D600 or D7100

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Some of the recent threads in this forum dealt with market placements of the different Nikon cameras - and it got me thinking. If I were a casual shooter who doesn't need special optics for sports or wildlife, I might consider the following two systems to cover family and vacation shots, essentially a little bit of everything:</p>

<p>D7100 with Nikon 10-24 and 16-85 - and I might add a 35/1.8 and 70-300 VR<br>

or I would consider<br>

D600 with Nikon 18-35 and 24-85 - and I might add 50/1.8 and 70-300 VR.</p>

<p>Given the current prices, the FX option (all new with warranty) would run some $400 more than the DX option; one could narrow that gap a little by making use of refurbished items - given the current deal that can be had on D600 bodies or D600/24-85 combos. Given that I am considering spending some $3500 to $4000, I don't think $400 is making a big difference.</p>

<p>What would be the better deal for that person? The DX option covers a wider range of FOV, but of course doesn't allow the DOF the FX system offers (though the DX option could substitute a third party 16/17-50/2.8 while at the same time reducing the price gap) . The D7100 has the better AF system and the D600 the better high ISO performance. It's the current top-of-the-line DX camera vs the currently bottom-of-the-line FX camera. Which also means that the DX option offers no upgrade path within - currently and probably ever.</p>

<p>Is there an sensor-size based difference between the two that would yield a marked difference in the images that is obvious to a casual shooter (as opposed to a pixel peeper or someone who needs to print really large). From lens reviews, I don't think there is a marked difference between the DX and FX lenses mentioned above.</p>

<p>In essence, the question is - which would you chose and why would you chose one over the other?</p>

<p>Another question is - who is the target audience for the D7100 and who is it for the D600? Aren't these two audiences essentially the same?</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dieter, for a casual shooter taking family and vacation images, I think the D5200 would be more than sufficient. Plenty of people use no more than a point-and-shoot camera for such purposes.</p>

<p>The D5200 uses a similar sensor as the D7100's, and it shares the same AF module as the D7000 and D600.</p>

[Two23]

<p>You will never see the difference in photos between the D600 and D7100. My wedding customers certainly don't see the difference between a D7100 and even a D800. For what you are wanting, I too would suggest the D5200. I have the D5100 and it is excellent. It's small and compact, the AF is sufficient for everything except fast moving sports etc., and that fold out screen is actually pretty useful. I carry it instead of the D7100 when on a family outing. It's much more convenient and I don't lose anything. If I drop it or it gets stolen, I won't cry nearly as much as if I had destroyed a D800. </p>

<p>I think people get too caught up in looking at camera specifications. Really, the differences between them are very small, often insignifcant. What's more important is how you USE the camera. For something to carry around on vacation and family events etc., you WANT something as small as possible. Convenience has always trumped image quality when it comes to a "family" camera. The image quality from the D7100/D5200 sensor is at least as good and probably better than what I was getting from the professional 645 medium format system I was shooting a dozen years ago.</p>

<p>Put your money into better lenses, tripod, a flash, better computer power/software, or towards travel. In the end, the camera is the LEAST important thing in photography. If you travel a lot or take nice trips, I suggest buying two D5100 cameras rather than just one more expensive camera. When you're out in the middle of nowhere and your camera goes tumbling over the edge of the waterfall, having the ability to simply pull out a backup is pricesless! I would much rather have two D5100 than just one D600 for that reason. Finally, good lenses, flash, and tripods hold their value well. A camera not so much--they've become practically disposable. Spend as little as possible on them.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p>

[mccosh]

<blockquote>

<p>You will never see the difference in photos between the D600 and D7100. My wedding customers certainly don't see the difference between a D7100 and even a D800</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, </p>

<p>there is a difference between the photos being taking with FX and DX format camera's.</p>

<p>The images from a full frame camera will have much better low light performance therefore the images taking in low light ie at the reception will have a lot more detail and a lot less noise in them. The dynamic range on a full frame camera is also much wider than a DX camera. Then you also have the depth of field difference between the two formats, Full frame camera's will have much shallower depth of field than DX camera's giving Wedding photos and portraits that lovely separation from the background.<br>

<br />Wither these differences are enough to sway you to go full frame or not Dieter is your decision and will be based on what sort of shots you want to take. Their are benefits and disadvantages for both formats. Some of the advantages are listed above for FX format, The big advantage for DX format is the crop factor for your lenses which if your shooting wildlife or sport can be a big advantage. <br>

<br />I would recommend FX for portrait, Wedding or landscape photography and DX for sport or wildlife. </p>

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>John, as someone who shoots mainly landscapes I've been debating for awhile whether or not to go the FX route or stay with DX, I'm interested in this. For landscapes I'm not all that worried about high ISO shooting since I mainly shoot at base ISO. However, I do want my next camera to have better dynamic range. You mentioned the dynamic range on a full frame is much wider on FX, but I noticed DXOMark shows the D7100 at 13.7 Evs and the D600 at 14.2, which doesn't seem like a great difference, or is it?</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>To be honest I didn't realise the D7100 had such a high dynamic range. In that case there isn't that much difference. Sorry I misinformed everyone in my previous post.</p>

[grh]

<p>I believe the dynamic range issue has become less of a concern over time, as the sensors in the prosumer-level cameras have improved in their quality. I'll stack my D5100 up against a D5mkI any day. Technology moves on, and the newer (Nikon) DX cameras can hold their own, despite the geometry. So I would temper John's comments to the contrary. Also, the DoF difference is not that great unless you get into f/1.4 lenses. There are online calculators that will support this assertion.</p>

<p>Unless you plan on buying non-motorized lenses (older equipment) I, too, suggest a D5200. The D7100 likely has features (including a motor) that you may not really need.</p>

<p>My $0.02.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>There are online calculators that will support this assertion.</blockquote>

 

<p>Um, yes. Or you could divide the aperture by 1.5 (multiply by 2, divide by 3), which barely needs a <i>normal</i> calculator. Assuming you've stuck a 1.5x longer lens on the FX camera, of course.<br />

<br />

It's true that a slow lens on an FX camera may well have the same DoF control as a shorter, faster lens on a DX camera. If you're comparing a 135 f/2.8 on FX to an 85mm f/1.8 on DX, it's true that they're comparable. It's generally easier to make slower lenses with higher quality, even with more coverage, so I'm not quaking in my boots that Nikon are about to release a lens which will allow a DX camera to reproduce what I can do with my D800 and 200 f/2 combination. I might find a 300 f/2.8 on FX more comparable to a 200 f/2 on DX, or make similar comparisons between the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4, but a DX camera is essentially a small FX camera with a perfect 1.5x teleconverter permanently attached (and its ISO scale recalibrated so you don't notice). There's no great mystery.<br />

<br />

The D600 is essentially a D7000 bulked up to FX, like the D700 was an over-size D300. Unsurprisingly, the newer D7100 has some tricks to show it. I'd go with the D600 if I wanted the low light or depth of field control from using fast FX lenses. I'd go with the D7100 if I wanted portability (more from lenses - the D600 isn't big) or reach, and probably for the AF sensor. Of course, <i>if</i> Nikon replace the D600 with a version that has a 51-point sensor module, the choice between the two would be easier to make. I'd think carefully about whether a 70-300 was the best choice for either of these cameras in terms of making good use of the sensor. 300 f/4 or 80-400, maybe?</p>

[mccosh]

<p>Gary, I was not disputing the fact that the image quality from the D7100 or D5200 for that matter aren't good. What I was commenting on was Kent's comment that you will never see the difference between a D7100 and a D600. I was pointing out the differences that you would notice on images between these two camera's. I stand corrected on the dynamic range but still say you will notice the noise difference in low light and the depth of field difference between these two camera's Having said that the difference is probably not an issue for 95% of users but you will be able to notice a difference between these two formats in certain conditions that was all I was trying to point out.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Whew, read the previous comments, but, well, I like my D600, happily use(d) it almost daily while my D300 is on (permanent?) loan to a friend and my half of a D3s was sold.</p>

<p>Really like the larger image in the viewfinder vs DX. Like the couple of stops of additional ISO so that I am much less flash dependent in low light. Like the ability to generate a smaller depth of field for subject isolation. The D600 with a smallish fast prime is a great tool, quiet, capable, not too large/heavy, and refined. It works well for shooting with a 300/2.8 on a monopod in almost no light, as well.</p>

<p>Is it perfect? NO. Nikon, please put the D7100 AF system in a D600, call it a D710 or something, and sell it for more $. But, the D600 AF works well, just not quite as well as the latest 51 point systems. Swapped with another friend, been using her D800 for the last 2 months, I am ready to get my D600 back, believe it or not.</p>

<p>Now, if I were shooting soccer, birds or other subjects that need longer lenses, then I would be whining for a D300 with a D7100 sensor and CPU.</p>

<p> </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I am with Kent on this. I got a D600 b/c the price difference versus the D7100 was just not that much as I still shoot film so if I got a 2.8 mid lens Tamron and a equiv. one for a film camera. I mean while I do mainly scapes like Mike how can one avoid family / friends. To me any newer camera is leaps and bounds, I don't upgrade cameras often, I get a print off them that is all and even the ergonomics, I spent 9.5yrs and still going on my D70. I just get used to the equipment and going back in the years there were a lot more less user friendly cameras than even a D70. The biggest thing I noticed was the dynamic range and color straight out of camera and just the ability to take a photograph of a person indoors at ISO 1600. I don't have any AF-S lenses on FF so it was the D7000 and up. If I shot digital only I may have stayed with DX. And the D7000 b/c I don't do action, may have been a better deal than the D7100 esp in Asia when they were going for as low as $750US new (non refurbished) but there is always the temptation due to psychology.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If I were a casual shooter who doesn't need special optics for sports or wildlife, I might consider the following two systems to cover family and vacation shots, essentially a little bit of everything:<br>

D7100 with Nikon 10-24 and 16-85 - and I might add a 35/1.8 and 70-300 VR<br /> or I would consider<br /> D600 with Nikon 18-35 and 24-85 - and I might add 50/1.8 and 70-300 VR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>first of all, a casual shooter doesnt need to drop $4000 on camera gear. so i think that part of the premise is off a bit. if we're being completely honest and starting from scratch, i'm not sure i don't just go with a m4/3 or fuji x-mount system to save on weight and size, or a d5200 which is going to be just as good optically as a d7100. i'm also not sure why a casual shooter would need full frame, and if you did go full frame, why you wouldnt then take advantage of its strengths and get a set of fast primes?</p>

<p>second, i'm not sure about either kit there, mainly because of the slow variable-aperture zooms, which would leave you lacking in the portrait and low-light categories. third, i probably wouldnt get the 10-24 for DX. it doesnt have the optical greatness to justify its price. at $800, it's almost twice as much as the venerable but proven tokina 12-24 and $150 more than the sigma 10-20/3.5 and $100 more than the best-in-class tokina 11-16. if i'm building a DX system, i might go with</p>

<ul>

<li>tokina 11-16/2.8</li>

<li>sigma 17-50 OS/2.8 or sigma 17-70/2.8-4 or sigma 18-35/1.8</li>

<li>nikon 70-200/4 VR</li>

<li>nikon 35/1.8G or nikon 50/1.8G</li>

</ul>

<p>while the 16-85 is a good lens, it's no faster than a kit lens and is optimized for outdoor/landscape use. if you're really wanting to do a bit of everything, i'd get one of the sigmas which give you more versatility with faster apertures. the 70-200/4 is going to be pretty compact and highly versatile. f/4 at 200mm will still give you a bit of background blur and this lens covers a wide portrait range. if you need extra reach you can stick a 1.4x or 1.7x TC onto it. that would be the lens i would blow most of my hard-earned cash on. if i'm going the 18-35 sigma route, i'd probably also get a 50/1.8G to cover that gap between 35 and 70.</p>

<p>another approach would be to get a superzoom and a bunch of primes:</p>

<ul>

<li>tamron 18-275 VC or sigma 18-250 OS</li>

<li>tokina 11-16/1.8</li>

<li>nikon 35/1.8</li>

<li>nikon 85/1.8G</li>

</ul>

<p>the thinking there is that, realistically, you want to keep one lens on the camera most of the time for casual vacation/travel. for specialized shots, the UWA, normal prime and medium tele give you a boost in IQ when i need it, or for low-light.</p>

<p>third, if we're going full frame, i would almost certainly get a refurb d600 because of the QC issues nikon has had with them. i dont really see a need to buy that body new, especially because there's a $500 difference in price. i would put that extra $500 toward glass. and again, here i would put most of my $$ into the 70-200/4. not sure i would go $750 on the 18-35 and another $600 on the 24-85. i might look for a used tamron 28-75/2.8 and possibly used older 18-35. but maybe i skip the w/a zoom altogether and just get the 20/2.8 AF-D, which i should also be able to get used cheap. with the cost savings vs buying new, i spring for the 85/1.8 G. now i have a fast but light walkaround 2.8 zoom with a decent range, a stellar telephoto, and a sharp portrait/low-light lens.</p>

<ul>

<li>18-35 AF-S or 20/1.8 AF-D</li>

<li>tamron 28-75/2.8</li>

<li>nikon 70-200/4</li>

<li>nikon 85/1.8 G</li>

</ul>

<p>of course, if i wanted maximum versatility in a small package, i might just get the GX7 with 7-14, 12-35, 35-100 and 100-300, plus the 17/1.8.</p>

 

[mccosh]

<p>There are plenty of website's that compare these two camera's. Here is one that is worth checking out<br>

<a href="http://www.nphotomag.com/2013/02/22/nikon-d7100-vs-d600-which-dslr-should-you-choose/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nphotomag.com/2013/02/22/nikon-d7100-vs-d600-which-dslr-should-you-choose/</a></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Knowing that Dieter isn't really interested to get either a D600 or D7100, this question is purely theoretical, so links to comparison sites is not the point of the thread; it's balancing the various pros and cons of DX and FX, especially now that FX has become a lot more affordable. But the scenario isn't one which I think helps make the case...<br>

For casual holiday and family photography, I never quite got why one would get a FX camera at all. The added bulk, weight, cost - and then only slow aperture zooms that are at odds with the biggest advantages of FX (low light capaibilities, less DoF). A D3200 or D5200 with a pair of zooms takes care of this work exceptionally well.<br>

I also would not get a D7100 for that - again defeating it strong points (exceptionally good AF, crippled by sluggish lenses; crop factor cripped by not getting long lenses). It's overkill. I never got the idea of having only the convenience 18-200 or 18-300, and a high-end body like the D300, D7000 or D7100. It's the wrong mix.<br>

In short, if those lens kits are all you'll get, I'd spend a lot less on the camera body, period, because both are over-specced. If you're also getting some more lenses more geared towards birding, than a D7100 starts to pull ahead. Portraits, the D600 may be of more interest - and so it becomes the usual play of pros and cons of FX and DX against one another.</p>

<p>But to make any of those considerations lead to blank statements as </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You will never see the difference in photos between the D600 and D7100</p>

</blockquote>

<p>is of course complete nonsens. Maybe in specific shooting styles, using a "f/8 and be there" approach, you will not see the difference. But I am very sure I see a difference shooting my 35 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.2 at wide apertures on my D300 versus my D700. The differences are huge. The ease of focusing these lenses manually on FX versus DX - no comparison. I am very sure I see a difference between many wide angle shots on DX versus FX. To say there is no difference because for you there is no difference, of course is overly simplistic. For what I do, I see the difference between a D300 and D700, and both have their place and time where they fit best.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Josh--</p>

<p>I have used both a d800 (borrowed) and a D7100 for wedding work. Not one of my customers (mainly well educated hospital medical staff) could tell any difference at all between images made with either camera. Not one. My conclusion was if my customers could not see a difference, why should I spend the big bucks? From a practical standpoint, the difference just isn't that much. As for DoF, DX seems to have about a stop's worth over FX. This is a plus for landscapes, translating into I can shoot one stop faster and get the same DoF. For portraits (for which I also do on a paid basis,) I've found that using an f2.8 lens on the D7100/D5100 I barely have enough DoF to get the nose and eyes in focus at the same time. Why would I want less DoF here? If I did, I could go to an f1.4 lens.</p>

<p>An excellent SYSTEM for general purpose would be: Nikon D5200, Nikon 16-85mm VR or Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS, Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR, a ~$500 carbon fiber tripod, a Photo Clam or AcraTech ballhead, a Kirk or RRS "L" bracket, one Nikon SB-700, one Rave RS-8 lightstand, one swivel & 30" umbrella, a good LowePro or Tamrac camera bag, a Marumi polarizer, a Marumi close up "filter," Photoshop Elements, and enough added RAM to the computer to handle the files from the D5200. And, a Sandisk Extreme Pro SDHC card. This would be a very flexible and competent SYSTEM that would give pro level results for most applications.</p>

<p>Night photography. This is my specialty. My first magazine cover done with a digital camera was with a Nikon D80. The quality of the night shot image from a D80 was good enough for magazine work. I typcially shoot ISO 800 for night shots still, and have no problem with ISO 2000 IF needed (not often.) Lately, most of my night shots have been on ISO 400 film. It works quite well.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>While perhaps I am not at all your average casual photographer capturing famly images (although I do that too occasionally), to me, there is a huge difference between a D7100 and D600. The D600, being FX, offers a lot more good wide-angle lens options. One of the most obvious example is that I can barely mount a 24mm/f3.5 PC-E lens on the D7100 and all lens movements are not possible; the crop factor also makes it not very useful. That same lens is great for architecture and landscape photography on any FX body.</p>

<p>I currently use a D800E and a D7100, but I rarely use the D7100 on any lens that is shorter than the 80-400mm AF-S VR. Typically I use a 400mm or 500mm lens on the D7100. Wide angle is where the D800E and D600 shine.</p>

<p>But again, I am not your average casual photographer. For Dieter's requirements, as I said earlier try the D5200; you don't need coupling from AI/AI-S lenses from the D7100 and D600. Perhaps some mirrorless cameras such as the Sony NEX, Micro 4/3, or even Nikon 1 J1 or J3 would get the job done. There are still brand new J1's out there in firesale prices.</p>

[pge]

<p>Dieter's one mistake in his post was using the term "casual shooter". Many people have picked up on that and suggested other cameras. Dieter might have said "advanced casual shooter" and the conversation would have likely gone differently. </p>

<p>I agree that these two cameras are aimed at the same audience, yet they are different enough that they split the appeal. Of course the D7100 is likely good enough for anyone, but some people have drank the purple coolaid and could only possibly own an FX camera. Nikon wins by people having this debate.</p>

<p>Personally I have owned FX cameras since 2007 but if I was starting out today I would pick the good autofocus over the extra usable stop of iso.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dieter was very clear in his opening post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were a casual shooter who doesn't need special optics for sports or wildlife, I might consider the following two systems to cover family and vacation shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We are talking about family and vacation shots, not even high school sports.</p>

<p>If can you capture roughly the same scene with a D600 and a D7100, the casual viewer will unlikely be able to detect any difference. The problem is that you can't always capture the same image with both cameras. The perspective-control lens example I mentioned earlier is an obvious one; such option is not available for DX so that you can't get certain landscape or architecture images with DX to begin with.</p>

<p>But those are issues casual and even intermediate photographers don't need to worry about.</p>

[andylynn]

A "casual shooter who doesn't need special optics for sports or wildlife" and wants to shoot "family and vacation shots,

essentially a little bit of everything" doesn't need to spend nearly that much. A D3200 or D5200 with the kit lens, maybe

add a 35mm or 55-200/300, is more than enough for that. Or a low to mid grade M4/3, Sony NEX, or a decent P&S.

 

That sort of use doesn't require a higher grade body, an ultrawide lens or FX and the extra cost of a 16-85 lens makes

little sense.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Knowing that Dieter isn't really interested to get either a D600 or D7100, this question is purely theoretical</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I attempted to make that quite obvious...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter's one mistake in his post was using the term "casual shooter".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, I see that now. I had hoped that from my post it would have been clear that I meant someone who has made up his mind to go for either of the two systems mentioned but was confused as to what the better choice might be. I indeed meant the "advanced casual shooter" who takes most if his shots while on vacation but with a solid photographic background and possibly coming from having used film SLRs before.</p>

<p>In any case, the responses allowed for quite a few insights and I thank everyone for taking the time to respond.</p>

<p>Now, I also find I need to add some comments:<br>

a) D5200. The reason I would not consider that camera instead of the D7100 is a very simple one - looking through either viewfinder shows up the major difference between a pentamirror and pentaprism viewfinder: the pentamirror one (D5200) is simply too small and gives the impression one is looking into a tunnel and the image on the screen is simply too small. I still use a D60 as a P&S camera were this doesn't bother me - but for any more "serious" shooting, it's a big detriment. <br>

b) NEX, m4/3 etc as an alternative. I own a NEX 6 which still has one of the best EVFs around - and am sorry to say that it is a far cry from a decent SLR viewing screen. Again, I find this problematic when trying to compose images.<br>

c) FX vs DX viewfinder. Now that I can directly compare the viewfinders in a D300 and D700 it is clear that the difference isn't all that big - about 25% more in fact. But every bit helps - certainly when manual focusing but also when assessing the scene.<br>

d) I picked those lenses carefully and for a reason. Nikon produces them, so there better be a market for them - and my entire post was geared at finding out who the target audience is. </p>

<p>I have been around enough to have learned that the somewhat sad reality is that quite a few people buy a D600 with the 24-70 as the "best" lens and then lug that monstrous setup around when on vacation to do landscapes, cityscapes etc. And for the longer end, nothing but the 70-200/2.8 VR II will do - because it is the "best" lens. And once they realize that 24mm isn't wide enough, the 14-24 is acquired because again it's the best in its class. That advanced casual shooter or photo enthusiast now has spend some $8000 on camera gear and is lugging around a hefty bag of equipment - and for almost all of his shooting, he could have gotten what he wanted for a whole lot less.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree that these two cameras are aimed at the same audience, yet they are different enough that they split the appeal. Of course the D7100 is likely good enough for anyone, but some people have drank the purple coolaid and could only possibly own an FX camera. Nikon wins by people having this debate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This pretty much gets to the point I was trying to find out more about. It is quite obvious that Nikon intends to attract some audience to FX with the D600 - while providing an quite attractive alternative in form of the D7100. Nikon wins for sure but is also responsible to bringing up the question and debate in the first place. It also connects to the argument often put forward that one camera model cannibalizes the sale of another - and to me it seems that this nowhere more the case than with the D7100 and D600. <br>

One could widen the scope of my questions in an attempt to find out who purchases the lower end DSLR cameras and for what reason - I am not that interested in finding out though.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Dieter, if this new camera is for yourself, I think most of us realize that you have been around here long enough that you can easily make that choice for yourself. You are more than qualified to provide such advice to others. Therefore, this discussion is merely academic.</p>

<p>I'll give you two more examples from the late Steven Jobs. He once pointed out that if a company does not cannibalize its own products, someone else will. Unless you are a monopoly, you can't hold back or someone else will wipe you out. Kodak is a very good example. They foolishly tried to slow down their introduction of digital products to protect their existing film market. That strategy clearly didn't work out very well.</p>

<p>Another story was that when Jobs returned to Apple Computer in 1996, Apple was in a major decline and only had enough money to survive for just months. Their product managers were arguing about the many computer products they had. Jobs got tired of that and draw a cross on the board. He put down "pro" and "amateur" on one axis and "desk top" and "laptop" on another. Essentially he streamlined Apple Computers to just four categories: pro desk top, pro laptop, amateur desk top, amateur laptop. That would simplify manufacturing, reduce the number of parts, inventory .... The rest is history.</p>

<p>Likewise, Nikon is not going to give you 5 different current FX models and 10 different DX models to choose from so that everybody gets exactly the camera features they need. Today, high-end DX has been transitioned to low-end FX. That is why the next step up from the D7100 is now the D600, and Nikon is adding a bunch of affordable FX lenses to support the D600 and its future updates. I am sure that is not going to satisfy everybody, nor the lack of a "true successor" to the D700. As consumers, we just need to pick the model that works best for your needs. If that means some Canon DSLR, Sony NEX, or Micro 4/3, so be it.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Dieter, if this new camera is for yourself, I think most of us realize that you have been around here long enough that you can easily make that choice for yourself. You are more than qualified to provide such advice to others. Therefore, this discussion is merely academic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, thanks for the compliment and yes, you are correct, I wasn't asking to make that choice for myself and I thought that was clear from my original post. "Merely" academic is not what I would chose to call it - I am sure there are a lot of people out there that are faced with exactly that (or a very similar choice) and I was attempting to find out what could sway them one way or the other. That's why I chose the cameras and I lenses carefully in my scenario - to create two systems that do virtually the same thing and cost almost the same; the main difference being the sensor size. Whether or not the 70-300, for example, is an appropriate choice wasn't the question - for both systems, the 70-200/4 would serve as an alternative. <br>

Unfortunately, the number of responses here isn't even close to provide a statistically meaningful sample - but I found some answers quite revealing and would love to find out how many are thinking along the same lines.</p>

<p>One question that I can't let go of after reading the above posts is: who is the target audience for the D600 and what distinguishes that audience from the intended users of the D7100?<br>

Apparently one set is those who upgrade from a DX system - and especially for those, the D7100 should provide a very attractive alternative. Another is those who enter into digital for the first time but are coming from film - not having to worry about crop factor could be a very enticing argument to get the D600 over the D7000. Some shooters - like you and myself - know the value of either system and have come to the conclusion that the answer is to have a foot in either world. Some will have no problem to make their choice at all - often based on a single feature. </p>

<p>If the D7100 and the D600 are produced in equal numbers (and I expect that they are), then what features do compel the targeted audience to take one over the other? Except the marketing hype, of course. Is the D7100 merely a body that Nikon created to satisfy those they desire to upgrade from lesser DX cameras but with no intention or budget to make the jump to FX? On the other hand, it is quite obvious that especially the 18-35 and 24-85 were created to provide a "lower cost" solution to those coming into FX.</p>

<p>I realize that there is no correct answer and that there is a few features that put one in one category or the other.<br>

As always, when making recommendations, one needs to look at the what the users wants to accomplish and how he intends to use the images - then quite often it becomes fairly obvious which system to recommend.</p>

<p> </p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Some shooters - like you and myself - know the value of either system and have come to the conclusion that the answer is to have a foot in either world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am willing to bet that at least 50% (and I think its larger) of FX owners also own a DX camera.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have handled both, and just don't see the D600 as an "upgrade" over the D7100. If anything, it's the other way around. The main purpose I see for the D600 is a less expensive camera for those using old lenses and don't want to change. Second purpose might be as a back up body for someone owning a D800. That's about it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<blockquote>

<p>I have handled both, and just don't see the D600 as an "upgrade" over the D7100. If anything, it's the other way around.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am with Kent on that. I think also that D7100 is a better camera over all for most of the cases and it comes at a more interesting and affordable price. In addition to that and for the purpose that Dieter ask our opinion, even if it is sort of academic, I do not see why someone should go FX, really...especially with D600 which turned out to be a "questionable" model. </p>