Nikon D600?

psreilly · Nov 17, 2013

Anyone have this camera? I've been looking at getting a really top notch Nikon Full Frame recently and came across this. I shoot MF now, but I can't really kid myself anymore. When it comes to shooting in a studio and working with models, Digital is the way to go. Anyway, noticed this camera and the specifications and was impressed, what do you think?

runnah · Nov 17, 2013

I'd go with the d610. Updated version of the d600. Fixed a few issues and added a couple small upgrades.

CaptainNapalm · Nov 17, 2013

I have owned the D600 for a few months now and am very pleased with it. For me this is the perfect camera, offering just the right amount of resolution (D800 was too much), outstanding photo quality, and I've had none of these spot/oil/dust issues people preach about on the internet. If you can save a few hundred dollars, I would totally buy the D600 over the D610, if the price difference is negligible I'd pick up the D610.

oldhippy · Nov 17, 2013

What he said.^^^^

KmH · Nov 17, 2013

The D600/D610 are entry-level, consumer grade camera bodies.
So they are a couple steps below top-notch.

goodguy · Nov 17, 2013

runnah said:
I'd go with the d610. Updated version of the d600. Fixed a few issues and added a couple small upgrades.

Agreed, get the D610, excellent FX camera.

pixmedic · Nov 17, 2013

if your shooting MF now, your already a step or two above a full frame digital body.
why downgrade to basically a 35mm? just get a digital back for you MF camera and get the best of both worlds.
don't kid yourself, nothing beats MF in the studio. Even with a film camera.

Braineack · Nov 17, 2013

KmH said:
The D600/D610 are entry-level, consumer grade camera bodies.
So they are a couple steps below top-notch.

Would you get a d3100 or d600?

psreilly · Nov 17, 2013

I don't know if I'd call the D600 "entry level" from the looks of it and the reviews here I'd say its certainly one of their better full frame dslrs.

And pix medic, I shoot a mamiya rz67 pro ii right now. I haven't really been able to find a digital back within my price range. I understand the 120mm is obviously way bigger than a full frame though. You have any suggestion on where to look for a good digital back, reasonably priced?

Derrel · Nov 17, 2013

This outfit in Atlanta is one of the larger dealers in used and demo digital backs. Pre-Owned Digital Backs & Equipment | Capture Integration

psreilly · Nov 17, 2013

Thanks for the link. See a couple phase ones below 5K. Bit more in my price range now. I'm assuming the p20 is compatible with the pro ii. I've noticed the p65+ is compatible with the Pro iid, but it needs the adapter for the pro ii. I knew not getting the iid would come back to haunt me

not that I could afford the p65 ananyways

i think half the reason I'm considering the D600 is price and confusion with the phase one backs. I mean I see the p25 and think okay is it compatible yes. That alone is like a journey just seeing if its compatible with the rz67. Then comes the adapter search which I believe is the hx705, but to be honest I have no idea. I'd love to shoot my mamiya digitally, but its confusing as hell and the phase ones cost more than my car (most at least)

KmH · Nov 17, 2013

What makes the D600/D610 entry-level is the auto focus module, exposure metering sensor, only 3 AEB, no 10 pin connector. no PC flash cable connector, etc.

Derrel · Nov 17, 2013

KmH said:
What makes the D600/D610 entry-level is the auto focus module, exposure metering sensor, only 3 AEB, no 10 pin connector. no PC flash cable connector, etc.

It's still a VERY CAPABLE digital SLR though; when Canon introduced the 5D in 2006, it was heralded as a "revolution"...the D600 is a much better body, with a better AF module, better sensor, wider ISO range, and on and on.

When the Fuji S2 Pro came out back in the early 2000's, advertising photographer James Russell shot multiple, six-figure advertising campaigns with what was, basically, a 6 megapixel crop-body camera that was built on the $389 Nikon N-80 frame, and hacked by FujiFilm.

A modern AF Nikon and modern AF-Nikkor lenses has a LOT of advantages over a big, clunky Mamiya RZ body and gigantic lens...deeper DOF, Nikon tilt/shift lens options,Nikon macro lens options, the worlds' best wide-angle zoom in the 14-24mm f/2.8, the excellent 16-35mm f/4 VR Nikkor, the ultra-high resolution 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens, the new 28mm f/1.8 G-Nikkor, the new 35mm f/1./4 G-Nikkor, a fine 24-70, a superb 70-200 AFS in either f/2.8 or f/4 variants, high portability, ZERO film costs, lightweight (compared to an RZ, it's super-light!), and so on.

It might be an "entry-level" body, but then again, if it had come out five years ago, it would have been priced at $3499, and been "revolutionary". And it's entry-level compared to a D3x or a D4; it's got a fantastic sensor with some of the widest dynamic range and deepest color depth on the market. If a guy is any kind of a shooter at all, he can leverage a D600 or D610.

psreilly · Nov 17, 2013

I agree with the body part. It doesn't look very professional considering how small it is, but depending on who you're talking to that could be a good or bad thing. The camera seemed to be a buy considering its capabilities at the price it's currently at.

meanwhile I've found myself drooling over Aptus ii 5 and 8s to possibly stick on the back of my Mamiya. I wonder if they expect people to actually pay 10k right up front or payment plans. If they expect up front payment that'd be ridiculous