Nikon D600 vs D7100

[fjrabon]

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]

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?

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.

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.

There isn't a such thing as a f/1.8 zoom for FX

So use a prime

 

[pixmedic]

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]

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?

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.

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.

There isn't a such thing as a f/1.8 zoom for FX

So use a prime

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

There isn't a such thing as a f/1.8 zoom for FX

So use a prime

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

There isn't a such thing as a f/1.8 zoom for FX

So use a prime

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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.

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).

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)