>Just curious as to those who were torn between getting the >D600 and the D7100, actually got the D7100 but now wish they >got the D600? Again just curious. > >I Have--D7100----Wish I got the D600--comments? >I Have--D600-----wish I got the D7100--comments? > >Thanks!! >Stash >
Cold weather photography makes a VR lens your best friend. Think violent shivering. :-)
It is the same deciding points that have always separated full frame from DX. Cost and reach versus low light and DOF. They appeal to two different sets of shooting conditions which explains why a lot of D600 owners also have a D7100. I am considering the D7100 as a complement to my D800. During events I shoot both the D800 and D7000 for each of their advantages. I do not see there is much need for pondering, one's subject matter determines the camera that best fits the need. Landscapers, portraiture, product or fashion would be a no brainer for D600(except possibly for that darn 1/200 sync speed. And a sports or bird-in-flight shooters would pick the D7100 for obvious reasons. Stan St Petersburg Russia
Got the D7100 instead of the D600 and haven't looked back. Ergonomic design is important to me, so the deciding factor for me was that the D7100 has the 1-button zoom to 100% in playback mode. It's a complete mystery to me why Nikon didn't include that function with the D600.
I also love the IQ of the D7100, and the high ISO performance is very good, although by all accounts not as good as the D600.
Last but certainly not least, the D7100 is an incredible bargain when one considers all the functionality that one gets for the price.
I'm with Jerry on this, although I chose the D7100 over the D600 more for its wider focus array. I've found that I use the outer focus points quite frequently, so the smaller array on the D600 would not have been good for me. I'm very satisfied with the D7100 so far, It's the best camera I have ever owned.
I looked at both the D600 and D7100 before I made my purchase.
For me, the feature set on the D7100 was exactly what I wanted. There was so much "bang for the buck", I couldn't believe the price point.
Since I was moving up from a DX camera (D3100), I already knew I could take some pretty incredible images with DX. The only thing I really miss is the low-light capability. But even then, in my opinion, the D7100 is very good, especially below ISO 1600.
I'm very happy I bought the D7100.
When I upgrade again, I will probably spring for the D800 unless Nikon has released something else, then ????
Having the D800(non-E) got the D7100 for better long lens reach now after reviewing images from both I now wish I had gotten the D800E with out the AA filter like the D7100 the incredable sharpness is quite suprising Jeff Enjoy your Nikons and keep shooting
I rented a D600 for a week. I was really happy with it. I had intended to rent a D800 and then I started giving the D7100 serious consideration. Honestly, I cannot remember being more conflicted about a purchase. I spend most of my time on the wildlife forum, and the images I was seeing there from all three cameras were first rate. (Of course, virtually everything that gets posted over there is first rate.)
I had planned on renting a D800 when I started having some serious issues with my D300. For me, it came down to simple economics. Making the move up to an FX camera plus lenses plus a new computer did not fit my budget right now. I went with the D7100 without testing it out first, and I've had it about a week now. I don't recommend doing that, but I had to make a choice quickly.
I do a lot of bird photography. The images are first rate. I'm testing a 300mm f4 rental now, and they are an impressive pairing. I expect that I'll eventually make the move to an 800, but for right now the 7100 is serving me very, very well.
I have both the D7100 and D800 for all the reasons explained here. Apart from shooting speed it's arguable that a D800 does, almost, both jobs for the landscape and bird shooter. Some argue that the x1.5 crop is a gimmick on the D800, but no more than the extra crop on the D7100. I find both work well. What I tend to find is that if I'm likely to want to shoot wide, but want extra reach too and don't want to carry two cameras, I take the FX route, eg when travelling.
There are always trade offs between FX and DX because as they are fundamentally different cameras, however I do find that the omission of the AA filter on the D7100 is a great step forward. The IQ is the best of both cameras, a reason why I wish I'd bought the D800E. I can't comment on the D600, although I think the same may apply when comparing it against the D7100.
What I know for sure is that any current camera will require the best glass to get the best results. In short if money is an issue but the user wants both worlds catered for, again "almost" then a D800 alone would probably work out.
For some of us the decision was made a long time ago. The first Nikon DSLR (the D100) was a DX camera, so folks like me who transitioned from film (the "original" FX) had to re-work their lens collection to play better with the smaller sensor. I seriously considered switching back to FX, but that would mean acquiring yet more lenses to take advantage of the latest technologies, like AFS and VR (which I like a lot!)
So, ultimately, it made sense to go for the 7100 instead of the D600. (I have a colleague with a D600 and it is certainly drool-worthy.) The one thing I do like about the DX cameras is the extra reach you get with teles, albeit at the expense of the ultrawide. The 80-400 or even the 70-300 lenses are amazingly long-reach for animal photography on a DX body. And if you put an FX lens on a DX camera, you are heart-cutting the center of the image circle, which is potentially much sharper.
How's that for some hyper-rationalization? I do like the 7100, though. Fantastic resolution images compared to my D100, which wasn't exactly a slacker.