Nikon D600 - any good?

[RAZKY]

I want to upgrade from My good old D90. The D600 I'm looking at looks pretty good - used, but minty.
The one I'm looking at is around $A600. (Note - aussie bucks) Whaddaya think? Obviously it's about twice the res of my D90, and with a full fame sensor.
I assume I'll be able to get just better, 'finer - tighter' results. Hmmm ... will the upgrade impress me?

I would only buy it if the shutter actuation count is fairly low, there is a decent return policy, and the seller guarantees that the original shutter has been replaced under Nikon's recall. As far as I know, the camera has proved quite reliable after Nikon resolved the shutter issue, but it's still an entry-level camera even if it is an FX Nikon - I don't think it's much of an upgrade over your D90. Only if you crop a lot or require long exposures are you likely to be impressed by the full-frame. I have a 16mp FX Df and a 12mp DX Fujifilm S3-Pro, Nikon F mount, and I have to enlarge the DX images considerably to see much difference. And I know what I want in the final print before releasing the shutter, so seldom need to crop much. If you really want to upgrade, look for a D710, D810, or the ultimate, a D850.

 

[JoolsW]

Thanks RAZKY... Very useful info.

 

[DigiFilm]

I don't know that it isn't a decent upgrade. Here are DXO Mark scores for the three being discussed. There's no doubt the 600 is a step up. Not as much with the 7200, but a nice improvement over the 90. The biggest advantage is in low light, but you said that isn't an issue so maybe not part of the decision. I would always take as much low light capability as I could get.

 

[JoolsW]

Okay, the plot thickens here...
I originally was 'jacked up' by seeing the Nikon Zfc. The beautiful trad styling and compact size etc. One thing led to another - thinking that sensor size was the 'thing' to look for. (The ZFc is morrorless but not full-frame, it's DX only ). So I started to look at affordable full-frame alternatives like the D600. Because the ZFc doesn't have a full frame sensor. The thing is (well two things), 1: It's the 'look and feel' of the ZFc I like and that's missing from the big fat alternatives. And B: the more research I do, the less important the Sensor size seems to be.
The ZFc has twice the digital capacity of my D90. ... Approx 20mp as opposed to 12mp. So maybe I go back to my original ZFc idea?

 

[DigiFilm]

Okay, the plot thickens here...
I originally was 'jacked up' by seeing the Nikon Zfc. The beautiful trad styling and compact size etc. One thing led to another - thinking that sensor size was the 'thing' to look for. (The ZFc is morrorless but not full-frame, it's DX only ). So I started to look at affordable full-frame alternatives like the D600. Because the ZFc doesn't have a full frame sensor. The thing is (well two things), 1: It's the 'look and feel' of the ZFc I like and that's missing from the big fat alternatives. And B: the more research I do, the less important the Sensor size seems to be.
The ZFc has twice the digital capacity of my D90. ... Approx 20mp as opposed to 12mp. So maybe I go back to my original ZFc idea?

The thing is you're only looking at a small portion of what makes up a digital camera. It's not all about sensor size or Megapixels. You also have to consider the vast advancements made in technology when comparing cameras. The Zfc is generations newer than the other cameras we've been discussing. Newer more powerful processors, new sensor technology and other factors all come into play. What about burst rates? Max shutter speed? ISO range?

Sensor size does matter, but it's more limited than many might have you believe. A FF sensor is going to be better in low light, but at the same time you can't expect a FF sensor/processor in a generations-old camera to have a big advantage over a new APS-C sensor/processor. In this case 9 years newer, which in the world of digital cameras is a lifetime.

The other thing to consider is pixel pitch, or size. You may be getting more pixels, but they're smaller. Given the same size sensor, squeezing 20 million pixels as opposed to 12 million results in smaller pixels. That results in less light gathering ability for each pixel. This would be a bigger concern on an old camera, not as much on a newer camera for reasons already cited.

You've already said low light isn't an issue for you. Given that, then I don't think going with a crop sensor of any size is going to be a problem. I have friends who shoot professionally with Micro Four Thirds and are very successful. One guy I know shoots for colleges and his M-4/3 shots are enlarged to wall size and displayed in entry halls.

One thing to be aware of: With a DSLR, the viewfinder is a look directly through the lens. Not so with mirrorless. On a mirrorless camera, the viewfinder is electronic, a small TV screen of what the sensor sees. It may take a bit to get used to it, but the advantage is you have a view of what your finished shot will look like, including depth of field and lighting. I prefer the EVF over the optical, when I shoot my old DSLRs now I find it frustrating. Not saying one is better than the other, just that I've developed a preference.

You're probably aware that the Zfc uses a different lens mount, and you'll need an adapter to use your current lenses or will need to replace them with Z-Mount.

Considering the above, and faced with the same options, I would choose the Zfc. And yeah, it's a damned sexy camera!

 

[JoolsW]

Very edifying mate. Good points made. You're confirming that sensor size is perhaps not the important thing I thought it was.
Perhaps I'm a little dubious about a viewfinder image that's not exactly what the lens is actually seeing, but obviously it works, I'd get used to that I guess. The thing about low light is that with massive ISO settings available, it's not an issue. Using my existing Nikon lenses is an issue for me. Adaptors are available yes.
Thanks mate, your advice is much appreciated.

 

[DigiFilm]

Perhaps I'm a little dubious about a viewfinder image that's not exactly what the lens is actually seeing, but obviously it works, I'd get used to that I guess.

Not exactly that. You are seeing exactly what the lens is seeing, but you're also seeing the results of your settings before you take the shot.

To keep it simple, the exposure triangle (Shutter/Aperture/ISO) affect total light. On a DSLR, you can see how much light is getting in with aperture, but a mirrorless is showing you the result of the three. It will also show you blown out areas, depth of field, and just about every other aspect.

One advantage is that if you do end up shooting in low light, you can set the viewfinder up to be brighter so you can see what you're shooting, where an optical viewfinder may be too dark to easily see.

 

[wfooshee]

That Zfc remind me of the Df from 2013, with as many things as possible on actual mechanical dials instead of menus and screens. i remember seeing somewhere (Ken Rockwell, maybe) that the Df was basically a digital reissue of the '70s FE.

I think you have to want the retro look and feel as opposed to the "modern" button/screen settings interaction.

 

[cgw]

The Df was a screaming dud. Anyone recall that series of breathless teaser videos Nikon concocted before the roll-out? Seemed nothing more than a big DSLR with a huge prism bump and dials glued on. The chrome/black body was an attempt to make it look retro...
Fuji did successfully channel the FE/FM form factor with the X-T1 the next year.

 

[DigiFilm]

Didn't the DF have no video? I know it will never be, but I really wish someone would release a camera with only basic video features. I rarely shoot video, and when I do it comes down to 'push da' red button'. I know I'm in the minority and it'll never happen, but I can wish.

Sometimes I think a Digital version of the Pentax K-1000 would be a real treat!

Two of Sony's cameras have moved the shutter single/burst selection and AF selection to dials on the top left. They can't be programmed into a custom mode. It took quite me a while to remember that I had to change them when switching from a standard mode like M to a custom. They call them 'pro' features, I call them frustrating.

 

[cgw]

Didn't the DF have no video? I know it will never be, but I really wish someone would release a camera with only basic video features. I rarely shoot video, and when I do it comes down to 'push da' red button'. I know I'm in the minority and it'll never happen, but I can wish.

Sometimes I think a Digital version of the Pentax K-1000 would be a real treat!

Two of Sony's cameras have moved the shutter single/burst selection and AF selection to dials on the top left. They can't be programmed into a custom mode. It took quite me a while to remember that I had to change them when switching from a standard mode like M to a custom. They call them 'pro' features, I call them frustrating.

Nope, no video. Fuji X-T1s are cheap now. Have a look sometime. Closest you'll likely see to a classic compact SLR(Pentax,Nikon, Oly) with a sensor where the film used to go.

 

[RAZKY]

That Zfc remind me of the Df from 2013, with as many things as possible on actual mechanical dials instead of menus and screens. i remember seeing somewhere (Ken Rockwell, maybe) that the Df was basically a digital reissue of the '70s FE.

I think you have to want the retro look and feel as opposed to the "modern" button/screen settings interaction.

Actually the Df more closely resembles the F3 in size and form - just a bit thicker. The silver version looks tacky to me, and mine is black. It very successfully filled a niche market for a professional camera - metal dials, little plastic, 100% viewfinder coverage, accepts most Nikkors with no need to enter anything in a menu, meters with no need for mechanical or electrical communication with the lens, bellows or extension tubes - the list is long. Being pretty much bench assembled in Japan didn't hurt, either. A big drawback for me is the fixed finder.

 

[cgw]

The Df looked like an F3? Seriously? Sales flop.