got a good offer n I purchase the d600 instead, despite the oil n dust issue.
there r members saying the iq between d5100 n d7100 is ver similar. but trying d600 with my same lens -90mm f2.8 n 70-300 vc usd, I can tell u the colour, dof n sharpness have improve tremendously.
if image sensor, camera n lens r not an important factor of taking a great pic, and its the person behind the camera who play the most important part, then I reckon a p7100 vs a d4s photographer with the same skill, should not make any diff.
then y ppl spend thousands of dollars on 1 len n camera?
Im glad that I make a rite decision
Last edited by BT5100; 13th April 2014 at 12:26 PM.
can you tell the difference? Tell me which is shot with D4 and which is shot with D7100?
In the end, only your skill and know how matters. when you buy a camera like D4, then main things are the speed, AF and other factors. Hope you have good luck tracking birds in flight and small fast active birds with the D600. D7100 AF and tracking will blow the D600 away.
Last edited by daredevil123; 13th April 2014 at 12:56 PM.
Let me guess .. only pic 2 is d4
in the previous post, 1 member mention he have no much problem taking wild life with his d5100.
btw if given a scenario,
A guy uses d40 with tamron 70-300mm macro
B guy uses D4s n nikon 300mm f2.8 vr2
both with the same skill n asked to take wild life pic atthe same place, time. who do u think will accomplish the mission or accomplish it in shorter time?
D5100 is a good camera n im sure it can take good pic of wild life but u take more effort n time.
Y everyone only mention ff len on a dx body will x 1.5times focal length but nv inform newbies it also x 1.5times the aprrture?
If I use my 70-300 usd vc ff tamron lens, at 300mm, my max aperture is f8.2, even the vc can reduce 4 stop, its still not fast enough.
Try taking a flying bird with f8++ n d5100 af system.
Last edited by BT5100; 13th April 2014 at 03:15 PM.
Last edited by rhino123; 13th April 2014 at 04:15 PM.
Im a newbie too.
For wild life n specially flying birds, u need long focal length n most dx lens dont give either as good quality n speed compare to fx len. Thus dx user will buy fx len on the dx body. Plus point - focal lenght x 1.5 times, negative point - aperture x 1.5times.
So example if u use a tamron 70-200 f2.8
At 200mm x 1.5 = 300mm
Aperture f2.8 x 1.5 = f4.2
Which is stil ok but if u uses other lens like I mention the tamron 70-300mm vc usd 4-5.6, the aperture will be much smaller n u have to increase to iso higher n which dx camera tends to have more noise than the fx.
I think most people think that cropped sensor is still desirable for wildlife not just because of the crop factor... but precisely of the deeper DOF, which can be easier to get the desirable result. Of course there is nothing wrong with using the FF for wildlife shots. Like you have also mentioned, in the hands of skilled photographer, using crop sensor camera can also produce great images, it just take more effort and in my opinion, it is that extra effort that can make things fun. After all, alot of people are not professionals who wanted to earn a living out of photography.
oh... and I do a bit of surfing...
This guy is using a 1100D entry level DSLR with a entry level zoom lens (55-250mm) and the image is spectacular too.
Last edited by rhino123; 13th April 2014 at 04:49 PM.
The 1.5x on the aperture only affects the equivalent depth of field and not the exposure per se. So nothing to do with IS or shutter speed etc.
It affects the depth of field which, at such telephoto range and close-to-infinity focus, really doesn't mean much.
Don't understand it. If TS is so convinced on the superiority of FX over DX for the specific task of shooting birds, why bother to ask the questions here & then argue over the answers given. He has not answered Daredevils questions, because I don't think he can discern the real difference in the images nor understand the true advantage of using one format over the other & thinks it is all just about IQ (not that which do with the brains). Wonder what FX lens he got with his D600, the 70-300, 70-200?. Maybe end of day, like he said, FX makes him looks good & appears to give him more "power"
TS, its not that gears don't make a difference, but its not the difference you are asking & concerned about here & which others have advised...
Last edited by s1221ljc; 13th April 2014 at 11:19 PM.
Image 1 & 3 is D4?
Last edited by daredevil123; 14th April 2014 at 12:36 AM.
If shooting birds, one guy with a 300/2.8 on D610. And one guy with the same lens 300/2.8 with a D7100. which will be able to shoot birds better and easier? Answer is D7100 by a large margin.
Problem is, do you even know why the D7100 is better than D610/D600 in birding? Have you even try to understand it?
Turn around, if shooting street photography at night with a standard prime. D7100 on 35/1.8 and D600/D610 on 50mm (almost same FOV), D600/D610 might be able to do it better. And do you even know why? Have you even try to understand it?
A person who shoots well and have good knowledge will instantly know why. That is why professional shooters uses different kind of equipment for different kinds of work. There is no one body to rule them all.
By the way, you haven't answered my question. Can you tell which pics are from D4 and which are from D7100? Can you tell with 100% certainty? All four pics are shot with the same lens (AF-S 300/2.8). So it takes the question of lens totally away. Now it is just a pure comparison between D7100 (DX) and D4 (best of the FX, at that time). And have you even try to consider why I sometimes use D7100 and sometimes D4 when I have both with me? Why choose one over another?
Last edited by daredevil123; 14th April 2014 at 12:35 AM.
Last edited by daredevil123; 14th April 2014 at 12:38 AM.