In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?
what is your opinion -FX low light performance is better than D7100 plus Lightroom 4???
#1. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 0JosephK Nikonian since 17th Apr 2006Mon 22-Apr-13 05:07 AM
It would depend on which FX camera you wanted to compare with.
Since you would presumably be using Lightroom regardless of the camera, the software does not really come into play for the comparison does it?
Seattle, WA, USA
D700, D200, D70S, 24-70mm f/2.8, VR 70-200mm f/2.8 II,
50mm f/1.4 D, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX
#2. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 0blw Nikonian since 18th Jun 2004Mon 22-Apr-13 09:32 AM
Of course it depends on which precisely FX camera you mean, but one thing is for sure: FX + LR4 is certainly at least a little bit better than D7100 + LR4. The D3s (and maybe D4) would be at least a stop and a half better than a D7100. As Joseph points out, you can apply LR4 to both NEF files, so the FX would maintain that stop and a half advantage.
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#3. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 2Norman13 Registered since 21st Apr 2013Mon 22-Apr-13 01:31 PM
Thank you guys for the replies.
I can not decide - to buy a D600 or D7100.
You definitely have a personal experience to compare DX and FX cameras. Can you tell me when you choose to use FX - low light, wide angle, not far to carry. : )
#4. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 3Toby01 Nikonian since 19th Nov 2012Mon 22-Apr-13 02:46 PM
I was in the same quandary as you: D600 or D7100? I finally settled on the D7100 because it had some features I valued more than the super high_ISO results of the D600. My friend and neighbor Mike went the for the D600. Why the difference? Mike shoots a lot of images in low-light and values the ability to bring back a lot of shadow detail, which is superb with the D600. He seldom shoots action of any sort, so the centralized focus zones of the D600 don't bother him. On the other hand, I value the D7100's widely spaced focus points and a few other features lacking on the D600. When Mike and I compared like shots from the two cameras, I found about a stop difference in high ISO performance: his ISO 6400 looked pretty close to my ISO3200. Since I'm happy with ISO 3200 and a little NR in CNX2 or LR, the D7100 turned out to be right for me. As someone else noted in another post, the D7100 just gets out of the way and lets you get the shot. Of course, any expensive lenses you may already own may play a role in your decision.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#5. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 4BrianNK Registered since 25th Feb 2013Mon 22-Apr-13 03:59 PM
If your worried about low light then the D600 wins every time...
The choice between FX and DX is getting harder as the price of FX falls.. (Nikon Refurbished D600 = $1599.. Refurb D800 = $2349)
The $400 difference between a D7100 and a refurb D600 ALMOST takes the cost out of the equation.
Do you value DX reach? This is HUGE for me... I can use my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 (~$1500) and get the equivalent of a ~$6000 Nikon 300mm f/2.8 (200mm x 1.5 crop = 300mm).
Is AF speed important? The D7100 uses a the new Multi-Cam 3500DX 51point AF sensor. Nikon says its using the same algorithms as the D4... and i beleave them. It blows the doors off my old D7000 in AF performance (The D600 uses the same AF found in the D7000).
IMHO... if cost isn't an issue then those are the only reasons to pick the D7100 over the D600.
#8. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 5briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Mon 22-Apr-13 05:59 PM
>Do you value DX reach? This is HUGE for me... I can use my
>Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 (~$1500) and get the equivalent of a
>~$6000 Nikon 300mm f/2.8 (200mm x 1.5 crop = 300mm).
That depends, of course, on what one means by the term "reach" - and on which FX and DX cameras are being compared.
For example, the D7000 has no reach advantage over the D800 if we define reach to mean the number of pixels on the subject. With the same lens, subject and distance, a D7000 and a D800 will put about the same number of pixels onto a subject that fits into the DX frame.
#7. "RE: In low light conditions is FX = DX + Lightroom 4?" | In response to Reply # 3km6xz Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009Mon 22-Apr-13 05:48 PM
FX and DX both have advantages over the other, just not the same advantages.
Active users of cameras for a variety of subjects probably have both formats.
The D7100 is a superior bird, wildlife and sports camera because it has the AF of the D4/D800 and the reach of a D300/D2, and decent frame rate.
The D600 would be the choice of portrait, product, architecture, wedding, fashion and landscape shooters. The only weakness in studio settings is the 1/200 sync speed but that one is minor for most people.
Low light success is probably more of expectations than camera high ISO. If the light is really low, it is a distortion to have a camera amplify the signal to appear daylight bright. That was nightscopes are for. When it is dim, the scene naturally has muted colors, low contrast and lacks detail and almost any camera can deliver a realistic low light image if it is not expected to create daylight where there is none. Working with shadows as key elements is a characteristic of fine art photography, which adds another tool for expression.
The D7100 has a bit lower shadow recovery capability than a D7000 but it is still better than the competition by a good margin, and from all reports, is one of the best focusing Nikon's ever. It will not track like a D4, which gets quite a boost by using a 91k pixel metering sensor while the D7100 uses a 2k sensor. But it is better than any crop camera.
Both cameras share the Nikon trait of producing highly flexible files that allow wide latitude in adjustments or editing without while keeping image quality. None of the other brands have kept up with Nikon on that front.
So which is better? Only you can say since only you know what you are going to shoot and in what conditions. For me, the D800 and D7000 have been a great combination but the D7100 looks very promising. I might be adding one to the bag soon.
The one area that many people trying to decide which camera is best for them, is cost of having a competent kit. If long term investment in lenses, a significant investment, is not what you intend to do, the D7100 probably should be the choice. FX lenses are expensive and dwarf the cost of decent DX lenses. If you already have a good collection of lenses, the D600 becomes more competitive, or if you intend to keep the bag topped up with fine lenses and the investment they require.
St Petersburg Russia
Visit my Nikonians gallery.