difference between FX and DX cameras

[Derrel]

Both are good cameras. Both are built on basically, the same chassis and out of the same parts bins. The term "entry-level full frame" could also be described as, "mid-level enthusiast body," or "semi-professional FX body", but the full-frame line in Nikon has for the most part been TOP-grade cameras like the D3,D3s,D3x,and D4...by comparison to those bodies, yes, the D600 and D610 are "entry-level", but they are also wayyyyy ahead of the original Canon 5D and the 5D Mark II, which were for the better part of a decade, a "standard, professional wedding/portrait" camera model...you know...a $380 Canon EOS Elan body, with a FF sensor slid into it, and pretty much zero other features...no flash, no flash commander, color blind metering, slow mirror return time, slow FPS rate, slow X-synch speed, modest buffer, and a 9-area AF system with ALL the focus points literally CRAMMED into a tiny, center-ONLY diamond shape.

My point is--don't get hung up on the "entry-level full frame" way of looking at a D600 or D610. And the D7100? Outstanding image quality. BEST sensor in ANY APS-C camera from any maker. My point is what Nikon shooters call "entry-level full-frame" is really a way to differentiate from "Flagship-level D3s/D3x/D4 build quality and feature sets" and "world's highest-resolution D800e body in a high-end consumer build".

Each camera has some plusses. Either one is pretty advanced, considering how simple some d-slr's from three years ago were. Either one is a decent choice.

I prefer FX. Many long-lens users vastly prefer DX.

 

[jaomul]

Just to add, while money may not be an obstacle, equivilant field of view lenses for fullframe sensor cameras are bigger, heavier and more expensive.
Also nikon have a limited amount of crop only lenses, so you may need third party lenses to fill the gaps. This may or may not be an issue for you

 

[photaholic]

so essentially it would be wiser to get the D7100 and spend the rest of the amount on good lens

and if a good photographer takes pics with both the cameras i can expect to see almost same quality in the pics taken by both the cameras ?

 

[jaomul]

The d7100 is a great camera. The % of people who need more is small.

 

[photaholic]

so essentially it would be wiser to get the D7100 and spend the rest of the amount on good lens

and if a good photographer takes pics with both the cameras i can expect to see almost same quality in the pics taken by both the cameras ?

please answer this im about to make a call and purchase one of them today

 

[Derrel]

Okay, here's my personal take. Nikon has a great set of lenses for FX Nikons. Indoors, the small, light 24mm 2.8 AF-D, 35/2 AF-D, and 50/1.8 AF-D are my personal favorites for parties and events with or without flash. Indoors, the 35mm f/2 AF-D is a good lens for bounce flash, and covers about one foot left-to-right for every foot back you are from a group. The angle of view is not overtly wide, so bounced flash does not need to be "wide-wide" and can in fact, be done best with the flash head zoomed to 70 to 105mm and bounced. On FX, the 28-70 is a good lens, as is the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D, or the 24-70mm lenses from Nikon or Tamron make good WIDE/Normal/short TELE zooms. Indoors, the 70-200 f/2.8 is USEFUL, because of the wider field of view the FX sensor yields.

For INDOOR WORK, FX rules, in my book, because of how it interacts with the 24,28,35,50,and 85mm primes, as well as the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. With an FX camera, a 35mm and an 85mm can cover many events. The 24mm FX NIkon sensors are sooooooo good too. Amazing image quality, color, and DETAIL, and great High-ISO capabilities. You can shoot with a 35mm, and throw away half of the frame with a 24MP FX Nikon, and still make a nice picture.

 

[Dao]

so essentially it would be wiser to get the D7100 and spend the rest of the amount on good lens

and if a good photographer takes pics with both the cameras i can expect to see almost same quality in the pics taken by both the cameras ?

please answer this im about to make a call and purchase one of them today

In certain situations, the answer is yes. In some other situations, the answer is no. It is hard to say without knowing what the photographer try to do.


A wide view landscape photos between 10mm on dx body and 16mm on fx body may not have much difference. A studio portrait photos for magazine may not matter much etc,

 

[runnah]

About a thousand bucks!

Haha lol rotfl!!!

 

[photaholic]

Finally went with D610 and recieved it yesterday ..

hopefully i made a good Choice we will see .................

 

[Dao]

You made a good choice either way. Happy shooting!

 

[JacaRanda]

Finally went with D610 and recieved it yesterday ..

hopefully i made a good Choice we will see .................

Based on not being a fan of sports nor wildlife, you made the best choice. You will be a happy camper (as long as there is no wildlife )

 

[JerryLove]

the D600 and D610 are "entry-level", but they are also wayyyyy ahead of the original Canon 5D and the 5D Mark II [...] modest buffer

D7100 buffer in 14-bit RAW = 6 shots.
D600 buffer in 14-bit RAW = 16 shots (Nikon D7100 vs D600)
5DMkII buffer in RAW = 13 shots (Canon EOS-5D Mark II Review | Digital Camera Resource Page)

The 5DMkII (which is out-of-date, replaced with the MkIII) is more than double the buffer of the D7100, and not far behind the D600.

Otherwise the D600 and 5DmkII are very similar cameras, at very similar prices. The Nikon does edge it out in most categories; but not by the large margins suggested.

Of course, on Specs, I think the somewhat more expensive Sony A99 beats them both.

Comparing the (mentioned) D7100 to the 70D doesn't have a simple winner; what the photographer wants to do would determine which features are more important (the 70D has a better buffer, smaller image files (compensating for the single SD slot), better focus in video, a better lens for video, better focus when back-lit, better tracking, etc; while the Nikon has better low-light performance, a focus assist light for focusing in darkness (I could really have used that a couple days ago), wider dynamic range, better in-camera HDR, more MP, and (in most cases) better moire-pattern behaviors).

Now that I think of it: I'm surprised Nikon hasn't taken advantage of the dual-memory slots to write to alternating cards and double the write performance in continuous shooting. I'll add it to the list of things camera makers seem to have mostly glossed over (like in-body image stabilization (excepting Sony)).