D600!!!

[Derrel]

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]

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]

...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]

...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.

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]

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]

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

 

[jamesbjenkins]

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

Already has. Check FM.

 

[Derrel]

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]

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.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

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.

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

 

[mjhoward]

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.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

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.

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

Are you assuming every scene is evenly lit?

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Are you assuming every scene is evenly lit?

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

 

[Derrel]

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]

Ok, I must be confusing a few things then.

 

[TheLost]

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]

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.