considering making the switch to FF.

I can remember the same arguments way back in high school photography. “110, oh what a joke, your joking right? Real photography is 35mm.” “Oh, I see you just have a 35mm, well I have a 2 ¼ square TLR it has better resolution than your smaller tiny film.” “Oh, 2 ¼ square isn’t anything compared to my 4x5, it will eat yours for lunch.”...

What about 126? :wink:


I guess cameras are like chain saws, not everyone needs the biggest professional Sthil or Husky saw, but it sure looks good in the back of your truck.


My chainsaw can RUN my truck.......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the last few weeks I have transformed my view of this FX vs DX.
All the time I was just looking for a reason to get an FX, all my lenses are ready as they are all FX and I just waited for the money to arrived, the problems I had with my old D7K caused me to get a new camera at time that I didn't plan and due to lack of funds I got the D7100.
I knew the D7100 is a good camera and I figured it will be "good enough" for the next 2 years till a REAL replacement to the D600 will arrive and then I will toss the D7100 like yesterday garbage and get it.
Well things has changed since then, the D7100 helped me to see the light, all the flaws of the D7000 are gone, it is such an amazing tool that I no longer am looking to replace it.
I think unless you are a pro or really using the camera a lot in low light then keep it.

Dont get me wrong my next camera will be FX, I also share the thought DSLR days are numbered but I also honestly believe that except in low light situation there isn't much of a different between D610 and the D7100 for the non pro user.
Today after few month of owning the D7100 I actually have the funds to upgrade to the D610 if I really, really wanted and I have no doubt that overall the D610 is the better camera but honestly the D7100 is so good that I simply will waste my money on getting something else.
In 2 years I will get an FX but not today and if I were you I would keep the D7100.

Just my 2c

I agree with your 2c. My D7100 is a powerful machine. It is more than satisfying when it comes to performance in 99% of situations. This camera was my "last" APS-C also. In 2 years or so, will camera systems have moved too far away from APS-C for my equipment to be worth anything? This is a substantial question to ask. With mirrorless interchangeable lens compacts gaining more and more marketshare, where does APS-C stand to be? Full Frame isn't going anywhere, this is a mathematical fact. Pro's use them and all the best lenses produced are for FF. APS-C, being geared towards the consumer, seems to be a dying format and as time goes on seems more and more irrelevant. I just don't want to make the shift too late, and lose most of what I have invested in.
 
IMO the only really good reason for most to go full frame is the ability to achieve a more narrow dof--this equates to about one stop difference, which is significant when you consider how much better some lenses perform just one stop down (your 50mm 1.8d for example.)

Low light performance on the d7100 is nearly.as good as last generations full frame which everybody raved about. Careful that you don't get caught in the "latest and greatest" money pit.
 
Just curious where did you see this?

No single place and primarily rumors around the web. But they're both 3+ years old. Canon's 2.0 update to the 7d adds weight to not being updated (my opinion). That and the price difference from the entry level FF's practically overlaps or is at least is very close.

Since the D300 was released the D90 and D7000 have been upgraded. The 7D came out when the 40D was out and there have been 4 upgrades (50D, 60D, 60Da and 70D) to that camera since then.

In my opinion, the D600 and the 6D were in fact the prosumer upgrades to the D300s and the 7D. Hence, Nikon pens the D7100 the flagship APS-C camera, a title that wasn't afforded to the D7000.
 
IMO the only really good reason for most to go full frame is the ability to achieve a more narrow dof--this equates to about one stop difference, which is significant when you consider how better much some lenses perform just one stop down (your 50mm 1.8d for example.)

Low light performance on the d7100 is nearly.as good as last generations full frame which everybody raved about. Careful that you don't get caught in the "latest and greatest" money pit.

I concur. I'm not trying to get caught in the "latest and greatest" cycle. I'm more trying to get the most out of my gear before it becomes irrelevent.
 
In the last few weeks I have transformed my view of this FX vs DX.
All the time I was just looking for a reason to get an FX, all my lenses are ready as they are all FX and I just waited for the money to arrived, the problems I had with my old D7K caused me to get a new camera at time that I didn't plan and due to lack of funds I got the D7100.
I knew the D7100 is a good camera and I figured it will be "good enough" for the next 2 years till a REAL replacement to the D600 will arrive and then I will toss the D7100 like yesterday garbage and get it.
Well things has changed since then, the D7100 helped me to see the light, all the flaws of the D7000 are gone, it is such an amazing tool that I no longer am looking to replace it.
I think unless you are a pro or really using the camera a lot in low light then keep it.

Dont get me wrong my next camera will be FX, I also share the thought DSLR days are numbered but I also honestly believe that except in low light situation there isn't much of a different between D610 and the D7100 for the non pro user.
Today after few month of owning the D7100 I actually have the funds to upgrade to the D610 if I really, really wanted and I have no doubt that overall the D610 is the better camera but honestly the D7100 is so good that I simply will waste my money on getting something else.
In 2 years I will get an FX but not today and if I were you I would keep the D7100.

Just my 2c

I agree with your 2c. My D7100 is a powerful machine. It is more than satisfying when it comes to performance in 99% of situations. This camera was my "last" APS-C also. In 2 years or so, will camera systems have moved too far away from APS-C for my equipment to be worth anything? This is a substantial question to ask. With mirrorless interchangeable lens compacts gaining more and more marketshare, where does APS-C stand to be? Full Frame isn't going anywhere, this is a mathematical fact. Pro's use them and all the best lenses produced are for FF. APS-C, being geared towards the consumer, seems to be a dying format and as time goes on seems more and more irrelevant. I just don't want to make the shift too late, and lose most of what I have invested in.

I think I am missing the point of your question.
If you were in the market now ready to buy a new camera and you would consider either the D610 or D7100 I would be the first one to say go with the D610 but you already have the D7100 so why not just keep it ?
Why rush to the D610 ?
Enjoy the D7100 and like me when you will be ready to replace it move then to an FX camera.
The current move from the D7100 to the D610 is simply not that big except when talking about low light performance so I just don't know why the strong need to upgrade ?

All you need to do is own FX lenses, when you will be ready to upgrade you just sell the body and get an FX camera.
 
IMO the only really good reason for most to go full frame is the ability to achieve a more narrow dof--this equates to about one stop difference, which is significant when you consider how much better some lenses perform just one stop down (your 50mm 1.8d for example.)

Low light performance on the d7100 is nearly.as good as last generations full frame which everybody raved about. Careful that you don't get caught in the "latest and greatest" money pit.

This is simply not true. The D7100 low light performance is nowhere near the D600. I own the D600 and have shot with the D7100 in low light so I've done my own hands on comparison and the D600 outshines the D7100 in low light by a significant margin.
 
I own the D7100. I'm considering the D600 due to the price drop. My primary reasons for upgrading to full frame is low light performance and possible irrelevence of APS-C format in the near future. Waiting to switch could end up costing me dearly.
 
This is simply not true. The D7100 low light performance is nowhere near the D600. I own the D600 and have shot with the D7100 in low light so I've done my own hands on comparison and the D600 outshines the D7100 in low light by a significant margin.

I think he was referring to the D700 full frame. What I am noticing is APS-C sensors seem to be at a plateau in terms of low light hi ISO numbers.

For example, the D7100 has very similar ISO/noise ratio numbers as the D7000 and D5200. The low light performace of the D7000 was significantly better than the D90. Just an observation I had.
 
Well I really cant say too many bad things about the D600, it is a fantastic camera, as long as you will not be hit with one with serious oil/dust issues then you will have a better camera.
Financially I don't think there will be much difference in 2 years when it will be replaced by a new FX camera, actually I think the D7100 might even be worth more but who knows.
In any case I am keeping my D7100 and has no intentions to replace it any time soon, it simply is too good to do that.
I tried my D7100 in a night street festival down town Toronto about 2 weeks ago, I put my new beloved 50mm 1.4D lens and the results were no short of STUNNING, simply too good, just love my camera :heart:

In any case good luck and if you decide to go ahead and get a D600 I know you will love it :)
 
Sold my D300 and 17-55 f2.8 in favor of a D700 and 28-70 f2.8. Happy I did. Mission complete.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top