# Nikon D7100 Vs. D600



## timarp000 (Aug 8, 2013)

What are the Pros and Cons of each DSLR? I mainly take photos of Wildlife, Macro and Landscapes. My Budget is $2000-2500. I cant go any higher. Which camera would be better for me?

This is what Ive found out.

*DX-

*Pros 

Longer Magnification i.e, 300mm is 450mm
Less Cost
Sensor utilizes the 'sweet spot' of the lens

Cons

More Noise at High ISO
Less Dynamic Range
Less wide angle

*FX -*

Pros

Less noise at high ISO
More dynamic Range
Wider Angle of view

Cons

High Cost
Less reach


----------



## goodguy (Aug 8, 2013)

I think you got most of the facts except the D7100 dynamic range is just as good as the D600

I just bought the D7100 and I didnt get the D600 because of one reason................I couldnt afford the D600.
All my lenses are FX so thats not the problem, I needed to add close to 1000$ and I just didnt have the money.

I say if you can afford the D600 then get it.
If not the d7100 is an AWESOME camera!!!

So in a way this is a win/win situation because both cameras are top notch machines, you just need to decided what you want.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 8, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong but the D600 comes with a DX Mode. (It drops the MP down to I think 10mp in DX mode though). So you could switch to DX mode to give you that extra reach. 

Anyhow, I faced this question my self and opted for the D7100. I was looking at a $400 difference and at the time really didn't see the benefits to justify it. So I bought the D7100 and applied the difference towards a used Nikon 17-55mm 2.8.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 8, 2013)

Some of your DX "Cons" list are inaccurate, either completely, or partially. Most noise at high ISO cleans up very nicely in Photoshop, provided you aren't going above 6400. It really is pretty minimal. As far as "Less wide angle", that really just isn't noticeably true. Nikon have their 10-24mm ultra-wide for DX, Tokina have (A lens I love!!) 11-16mm ultra-wide. honestly, I prefer the Tokina over the Nikon in this rare case. The Tokina is slightly sharper and it's colour rendition seems a bit more punchier. Some argue that the Tokina's zoom range could be better, but realistically, all I'd want out of it that it doesn't do, is drop down to 10mm, rather than 11, but I suppose it was set as a 11-16 for cost reasons or something. At any rate though, even if you need that extra 1mm, just take a step back!

My advice is start with a DX body and use FX lenses when possible. Lens-wise, I'd look at the Tokina Pro II 11-16, or Nikon 10-24, for ultra-wide. Nikon 16-85 for wide to short telephoto, the (FX) 70-300 for telephoto, and whichever macro suits your needs. I actually like the 18-105 kit lens for general walkaround.


----------



## SCraig (Aug 8, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> Longer Magnification i.e, 300mm is 450mm


Not true.  300mm will always be 300mm.  A crop sensor body gives the FIELD OF VIEW of a longer lens, not the magnification.  It is no different than if you took the image into an editor and cropped off part of it.  The magnification did NOT change, only how much of the image you now see is different.

It is frequently advantageous when comparing a full-frame sensor and a crop-sensor OF THE SAME RESOLUTION since the crop-sensor will have more resolution in that smaller area.  Optically, however, the magnification did not change at all.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 8, 2013)

raventepes said:


> Some of your DX "Cons" list are inaccurate, either completely, or partially. Most noise at high ISO cleans up very nicely in Photoshop, provided you aren't going above 6400. It really is pretty minimal. As far as "Less wide angle", that really just isn't noticeably true. Nikon have their 10-24mm ultra-wide for DX, Tokina have (A lens I love!!) 11-16mm ultra-wide. honestly, I prefer the Tokina over the Nikon in this rare case. The Tokina is slightly sharper and it's colour rendition seems a bit more punchier. Some argue that the Tokina's zoom range could be better, but realistically, all I'd want out of it that it doesn't do, is drop down to 10mm, rather than 11, but I suppose it was set as a 11-16 for cost reasons or something. At any rate though, even if you need that extra 1mm, just take a step back!
> 
> My advice is start with a DX body and use FX lenses when possible. Lens-wise, I'd look at the Tokina Pro II 11-16, or Nikon 10-24, for ultra-wide. Nikon 16-85 for wide to short telephoto, the (FX) 70-300 for telephoto, and whichever macro suits your needs. I actually like the 18-105 kit lens for general walkaround.


I already have a D40x. Ive been using it for 3-4 years. Its dying and noise performance is bad. So i need to upgrade. Do I go full frame or crop?


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 8, 2013)

What is the resolution of the DX Crop in the D600?


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 8, 2013)

The Only reason im considering the D600 is the better noise performance! Can someone send me samples? Between the two. Or links where i can find them?


----------



## DBA (Aug 8, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> The Only reason im considering the D600 is the better noise performance! Can someone send me samples? Between the two. Or links where i can find them?


I have both the D7000 and D600, on the D7000 I can get to around ISO 1000 before the noise becomes noticeable. The D600 can get closer to ISO 3200.

Here's a 1:1 photo that I shot at ISO 3200.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...y/318715-nikon-d600-low-noise-impressive.html


----------



## ToddnTN (Aug 8, 2013)

DBA said:


> timarp000 said:
> 
> 
> > The Only reason im considering the D600 is the better noise performance! Can someone send me samples? Between the two. Or links where i can find them?
> ...




Wish you had a similar shot with the D700 to compare.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 9, 2013)

I have to decide between the longer 'reach' i get with a DX or the better noise performance on the D600. If I can get up to ISO 3200 on the D7100 and get good shots, i will buy that. If not it will be hard for me to decide


----------



## iRayPhotos (Aug 9, 2013)

You can never go wrong with Full Frame!...Especially with Nikon since you can shoot DX mode to get the longer reach. Even if the D600 only has 10MP in DX mode, youll still get some awesome images just as long as you have good glass.. it should be no-brainer. Full frame is the way to go!


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 9, 2013)

Can anyone post a Image from the D7100 with ISO 3200 and ISO 6400?


----------



## DBA (Aug 9, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> I have to decide between the longer 'reach' i get with a DX or the better noise performance on the D600. If I can get up to ISO 3200 on the D7100 and get good shots, i will buy that. If not it will be hard for me to decide


FYI DX just gives you the perception of extra reach. FX has higher resolution so you can crop to DX and not suffer any loss of quality.
http://ksqphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/sample-photo-with-fx-dx-overlay3.jpg



timarp000 said:


> Can anyone post a Image from the D7100 with ISO 3200 and ISO 6400?


I can try and get some from both my D7000 and D600 this weekend.


----------



## coastalconn (Aug 9, 2013)

In my humble opinion, being a birder, I would pick a crop sensor and better glass every time.  Since you are on a limited budget can you afford a D600 and really good glass?  I'm still shooting my lowly D300 and I picked up 2 stops with my Tokina 300 F2.8.  What are you planning on shooting that 3200 is so critical, just curious?


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 9, 2013)

I want to use 3200 for night and star photography


----------



## SCraig (Aug 9, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> I want to use 3200 for night and star photography



I shot night and star photography decades ago with ISO 200 and 400 film.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 9, 2013)

Im leaning towards the D7100 as its cheaper. What lenses do I buy with it?

This is what Ive found
D7100 - $897.95
18-70 f/3.5-4.5 - $288.99
70-300 VR - $459.95
85mm f/3.5 Macro - $526.95

TOTAL - $2174


----------



## SEMiller (Aug 9, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> Im leaning towards the D7100 as its cheaper. What lenses do I buy with it?
> 
> This is what Ive found
> D7100 - $897.95
> ...



I would suggest you do your research on bestpricephoto before you make your purchase from there. There is a reason why those prices are so low.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 10, 2013)

SEMiller said:


> timarp000 said:
> 
> 
> > Im leaning towards the D7100 as its cheaper. What lenses do I buy with it?
> ...



Oh my god! Thank you so much! I read a bunch of reviews all of them saying its a scam! I wont buy from them...


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 10, 2013)

Can someone please tell me where else to find the 18-70?


----------



## SEMiller (Aug 10, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> Can someone please tell me where else to find the 18-70?



Adorama has several used for around $135.00. I would not hesitate to buy one used at that price if you have your heart set on that lens. otherwise get the 18-105, which gives you extra reach.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 10, 2013)

How is the 16-85 VR? How does it compare to the 18-105 VR?


----------



## SEMiller (Aug 10, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> How is the 16-85 VR? How does it compare to the 18-105 VR?



Start here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon-lenses/323776-16-85-vs-18-105-a.html

I started with an 18-55 which I found was not long enough most of the time. I'm happy with the 18-105.


----------



## raventepes (Aug 10, 2013)

The 16-85 IS noticeably sharper, though not by too much, actually. With good technique, a lot of it sharpens up in PS fairly well and it would take a trained eye to notice much difference. The 18-105 is my standard walkaround lens, actually. Nice little lens. I was hesitant at first because it's a "kit lens", but Nikon produced something better than I imagined. I do use the 16-85 quite often too though, too. Paired with the Tokina 11-16 (pro II), and the Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, it provides decent coverage from ultra-wide to telephoto.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 10, 2013)

goodguy said:


> I think you got most of the facts except the D7100 dynamic range is just as good as the D600
> 
> I just bought the D7100 and I didnt get the D600 because of one reason................I couldnt afford the D600.
> All my lenses are FX so thats not the problem, I needed to add close to 1000$ and I just didnt have the money.
> ...


How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 10, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?



Not well at all, in terms of FOV.  You'd be far better off with the kit 18-55.


----------



## timarp000 (Aug 10, 2013)

480sparky said:


> timarp000 said:
> 
> 
> > How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?
> ...


He owns the Lens so I would like to know his opinion but anyway, why wont it be good with the D7100? Spec wise, it seems good. It has a larger aperture at 85mm than any other lens! Is it because its not wide enough?


----------



## goodguy (Aug 10, 2013)

timarp000 said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > timarp000 said:
> ...


I answered to your other question about 16-85mm vs 24-85mm
For 10 days I was at the Rockies almost all my landscape shots were taken on my 24-85 VR and I loved the results (except the haze which is not a lens problem and is unavoidable).
In very few cases the lens was indeed a bit to wide and for these very few cases I used my Sigma 18-35mm, old lens not best quality but still very good and cost me only 84$ used.

The problem (or advantage depends how you look at it) of the 24-85mm VR is that its an FX lens and not a DX lens which means that when its say 24-85mm it really is bigger on a DX body camera like your D7100, un less I am mistaken you need to multiply it by 1.5 so on a DX camera its really 36-127.5mm so you are loosing a bit in the wide and gaining in the higher zoom.
I need to remind I use my 24-85mm VR on the D7100 and am super happy with it especially with what this lens cost me but what might work for me might now work for you, you will need to decide whats good for you.
Just to consider one more advantage, if you will ever buy a full frame FX body camera you will have a lens ready for you while if you will get the 16-85mm VR you will need to sell it and get an FX lens (Just a thought).


----------



## DepthOfFocus (Aug 12, 2013)

HUGE Pro for the D7100 (or any DX body for that matter):

Much cheaper lenses. You can get a 17-55 much cheaper than a 24-70. 

I wouldn't say there's significantly more dynamic range with FX/D600. I've moved from a D7000 to a D700 and BARELY notice a difference with landscapes or portaits with ideal lighting conditions.


----------

