| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Interesting article on the D600 v. D7100 debate on http://www.bythom.com in his article headed DX v. FX (again) on 23rd April.
Thats a very interesting read. Spookily echoes some of the thoughts I have about new generation cameras..... as I prepare an equipment thin down.
The key point for me is that while the quality and performance gap between the DX and FX bodies was obvious in the D3/D300 days...it is no longer the case.
Electronic wizardry has closed this gap such that the old maxim ...smaller pixels = higher noise = lower quality....is no longer as valid.
Unless you NEED to use ISO 6400 and/or print big. The cheaper DX would seem to be the best option. You can still use FX fast glass to optimise its quality (albeit having to be 1x5 wider to equate to FX).
As long as you recognise the need for more precise shooting technique (something we should all aspire to achieve!) then the choice is obvious.
But then there is this nebulus 'functionality' of the body to consider.
I know that when I pick up the D7000 it will not be as responsive as even my ageing D3.
I cant quite put my finger on one fault... its almost like a miniscule hesitation in each stage of the "get ready, focus, frame, fire" sequence that adds up to being sluggish compared to the D3.
A bit like a gunslinger...the D3 comes smoothly out of the holster, ****s and fires in one slick action. (not that I shoot like that of course!!!)
The D7000, in contrast, 'grabs' the holster leather, blinks at the sun, sees the subject and then fires. Its very close. But I still believe the D3 would win the responsiveness stakes, even if its IQ is now being overtaken.
Of course I need to see if the D7100 has now eroded even this functionality gap.
Last edited on Mon Apr 29th, 2013 05:11 by Eric
____________________
Eric