# D610 vs D7100. (FX vs DX)



## jonathanbruce

Hello there.  I know that the D610 is an FX and the d7100 I have is a DX but which would be a better all-rounder?

I have been fortunate this week in testing out different Nikons with a photographer friend of mine.  However he uses the d4 a lot that is his main camera and he has loads of different prime lenses to use.  Are there more FX lenses than DX ?  Would there be any benefit in putting an FX Lens on my camera ? 

Or should I change the camera again ? 

What do people think here ?


----------



## goodguy

OK, we have talked about this so I will not say anything new to you but here goes....................

D610 is overall the better camera mainly because of the bigger sensor.
Differences except in low light are very small, 51 vs 39 AF system, 1.3 crop mode and few other are advantage to the D7100 but the bigger sensor for me does win here IF and I say again if I was in the market for a new camera and wouldnt have a camera or had an older model.
D7100 is too close to the D610 so unless owner plan on lots of night photography no need to "upgrade it"

As for FX lenses vs DX
Yes there are more FX lenses, with the D7100 and D610 focus motor in body you can get the older FX lenses and those are still marvelous and in most cases much cheaper!!!
I think the future is leading to FX so buying FX lenses is simply the logical and sensible thing to do.
As for picture quality, well all the pro lenses are for FX cameras and I think if I risk generalizing FX lenses are better but of course there are very good DX lenses just saying overall the FX cost more and more "good stuff" os put in them.

So keep you camera and get only FX lenses is my advice.


----------



## raventepes

My vote is the D610 as the better all rounder. It has a MUCH better lens selection and not limited to third party lenses for fast glass. It'll also preform better at higher ISO's and has slightly better dynamic range.


----------



## goodguy

raventepes said:


> My vote is the D610 as the better all rounder. It has a MUCH better lens selection and not limited to third party lenses for fast glass. It'll also preform better at higher ISO's and has slightly better dynamic range.



Sorry please explain in what way the D610 has a better lens selection ?
Unless I am mistaking any lens you can mount on the D610 you can mount on the D7100


----------



## astroNikon

I only buy FX lenses for my d7000 crop camera.  They work great
24mm/2.8 AF,  50mm/1.8 AF-D, 85mm/1.8 AF-D, 80-200mm/2.8 AF-D, 24-85mm/2.8-4 AF-D
and my only DX lens 18-105 VR DX kit lens

all my FX lenses are the cheaper non AF-S (built in focus motor) and I use the screw drive focus motor of my body to lens combo.
Basically I'm getting pro FX glass for my DX camera at a "discount" because I'm using the AF/AF-D instead of the AF-S lenses / VR etc that cost quite a bit more in DX and FX versions.

some of the specific DX lenses like the Sigma 24-70/1.8 gives the equivalent f/2.8 aperture on an FX lens for the DX sensor from what I've read.
So that makes me wonder .. does a f/2.8 FX lens actually a f/4 on DX ???

But my long term goal is to go FF sensor, so no DX specific lenses here anyways.


But the main question is .. can you afford to go to the d610?
and what specific reasons?  But then, it's your money in the end.


----------



## jaomul

To the OP, and this is not meant as a shot or anything. If you have to ask the difference between why one format is better than the other it probably means that your experience with either camera is limited. Certainly a list of reasons why one is better than the other can be posted here but the truth is that most people would find a camera as high specced as Nikons highest spec dx body more than enough. 

You should use it as much as possible over the next while and if it limits you for any reason that an fx body would not, then it may be worth considering getting a different camera.

As a point of note try borrow one of those good prime lenses and see just how good crop cameras can be.

If you google fullframe vs crop sensor you will gwt thousands of hits as to why one is better than the other. On flickr look at the d7100, d7000, d90, d80 d70,d60, d40, d3000, d3200,d3100, d5100,d5000 or d5200 group pages just to give you an indication of what these dx cameras are capable of


----------



## astroNikon

I should mention, I think the DX is a better "all rounder" as it has one advantage on the long end.
A 500mm lens is actually like a 750 with the 1.5x crop factor .. or however you want to describe this phenomena.
But of course, on the short end a 10mm is a 15mm-like  lens

and the d7100 is cheaper !!
so .. it comes down to what is important to you and how much money you have and want to spend.

as jaomul said ... there's tons of stuff out there.
In the end you have to identify what specific features you are looking for
and really, the primary difference is the size of the sensor which benefits you if you are doing alot of indoor photography.

For me .. i'm mostly curious if I point a d600 v d7000 towards Saturn or Jupiter which one comes out with the best color dynamics, etc.  But the real problem is .. I really need a $8,000 telescope to do what I really want to do ... but that ain't happening.


----------



## jonathanbruce

ok. now I'm happier to take the plunge and get rid off my coolpix p510, and invest in a good FX lens knowing that it will work on my d7100 and also on my next Nikon in years to come.  thanks for all your help.


----------



## astroNikon

jonathanbruce said:


> ok. now I'm happier to take the plunge and get rid off my coolpix p510, and invest in a good FX lens knowing that it will work on my d7100 and also on my next Nikon in years to come.  thanks for all your help.



I nearly bought one of those bridge cameras before my d7000.  I tried them at Target etc but after I started looking at all my requirements (such as attaching it to a telescope) it knocked the bridge cameras out of contention.  Then  I looked at the 3100, 5100 and had to go minimum with the d7000 for the onboard focus motor (another requirement) plus weathersealing (for outdoor telescope stuff).

I'm happy where I'm at and it has opened up a wealth of pro FX lenses whereas anything below would force me to use higher cost AF-S lenses if i wanted AF.


----------



## Tailgunner

jonathanbruce said:


> ok. now I'm happier to take the plunge and get rid off my coolpix p510, and invest in a good FX lens knowing that it will work on my d7100 and also on my next Nikon in years to come.  thanks for all your help.



A lot of the glass I use for my D7100 is originally designed for FX cameras and no complaints.


----------



## deschnell

I'm fairly new to this question, and new to the forum. I've contemplated the same question when I eventually upgrade from my 3100. For me, Budget is trumping my decision to stick with the d7100 and save money for more/better lenses. However - I really want to take my astro photos to a newer level, and have better dynamic range in my landscape shots - so the 610 (or refurb 600??) is still a strong consideration.
Either way, better FX/Pro lenses on a cheap camera are waaay better than cheap lenses on a pro camera.


----------



## jonathanbruce

I take a lot of action photos, such as Tennis and Motor Sport, but also do photo shoots for various events, such as gigs and concerts.  This is what I use my D7100 for, the Coolpix stays away!!


----------



## KmH

From an economic perspective, it costs about 4x more to make a FF image sensor than it costs to make an APS-C size image sensor.
The limiting factor is the size of a silicon wafer. More APS-C size image sensors can be made on each silicon wafer.
The image sensor chip is the single most expensive part in a DSLR camera.

I don't think FF is going to replace APS-C any time soon.
Nikon sells 10's of thousands of DX cameras for each FX camera they sell.

The D610/D600 has a flash sync speed of 1/200 and a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000, while the D7100 has a flash x-sync speed of 1/250 (1/320 for auto FP) and a max shutter speed of 1/8000.

The D610/D600 is essentially a D7000 - with a FF image sensor crammed in.

Some practical considerations beyond flash sync speed are that the Advanced 3500Dx Multi-CAM auto focus module in the D7100 is quite a bit better than the Multi-CAM 4800 auto focus module in the D610/D7000.
Which is why all of Nikon's prosumer and pro grade cameras have the Advanced 3500DX (or FX) auto focus module in them.

The D7100 can do 5 AEB, the D610/D7000 can only do 3.

For many, like actions sports and wildlife photographers, the 1.5x crop factor and apparent increase in lens reach is important.
That's part of why I had both - DX and FX - camera bodies.

In short, the D7100 is a DX prosumer grade camera, while the D600/D610 is a FX entry-level grade camera.


----------



## astroNikon

KmH said:


> From an economic perspective, it costs about 4x more to make a FF image sensor than it costs to make an APS-C size image sensor.
> The limiting factor is the size of a silicon wafer. More APS-C size image sensors can be made on each silicon wafer.
> The image sensor chip is the single most expensive part in a DSLR camera.
> 
> I don't think FF is going to replace APS-C any time soon.
> Nikon sells 10's of thousands of DX cameras for each FX camera they sell.
> 
> The D610/D600 has a flash sync speed of 1/200 and a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000, while the D7100 has a flash x-sync speed of 1/250 (1/320 for auto FP) and a max shutter speed of 1/8000.
> 
> The D610/D600 is essentially a D7000 - with a FF image sensor crammed in.
> 
> Some practical considerations beyond flash sync speed are that the Advanced 3500Dx Multi-CAM auto focus module in the D7100 is quite a bit better than the Multi-CAM 4800 auto focus module in the D610/D7000.
> Which is why all of Nikon's prosumer and pro grade cameras have the Advanced 3500DX (or FX) auto focus module in them.
> 
> The D7100 can do 5 AEB, the D610/D7000 can only do 3.
> 
> For many, like actions sports and wildlife photographers, the 1.5x crop factor and apparent increase in lens reach is important.
> That's part of why I had both - DX and FX - camera bodies.
> 
> In short, the D7100 is a DX prosumer grade camera, while the D600/D610 is a FX entry-level grade camera.



Thus the need for a d710 

hey, my d7000 does 1/8000  and 1/320 Auto FP & 1.250 Auto FP then 1/250s - 1/60s according to the menus and manuals .. but I don't know what I'm talking about with the auto FP mode doohickie.

from manual


> Flash Control at 1/320 s (Auto FP)
> When 1/320 s (Auto FP) is selected for Custom Setting e1 (Flash sync speed,
> 0222), the built-in flash can be used at shutter speeds as fast as 1/320 s, while
> optional SB-900, SB-800, SB-700, SB-600, and SB-R200 flash units can be used at any
> shutter speed (Auto FP High-Speed Sync).





> Speed 1/8000 &#8211; 30 s in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV, bulb, time (requires optional ML-L3
> remote control), X250


So the d7000 has a leg up on the d600/d610 in a minor way


----------



## Solarflare

Well, the D7100 is definitely the better allrounder. A full frame (which Nikon calls "FX") autofocus sensor in a APS-C (which Nikon calls "DX") camera, for example. Basically your AF covers most of your image area.

The D600 can use better glas though, and it has better low ISO capabilities, and it is still a general purpose camera just like the D7100.

The Nikon support for DX is simply pittiful. There still is no 24mm f1.8 DX, for example. All we have for DX are 4 primes: 2 macro (40mm and 85mm VR), 1 fisheye, and the 35mm f1.8 normal prime.

You can just buy the FX lenses instead, of course. But they are expensive, large, and thanks to the smaller sensor their focal lengths mean something different now.


----------



## bc_steve

Solarflare said:


> You can just buy the FX lenses instead, of course. But they are expensive, large, and thanks to the smaller sensor their focal lengths mean something different now.



For 50mm and up I've gone with FX lenses but when it comes to the wider lenses mine are DX (35mm 1.8 and tokina 11-16) for that reason...


----------



## jonathanbruce

Ok.  After a lot of trying out different lenses. I am now happy with my new setup of lenses.  See my signature! I have kept the old 18-55 nikon f3.5-5.6g VR lens but have now sold my Coolpix P510 and the Sigma Lens to make way for new equipment.   
I am very happy with the clarity of the new lenses now. Plus some of these lenses will work on the next camera I get .. ( I hope ) maybe the replacement for the D800e, who knows!!


----------



## goodguy

jonathanbruce said:


> Ok.  After a lot of trying out different lenses. I am now happy with my new setup of lenses.  See my signature! I have kept the old 18-55 nikon f3.5-5.6g VR lens but have now sold my Coolpix P510 and the Sigma Lens to make way for new equipment.
> I am very happy with the clarity of the new lenses now. Plus some of these lenses will work on the next camera I get .. ( I hope ) maybe the replacement for the D800e, who knows!!


Ah so you got the 24-84mm VR
I have this lens, its such an awesome  lens that gets very little noticing because everybody wants the 24-70mm 2.8
Its so sharp and has a very good usable range and the VR on it really helps in low light situations, you are going to LOVE this lens!!!
Same about the 70-300mm VR, I also have this lens and use it all the time, for the price its just a magically sharp lens.
50mm 1.8G is a must have lens and there is very little to add, sharp, fast and affordable.

You got a fantastic camera and got a very good basic lens collection, I think you are set for a while.

Enjoy your new camera and lens collection and share some picture with us


----------



## JohnS.

How is the 24-85 VR? How different is it from the Non-VR model? For anyone that's had an 18mm or wider lens, does the difference really matter? Noticeable or no? I recently acquired the 18-105 as a walk-around only because the 18-55 was so insufficient for me... But obviously I will be looking to upgrade yet again in the future when my budget allows.

There are so many different lenses to choose from.... Makes me frustrated lol.


----------



## Juga

JohnS. said:


> How is the 24-85 VR? How different is it from the Non-VR model? For anyone that's had an 18mm or wider lens, does the difference really matter? Noticeable or no? I recently acquired the 18-105 as a walk-around only because the 18-55 was so insufficient for me... But obviously I will be looking to upgrade yet again in the future when my budget allows.
> 
> There are so many different lenses to choose from.... Makes me frustrated lol.



You might find that the 24mm isn't wide enough for you on a crop sensor.


----------



## goodguy

JohnS. said:


> How is the 24-85 VR? How different is it from the Non-VR model? For anyone that's had an 18mm or wider lens, does the difference really matter? Noticeable or no? I recently acquired the 18-105 as a walk-around only because the 18-55 was so insufficient for me... But obviously I will be looking to upgrade yet again in the future when my budget allows.
> 
> There are so many different lenses to choose from.... Makes me frustrated lol.


Depends of your photography.
For me in most cases I dont need any wider then 24 on my DX body but for the rare occasions that I do need to go a bit wider I have my Sigma 18-35mm but I rarely use it.
The 18-105mm VR is a very good lens, I wouldnt upgrade it to the 24-85mm VR
I had the 18-105mm VR and I liked it a lot, I think the 24-85mm VR is a bit sharper but not to a point that I would rush to upgrade to it from the 18-105mm VR.
The mina reason I went and got the 24-85mm VR was because I see myself getting a full frame camera in the future so I replaced my DX lenses with FX so I am ready to upgrade when ever my bank account will allow me.


----------



## JohnS.

goodguy said:


> The 18-105mm VR is a very good lens, I wouldnt upgrade it to the 24-85mm VR
> I had the 18-105mm VR and I liked it a lot, I think the 24-85mm VR is a bit sharper but not to a point that I would rush to upgrade to it from the 18-105mm VR.
> The mina reason I went and got the 24-85mm VR was because I see myself getting a full frame camera in the future so I replaced my DX lenses with FX so I am ready to upgrade when ever my bank account will allow me.



That's all I needed to hear. Thanks!


----------



## goodguy

JohnS. said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 18-105mm VR is a very good lens, I wouldnt upgrade it to the 24-85mm VR
> I had the 18-105mm VR and I liked it a lot, I think the 24-85mm VR is a bit sharper but not to a point that I would rush to upgrade to it from the 18-105mm VR.
> The mina reason I went and got the 24-85mm VR was because I see myself getting a full frame camera in the future so I replaced my DX lenses with FX so I am ready to upgrade when ever my bank account will allow me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all I needed to hear. Thanks!
Click to expand...

A good DX lens is the 16-85mm VR but while it is better then the 18-105mm VR it is again not Sooo good that I personally would bother to switch between the 18-105mm VR and it.
Personally I think for walking around the 18-105mm and 24-85mm are fantastic and if you really want to go a step up in quality without breaking the bank I would get few prime lenses.
Personally I would rather have a 24mm 50mm and 85mm prime lenses over one 24-70mm 2.8. They are faster and sharper then the 24-70mm and while not as comfortable as the zoom pro lens I think I still would rather have all these 3 over the 24-70mm


----------



## Derrel

First of all, we need to get one thing a bit more clear: there is no size or weight savings possible when making DX telephoto lenses. A 300mm f/2.8 lens for the old Olympus 4/3 system is the same length, and weight, as a 300mm f/2.8 lens that can cover a 24x36mm sensor. Telephoto lenses already have small image circles; there is NO DIFFERENCE in size or weight on telephoto lenses. None. A 135,180,200,300,400, whatever, for FX is the same size as one made for a DX sized image circle! A good part of the "smaller and lighter" mantra comes from making pathetically slow lenses for DX buyers, who've shown mostly an aversion to spending any serious money. YES, an 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 lens is small and light. The idea that FX lenses are "bigger and heavier" ignores the fact that most FX lenses are "fast" lenses, built to high-end levels, with wide apertures, likie f/1.4 or f/1.8 or f/2 or f/2.8, with fixed maximum aperture values, and definitely NOT variable max. apertures.

There's a huge difference in size between an f/3.5~5.6 lens and an f/2.8 lens; in some lenses like the 24-85mm f/2.8~4 AF-D lens, Nikon went from f/2.8 and allowed the aperture to drop a full f/stop value in order to keep the lens small. NOT because the lens covers FX, but because of the aperture values needed to keep the lens up in the high-end's expected light-gathering range...what "serious" shooters want to have.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK)

I went from an D7100 to an D610 for the FX sensor and so i did not have to think about the crop factor every time i bought an lens, also the buffer on the D610 is supposed to be 60% bigger than the D7100 one so you can take me frames before it chokes.

John.


----------



## Patrice

Solarflare said:


> Well, the D7100 is definitely the better allrounder. A full frame (which Nikon calls "FX") autofocus sensor in a APS-C (which Nikon calls "DX") camera, for example. Basically your AF covers most of your image area.
> 
> The D600 can use better glas though, and it has better low ISO capabilities, and it is still a general purpose camera just like the D7100.
> 
> _DX can use every piece of glass FX camera can._
> 
> The Nikon support for DX is simply pittiful. There still is no 24mm f1.8 DX, for example. All we have for DX are 4 primes: 2 macro (40mm and 85mm VR), 1 fisheye, and the 35mm f1.8 normal prime.
> 
> _Nikon DXX line up: 10-24, 12-24, 18-55, 16-85, 18-105, 18-200, 17-55, 18-140, 18-300, 55-200, 55-300, 35, 40, 10.5, 85 plus any of the FX lenses --- Hardly pitiful._
> 
> You can just buy the FX lenses instead, of course. But they are expensive, large, and thanks to the smaller sensor their focal lengths mean something different now.
> 
> _The premium DX lenses are not any less expensive or significantly smaller than the premium FX ones. Older premium FX lenses can be less expensive and work just as well on a DX camera. DX lenses, premium or not, are really not significantly smaller than FX lenses. The lens mount is the same size so the rest of the lens follows along. The focal length part of the statement is meaningless, on a DX sensor an 85mm DX lens gives you the same field of view as an 85mm FX lens - stated focal length does not change with a DX or FX moniker._



Just clearing up a couple of points.


----------



## Derrel

This review of the D7100 is a pretty good one for a basis of comparison between the D600 and the D7100. The D600 is so similar to the D610 that they can be considered pretty much as if they were the same camera. Nikon D7100 Review | byThom | Thom Hogan


----------



## jonathanbruce

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> I went from an D7100 to an D610 for the FX sensor and so i did not have to think about the crop factor every time i bought an lens, also the buffer on the D610 is supposed to be 60% bigger than the D7100 one so you can take me frames before it chokes.
> 
> John.



Well, I'm very happy with my setup now, and now I'm having fun taking photographs.  When I changed the lenses I did it so I'm ready for the next camera being an FX one. I didn't think about the crop factor when changing.
I might consider another lens later on.


----------

