I was asked to post some test shots taken with the Tamron 16-300mm lens if I ever got one in. I special ordered one for a customer and HAD to open it and check it for damage. Just to make sure there were no problems I mounted it on my 70D and grabbed a couple shots of some of the artificial flowers in front of the store to see what the zoom would do. I have to say that compared to the Canon 18-200mm lens I had awhile ago, this Tamron looks like a real winner in the image quality and sharpness departments. Not quite an L quality lens maybe, but at $629 its definitely a good choice for an all-in-one walk around lens.
EXIF data is intact, no editing, straight out of the camera JPGs.
I hope this helps those interested in this lens as I cannot take any more pics with it, my customer is on his way to pick it up.

You say no camera modifications or PP.... What you are not saying though is whether both cameras are set to the same parameters in the camera system (sharpening, saturation et al). Even if they are, do the cameras have the same processors ? That can affect the outcome as well.... Bottom line is the images should be better with the D600, but when doing comparisons, things have to be exactly the same in order for a fair comparison......Oh, and online images won't cut it. You have to print images as online images will look good due to lower monitor resolutions as opposed to printer resolutions
...

Both are good cameras and used properly should give similar results.
I shoot using a Cognisys rail on a desk rig, take notes on every shot, pictures of lighting setups and can replicate sets of frames beginning and ending on specific hairs of a subject with no more effort than pushing a button.

Comparing camera bodies should be cut and dried.
I did and don't like the results.
The 800 is adequate and the 7100 stinks.

I do not think i should have seen any real difference.
Does anyone have any thoughts to share on this?