Nikon D7100 Vs. D600

[timarp000]

I want to use 3200 for night and star photography

 

[SCraig]

I want to use 3200 for night and star photography

I shot night and star photography decades ago with ISO 200 and 400 film.

 

[timarp000]

Im leaning towards the D7100 as its cheaper. What lenses do I buy with it?

This is what Ive found
D7100 - $897.95
18-70 f/3.5-4.5 - $288.99
70-300 VR - $459.95
85mm f/3.5 Macro - $526.95

TOTAL - $2174

 

[SEMiller]

Im leaning towards the D7100 as its cheaper. What lenses do I buy with it?

This is what Ive found
D7100 - $897.95
18-70 f/3.5-4.5 - $288.99
70-300 VR - $459.95
85mm f/3.5 Macro - $526.95

TOTAL - $2174

I would suggest you do your research on bestpricephoto before you make your purchase from there. There is a reason why those prices are so low.

 

[timarp000]

Im leaning towards the D7100 as its cheaper. What lenses do I buy with it?

This is what Ive found
D7100 - $897.95
18-70 f/3.5-4.5 - $288.99
70-300 VR - $459.95
85mm f/3.5 Macro - $526.95

TOTAL - $2174

I would suggest you do your research on bestpricephoto before you make your purchase from there. There is a reason why those prices are so low.

Oh my god! Thank you so much! I read a bunch of reviews all of them saying its a scam! I wont buy from them...

 

[timarp000]

Can someone please tell me where else to find the 18-70?

 

[SEMiller]

Can someone please tell me where else to find the 18-70?

Adorama has several used for around $135.00. I would not hesitate to buy one used at that price if you have your heart set on that lens. otherwise get the 18-105, which gives you extra reach.

 

[timarp000]

How is the 16-85 VR? How does it compare to the 18-105 VR?

 

[SEMiller]

How is the 16-85 VR? How does it compare to the 18-105 VR?

Start here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon-lenses/323776-16-85-vs-18-105-a.html

I started with an 18-55 which I found was not long enough most of the time. I'm happy with the 18-105.

 

[raventepes]

The 16-85 IS noticeably sharper, though not by too much, actually. With good technique, a lot of it sharpens up in PS fairly well and it would take a trained eye to notice much difference. The 18-105 is my standard walkaround lens, actually. Nice little lens. I was hesitant at first because it's a "kit lens", but Nikon produced something better than I imagined. I do use the 16-85 quite often too though, too. Paired with the Tokina 11-16 (pro II), and the Nikkor 70-300 f/4.5-5.6, it provides decent coverage from ultra-wide to telephoto.

 

[timarp000]

I think you got most of the facts except the D7100 dynamic range is just as good as the D600

I just bought the D7100 and I didnt get the D600 because of one reason................I couldnt afford the D600.
All my lenses are FX so thats not the problem, I needed to add close to 1000$ and I just didnt have the money.

I say if you can afford the D600 then get it.
If not the d7100 is an AWESOME camera!!!

So in a way this is a win/win situation because both cameras are top notch machines, you just need to decided what you want.

How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?

 

[480sparky]

How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?

Not well at all, in terms of FOV. You'd be far better off with the kit 18-55.

 

[timarp000]

How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?

Not well at all, in terms of FOV. You'd be far better off with the kit 18-55.

He owns the Lens so I would like to know his opinion but anyway, why wont it be good with the D7100? Spec wise, it seems good. It has a larger aperture at 85mm than any other lens! Is it because its not wide enough?

 

[goodguy]

How does the 24-85 cope up with the D7100? Is it wide enough for good landscapes?

Not well at all, in terms of FOV. You'd be far better off with the kit 18-55.

He owns the Lens so I would like to know his opinion but anyway, why wont it be good with the D7100? Spec wise, it seems good. It has a larger aperture at 85mm than any other lens! Is it because its not wide enough?

I answered to your other question about 16-85mm vs 24-85mm
For 10 days I was at the Rockies almost all my landscape shots were taken on my 24-85 VR and I loved the results (except the haze which is not a lens problem and is unavoidable).
In very few cases the lens was indeed a bit to wide and for these very few cases I used my Sigma 18-35mm, old lens not best quality but still very good and cost me only 84$ used.

The problem (or advantage depends how you look at it) of the 24-85mm VR is that its an FX lens and not a DX lens which means that when its say 24-85mm it really is bigger on a DX body camera like your D7100, un less I am mistaken you need to multiply it by 1.5 so on a DX camera its really 36-127.5mm so you are loosing a bit in the wide and gaining in the higher zoom.
I need to remind I use my 24-85mm VR on the D7100 and am super happy with it especially with what this lens cost me but what might work for me might now work for you, you will need to decide whats good for you.
Just to consider one more advantage, if you will ever buy a full frame FX body camera you will have a lens ready for you while if you will get the 16-85mm VR you will need to sell it and get an FX lens (Just a thought).

 

[DepthOfFocus]

HUGE Pro for the D7100 (or any DX body for that matter):

Much cheaper lenses. You can get a 17-55 much cheaper than a 24-70.

I wouldn't say there's significantly more dynamic range with FX/D600. I've moved from a D7000 to a D700 and BARELY notice a difference with landscapes or portaits with ideal lighting conditions.