 27'' monitor again you can barely see half of stop, and on retina iPad also you can barely see half a stop. Now looking at 100% at the monitor, you can see a more than a stop.

even more reason to use slow lenses on FX to save money then.

It makes me laugh when I see people saying that DX has no practical advantage, and a FX system also cost less.

Ignorance is bless.

That said, I may be going FX this year, but that doesn't change all the above.

it will, from yoru post it is obvious that you are an irrational  fanboy. you will fight whichever side you are on to the death. once you have an FF camera, you will tell the whole how the body is cheaper than aps-c too.

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