hi everyone! as i stated in my "new members topic" post, i am getting back into photography after being away from it for some years. my last camera, which i don't have anymore, was a D80. i'm going to buy a new camera but i can't make my mind whether i should buy a D7100 or a D600... can someone help me deciding? thanks
Depends on what your shooting needs are. Telling us more about your subject interests and shooting needs would help narrow down the choice.
As good as the DX cameras have become, FX is still better at low light situations and subject isolation through narrow DOF.
DX provides a lighter more compact kit and generally puts more pixels on the subject for a given subject distance and focal length. And given today's PP techniques you can simulate to some extent the narrow DOF which leaves the biggest difference to low light, weight, size and cost.
So for me it would go to the amount of disposable income and shooting interests.
What, if any, lenses do you own from your D80 days? If you have a good collection of DX-appropriate lenses, are happy with them, and are looking for an affordable re-entry, then a DX body might be the ticket. Otherwise, your options are more open.
If I were starting completely over, I might go FX. But I appreciate some of the advantages of the DX bodies, especially for tele shooting.
The answer depends on your budget and what subjects you shoot. FX bodies have better high ISO performance, more Dynamic Range, and a narrower DOF than DX bodies. FX lenses are also quite a bit more expensive than DX lenses. If you shoot sports indoors or night games under the lights, the D600 would be the better choice. For just about anything else, both bodies are more than capable of performing extremely well. If you compare and image captured with a D600 to an image captured with a D7100 most of the time it would be extremely difficult to tell the difference between them.
I did what you are doing, going from a D80 to a new body i chose the 7100 because i have a decent DX zoom that i could not afford to replace straight away. if you have FX glass or can afford new fx glass, go for the 600. if money is a concern you cannot go wrong with a 7100.
in my case, i had to go from the older body, it just was limitng. this way, I have a body thay will last a few years and I can take time buying good FX glass
sorry not to have been very clear about my needs and so not making it easy for you. i'll try to do it now.
about my shooting needs and subject interests, well, i'll begin saying that i'm a bit of a minimalist. that said...
what i do usualy like to shoot:
- everything i see that catches my attention in pursuit of patterns, shapes, colors - objects, still life - some closeups, macro - lots of city landscape - some street scenes - some landscapes - no sports - no wildlife
now, about lenses, i'm not very fond of zoom lenses so i sold two i had and at the moment i only have two prime lenses:
Since you don't seem to shoot much in low light, either camera would work pretty well for you. I had the same dilemma and chose the D7100 because of its wider focus sensor spread and a couple of other features the D600 lacks. The D600 is pretty fabulous, though, and you may find that your 35mm DX lens works fine for you on that body. I put mine on a friend's D600 and found it quite usable, with only minor vignetting that could be fixed in post-processing. I don't think you can go wrong with either body.
>hi again, >now about lenses... >and in case i end up buying the D7100 now, is it a good move >to buy FX lenses instead of DX lenses, with a future FX camera >buy in mind? >thanks, >Francisco
If you see an FX camera in your future, I would say yes to buying FX lenses. A DX sensor will use the center of the FX lens since the FX lens covers more than DX sensor and you will get better corner to corner sharpness on the DX sensor. The FX lenses are more expensive and heavier than the DX lenses. I believe you will also have better access to faster lenses in choosing FX lenses. Also better IQ, just my opinion, with FX lenses. Specifically the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 VR II f/2.8, again just my opinion.
If you think you'll go FX in the future, I would suggest getting the D600 right now. It's a great camera and there's no reason to waste money on DX if you are not going to stick with it. On the other hand, if you think you might stick with DX, the 16-85 VR plus the 70-300 VR and a couple of light primes could satisfy your needs for many years.
> >is the 16-85 VR sharp enough to cope with the D7100 >resolution? as far as i've seen it's the kind of standard zoom >i would like for the everyday carrying around. and is it VRII >or not? > > Glad you asked Here's a picture I took last week while on vacation with my D7100 and 16-85mm VRII.
Simple solution: I have a D600 and a D7000. I'm probably not going to buy a D7100, since the comparative tests I've run show only a very tiny difference between it and a D7100. Ken Rockwell wrote this comparison: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/comparisons/2013-04-09-dslrs/index.htm The D7000 is so good that the additional pixels don't make much difference until the image is blown up to REALLY HUGE. Buy a D 7001 or a D7000 and a D600. The UI's are nearly identical, so switching between them is very easy, and you get the benefits of both, the reach of DX with the Wide Angle capabilities of FX. I'm rambling a bit here, but it comes down to what you like to shoot: Wide or Telephoto. If you have to choose, that's about it. I like having both.
hi all, well... i ended up buying the D7100. i was ansious to start shooting but in the meantime, as i stated here in Nikonians but in another fórum (monopods), i got hill after coming from holidays. and what seemed to be a simple pneumonia turned up to be a much worse lung infection... but, as far as the doctor tells me, it has treatment, i've just started it. its "hard" but it's true... but i'll survive!!! as far as i can i'll be using my new D7100 at home to get used to it, and, as soon as i can i'll go out with it as well. i'll be posting soon, Francisco