Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 143338" data-attributes="member: 9240">Outside of the possible, possible exception of trying to pixel peep a leopard that is further away than your equipment will allow for, there's nothing here that screams to me DX over FX.&nbsp; Unless your only true concern is pixels per animal and enlarging your prints beyond an 8x10, then there's nothing that the D600 won't win on - in my experience at least.&nbsp; Plus you make it sound as if the D7100 is a pro level DX while the D600 is just a decent consumer grade FX. I've got news for you, they're practically the same body - both are based on the D7000 and consumer grade bodies of almost identical construction.&nbsp; And the idea of &quot;reach&quot; is really a fallacy.&nbsp; What you're calling reach is really just a 1.5 pre-cropping.&nbsp; So your real question is not about reach it's about resolution. Otherwise a D800 would have more &quot;reach&quot; than the D600, which would have more &quot;reach&quot; than the D700.&nbsp; The differenceis not reach, the difference is pixel density post-crop.&nbsp; Period!!I'm not saying that's not important, but I would ask how often will pixels per animal be your criteria for a shot and not all the other factors that go into IQ - like low light performance, light information per pixel and all those other things that pixel density buys or costs you?&nbsp; I have not shot with the D7100, so I can't comment on what I see from it.&nbsp; But I have shot plenty of wildlife with the D7000, D600 and D800.&nbsp; I can't see myself owning another DX camera with the possible exception of an IR conversion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 143338, member: 9240"] Outside of the possible, [B][I]possible[/I][/B] exception of trying to pixel peep a leopard that is further away than your equipment will allow for, there's nothing here that screams to me DX over FX. Unless your [B][I]only [/I][/B]true concern is pixels per animal and enlarging your prints beyond an 8x10, then there's nothing that the D600 won't win on - in my experience at least. Plus you make it sound as if the D7100 is a pro level DX while the D600 is just a decent consumer grade FX. I've got news for you, they're practically the same body - both are based on the D7000 and consumer grade bodies of almost identical construction. And the idea of "reach" is really a fallacy. What you're calling reach is really just a 1.5 pre-cropping. So your real question is not about reach it's about resolution. Otherwise a D800 would have more "reach" than the D600, which would have more "reach" than the D700. The differenceis not reach, the difference is pixel density post-crop. Period!! I'm not saying that's not important, but I would ask how often will pixels per animal be your criteria for a shot and not all the other factors that go into IQ - like low light performance, light information per pixel and all those other things that pixel density buys or costs you? I have not shot with the D7100, so I can't comment on what I see from it. But I have shot plenty of wildlife with the D7000, D600 and D800. I can't see myself owning another DX camera with the possible exception of an IR conversion. [/QUOTE]

Verification