# D600!!!



## molested_cow (Sep 12, 2012)

Nikon D600: A Professional Camera This Awesome Cannot Possibly Be This Cheap

The big question is, why didn't they start selling this a year earlier?????
This camera is (almost) everything i was looking for when i bought the D700. FF, video, light weight and compact. The D700 is a bit heavy and without video. The D700 has nice controls and I almost rarely have to use the menu to change settings, I don't think the D600 will be much of a hassle either.

I guess there's just one question I have. Will the D600 be compatible with older lens, like AF-D and Ai-S lens?


----------



## nmoody (Sep 13, 2012)

Price is higher than anticipated but I think its still a really nice deal. I see myself purchasing this body in 4-6 months.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

B&H Photo did a nice "In Depth" overview piece on the new Nikon D600, located at this link The New Nikon D600 HDSLR: Bridging the Gap Between Professional and Enthusiast | BH inDepth

Looking at the OFFICIAL Nikon D600 page, they state that the lens is compatible with "*Nikon F-mount (with AF coupling and AF contacts)*" Nikon | Imaging Products | Specifications - Nikon D600

In the official Nikon D600 photos, I can literally SEE the in-body screw-drive "drive cog" at the 7 o'clock position on the stainless steel lens mount; in the dPreview hands-on preview article, I can see what appears to be an AI coupling follower at the normal 1 o-clock position, so it appears that the camera might meter with AI or Ai-s lenses. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/13/Nikon-D600-preview

But, AF-D Nikkors--YES!!!! Metering and AF with the AF-D mount lenses. For sure!


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 13, 2012)

So if I want to get the D600, is there any reason to keep my D700?


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Sep 13, 2012)

molested_cow said:


> I guess there's just one question I have. Will the D600 be compatible with older lens, like AF-D and Ai-S lens?



Yes it has a built in motor.

and about keeping the D700, It still has better built quality and its a pro body that is bigger and more compfy..but it depends on how and where you shoot to be able to decide if that's a big factor for you or not...


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

Curious does anyone else wonder why Nikon arbitrarily limited the shutter to 1/4000s? Does anyone foresee a problem with this if shooting wide open in the day? Probably going to go a day shooting f1.4-2.8 during the morning-late afternoon and see how often at aperture priority will my shutter jump above the 1/4000 mark at the base iso (200 for my camera). 

Not sure about flash sync speed as I have yet to dable with a flash but its also been reduced to 200; even the D7000 has both of these at the usual 'standard' of 8000s and 250 respectively.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

It's here... But I'm not getting one. 1/4000 shutter is a deal breaker.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

rpm said:


> Curious does anyone else wonder why Nikon arbitrarily limited the shutter to 1/4000s? Does anyone foresee a problem with this if shooting wide open in the day? Probably going to go a day shooting f1.4-2.8 during the morning-late afternoon and see how often at aperture priority will my shutter jump above the 1/4000 mark at the base iso (200 for my camera).
> 
> Not sure about flash sync speed as I have yet to dable with a flash but its also been reduced to 200; even the D7000 has both of these at the usual 'standard' of 8000s and 250 respectively.




Its been said in other places that it was a trade off because the D600 goes down to ISO100. 1/4000th as ISO100 is the same as 1/8000th at ISO200.


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Its been said in other places that it was a trade off because the D600 goes down to ISO100. 1/4000th as ISO100 is the same as 1/8000th at ISO200.




its only a trade if the two is not possible together but i highly doubt thats the case; i feel it was very arbitrary to not have the camera cannibalise sales from the D800 which is only proved further by the flash sync + a grip that doesn't boost the fps of the camera. then there's also the use of D7000's 39 and not even the D700's 51 points. I think Nikon learnt a lesson with a D700 and i think they don't want to repeat the same 'mistake' accidentally this time. 

while what you're saying is true that really does depend on the aperture and conditions during the day. people will say you can use an ND filter but still...at this price point some of those trade offs really don't make much sense unless you look at Nikon's overall line up and the risk of cannibalisation


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

rpm said:


> its only a trade if the two is not possible together but i highly doubt thats the case;





Of course it isn't the case, because the D7000 has 1/8000th and ISO100, but they couldn't have an "entry" level FF camera that's actually better than the D800. So I completely agree with you.

And personally, the price point is STILL to high for my pocketbook at the moment. I'll be holding out for a low use, good condition D700!


----------



## ghache (Sep 13, 2012)

I am glad I waited for it and didn't not buy a use d700 at 1800$ +- (thats what they where selling it around here) when nobody knew how much was the replacement 

<------------- happy camper.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

ghache said:


> I am glad I waited for it and didn't not buy a d700.
> 
> <------------- happy camper.




The D700 is still a better camera all the way around in my opinion.


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

overall maybe but it edges out only by the lack of imposed limitations on the body and grip design but the D600 will most likely have a great sensor (probably being better than the D800 or equal to minus the pixel resolution). i'm just waiting on reviews to see if these limitations aren't a problem esp for portrait use, street work and using lenses wide open in various conditions. 

but these guys aren't happy with the flash sync already: Strobist: Nikon D600: Think Twice Before You Jump


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

HAHAHAHA!!! *Snort* That's funny... "Game Over!" LOL




			
				Strobist said:
			
		

> Which leads me to the absolute deal-breaker for me for this camera&#8230;
> 
> 
> It Has a 1/200th Sync
> ...


----------



## eric1971 (Sep 13, 2012)

Pretty shocked by the price.  I don't really see how Nikon is justifying it.  It makes sense at $1500.  The 1/4000 max shutter speed and 1/200 max sync don't even match the D7000 and consumers are expected to pay the price of two D7000s in order to get the full frame sensor?  Spending more for a D800 or picking up a used D700 both seem like better options to me.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 13, 2012)

Not being a nikon shooter my 2 cents is kind of worthless, but I have never been known for keeping it to myself...

It seems like the funky half backward step that the Canon 6D is rumored to be.


----------



## sleist (Sep 13, 2012)

I'll keep shooting my D700 and D90 until the D400 comes out.  This looks like a nice cam for people moving up from anything below the D7000 who have little DX glass investment or bought only FX compatible lenses.
I think there are serious questions people need to ask themselves before replacing any body from the D7000 up.  There are compromises that will matter to some people far more than others.
FX alone doesn't solve any problems, you still need good glass (which means more $$), and you lose DX reach and frame rate.

On a side note: I wonder now if the D600 stats were intentionally leaked by Nikon to keep people on the hook (and maybe try, unsuccessfully, to keep people from buying a D800 they really don't need).
I see good reason for them to push people toward this camera before sneaking out a D400 surprise at the end of the year at $1699 USD, body only.
I guess we'll find out eventually.

Oh, and did people REALLY think this was going to be $1599?  That was just silly.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> It seems like the funky half backward step that the Canon 6D is rumored to be.




I don't know that its a step backward... but it sure wasn't a huge leap forward. Its like they kinda threw a D7000 and a D800 in a bag, shook them up, and threw together what they could. To someone coming in who may not have a camera it may be good, but those of us already using a camera it's not really an advancement.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like the funky half backward step that the Canon 6D is rumored to be.
> ...



That's kind of what the rumors on the 6d are. Toss in a 5d2 and a 7d and shake lightly. Whatever vomits out is what you get.
Someone here (derrel maybe?) said it's likely a bid to capture a corner of the used sale market. Wise if you are a stock holder I guess.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Whatever vomits out is what you get.




LOL! So their kinda like Honey Boo Boo... the lovechild of two "_extraordinary_" people?


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 13, 2012)

Aliens vs predator
Monsters vs Aliens


----------



## Designer (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> It seems like the funky half backward step that the Canon 6D is rumored to be.



I makes one wonder how these companies fill their marketing rosters.

Probably with "marketing school graduates".


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 13, 2012)

If you think about it, it really does make dollars and sense. It just doesn't make US happy. WHich is fine with them. I am not the target market for this camera and even if I were in the Nikon market I wouldn't be. 
If you are shooting with an entry level like the million and one people we see shooting with the 5100's, D90 and even some of the 7000's who want full frame they can jump in at $2100 for a BRAND NEW full frame instead of buying a  used one for $1800-2000. It's a no brainer. If I were wanting to go full frame from the DX entry level's I'd buy the D600 with no actuations on it and a full warranty and skip the used camera market altogether.


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Aliens vs predator



Alien vs Predator is amazing concept - play the games and read the comics. the movies just didnt work; they should have really tried basing it of the comics-games than try and make it happen in contemporary setting and not in the settings of the games/comic

I'm waiting for a baby D4 as was the original D700 was a D3 baby; but with the release of the D600 at its price point. I just honestly do not see how another camera would fit unless everything gets pushed down a few hundred dollars and a D700s comes out (wishful thinking). However maybe a revised D600 comes out once a D4s comes out...and they bring in proper 1/8000s shutter and flash sync once the sales set in


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I'd buy the D600 with no actuations on it and a full warranty and skip the used camera market altogether.



That really depends...either you're knowledgeable of the spec sheets and that you're fully aware you're losing out in some aspects and you're a happy camper...or you got no clue and see full frame. jump on it. realise there's just something quite different about how the camera is functioning with your flashes and your lenses....then you'll come onto the forum and raise a qn and then we'll refer you to the spec sheet and then you'll reevaluate how you felt about the jump.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 13, 2012)

rpm said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > I'd buy the D600 with no actuations on it and a full warranty and skip the used camera market altogether.
> ...


Oh, they'll be a comin'. That's a given. It's going to be exactly what you said


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

I'm a Nikon fan, no doubt. But they're out of their damn minds charging that much. They've overpriced this clunker by a minimum of $300 in my book. I can get a gently used D3 with less than 75,000 clicks for that same $2,099. Given this extremely disappointing development, I can't see any way that we'll see the D400 upgrade any time soon. No room in their portfolio.

Nikon missed badly here. Their primary market are the wannabe pros and advanced amateurs who have been drooling over FX for a while. But the problem is, when MWAC walks into Best Buy and see the $2k D600 sitting next to the $900 D7000 that is 90% the same camera, which one do you think soccer mom is going to pick?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> ... and even some of the 7000's who want full frame they can jump in at $2100 for a BRAND NEW full frame instead of buying a  used one for $1800-2000. It's a no brainer.




With the image quality I get from the D7000.... I'd just as soon buy TWO of those for the price of the D600. That $2100 price point was a big disappointment.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Sep 13, 2012)

Given that, in order to enjoy the benefits of full frame, you need several thousand dollar worth of glass (unless you only shoot with 2 or 3 F/1.8 primes), sacrificing the flagship AF, the half stop faster X-sync and the 1/8000 shutter speed for just 900 USD is not very appealing to me.

If I ever move to FF, it will be the D800.

Btw, these are just my own needs. I can very well understand that other people (e.g. landscape enthusiasts) care a lot less about AF, X-sync and fast shutter. For a lot of people, the D600 could be the ideal FF camera at an unprecedented low price.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 13, 2012)

yeah, having the D7000 and wanting to eventually go full frame it's just not looking like the jump I will make. now as i thinik Mleek mentioned, if I was still using my D3000 and was looking to make the jump. I might make that jump to get into full frame which could be it's market. yeah you can find better options on the used market, some people just want new, esp when it comes to electronics.


----------



## sleist (Sep 13, 2012)

> That $2100 price point was a big disappointment.



Unless the camera you want is a D400.  Then you're happy there's still room in the line-up for it.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

sleist said:


> Unless the camera you want is a D400.  Then you're happy there's still room in the line-up for it.





I think I've joined the boat that says the DX line wont be updated with a 'pro' body anymore.  Sorry to disappoint....


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

agreed. 3 DX. 3 FX. perfect split. if there is an update to the D7000 soon; that will be your pro body. and you got your entry. med range and pro level body...then you got entry fx. pro pixel body. pro speed body (after all FX isn't cheap so there's no need for incremental jumps; just one body to get you started before you commit to one road or another)


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:
			
		

> I think I've joined the boat that says the DX line wont be updated with a 'pro' body anymore.  Sorry to disappoint....



This.

I don't see any way Nikon releases another DX body like the D300(s). No room in their portfolio with D600 where it is. The update to the D7000 could very well incorporate some elements...maybe.

But hey, Nikon may be really dumb on this and release the D400 anyway. They sure weren't intelligent about this D600 offering. 

/rant


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 13, 2012)

I actually hope they do bring out a D400... considering that as a second body (mostly for Macro)... unless I decide to go with a Canon so I can get the MP65E lens for it. (My D7000 really sort of belongs to my GF now...  lol!)


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> unless I decide to go with a Canon



If you go Canon, I'm putting you on my ignore list.


----------



## sleist (Sep 13, 2012)

Something has to go between D7000 and D600 that's more than just a straight D7000 update.  It may not be the D400 exactly, but it won't be the D7100 either.
You're looking at a roughly $900 gap between bodies.  I don't see that lasting.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

Why not? The D300s is $1699, and I can remember when the D700 was $2699... that's a $1000 difference and how many years was it like that?


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

sleist said:


> Something has to go between D7000 and D600 that's more than just a straight D7000 update.  It may not be the D400 exactly, but it won't be the D7100 either.
> You're looking at a roughly $900 gap between bodies.  I don't see that lasting.




3 DX. 3 FX. entry. med range and pro level body...then you got entry fx. pro pixel body. pro speed body (after all FX isn't cheap so there's no need for incremental jumps; just one body to get you started before you commit to one road or another) - quoting myself from before.

atm the D3200 is closely priced to a D5100 and the D7000 is aged. all they have to do is update the last two and price them-spec them accordingly to push their prices to corresponding gaps. D5200 in the 1000 range. D7100 at the 1500 range; this is the most logical approach whilst having a logically-evently split portfolio without adding more cameras that are unnecessarily gimped here and there.


----------



## sleist (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Why not? The D300s is $1699, and I can remember when the D700 was $2699... that's a $1000 difference and how many years was it like that?



Not really the same thing.  That's a gap between the top spec DX and the bottom spec FX and the gap between these 2 formats was wider at that time.  I don't consider the D7000 to be a top spec DX body.


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

sleist said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > Why not? The D300s is $1699, and I can remember when the D700 was $2699... that's a $1000 difference and how many years was it like that?
> ...



maybe not as it is now. but keeping the same naming convention they could make the D7100 the pro-speced DX without adding more to the line up. 6 cameras is all you need. there is no need to have entry level. mid range. semi-pro and pro as Nikon used to have at the DX level.


----------



## sleist (Sep 13, 2012)

I don't care what they call it.  A D300s replacement is now a certainty.  It's just a matter of when, not if.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

rpm said:


> maybe not as it is now. but keeping the same naming convention they could make the D7100 the pro-speced DX without adding more to the line up. 6 cameras is all you need. there is no need to have entry level. mid range. semi-pro and pro as Nikon used to have at the DX level.




What's the current differences between the D300s and the D7000? Weather sealing and a bulky build?


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> rpm said:
> 
> 
> > maybe not as it is now. but keeping the same naming convention they could make the D7100 the pro-speced DX without adding more to the line up. 6 cameras is all you need. there is no need to have entry level. mid range. semi-pro and pro as Nikon used to have at the DX level.
> ...



for me i don't see the D7000 as part of the 'past line up' for me the past line up was D3000/D3100 D5000 D90 D300. i feel we don't need 4 DX cameras anymore; the D7000 was meant to replace the D90 (we all knew that). the D300 replacement never came. both the D3xxx and D5xxx got revised. for me in my mind they may just drop the D300-line and revise the DX line up with D3200, D5200 and a D7100. that could be their 'new' line and new approach. entry. mid. pro. dx offerings. we can all agree that from the upgrade to the D3xxx and the D5xxx and no mention of a D400 and we got ourselves a D600 and the D7000 has been out for some time (2 years) could mean a restructuring of the Nikon portfolio into a future of 6 cameras with a 3 way split on DX-FX line ups. again this is me making my own analysis of whats happening....i could be wrong

p.s. i wasn't sure if your qn was rhetorical or serious (i assumed the former)


----------



## TheLost (Sep 13, 2012)

sleist said:


> I don't care what they call it.  A D300s replacement is now a certainty.  It's just a matter of when, not if.



I will be very surprised if Nikon comes out with a new 'Pro' DX body. IMHO, DX will be dead in about 10 years.

Follow along with me....  Smaller Mirrorless cameras are eating into DX sales.  Nikon has been releasing less DX 'prosumer' lenses over the past 5 years, while at the same time releasing more consumer FX glass.  The price of manufacturing FX sensors is dropping, it won't be long before FX bodies can be had for DX prices.  When that happens... bye, bye DX.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

sleist said:
			
		

> I don't care what they call it.  A D300s replacement is now a certainty.  It's just a matter of when, not if.



Well, let's all just bow at your feet then, oh knower of all things.

A D300s replacement would severely cannibalize Nikon's other sales. The market for a spec'd out DX body is extremely small when compared to Nikon's other ventures. As the MP's continue to increase, the DX crop mode on the FX cameras becomes more and more useful. I imagine VERY few informed buyers would choose any DX body over a well equipped FX body with sufficient MP to get a great image from an in-camera DX crop (I.e. the D800's DX crop mode produces 16MP images, which are certainly enough for any application I've ever undertaken). Besides that, the market is moving mirrorless anyway. The DSLR only has about a decade or so left before the entire class of camera will be obsolete.

Of course, all this comes with the disclaimer that Nikon could be REALLY dumb and fulfill your prediction. They sure missed on the D600, so there's no telling.


----------



## rpm (Sep 13, 2012)

TheLost said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care what they call it.  A D300s replacement is now a certainty.  It's just a matter of when, not if.
> ...



Alternatively they make a mirrorless camera that has the DX sensor and an F-mount; hello new lease on the lifetime of the DX range....very possible and easily likely as well...

also you need to look at the FX lenses they releasing and how old those older designs were; a lot of the DX lenses today don't have nearly the same age as the AF-D lenses being replaced...


----------



## sleist (Sep 13, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just having a fun discussion here - no need to be an ass.
I'll leave now and rub your face in it when you're wrong in 2-4 months.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

rpm said:


> p.s. i wasn't sure if your qn was rhetorical or serious (i assumed the former)




I was serious.


----------



## DScience (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> It's here... But I'm not getting one. 1/4000 shutter is a deal breaker.
> 
> View attachment 20192



Agree. I wouldn't get it JUST because of the 1/4000.


----------



## coastalconn (Sep 13, 2012)

Not that it matters to everyone, but a better AF system, a bigger buffer and a dedicated AF-On switch (I know the AE-L can be programmed on the D7000),  Also several things I use often are the M/C/S switch, and the metering switch, and I personally had the scene mode dial   Not a fan of AF-A on my D90 either...  I have a D300, D200 (IR) and a D90 fwiw...

I have been saying for awhile that Nikon will merge into 3 dx cameras.  The D3200 is here, I see a D5200 being a D5100 and a D7000 merge, flippy screen no af motor for instance,  Then a D7200 or D400 whatever you want to call it with a D300 body and tweaked D7000 sensor and the D4 AF system.  Then everyone can be happy or at least I will be 



ChristopherCoy said:


> rpm said:
> 
> 
> > maybe not as it is now. but keeping the same naming convention they could make the D7100 the pro-speced DX without adding more to the line up. 6 cameras is all you need. there is no need to have entry level. mid range. semi-pro and pro as Nikon used to have at the DX level.
> ...


----------



## TheLost (Sep 13, 2012)

Take a D7000.... Drop in a bigger buffer.. Add the D800 AF system.. Beef up the weather sealing.. *Boosh* D7200 is the new D300s.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> Not that it matters to everyone, but a better AF system, a bigger buffer




I don't get the buffer thing. Whats the big deal about a buffer? Unless your spraying and praying?

I can understand a bigger buffer for sports - _maybe_, but even then there has *GOT *to be _some _anticipation of a shot.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

sleist said:
			
		

> Just having a fun discussion here - no need to be an ass.
> I'll leave now and rub your face in it when you're wrong in 2-4 months.



So sarcasm is now so strongly frowned upon?

Guess I better pack my bags. 

Did you by chance even read my disclaimer? Given Nikon's wonky track record with doing dumb things, there's no way I can say anything about them with certainty.


----------



## coastalconn (Sep 13, 2012)

Not arguing, thats why I said most people.  Your forgetting about us crazy birders.. Although many birders I have met shoot canon.  The buffer rate is huge for me tracking ospreys as they dive, hit the water, grab their fish and fly out of the water.  Having the perfect wing angle, the right water droplets and the catch light takes as many frames as you can fire...  But other than sports or wildlife I agree with you..


----------



## KmH (Sep 13, 2012)

The cost of the camera is directly related to how much it costs to produce a full frame image sensor.

All of Nikon's entry-level DSLRs, Including the D600, have some common features:

1/4000 shutter
only 3 exposure brackets
no 10-pin connector
no flash PC cable port
420 px, or the newer 2016 px metering sensor
9, or 39 auto focus points

Prosumer and Pro bodies have

1/8000 shutter
9 exposure brackets
a 10-pin connector
a flash PC cable port
the 1005 px, or the newer 91,000 px metering sensor
51 auto focus points


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

coastalconn said:


> The buffer rate is huge for me tracking ospreys as they dive, hit the water, grab their fish and fly out of the water.




And that entire series to me... is spraying and praying. Instead of anticipating the perfect wing angle, or water droplets, or moment of impact with the water... you're spraying the entire scene and hoping that something comes out of it. This is of course, my entire opinion, and I'm not a birder so I cannot completely understand.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

KmH said:


> The cost of the camera is directly related to how much it costs to produce a full frame image sensor.
> 
> All of Nikon's entry-level DSLRs, Including the D600, have some common features:
> 
> ...





So is the D7000 a prosumer, or entry level? Cause it contains parts from both lists.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

rpm said:


> Curious does anyone else wonder why Nikon arbitrarily limited the shutter to 1/4000s? Does anyone foresee a problem with this if shooting wide open in the day? Probably going to go a day shooting f1.4-2.8 during the morning-late afternoon and see how often at aperture priority will my shutter jump above the 1/4000 mark at the base iso (200 for my camera).
> 
> Not sure about flash sync speed as I have yet to dable with a flash but its also been reduced to 200; even the D7000 has both of these at the usual 'standard' of 8000s and 250 respectively.



Thom Hogan commented on the D600's shutter; presumably it is the same one used in the D7000, and now it has to traverse a much BIGGER sensor, so the X-synch speed is slower, 1/200 on the FX body and not 1/250 as on the APS-C body, and the maximum speed has been reduced to 1/4000 second as a result of having migrated upward a shutter originally designed to traverse a smaller sensor. I believe these two decisions make perfect sense,and sound like reasonable explanations. I myself,personally, do NOT think the 1/4000 second limit was in any way "arbitrary".


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:
			
		

> And that entire series to me... is spraying and praying. Instead of anticipating the perfect wing angle, or water droplets, or moment of impact with the water... you're spraying the entire scene and hoping that something comes out of it. This is of course, my entire opinion, and I'm not a birder so I cannot completely understand.



That's pretty much how I see bird photography. It's 85% luck and 10% where you put your tripod/monopod. The rest is just how big your buffer is.

Even the most skilled photog can go out there and get absolutely nothing good. Def not my thing.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

Well, some people say the D600 is overpriced. And to me, I think $1899 is where it will be priced in a year. BUT, keep in mind,  the just-announced *SONY A99 is priced at $700 MORE THAN THE NIKON. *Both the A99 and the Nikon D600 share the 24.3 megapixel Sony-made image sensor. Sony JUST announced a full-frame compact, with no viewfinder, and a fixed, 35mm lens, for $2,800.

For $100 LESS than the price of a Sony A99 body, a serious enthusiast shooter can buy a new Nikon D600 AND the brand-new 24-85mm Nikkor FX zoom lens. Now, a 24 to 85mm zoom lens on a full-frame body is an AMAZING thing. For those unfamiliar with it, 24mm is a true wide-angle lens on FX. 28mm is wide-angle. 35mm is a moderate wide and VERY useful: for every foot back you move with a 35mm lens on FX, the lens covers just about one foot left to right!!! 8 foot wide subject? Stand 8 feet back! And, this is the sweet deal...the 70 to 85mm tele range is actually "telephoto"...so, basically a 24-85mm is 24,28,35,50,70,85...it's like six well-known focal lengths from WIDE to Medium telephoto, in one,single lens!

Seen this way, versus the Sony A99, or versus Canon's 22 MP 5D-III at $3,499, the $2196 this camera sells for thru Amazon ($3.00 off list price-woo hoo!) is a "bargain". Canon's original 5D, the 12.8 MP model, had 9 (as in NINE) AF points, no flash, and sold for $3499 at introduction.


----------



## lemonart (Sep 13, 2012)

My two cents because... Hey... Why not? 

Personally I have mixed feelings.  Realistically the corners they cut are annoying but I rarely shoot in conditions that require a shutter speed of more than 1/4000.  Nor do I use flash all that often.  I suppose some day I'll come across that one situation where I'll be wanting, but at that point I'll just get a D800.  But....

...At $2100 why not now?  I mean, honestly, why buy a body and lose money later on when I need to upgrade rather than doing it correctly out the gate?  I was really hoping for an $1800-$1900 price point.  Even $1999 would be more appealing to me.

Then again it IS $900 bucks which ain't chump change.  It's a tough call.  Based on the sample photos the quality is great and you get a bit
More bang for the buck as far as space goes.  And hey!  I don't have to buy CF cards.  That's an extra $900 I can spend on a lens too.

Very very tough.  I think at the end of the day I'll wait for the guy on Craigslist who buys one, decides to upgrade immediately and sells for close to retail but with no tax .  Being a province with 13% tax that would be a nice savings.

Lem


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

lemonart said:


> ...At $2100 why not now?  I mean, honestly, why buy a body and lose money later on when I need to upgrade rather than doing it correctly out the gate?  I was really hoping for an $1800-$1900 price point.  Even $1999 would be more appealing to me.




At $2100... why not buy a D7000 and a 24-70 2.8G? Or 17-55 2.8? Or TWO D7000's?

Really, the only thing this 600 has going for it is a bigger sensor, for which the output would only be evident if you were printing billboards.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> lemonart said:
> 
> 
> > ...At $2100 why not now?  I mean, honestly, why buy a body and lose money later on when I need to upgrade rather than doing it correctly out the gate?  I was really hoping for an $1800-$1900 price point.  Even $1999 would be more appealing to me.
> ...



I think you MIGHT be underestimating the advantages of the 24 megapixel 24x36mm sensor that Nikon was able to develop for the D3x some years ago...along with the electronics and software demosaic/image processing engine...the dynamic range and VASTLY superior ISO advantages of an FX sensor make the 2.7x smaller APS-C sensor look pretty weak in many situations...the D3x sensor + electronics system was/is *incredible *in the way it handles exposure corrections in post. Just_simply_amazing_recovery_potential_in_post. Not that today's best APS-C sensors are "bad", but today's FX, high-MP count sensors are of the same, or higher quality, AND are 2.7x larger...

I was reasonably happy with all of my cameras until I got a new FX Nikon. What I take exception to is the idea that the 24 MP sensor is only an advantage when "printing billboards". Uh, no, SORRY, that's not true; the advantage is evident in thousands of frames that I shoot every month, and in EVERY instance of over-exposure or Under-exposure...*if the D600 uses the same or better sensor as the D3x uses*,and has even reasonably close electronics quality, the advantages of the 24 MP FX sensor in each and very single file will be BLATANTLY obvious the second you bring the files into software. And by that I mean BLATANTLY obvious.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I was reasonably happy with all of my cameras until I got a new FX Nikon. What I take exception to is the idea that the 24 MP sensor is only an advantage when "printing billboards". Uh, no, SORRY, that's not true; the advantage is evident in thousands of frames that I shoot every month, and in EVERY instance of over-exposure or Under-exposure...*if the D600 uses the same or better sensor as the D3x uses*,and has even reasonably close electronics quality, the advantages of the 24 MP FX sensor in each and very single file will be BLATANTLY obvious the second you bring the files into software. And by that I mean BLATANTLY obvious.




Yes Derrel, I was making a tongue in cheek statement about the D600. Of course the dynamic range is going to be better in FX sensors. However, having worked with both the D700 FX sensor, and now the D7000 DX sensor, and having edited both in LR3 and LR4... I can tell you without a doubt that the dynamic range difference between both is miniscule. I can get just as much, perhaps a slightly less recovery on my D7000 files. However, I get it right in camera, so I dont have to rely on post processing that much.

But the D600 is 24mpx you say... well I've edited D800 36mpx files in LR4 as well, and yes there is a tremendous amount of recovery, but honestly nothing magical.


----------



## bhop (Sep 13, 2012)

I just hope the d600 announcement pushes down the used d700/d3 prices.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 13, 2012)

bhop said:
			
		

> I just hope the d600 announcement pushes down the used d700/d3 prices.



Already has. Check FM.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

Well, I'm used to the D3x's 24 MP sensor, with around a 13.7 EV tested DR...to me that qualifies as "magical". Look at the Low-Light, AKA High-ISO advantage level that the full-frame Nikons have over the D7000. The new D800 has a low-light, High ISO score of 2,853. The D7000 scores 1,167. The now-aged D3x sensor scores 1,992...almost twice as high as the D7000 scores. This advantage is the biggest one--the FX sensor Nikon cameras have vastly better image performance at ISO levels that are above "baseline". Color bit depth is another advantage; the deeper the color "Depth", the richer the color tends to be as ISO levels go up and up.

A lot of people used to worry about "noise". Noise can be controlled, but as for example in the Canon 7D, as noise is suppressed, color depth, ie, color accuracy and richness, drops wayyyyyyy off as ISO values get to double and triple base-line values. This is where the full-frame cameras start to pull away from the DX sensor models...they have lower noise, they have more DETAIL resolved, AND they have deeper, richer,better COLOR. And, overall, as the DxO Mark scores for "*Sports" (Low-Light ISO) *as DxO Mark calls it, the FX sensors absolutely tromp all over the D7000.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Ca...rand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/485|0/(brand3)/Nikon

I expect the D600's 24.3MP sensor is going to have really excellent image quality. AND be 2.7x bigger than the sensor in the D7000. All in the lowest-cost FX camera Nikon or Canon have produced, and $700 less than a Sony A99, which will have the same sensor, but be stuck with A-mount lenses and the A-mount's weak accessory base. it will also have DUAL-SD card slots, and a brand new plug-in WiFi uploader device available for it.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Well, I'm used to the D3x's 24 MP sensor, with around a 13.7 EV tested DR...to me that qualifies as "magical". Look at the Low-Light, AKA High-ISO advantage level that the full-frame Nikons have over the D7000. The new D800 has a low-light, High ISO score of 2,853. The D7000 scores 1,167. The now-aged D3x sensor scores 1,992...almost twice as high as the D7000 scores. This advantage is the biggest one--the FX sensor Nikon cameras have vastly better image performance at ISO levels that are above "baseline". Color bit depth is another advantage; the deeper the color "Depth", the richer the color tends to be as ISO levels go up and up.
> 
> A lot of people used to worry about "noise". Noise can be controlled, but as for example in the Canon 7D, as noise is suppressed, color depth, ie, color accuracy and richness, drops wayyyyyyy off as ISO values get to double and triple base-line values. This is where the full-frame cameras start to pull away from the DX sensor models...they have lower noise, they have more DETAIL resolved, AND they have deeper, richer,better COLOR. And, overall, as the DxO Mark scores for "*Sports" (Low-Light ISO) *as DxO Mark calls it, the FX sensors absolutely tromp all over the D7000.
> 
> ...






Derrel... how often do you under/over expose by 13.7EV? If you do, why do you call yourself a photographer?


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm used to the D3x's 24 MP sensor, with around a 13.7 EV tested DR...to me that qualifies as "magical". Look at the Low-Light, AKA High-ISO advantage level that the full-frame Nikons have over the D7000. The new D800 has a low-light, High ISO score of 2,853. The D7000 scores 1,167. The now-aged D3x sensor scores 1,992...almost twice as high as the D7000 scores. This advantage is the biggest one--the FX sensor Nikon cameras have vastly better image performance at ISO levels that are above "baseline". Color bit depth is another advantage; the deeper the color "Depth", the richer the color tends to be as ISO levels go up and up.
> ...



Are you assuming every scene is evenly lit?


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Are you assuming every scene is evenly lit?




Of course not, but thats a bit extreme wouldn't you think?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

Is that some kind of a joke??? Not sure what you mean by over or under-exposing by 13.7 EV....that is the sensor's Dynamic Range rating...that is how many Exposure Values of tonal range it can handle...the new D800's sensor has a 14.4 EV range...meaning that areas from deep shade to bright highlights can easily be handled by the sensor. The D3x is 13.7 EV. I expect the D600 to be somewhere in the same range, between 13.7 and 14.4 EV--but it MIGHT BE EVEN HIGHER than what the D800 can handle!!!

Take a look at THIS controlled test and the photos, shot by Fred Miranda HIMSELF, comparing a D800 versus a Canon 5D-III, each camera using the same,identical lens, via adapter....  Part II - Controlled tests


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

Ok, I must be confusing a few things then.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Really, the only thing this 600 has going for it is a bigger sensor, for which the output would only be evident if you were printing billboards.



Umm.. have you shot FF before?  Better DOF, Better low light handling, etc...  I think your confusing sensor size with megapixels.

What the D600 has going for it: $2k for a FF camera.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

TheLost said:


> Umm.. have you shot FF before?  Better DOF, Better low light handling, etc...  I think your confusing sensor size with megapixels.
> 
> What the D600 has going for it: $2k for a FF camera.




Yes, I have. And if you shoot properly lit photos, and print in 'normal' sizes (8x10, 11x14, 16x20) you would probably never know the difference between the two... at least the average viewer wouldn't.

If on the other hand you shoot in a cave, and print photos the size of walls... yes you'd certainly notice a difference.


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 13, 2012)

wtf is the point of D600 when there is D800..

Money shouldn't be an object, only "what it can do"


Let's just wait and see now how DxO tests new D600 and gives it higher score than 5D III. And still say how Nikon's 24-70 is still better than Canon's 24-70 II in resolution after they do a test on 24-70 II.

DxO is my number 1 stop for looking at unbiased hard numbers for Canon gear.


----------



## KmH (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The cost of the camera is directly related to how much it costs to produce a full frame image sensor.
> ...


The only item the D7000 has from the second list is the 1/8000 shutter. The D7000 redefined the upper entry-level grade segment in some ways, like the shutter speed.

The D600 is essentially all the D7000 internals with a full frame image sensor in a somewhat larger camera body. Note Derrel's observations in post #59 relative to the shutter speed.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 13, 2012)

KmH said:


> The D7000 redefined the upper entry-level grade segment in some ways, like the shutter speed.



No it didn't.  Your lists are incomplete.  It's a semi-pro body.


----------



## ZapoTeX (Sep 13, 2012)

> DxO is my number 1 stop for looking at unbiased hard numbers for Canon gear.


It is certainly a great source, but it has some big limits.

For example, for high ISO noise, when they compare sensors with different resolutions, they measure the noise at the sensor's native resolution, then they "normalize" the result to 8 megapixels. Problem is: the formula they use for the "normalization" is based on the hypothesis that noise in each pixel is independent of all the other pixels nearby, which is NOT true (sometimes you can clearly see patterns in noise).

The above methodology gives an unfair advantages to sensors with high pixel count.

Ciao!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

The DxO Mark testing methodology might indeed give an edge to sensors with a high pixel count...but as we have seen,more and more, and as the D800 PROVES, conclusively, more pixels means more information to work with...the D800's High_ISO performance is actually much better than that of the D700. Why? Three times the MP count, 36 versus 12 MP. With newer,better,and lower-noise electronics, a "modern" sensor with 36MP actually has more resolution, better color, and lower noise than an older, lower MP count sensor. And, comparing cameras of the same generation, APS-C versus FX, the BIGGER sensor performs better...better color depth, higher resolution, wider dynamic range. So, yeah, their methodology does give an unfair advantage to sensors with high pixel count...because as we NOW know, higher pixel count is actually a net PLUS in most actual picture-making metrics...

Witness, two cameras of the same era, introduced within two weeks of one another, the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D 800...take a LOOK, using your eyes, and see how the HIGHER-MP count, identically-sized 36MP sensor kicks the 22 MP sensor's proverbial "butt". Same lens. Same day. More MP...wins...

Huh...

Part II - Controlled tests

OKAY...VERY,very,VERY obvious which camera has the BETTER imaging performance, at BASE ISO, with a good lens, in good, bright summer lighting.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Now, let's compare the side-by-side DxO Mark sensor scores, since in this thread there has been some commentary on the reliability/veracity/trustworthiness of DxO Mark scores....compare the DxO Mark scores with what is SEEN
 in the Fred Miranda side-by-side, controlled testing above. zOMG--DxO Mark scores seem to accurately reflect that the D800's sensor is SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than the one in the Canon 5D-III. zOMG! zOMG! How can that be???


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 13, 2012)

To get to the bottom of this, we don't really need to compare DxO's own scores for 5D III and D800 side by side, but rather take a look at DxO's page of "imaging industry leading partners" to see who pays them and who doesn't   Because apparently Canon isn't on that list..hummm........

Forget about sensors, DxO says 70-200 I is better than II and obviously that's true.  I won't surprised if they come to the same conclusion with 24-70 II how its worse than I and are both are crap compared to nikons 24-70.  

Anyone who takes DxO scores seriously is either a Nikon fanboy, or doesn't know enough about technology in the camera he/she is shooting with, and that's why he/she believes what DxO has to say.

The biggest problem with DxO is that they change their scoring criteria based on what sensor nikon has available.  The biggest impact on their sensor scores used to be low light performance a few years back, when nikon was better at it.  Now, the biggest criteria is sensor resolution.  Sounds to me they're just adjusting their score criteria based on which category nikon performs in best.  

After seeing all this, whoever thinks DxO is legit is just a noob or a religious fanatic.


----------



## spacefuzz (Sep 13, 2012)

I think D600 will do ok, there really are lot of people who would love this camera (especially landscapes)


----------



## Derrel (Sep 13, 2012)

Part II - Controlled tests

Canon gets its A$$ handed to it by a new Nikon that costs $500 LESS...and the DxO Mark scores prove what our eyes can SEE. Sorry sovietdoc, but when Canon was leading the sensor wars, all we heard from the Canon fans like you was how "awesome" the sensors were; since that time, Nikon fired most of its senior executives, replaced them with men who were 20 years younger, and went on a HUGE campaign to win back the professional and serious enthusiast d-slr markets...which is what happened when the D3 revolutionized the pro d-slr market and the D300 embarrassed Canon, with a true semi-professional body that was *NOT deliberately crippled [a Canon specialty!]*, but could meter with EVERY lens Nikon had made since 1977...Nikon decided to leverage its LENS HISTORY, and its 15 year lead in color-aware metering and color-aware, and distance aware flash. Nikon's lead in multi-flash TTL remote flash control meant better flash pictures.Canon kept touting "More MP! More MP! Same old camera, but more MP!"

The 5D was a good example: a CHEAP camera body, + good sensor, $3,499 at intro, then $3199, then $2999. The D700 OTHOH was like a Baby D3, for $2699 from the get-go. Only 12 MP, but 12 good MP, and a "pro" body. That could FOCUS, unlike the !D Mark III!

Since 2007, Canon has been falling farther and farther behind the position they HAD HELD since maybe 1996...so, in a decade, Canon lost its supremacy...all I heard a decade ago was how many "white lenses" were on the sidelines at sporting events...then the "it-cannot-focus-right Canon 1D Mark III" debacle dragged on for 18 months...it became pretty obvious that Canon had lost its mojo, and was just regurgitating the same old stuff as fast as they could update the numbers...D30,D60,10D,20D,30D,40D,50D,60D...a new camera every 16-18 months...but basically the SAME OLD chit...with more megapixels...

So, now that the testing "people", all over the world, are point out Canon's problems, the Canon fanboy types show up, in places like the "Nikon D600!!" thread to *whine about how the rigorous testing sites are all "payed off".* I find that approach amusing. I smile at it. Soooo grade-school. Losing out to a hungrier, smaller competitor whose MAIN businesses are cameras and optics must suck. Such is life for Canon. But they make a hell of a photocopier! They are #1 in photocopiers!


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 13, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> The DxO Mark testing methodology might indeed give an edge to sensors with a high pixel count...but as we have seen,more and more, and as the D800 PROVES, conclusively, more pixels means more information to work with...the D800's High_ISO performance is actually much better than that of the D700. Why? Three times the MP count, 36 versus 12 MP. With newer,better,and lower-noise electronics, a "modern" sensor with 36MP actually has more resolution, better color, and lower noise than an older, lower MP count sensor. And, comparing cameras of the same generation, APS-C versus FX, the BIGGER sensor performs better...better color depth, higher resolution, wider dynamic range. So, yeah, their methodology does give an unfair advantage to sensors with high pixel count...because as we NOW know, higher pixel count is actually a net PLUS in most actual picture-making metrics...
> 
> Witness, two cameras of the same era, introduced within two weeks of one another, the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D 800...take a LOOK, using your eyes, and see how the HIGHER-MP count, identically-sized 36MP sensor kicks the 22 MP sensor's proverbial "butt". Same lens. Same day. More MP...wins...
> 
> ...



So more MP = better!?


----------



## KmH (Sep 13, 2012)

More MP means smaller pixels that are less sensitive to light, which results in a lower SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), which causes a decrease in ISO performance.
When MP and ISO performance are both increased, something other than more MP is causing the ISO performance improvement. 



> DxO Labs measurements show that advances in pixel and RAW conversion technologies have compensated for the decrease in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) brought about by the proliferation of smaller, less light-sensitive pixels in DSLRs.



DxOMark - SNR evolution over time

DxOMark - Pushed ISO: Let's make it clear


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 13, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> So more MP = better!?





Depending on the application of course. They aren't the be all end all.


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 13, 2012)

Anyone knows how many stops of auto bracketing the D600 can do? Dpreview says AE bracketing: (2, 3 frames at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV steps)

Not sure what it means.


----------



## TheLost (Sep 13, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Yes, I have. And if you shoot properly lit photos, and print in 'normal' sizes (8x10, 11x14, 16x20) you would probably never know the difference between the two... at least the average viewer wouldn't.



I'm going to have to disagree about this point... 1) Print size has nothing to do with it.  2) Not everybody shoots in a studio. 3) A D7000 w/Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 will take completely different Portraits then a D700 with the same lens. The shallower DOF is VERY noticeable.


----------



## IgsEMT (Sep 13, 2012)

If only I had the extra 6k... at least with D4, there's less controversy


----------



## zcar21 (Sep 13, 2012)

Derrel said:


> The DxO Mark testing methodology might indeed give an edge to sensors with a high pixel count...but as we have seen,more and more, and as the D800 PROVES, conclusively, more pixels means more information to work with...the D800's High_ISO performance is actually much better than that of the D700. Why? Three times the MP count, 36 versus 12 MP. With newer,better,and lower-noise electronics, a "modern" sensor with 36MP actually has more resolution, better color, and lower noise than an older, lower MP count sensor. And, comparing cameras of the same generation, APS-C versus FX, the BIGGER sensor performs better...better color depth, higher resolution, wider dynamic range. So, yeah, their methodology does give an unfair advantage to sensors with high pixel count...because as we NOW know, higher pixel count is actually a net PLUS in most actual picture-making metrics...
> 
> Witness, two cameras of the same era, introduced within two weeks of one another, the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D 800...take a LOOK, using your eyes, and see how the HIGHER-MP count, identically-sized 36MP sensor kicks the 22 MP sensor's proverbial "butt". Same lens. Same day. More MP...wins...
> 
> ...



Nikon has clearly more resolution and dynamic range, but what difference does that make in say, a 5x7 photo? Can we easily see the difference as on the computer?

I was checking the pictures from these two cameras, and high iso and colors look better with the canon in my opinion.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III sample images | Cameralabs

Nikon D800 sample images | Cameralabs


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 14, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Part II - Controlled tests
> 
> 
> > Canon gets its A$$ handed to it by a new Nikon that costs $500 LESS
> ...



I am sorry for derailing this thread  But it's fun isn't it


----------



## ZapoTeX (Sep 14, 2012)

Ooops... Sorry guys, I'm afraid I contributed to start a "many MPs better or not" and "Nikon vs. Canon" war.

Just to clarify, what I meant when I criticized DxO's methodology was not about that a high pixel count is not good IN GENERAL, I was just saying that because of the mathematical formulas they use, a high pixel count gives a high-ISO rating better than it should be. It's just statistics and physics.

Of course *an image with more megapixels will print better than one with less*, but that is caused by improved clarity and sharpness, rather than lower noise.

DxO gives sensors scores for different aspects, including resolution and SNR. Then, letting a high pixel count positively influence the SNR score (while in fact it does not improve the actual camera SNR performance) is a double counting, because the high resolution is already accounted for in the resolution score.

Anyway, God bless DxO Mark, and also the-digital-picture.com and also slrgear, etc... and all the websites that run extensive tests. They all have their limits, but as long as we're aware of that, they are massively helpful!


----------



## ghache (Sep 14, 2012)

LOL, you guys are nuts, probably over thinking when buying a pint of milk too. The D600 will be a great camera, like any other camera nikon got out on the market in the last year or so. You get a full frame 24mp camera for 2.4k that shoot uncompress hd video with a 3.2 inch screen and allk the other niknaks FOR 2.4k!


----------



## TheLost (Sep 14, 2012)

ghache said:


> LOL, you guys are nuts, probably over thinking when buying a pint of milk too. The D600 will be a great camera, like any other camera nikon got out on the market in the last year or so. You get a full frame 24mp camera for 2.4k that shoot uncompress hd video with a 3.2 inch screen and allk the other niknaks FOR 2.4k!



+1 :thumbup:


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 14, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's OK... I will just have to live without your wit and humor!


----------



## ghache (Sep 14, 2012)

TheLost said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, you guys are nuts, probably over thinking when buying a pint of milk too. The D600 will be a great camera, like any other camera nikon got out on the market in the last year or so. You get a full frame 24mp camera for 2.4k that shoot uncompress hd video with a 3.2 inch screen and allk the other niknaks FOR 2.4k!
> ...




especially when a camera like this was 4 time the price a few years ago. remember the d3x? it at a better built body and that's about it.


----------



## sovietdoc (Sep 14, 2012)

Ever since the huge success Canon had with 5D II and video capabilities, they have been doing everything wrong in the videography department.  Releasing cameras that cost 16 grand and up to shoot video? That's not the point.  The whole reason 5D2 was so popular was because of stunning quality you could get with it for VERY cheap.

With D600, Nikon is absolutely stealing the ball in my opinion.  What are the two things people want the most from their DSLR for shooting video in the professional field?  

1.  Uncompressed Raw via HDMI
2.  60 fps 1080p

Nikon gives them just that.  (I am not sure if it does 60 fps but unlike Canon they at least give the customer one thing people want)
I can see this D600 being an immediate hit on the streets for video recording.  Forget Canon.


----------



## Redwing24 (Sep 14, 2012)

It's all I want in a camera, Fx and video, and $. I'll be getting rid of my d7000, of course I wish it was cheaper but I'll live with that.


----------



## ulrichsd (Sep 14, 2012)

The D600 will be the best selling FX camera of any manufacturer, ever.  There will be some wedding photographers who'll keep/go with the D700 because of the minimum 1/200 flash sync of the D600, but I'm guessing you are going to see D600s all over at weddings.  It also opens up the door to serious amateurs of every category who were priced out of FX before.

It will be interesting to see what Canon comes out with in the next 6 months, they have obviously been aware that this was going to launch and certainly have something planned to offer quickly after this Nikon D600 release.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 14, 2012)

VIDEO recording capability has become a HUGE deal in many sub-fields of photography. I have a niece who is working for a CBS TV affiliate as a field reporter and weekend anchor at a small station...the ability to shoot HIGH-quality, as in broadcast-quality video, cheaply and with a small,light camera like a d-slr has eliminated the need for the ENG video camera, like the old Ikegami's. NO more does a video camera/recorder outfit need to weight 18 pounds. Not sure why people are worried about 1/200 X-synch with simple flash units and studio flash...the people who really "need" to shoot flash at high speeds in bright light understand how to simply buy a good Nikon flash unit and use FP synch at ridiculously-fast speeds in full sun.


----------



## Solarflare (Sep 14, 2012)

The D600 cannot do 1080p/60, "only" up to 1080p/30.


----------



## cosmonaut (Sep 14, 2012)

I am sure the price will drop from this. It usually doesn't take long. After Christmas during the slow season. But Full Frame at this price. The lenses is what will set you back when you are FF. If you can't put the glass in front of it don't bother..


----------



## Enticingimagery (Sep 15, 2012)

I wouldn't bother with the new kit lens. If I was buying, but couldn't reach to a 24-70 2.8 or a snazzy prime, I'd buy the body only and something like the 28mm 1.8, and a 50mm 1.8G - you have a cracking package right there for less than body, kit lens and 85 mm, say.


----------



## molested_cow (Sep 15, 2012)

Enticingimagery said:


> I wouldn't bother with the new kit lens. If I was buying, but couldn't reach to a 24-70 2.8 or a snazzy prime, I'd buy the body only and something like the 28mm 1.8, and a 50mm 1.8G - you have a cracking package right there for less than body, kit lens and 85 mm, say.



Well, in a way that's an interesting take, but switching lens on the spot is not always the best thing to do.

On the other hand, with D600 getting lighter and smaller... perhaps it won't be as much of a hassle to have more than one camera hanging from your neck!


----------

