D610 vs D7100. (FX vs DX)

[bc_steve]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.