Both are excellent cameras, or in the case of the 7100 expected to be, but I would really like to know what real or significant advantage there is between a Full Frame 35.9 x24mm sensor and an APS-C 23.5 x 15.6mm sensor? It feels like we're splitting hairs here, but for those who are far more experienced than myself, I wouls appreiciate you opinion. Thank you!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Sensor Size: D600 vs D7100 What am I really gaining?
- Thread starter RobArch
- Start date
Marathon Man
Leading Member
Me too 
Max
maxphotoblog.net
Max
maxphotoblog.net
Jack Hogan
Veteran Member
FF has about 2.35x the area of DX?
I recently upgraded from canon 60D to D600 after using aps-C for over 3 years. What you gain from FF are: (in order of importance for me)
1, better high iso performance - proportional to the sensor size. D600 is about 2.25 times better than APS-C
2, shallower DOF - you get better subject isolation.
3, Better sharpness - Because pixel size is bigger, for a given lens you get more resolution from FF than you do from a APS-C. cheaper lenses become better performers on FF.
4, better looking bokeh - mid-range most lenses have mediocre bokeh wide open, but it gets better if you stop it down a little. on FF you can afford doing this and still get background blur whereas on APs-C you have much less room for that.
Leo360
Senior Member
I would highly recommend Falk Lumo's white paper on the subject
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html
Leo
Reading that will cure insomnia
chipmaster
Senior Member
http://photographylife.com/nikon-d7100-vs-d600
Personally I'd take the D600 any day, size matters for sensors!
Personally I'd take the D600 any day, size matters for sensors!
I use a D3 as my main camera (FX). Sometimes it seems just too big for the job (holidays, mountains) so I bought a second-hand D3100 (DX). I find that I simply always pick up the D3 regardless of the circumstances, regardless how adequate the D3100 would be for the specific task (ie light not going to be challenging etc). For me (and it will be different for each of us) the single, simple reason why I never pick up the D3100 is the quality of the viewfinder image on the D3.
Leo360
Senior Member
I would not debate the style of Falk's article but it is much more accurate and informative that many "great articles on the internet for photography". Deep understanding of what is going on inside a camera makes you a better photographer, does not it? Or ignorance is bliss? Choice is yours
Leo
clarnibass
Senior Member
I changed from APS-C to FX because of several advantages (to me at least). More or less in order of importance:
- Significantly better high ISO since most of my photos are ISO 1600 or higher (3200 and 6400 very often).
- The viewfinder is much bigger and more comfortable (assuming same frame). After getting used to it this is the main reason I don't like using my APS-C camera.
- Specific lenses give me the frame I want e.g. an 85mm lens on FX gives me a better frame that I prefer over either 85mm on APS-C or an equivalent to 85mm lens on a crop, either because of the focal length or because of the specific lens.
- Significantly better high ISO since most of my photos are ISO 1600 or higher (3200 and 6400 very often).
- The viewfinder is much bigger and more comfortable (assuming same frame). After getting used to it this is the main reason I don't like using my APS-C camera.
- Specific lenses give me the frame I want e.g. an 85mm lens on FX gives me a better frame that I prefer over either 85mm on APS-C or an equivalent to 85mm lens on a crop, either because of the focal length or because of the specific lens.
Bob from Plymouth
Leading Member
If you can get hold of the current issue of Amateur Photographer (UK) for publication Saturday 2nd March, there's an article comparing the D600 with the Pentax K-5 IIS and the Fuji X-Pro 1, both "only" 16.3 mega-pixels and both without anti-aliasing filters.
An interesting read and very pertinent to the D600 - D7100 IQ comparison.
An interesting read and very pertinent to the D600 - D7100 IQ comparison.
Brandon birder
Veteran Member
Hi Bob,
do we all have to buy the magazine or would you summarise the finding that interested you for us?
Pygmi
Forum Enthusiast
Well, you have already had some answers to this.
I hope you don't get offended by this. I am sincere by saying:
If you have to ask and don't know yourself the reason to invest to more expensive gear, then don't.
I hope you don't get offended by this. I am sincere by saying:
If you have to ask and don't know yourself the reason to invest to more expensive gear, then don't.
Petroglyph
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 6,096
- Solutions
- 9
- Reaction score
- 1,384
Take away sweet spot effect on marginal lenses and better reach with higher rez on an APS/C with an equivalent lens.
Maybe get one of each. :-D
Maybe get one of each. :-D
primeshooter
Veteran Member
Just saying. But I would never go back to DX. I like it when a 50 is a 50, and a 135 is a 135 and FOV doesn't change, dof is able to be shallower, IQ is better, better low light ability, DR and colour too (on the most part).
Last edited:
No offense taken ;-) I require a good camera primarily for high quality interior pictures. My company requires this. I enjoy photography and feel I have a pretty good sense for what makes a good picture (and that's just not feedback from relatives!). Some of my associates use the d7000 with the Nikon 10-24 mm lens, while others use 'professional' photographers. In general, photo's taken by the pro's seem to have the edge, but it doesn't take long for the cost to justify buying your own camera. Anyway, I'm just looking for people's thoughts, and obviously unless I'm prepared to put in some serious time to learn the capabilities of the camera I'd be wasting my time, and yours on this forum. Thanks again.
jonrobertp
Forum Pro
I'd choose the 7100 if AF is not an issue. (and the 600af will be much smaller in your vf ...making it even worse). (Af is limited due to cross sensors being only in the centre)
To have the advantage of FF ...you have to use 2.8 lenses ...which are very heavy and costly.
A 2.8 lens on a 7100 will give you the same iso noise situation as a 4.0 lens on a FF. (pretty much equal). And very similiar dof...so you are sorta compelled to use 2.8 lenses or lose the advantage.
And, for much shooting where U need dof, the advantage is again lost when shooting at 4 to f8 ish.
Oh, the IQ may or may not be noticeable....on print ? unlikely.
"Sweet spot" effect is a marketing propaganda and should be entirely ignored. by chopping off the outer circle the FOV is changed. Lets compare lenses of similar FOV
24- 85 v 17-55. the 24-85 is wider and longer, gives better or equal effective aperture, cost about half the price or less. is sharper on a D600 than 17-55 on an APS-C
50 F1.8G on FF v 35 F1.8G on APs-C. need I say more?
85 F1.8G on FF v 50 F1.4 G on APS-C, need I say more?
"Better reach" on the other hand is a real benefit, but not directly from APS-C but rather the higher pixel density that APS-C cameras often have in bodies of the same generation. Whether it is important depends on your need for such a reach. I am keeping my 60D and canon 70-200 F4 IS for "reach"
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum