# Nikon D600 vs D7100



## BFiggy (May 22, 2015)

I know this has been asked before but I'm still a little unsure about some things.

I currently have a D7100 and would like to go FF for the low light performance and because I don't want to keep sinking money in DX glass. I'm going to keep the D7100 and use it with my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS lens because I love the way this combo performs. 

My question is about the focusing systems between the two. It's my understanding that the focus system on the D7100 is better... is that just because it has more focus points? Does the D7100 focus faster as well? What are the focus system advantages over the D600? I'm not too concerned about the amount of focus points so I want to know if there's anything else I'm missing. 

My concern is that if I decide to update to a FF zoom lens I want to make sure it performs as well as the D7100/Sigma 50-150 combo.

Any other thoughts or things I should know about going from a D7100 to D600?


----------



## nerwin (May 22, 2015)

The D600/D610 has the same focusing system as the D7000 so its a tad outdated and yes it doesn't perform so well in extreme low light like your D7100 or D7200 will. But with that being said, I haven't had really any focusing problems but then again I've only used D60, D7000 and D610. If I were to get a newer camera like a D750 or D810, I would probably notice the AF differences, haha. But for what I do, its perfect fine for me. The full frame sensor was far more important to me as I tend to shoot in lower light.

The only other thing you should know is that the D600/D610 focus points are bunched up a little bit more in the center than other full frame cameras, its not a HUGE deal like some make it out to be. I got use to it very fast and actually, I didn't even notice it much when I first got the D610.

Here's an example.






But then again, not THAT much smaller than other fx af points.





This then again...I feel this is more worth it. Haha





I really enjoy shooting with my D610, I can say that the autofocus system is better than my D7000 but that may not be the case for everyone. The image quality and dynamic range, ISO performance, it's very good. Also, full frame sensors produce finer grain, so even extreme high iso, you can get a usable image..I did at ISO 25,600 in b&w of course.

Also one thing to mention is that the sensor is double the size of APS-C, so say when you doing portraits and using a 85 1.8, you can stand a little closer to your subject and you'll have greater background separation than you would on smaller sensors because you'd have to stand further back. The other advantage is the wider angle lenses. Now the downside is that you lose the crop factor so a 300mm lens is no longer equivalent of a 450mm lens so you lose that extra reach..but you can also put the camera into crop mode..but it isn't the same.

I hope this helps!


----------



## Braineack (May 22, 2015)

Shoot in DX mode and it's essentailly the same size as the D7100 AF area...  moot point is moot.

You will notice a difference between having the 51pt AF module vs the 39pt (keyword the module, not the focus points)--there is a degrade there.  Otherwise there's not much difference between the two other than the sensor size and insane IQ.


----------



## 480sparky (May 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Shoot in DX mode and it's essentailly the same size as the D7100 AF area...  moot point is moot.............



Not moot.  D600 shot in DX mode is an _anemic_ 10MP. You get a whole lot more pixels with a D7100.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

having owned  a D7000, D7100, and now a D600....i can honestly say that while I definitely liked the 51pt AF system the D7100 had,  the 39pt AF system works just fine for me and the slight downgrade in AF systems was well worth the upgrade in ISO performance


----------



## Braineack (May 22, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot in DX mode and it's essentailly the same size as the D7100 AF area...  moot point is moot.............
> ...



all I'm saying is the actual AF area is physically the ~same size, but relative to the frame it's smaller.

A lot of people complain that the AF area is a lot smaller, but it's not--the frame is just so much larger.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

The biggest issue I had with the d600's af was that it wasn't that good in low light. The d7100 focuses substantially faster, regardless of mode or number of focal points used, in low light. It negated a lot of the d600's low light advantage to me, because I can deal with a little noise if everything is sharply in focus. This was a big deal for me because the only reason I still even own a dslr is for focusing speed in low light.

For some people this may not be a problem. For me it was. With fast action it made my f/4 lenses unusable (regular f/4 or f/2.8 with a teleconverter). No point in owning a 300mm f/4 if you have to manual focus it for a football game.

Now, I also realize that this was sort of personal. If you don't need quick, accurate low light autofocus it's probably not a big deal. For some people being able to shoot at higher ISO is more important.

I also don't even know what people mean when they say the d600's has "higher image quality" unless they're just repeating the high ISO performance again.

I view the two cameras as mostly equivalents, but with different strengths. The D610 has cleaner files in low light, the D7100 focuses faster. 

What I did was simply get a f/1.8 zoom lens, which completely negates the low light advantage the d610 has since the fastest normal zoom lens you can use on the d610 is f/2.8. So a d7100 with f/1.8 actually has a mild advantage in low light and depth of field vs a d610 with a f/2.8. Anyway, just my thoughts as somebody who owned both. Ymmv


----------



## goodguy (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> I view the two cameras as mostly equivalents, but with different strengths. The D610 has cleaner files in low light, the D7100 focuses faster.


And thats why you got the D750, it takes the best of D7100/7200 and best of D600/610 add slightly better low light performance and few more goodies and "Voila" you got a killer camera


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

goodguy said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > I view the two cameras as mostly equivalents, but with different strengths. The D610 has cleaner files in low light, the D7100 focuses faster.
> ...


Sure, the D750 is a great camera.  We are now no longer addressing the OP's question though.


----------



## Braineack (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> What I did was simply get a f/1.8 zoom lens, which completely negates the low light advantage the d610 has since the fastest normal zoom lens you can use on the d610 is f/2.8. So a d7100 with f/1.8 actually has a mild advantage in low light and depth of field vs a d610 with a f/2.8. Anyway, just my thoughts as somebody who owned both. Ymmv



the speed of glass is not what gives the D600 its low-light advantage--its the DR.
the dof of your crop at f/1.8 will pretty much equal a FX camera shooting f/2.8.
what happens when you want to shoot longer than 35mm?

I personally havent had issues with the D600 in tricky lighting, but I'm sure the 51pt module is better here.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > What I did was simply get a f/1.8 zoom lens, which completely negates the low light advantage the d610 has since the fastest normal zoom lens you can use on the d610 is f/2.8. So a d7100 with f/1.8 actually has a mild advantage in low light and depth of field vs a d610 with a f/2.8. Anyway, just my thoughts as somebody who owned both. Ymmv
> ...


Then we're talking telephoto, and we are back to shooting things where the D600/D610's autofcus speed can't keep up in low light, ie wildlife and sports.  In the time I owned it, the D600 produced great image quality of low light action or fast moving subjects, but it just had a danged of a time focusing.  For me that was a bigger deal breaker.  I simply don't shoot non action telephoto in low light.  And as far as DoF goes, I pretty much never want less DoF on a telephoto.  the 105 f/2 DC produces as small of DoF as I'd ever possibly want for portraits, and f/2.8 on APS-C as about as thin of DoF as I'd want for action.  On FF I often shoot at F/4 because I want the extra DoF.

My point with low light is that at f/1.8, I can use a stop + a third lower ISO, which produces, to my eyes, as clean files as the D610 at a stop higher ISO (or a stop recovered in post).

and again, I am simply speaking to how I shot, the thoughts I have had with both cameras, both of which I owned.


----------



## astroNikon (May 22, 2015)

BFiggy said:


> ...  and because I don't want to keep sinking money in DX glass.


I hope you realize that you do not have to buy DX lenses for a DX camera.
FF lenses work just fine on DX cameras.  I initially bought a d7000 I only bought the kit lens.
Because of the in-body focus motor I was able to buy AF-D lenses to get good glass at a discount compared to the more expensive AF-S/G variants.
Thus when I bought a d600 body I was all set with nothing else needed.
The connectors were the same too so I was set in accessories too.


----------



## goodguy (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...


No we don't, I couldn't help it, you know equipment bragging....................I am weak  LOL


----------



## nerwin (May 22, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> BFiggy said:
> 
> 
> > ...  and because I don't want to keep sinking money in DX glass.
> ...



I love my 35 f/2D, it's just awesome. My smallest lens and yet produces big results.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...




so what happens when you put a f/1.8 lens on the D600? I can just use a longer focal length/move back to get the extra DOF.  then I get the advantage of ISO performance of the FF sensor AND the extra stop of aperture of a f/1.8 lens.

OR...just do what I have been doing for a while now. put a radio trigger on the hot shoe and use it for the IR focus assist.  worked great on the D7000, D7100, and D600.

I dont shoot sports, so it might be an entirely different animal but....autofocus has never really been a huge issue for me. 
ive owned the D100, D200, D300, D90, D7000, D7100, and D600 and none of them have ever given me much grief autofocusing for portraits or weddings.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> so what happens when you put a f/1.8 lens on the D600?
> 
> I dont shoot sports, so it might be an entirely different animal but....autofocus has never really been a huge issue for me.


There isn't a such thing as a f/1.8 zoom for FX.  Yes, that would bring things back in favor of the D610, but at this time such a lens just doesn't exist.  the 18-35 competes against the 24-70 for full frame.  The 24-70 is f/2.8.

And yes, that's exactly why I kept repeating this was my experience with two cameras I owned.  The D600 is likely a great wedding camera, where pure low light DR is more or less the be all and end all, and nobody is sprinting/flying.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...


So use a prime


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

It's as close to an action shot as I get.
D200 with Nikon 180mm f/2.8 lens.
single point focus. 
not exactly low light, but if the D200 could keep up with fast moving dogs,I would expect the D600 to do a bit better.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


Why?  My original point was that if you shoot at f/1.8, you actually are getting mostly the same thing image cleanliness wise as you get at f/2.8 on a D600, in my experience.  Is f/2.8 no longer good enough for full frame?  

At f.1.8 I pretty much always get clean enough images, heck at f/2, for what I do, noise is not an issue.  When I owned a D610, I pretty much never used f/1.8, I pretty much never needed DoF that shallow.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> It's as close to an action shot ad I get.
> 
> View attachment 101552


that also isn't low light, which is the entire thing I said, that the D600/610 has trouble with focus speed in low light.  Which was an issue for me.  If you're not shooting action and you're not shooting in low light, then, like I said, it may not be an issue for you.  I didn't say the D600/610 was a bad camera, I simply gave my perspective, and the circumstances I had trouble with it, and the reasons I sold it.  I also said, outside those conditions it's likely a great camera.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...




i rarely shoot under f/4.
FF is fantastic for that. i can shoot smaller apertures without getting the noise I got with the DX cameras.

why not just put a radio trigger on top and use the IR AF assist? they you wouldnt  be forced to shoot at f/1.8


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> i rarely shoot under f/4.
> FF is fantastic for that. i can shoot smaller apertures without getting the noise I got with the DX cameras.


Sure, and on DX I can shoot f/2.8 and have a stop lower ISO, but still have roughly the same DoF, and have roughly the same image cleanliness.  That's all I'm going to say about this, I didn't want it to be a pissing contest, I simply wanted to give my perspective, since I've owned both the cameras that the OP has asked about.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fjrabon said:
> ...



wait...im not understanding that part. 
on DX shooting f/2.8 and a stop lower ISO you get the same DOF and same image cleanliness as what on FX?
ive owned both cameras as well, so im not at all ignorant to their workings. im not debating the 51pt AF system being superior to the 39pt AF system, ive just never heard any real complaints about the 39pt module. i never found it lacking in the D7000 or the D600.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> wait...im not understanding that part.
> on DX shooting f/2.8 and a stop lower ISO you get the same DOF and same image cleanliness as what on FX?
> ive owned both cameras as well, so im not at all ignorant to their workings. im not debating the 51pt AF system being superior to the 39pt AF system, ive just never heard any real complaints about the 39pt module. i never found it lacking in the D7000 or the D600.



In my experience on a D7100 f/2.8, ISO 6400, SS 1/500 produces images that are not appreciably different from a D610 at f/4, ISO 12,800, SS 1/500.  And similar if you go one step higher ISO and one step narrower aperture between the two cameras.  The sensor size difference cancels out the DoF difference because you're shooting at higher magnification on the full frame, and the ISO difference cancels out the FF being cleaner.

Check it on DPReview, don't take my word for it.  Now a few years ago, the issue was that if you wanted a normal zoom, which is where this issue crops up most (no pun intended), you couldn't get a stop faster than f/2.8, because there wasn't any such thing as a zoom that went faster than f/2.8.  Now there is, and it's DX only.

Further, the OP was *mostly asking about AF* differences, so I spoke mostly to that.  He didn't even ask about low light, based on his statements, I didn't address that.  The D7100's autofocus speed, if that's important to you, is a fairly large difference, especially in low light where the D7100 has a stop plus better EV rating than the D610.  For some people it's not important.  The OP asked about it, so I talked about it.  The OP didn't ask about low light differences in ISO ability, so I didn't mention them.


----------



## Braineack (May 22, 2015)

I wouldn't shoot a D600/D610 above 6400 ISO.

Using the comparison tool, the D610 looks better even at extended ISO than the D7100 image at 6400 IMHO.  At 6400 it looks _significantly_ better.  I would let the D610 underexpose and recover in post before I'd shoot at 12,800.

Not trying to discount any information you are giving, I'm not doubting the 51pt module wouldn't perform better in most situations--but I've also never had much issue with the D600 in crummy situations.


----------



## pixmedic (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > wait...im not understanding that part.
> ...



well, to be fair,  the OP's _*first sentence*_ was about wanting to go to FF for low light performance....so i do believe the low light comparisons were relevant.  the OP did ask about the AF modules, but then in the last sentence asked about any other differences...so really, it opens up the entire discussion about the D6 00/610  -vs- D7100. 

the OP also specifically mentions wanting something comparable to his 50-150 lens, which is not a f/1.8 lens. 
the equivalent would be a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.  if you are comparing a D7100 with the 50-150 f/2.8 lens against a D600 with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens for low light capabilities, i would say the D600 will probably win with the same settings.  the OP does not specify whether he is interested more in which one _*focuses *_better in low light or which one has better low light recovery or ISO performance.


----------



## astroNikon (May 22, 2015)

That one online guy with the big afro tested the d600 at high school football games under lights and had no issues in relation to it's price/performance compared to d4s.
here it is ==> 




I use mine for soccer even in the evening, though I've never done it under lights.
but YMMV

FYI,

The d600 has the Multi-CAM 4800 / 39pt Autofocus module and Expeed 3 image/video processors
The d7000 has Multi-CAM 4800DX /39pt Autofocus module and Expeed 2 image/video processor
the d7100 has the Multi-CAM 3500DX /51pt AF module and Expeed 3 image/video processor  (the Nikon d700 & d4 had the Multi-CAM 3500FX AF module)


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> That one online guy with the big afro tested the d600 at high school football games under lights and had no issues in relation to it's price/performance compared to d4s.
> here it is ==>
> 
> 
> ...


I think there's a slippery slope when it comes to "I have no problem for the price" because it just obscures the question before it ever gets started.  The D600 isn't mind-numbingly terrible AF wise.  But the D7100 just plain focuses faster and more accurately in low light.  Is it a problem for you?  Well, that completely depends on what you're shooting, how fast you need to focus, how accurate your focus needs to be and how important a few missed shots here and there is.  If you're shooting AF-S, and only need to cherry pick a few shots here and there, or the light isn't that bad, or you can deal with a few missed shots, or your subjects are static or slow moving, it's not an issue.  If you're shooting AF-C and the light is low and you need to nail the precise moment the WR catches the ball, sharply in focus, it's an issue.  It's the same reason why Coastalconn went with the 7DII over a freaking D800.  Compare those two cameras low light performances... Which camera has he moved to?  

In my experience, whatever your threshold for focusing speed/accuracy is, the D7100 can go about about a stop and a half lower light and maintain that threshold.  To me this is the biggest difference in their focusing abilities, I really don't give a crap about more total focal points, that's not why I think the D7100's autofocus is better, I generally only use cross points anyway.   For some people focus speed and accuracy is drastically more important than ISO performance and the bleeding edge matters there.  For some people high ISO cleanliness and dynamic range is the be all and end all.  Nobody but the OP can make that choice.  But it's simply fact that the D7100 has faster autofocus, with more points, that's more accurate in low light.  Does it matter?  We can debate all day long, but really only the OP can say.  It's a tradeoff.  For me the D600 wasn't worth the drop in AF; for Goodguy, Pixmedic and Braineack, the cleaner high ISO was more important.


----------



## fjrabon (May 22, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I wouldn't shoot a D600/D610 above 6400 ISO.
> 
> Using the comparison tool, the D610 looks better even at extended ISO than the D7100 image at 6400 IMHO.  At 6400 it looks _significantly_ better.  I would let the D610 underexpose and recover in post before I'd shoot at 12,800.
> 
> Not trying to discount any information you are giving, I'm not doubting the 51pt module wouldn't perform better in most situations--but I've also never had much issue with the D600 in crummy situations.



Yeah, I mean I think the D600 is a good camera, and earlier I was more just explaining why, for me and the way I shoot, the DR/ISO advantage of the D600 just didn't matter to me.  But really I mainly just wanted to speak on the autofocus, and that the difference was more than just the D7100 having more points, since that is a question the OP specifically asked, if the only difference was just more points.


----------



## astroNikon (May 22, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't shoot a D600/D610 above 6400 ISO.
> ...



Yup, I listed it at the bottom there.  uses the DX version of the AF module for the d700/d4 (I assume from the naming conventions).


astroNikon said:


> The d600 has the Multi-CAM 4800 / 39pt Autofocus module and Expeed 3 image/video processors
> 
> The d7000 has Multi-CAM 4800DX /39pt Autofocus module and Expeed 2 image/video processor
> the d7100 has the Multi-CAM 3500DX /51pt AF module and Expeed 3 image/video processor  (the Nikon d700 & d4 had the Multi-CAM 3500FX AF module)


----------



## lance70 (May 22, 2015)

BFiggy said:


> I know this has been asked before but I'm still a little unsure about some things.
> 
> I currently have a D7100 and would like to go FF for the low light performance and because I don't want to keep sinking money in DX glass. I'm going to keep the D7100 and use it with my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS lens because I love the way this combo performs.
> 
> ...



   I made this same decision a few months back but I was using a Nikon 70-200 on my D7100. I loved the focus system on the D7100 and I mainly shoot for the National Tiger Sanctuary and with local models. For the style of photography I deal with the D610 has been great. To answer one of your questions about performing as well as your D7100 with your Sigma lens.... in my opinion as long as you put good glass on the D600 it will exceed the performance of your current set up.... I was going to keep the D7100 but moving to a full frame was such an improvement for me I just sold the D7100 and going to put that money into another Nikon lens......

    I also shoot for a local sports bar and a few weeks back they had a bikini contest, of course the lighting was terrible..... the D610 had no focus issues with the low light and I was shooting at ISO 5,000.... the manager and the girls all loved the results....I think you will be very happy with the D600 body.


----------



## BFiggy (May 23, 2015)

Thanks for the responses everyone, I really appreciate it! This thread has tons of great info and has covered everything I was looking for, and then some. I'm going to go through this again when I have a little more time.

Thanks again!


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 23, 2015)

I have had both the D7100 and the D600, And apart from low light performance of the D600, I prefer the D7100 for everything else, though i would have a look at the D7200 now unless you can get a good deal on the D7100 and you do not need any of the newer features.

John.


----------



## goodguy (May 23, 2015)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> I have had both the D7100 and the D600, And apart from low light performance of the D600, I prefer the D7100 for everything else, though i would have a look at the D7200 now unless you can get a good deal on the D7100 and you do not need any of the newer features.
> 
> John.


Choosing a camera especially already good cameras like the D7100/D7200 or D600/D610 is not easy, it really is a matter of what you shoot, your style of shooting and just as important the size of your pocket.
For me the move to FX was almost a world changer, I still own and use DX camera but most of my shoots are done with FX.
All very personal.


----------



## HaveCameraWillTravel (May 23, 2015)

lance70 said:


> I also shoot for a local sports bar and a few weeks back they had a bikini contest, of course the lighting was terrible..... the D610 had no focus issues with the low light and I was shooting at ISO 5,000.... the manager and the girls all loved the results....I think you will be very happy with the D600 body.



I think you should post a few samples and let the forum see how bad the lighting really was.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 23, 2015)

I prefer the extra reach of a cropped sensor over the better the low light capability's of an full sensor, also as has been mentioned the D600 focus points are all clustered in the middle of the finder compared to the D7100, where they are more spread out.

Horses for courses i suppose.

Anyway i only buy mirrowless camera`s these day`s, I like the simplicity of the internals, not like a dslr with all that ironmongery flying about inside, throwing  up dust and oil and causing vibration, plus with an evf of today`s quality you get a much better idea of what your photo`s are going to look like without having to check the lcd all the time.

I think within 10 years dslr`s will start to disappeared just like slr camera`s did, of course you still get people running round with box brownies, and laughed at those new fanged dslr things, but they are in the minority.

I dont know anybody in my family or friends that actually use a real camera any-more, and i mean a compact camera, they all use their cell/mobile phones.

I started out with a Practica BC1 and BX20 with 50mm len`s years ago, my first digital camera was an whole 0.3mp vga 640x480 but i was amazed at the time, and some of the printed photo`s still look good.

John.



goodguy said:


> Tinderbox (UK) said:
> 
> 
> > I have had both the D7100 and the D600, And apart from low light performance of the D600, I prefer the D7100 for everything else, though i would have a look at the D7200 now unless you can get a good deal on the D7100 and you do not need any of the newer features.
> ...


----------



## goodguy (May 23, 2015)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> I prefer the extra reach of a cropped sensor over the better the low light capability's of an full sensor, also as has been mentioned the D600 focus points are all clustered in the middle of the finder compared to the D7100, where they are more spread out.
> 
> Horses for courses i suppose.
> 
> ...


 
Yepp John as I said all very personal, if your system does what you need/ask it to do then thats the right tool for you.
BTW if I am not mistaking (and if I am I am sure I will get **** for this mistake)mirrorless still have shutter mechnism in their bodies they simply got rid of the mirror so there is still moving stuff that can break in it.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 24, 2015)

Yeah, they still do but some now use leaf shutter`s that are virtually silent, also at least in my Nikon 1 i can get 1/4000 with the mechanical shutter or up to 1/16000 with the electronic shutter which is totally silent, I know some electronic shutters can have problems.

John.


----------



## nerwin (May 24, 2015)

I think sometimes it comes down to ergonomics. Some people prefer the size and weight of a DSLR like I do and also prefer the optical viewfinder.  EVFs have become really good these days and they get better each time, but still no match against a optical viewfinder (in my opinion of course).  DSLR's are just bigger cameras, they can fit bigger batteries, better and faster processors, more physical buttons, etc.  Sure, I think you might see an evolutionary change to a DSLR, they might do away with the mirror..but I still think you are going to have larger camera bodies with better grips.

I think the A6000, Sony A7s, Fuji systems, even the Samsung NX1 are fantastic mirrorless cameras, but I don't think they are for everyone. Everything has advantages and disadvantages, it's really up to you to decide what you want.  

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years all cameras will be like this. lol


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (May 25, 2015)

Only if the world is taken over by giants.

Everybody is an photographer now, as everybody has an phone with a camera, so where is the increase in photo`s of aliens or lock ness monster type photo, it just proves to me, 99.9% was fake, but were are so use to not trusting what we seen in photo`s on the tv or internet , an alien invasion could get a foothold before anybody believes it is happening, 

John.


----------

