D600 vs d7100

Started Apr 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,580
Re: Great lies are often surrounded by mythical subjects

ultimitsu wrote:

noirdesir wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

d3xmeister wrote:

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)

The point is, what if the Tokina 11-16 mm, the Tamron 17-50 mm, the 35 mm f/1.8, and the 55-200 mm are good and fast enough for you?

that is not the point d3xmeister was making. he thinks that set actuall matches the performance of the FX set,

No, he never says it matches, he says it is close enough for him. And that is the point you apparently cannot accept: that something which you think is clearly different could be considered by others as close enough.

But if as you say these listed lenses are enough, then it should be even cheaper to use  Sigma EX 17-35 2.8-4, nikon 24-85 G, 50 F1.8 D and 70-300G.

Well, I don't know whether the Sigma 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 is better or worse than the Tokina 11-16 mm. The only thing I can say that I have repeatedly seen people saying they really like the output of the 11-16 mm, which I have not seen for the Sigma (but if you have a lens test showing that, I am fully accepting that). The used prices for the Sigma seem to be about $250 cheaper than the used prices for the Tokina. Which makes the DX lens set still to come out a bit cheaper and $800 body price difference for DX remains.

But it still boils down to that some people just prefer to buy new. And while you might consider them to be irrational fools, there are some, probably hard to quantify, advantages when buying new.

You are right, the FF lenses are probably all better but they are not cheaper. Which comes back to very first sentence I added to this thread: FX is more expensive but also better.

they are cheaper if you want the same IQ. 18-35,  24-85VR, 70-300 VR are not it. they provide better IQ.

The lens set you just suggested above is not cheaper.

what else have you got?

The Tamron 17-50 mm, whose mention you conveniently ignored.

the tamon 17-50 is a much weaker lens compared to 17-55 (ackknowledging it is a better deal) its IQ at F2.8 is weak and its AF is inconsistent and its motor is a conventional micro-motor.

The question is rather why you repeatedly pretend that the other party has not answered your question. What was the purpose to insinuate that d3xmeister had ruled out the 17-55 mm without presenting an alternative if had just done so a few lines earlier?

The sigma 17-50 OS is much better but still suffers from AF inconsistncy.

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.

The very 'slow' lenses that you suggested just above are more expensive.

Still better than DX.

You repeat your car description routine again. I say the inside of the car is black (the FX lens set you suggested is more expensive) and you answer me back that he outside of the car is white (the FX set is optically better than the DX set).

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.

And that you conveniently ignore things that don't fit your preset opinion.

No I do not.

Isn't it funny that you describe two FX owners (or planned owners for d3xmeister) as DX fanboys?

Who else did I call fanboy?

You clearly accuse d3xmeister and me of pretty much the same things, it stands to reason that if you then describe one of us as a fanboy that you feel pretty much the same about the other.

I have shot with a FX camera for the last five years (and before that for five years with a DX system) and for some strange reason I have not followed your prediction of turning from a DX to a FX fanboy.

Because you did not understand what I said. I did not say anyone who uses FF becomes a fanboy. I said D3xmeister is the type of person with fanboy mentality, he becomes a fanboy of whatever camera/smartphone/car/Tv he may have.

No, but you pretty said that anyone who claims that FX lenses are more expensive than DX lenses using the kind of examples and arguments that d3xmeister and me have used is a DX fanboy.

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