D600 or D7100

[mccosh]

<blockquote>

<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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a Wedding Photographer I purchased the D600 over the D7100 and D800 for the following reasons. <br /><br />Full frame camera's give you a much brighter image in the viewfinder this helps in dimly lit receptions and generally just lets you see your subject a lot easier which helps when you have your camera up to your eye for the best part of 11 - 14 hours. The depth of field and high ISO is an advantage (appreciate that the D7100 also has a good ISO range but the D600 is still better and every bit counts). <br /><br />Now I choose the D600 over the D800 because as a Wedding Photographer you should always shoot Raw therefore the file size from the D800 / D800E are large, I already shoot with a pair of 64gb cards one backing up the other in my D600, what would I need to use on a D800. Also the large files from the D800 would slow up my post processing as my computer struggles to cope. The D600 file size are more than large enough for a A0 canvas print, haven't had a customer yet who wants a billboard size print.<br /><br />To me the D600 is perfect and I love it. The D7100 is a great camera no argument there. Is there a market for both the D7100 and D600 differently otherwise Nikon wouldn't be producing them both.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>For family use etc .. I suggest people that I know to get a NEX perhaps with a APC sensor or one of the low end Nikons. Doesn't need the faster AF, doesn't need buffer or more AF sensors, doesn't need CLS. </p>

<p>But OTOH if one was a serious amateur into quality family / friends portraiture then I would get a higher dSLR but still not convincecd of FX but I know a no. of them just went to FX guess that's the benchmark people assoc with (5D mostly) unless one does a lot of low light like Kent mentioned with his stuff involving portraiture. I know some people who are into children, baby and family, wedding photography as an interest, 1 or 2 have switched to part or full time jobs of them too, still going with the camera club but now going into portfolio submissions instead with the professional segment instead. </p>

<p>Also equally if one is into quality photographs even with a family holiday, maybe they like to do a sunrise or a sunset or go into these video/ photography tours that's not a typical casual family photography IMO. </p>

<p>From the people I know most are using Canon and those that are into some weddings, have gone to the 5D II, I don't know any that went with the cheaper 6D, and 1 or 2 Nikons I know went for the D800, more so still on D700. The guys with D600 I know are serious amateurs on a local forum in my country but I know 1 or 2 outside of photography club that they use with a pop up flash for their children. </p>

[i_liang_siu1]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No doubt that EVF is very different from OVF, but what characteristics of EVF make it more difficult to compose images?<br>

This is an interesting point to me because I regularly use both EVF and OVF and haven't found either limits my ability to compose images. But that could be because I'm overlooking something important when considering composition that would making me aware of EVF's limitations.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I don't know about composing but I find the delay and the refreshing of the EVF to bother me a lot when I use my Fuji X100s. I turned on EVF today to get access to focus peaking in the viewfinder and I just couldn't work with it. Perhaps Sony's implementations of EVF are better, but on the Fuji I find myself preferring the optical viewfinder and not by a small margin. For manual focusing the EVF is useful.</p>

[bob_h5]

<p>Hi, I'm brand new to this forum.<br>

Thanks for the discussion. I'm an amateur photographer with a couple of years DSLR experience using a Nikon D5100. I have two kit zoom lenses (Nikkor 18-55mm and 55-300mm) and I've added two prime lenses (Nikkor 35mm/f1.8 and 85mm/f1.8). I'm considering upgrading to either the d7100 or the d600 and I can't make up my mind. Any advice would be welcome.<br>

Although I take family pics once in a while, I'm primarily interested in landscape photography. I've acquired a decent tripod and head (Induro CT-314 tripod and BHL1 ball head). My next purchase will probably be an ultra-wide zoom (e.g, 11-16 or 10-24 for DX), but I'm not going to buy it before I decide whether to stick with cropped frame or move to full frame. I visited DxoMark and was struck that, for a given lens, the picture quality is usually judged to be much better on the D600 compared with a Nikon cropped frame camera. For example, an AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D scores 40 (excellent) on a D600 and scores only 25 (average) on a D7000 (note: they didn't test it on a D7100). Assuming that I'm reading the quality scores properly, are these score differences worth considering?<br>

Potential advantages of the d7100 are a faster shutter speed (1/8000 vs 1/4000), a superior AF system (51 points with 15 cross-type vs 39 points with 1 cross-type) and increased automatic exposure bracketing (2 to 5 frames vs. 2 to 3 frames). For landscape photography these are less important to me than a (noticeable?) improvement in picture quality. I don't know whether the depth of field differences are important for landscape photography--I don't have enough experience. I'm surprised to hear that the dynamic range is similar between the two cameras. I had assumed that the D600 would have a larger range than the d5100.<br>

Any opinions?</p>

[mihai_nedelcu]

<p>What I haven't seen in the thread is the "toy" factor and the "moral" wear of the devices. I recently switched to FX from a Pentax K10D. Of course, I did my homework, I've studied and read for more that a month almost everything that is out there in terms of specs, dynamic range, low light, DoF etc. However, even taking these into consideration, a major part played the following:<br>

1. the Pentax was old (2006) and I wanted a new camera<br>

2. never tried full frame and I thought it's time<br>

3. I wanted a new toy<br>

4. I am an advanced amateur photographer<br>

5. I had the money<br>

<br />If I think purely from the photography perspective then I didn't need a new camera. Some shootings here and there, portraits, casual wanderer, I had a prime, the default and a long zoom on the Pentax, so I was getting the job done (~40.000 clicks in 6 years). Combined with studio lights I have I could shoot whatever I wanted at least indoor. But ... I felt it was time for something new - the "toy" factor. I wanted something new and complex to study, to get angry because I don't get the expected result, to be happy when the shot is great, to put them side by side (with the old camera) and say - "eh...that's why it's better and it cost a lot of money". It may be stupid, dumb but I think we also need to treat ourselves with something really good sometimes :)<br>

What I want to say is that we also need to feel good with the equipment itself: when I bought the Pentax, the salesman simply let me chose from 4-5 cameras in the same range and I bought the Pentax because it simply felt right. With the D600 happened the same, including the 24-120 lens. Yes, it is heavy: yes, it's not the best quality (lens) and I will have to get a prime. But it feels good.<br>

So on my opinion, it's not always specs, ISO, weight, Fs and parameters ... it's also something beyond that.</p>

[bob_h5]

<p>I learned a lot from Thom Hogan's analysis of the D600 vs. the D7100 here:<br /> <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/april-2013-nikon-newsviews/dx-versus-fx-again.html">http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/april-2013-nikon-newsviews/dx-versus-fx-again.html</a><br /> I hadn't seen this analysis before my earlier post. Very helpful.<br>

I also found his piece on the transition from DX to FX to be useful, especially his discussion on DX vs. FX lenses for zoom coverage: <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/things-for-new-fx-users-to.html">http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/things-for-new-fx-users-to.html</a><br>

-Bob</p>

[michael_wickenhauser]

<p>Dear members and especially dear Bob,<br>

I'm also new to this forum as an active participant, but as I am practically deeply involved in the respective question<br>

I want to contribute my experiences and also rise a fundamental question.<br>

A short background ahead:<br>

I am using DSLRs since more than 10 years, before I used Nikon film cameras for about 30 years mostly doing travel photography, but also some macro and other stills.<br>

At that time my equipment consisted of two bodies, one withe a 24mm attached, the other with the good old 80-200mm, plus a 50/1.4 and a 500mm mirror tele for special purposes. Mostly there was no need to change lenses and I enjoyed to just grab the right camera with the required lens.<br>

When I changed to DSLRs I stayed with one body because the lifecycle of them was much shorter than in the film era.<br>

For almost 5 years I used a D300 and was quite satisfied, but when the D600 came out I felt it was time for an enhancement and to return to the 'full format', especially as I am presenting my 'slides' either on a big TV or with a beamer on 2mx3m and up in size. With doubling the MPix I expected to catch more detail, especially in landscape pictures, with a less dense sensor, although double as much pixel plus the technical enhancements of five years I expected a better noise behaviour,etc.<br>

So in january 2012 I got my D600 body and the results fulfilled my expectations; but I also had to change lenses from DX to FX so I started to test and find out which best fit to my expectations/requirements. During that time the D7100 was released and I started to think:'why not come back to my old beloved 2-body equipment?'; especially as with my change to FX I lost my requires tele-reach which with my old 80-400 (120-600) I used on travels for long-distance portraits on markets and festivals.<br>

On this forum I found the recommendation:' Use FX for wideangle and standard and use DX for long tele reach.<br>

So I got a D7100 body and started really extensive comparison tests between D600 and D7100 for almost half a year.<br>

I have made several thousand of pictures with both bodies, partly comparing the same FX lens on both of them, partly comparing DX lenses to their respective FX counterparts.<br>

My list of practically tested lenses comprises of:<br>

Sigma 8-16 DX<br>

Sigma 10-203,5 DX<br>

Sigma 12-24 FX<br>

Nikon 12 24 DX<br>

Nikon 16-85 DX<br>

Nikon 16-35 FX<br>

Nikon 18-35 FX<br>

Nikon 24-85 FX<br>

Nikon 24-120/4 FX<br>

Sigma 24-70 FX<br>

Tamron 24-70 FX<br>

Tamron Macro 60 DX<br>

Nikon Micro 40 DX<br>

Nikon 85/1,8<br>

Nikon 70-200/4<br>

Tamron 70-300 FX<br>

Nikon 70-300 FX<br>

Nikon 80-400, the old which I own and the new one<br>

My results on the bodies in a compact sentence:<br>

The D600 is like a workhorse, which in almost any situation delivers very good to excellent results, whereas the D7100 is like a sensible race horce, which requires special and excellent conditions to do the same; i.e. good light, short exposere times, the shorter the better, very good glass, low ISO values. One could say:'the 7100 is a best weather camera :-).<br>

Concerning handling, on the D7100 I like the 100% magnification of the OK button, the 1,2Mio display, the bigger AF area and the 1,3x crop,<br>

on the D600 I like the bigger and brighter viewfinder.<br>

As mentioned above I am presenting the pictures on a big scale, therefore for evaluating I compare 100% crops on my screen.<br>

And comparing my pictures with all the above listed lenses:<br>

In no case the D7100 could outperform the D600; in case of DX lenses vs. respective FX lenses on the D7100, the IQ with the FX lenses was better;but then with the same FX lenses compared between D7100 and D600 the results on the D600 were better, especially concering detail, border/corner sharpness and noise behaviour (although the DX body gains advantages on vignation and distortion); but although the DX picks out the 'best part' of the FX lens the borders/corners were less sharp then on the D600.<br>

So I was eagerly awaiting the test results of DXOmark, to see if they would confirm my practical experiences.<br>

Now they are here and they do !!<br>

In general one can say the DXOmarlk as well as the P-MPix value of the same lens measured on the D7100 is about 25% less than compared to the D600. There are very few exceptions, but even in this cases the measured values are at least 10-15% lower than on the D600.<br>

On the other hand most of the best results on the D7100 are achieved with FX lenses.<br>

So my question is (and I hope many members contribute to that):<br>

Why should I get a 24 MPix DX body, if there is a 24 MPix FX body available, only a little bit more expensive, but almost the same in size and weight, especially if I would/should buy FX lenses to unfold the capabilities of the D7100 body . . .</p>

<p>PS: My body of wish is the one of the D7100 with the 100% magnification OK button, the bigger AF system and the 1,3 crop, but equipped with the sensor and viewfinder of the D600.<br>

Regards and hopefully many comments,<br>

mjwicki</p>

<p> </p>