>>The D600 produces better images, period. > >We can't say that (yet). > >Firstly, detailed tests of the D7100 are not available right >now. Secondly, whether a "better" image can be >detected in normal everyday use is a matter of perspective and >opinion. It is perfectly possible that a D7100 will produce >images that meet many photographer's needs just as well as a >D600
I agree. I think for the above to state it's a fact that the D600 produces better images needs to be clarified. We certainly don't know what the D7100 can/will do but I think it's pretty safe to say, at this point, both having modern sensors that the only thing safe I feel saying is that both will produce stellar images under ideal conditions and that the D600, due to it's larger sensor, is going to provide better images under the strain of low light (higher ISO's).
How much better is going to probably always be up for debate. Let us not forget the D600 is a $1900 camera compared to a $1200 camera in the D7100. There is a reason it costs more.
I have a D7100 on order (own the D700 & D7000). Myself, I think when the dust settles the D7100 will, for it's price, represent the best camera for the buck without question.
It's a good time to be passionate and in love with photography. The last 10-15 years has been a long haul to get switched over to digital, but I think we've finally arrived with IQ quite easily matching/besting film now.