nikon d610 | tell me about it!

[melissajeanne]

i was given some great advice on my last post. now i'm here in this part of the forum to ask.. what do you think about the d610? does anyone have a good review of it on here? if i had the money, i would go straight for the d810, but since i'm still a beginner photographer looking for a full-frame, the d610 is looking pretty perfect.
i currently use a nikon d3100 with a 50mm f/1.8 - and i mostly shoot newborn/toddler/family sessions as well as some bridal/baby showers, and a wedding here and there.
looking forward to hearing from some of you!
happy shooting!

:heart: melissa jeanne

 

[astroNikon]

I have a d600 and a d7000. I totally love the d600.
Not quite sure exactly what you are asking about it.

The biggie is if you own any DX specific lenses as you'll want to migrate to FX specific lenses at some point.

The 810 is the pinnacle resolution king it seems. But price-wise it's up there.
The d600 hasn't failed me yet for anything I've wanted to do.

 

[Braineack]

Things I don't like about the D600:

Doesn't have the 51pt auto-focus/shutter.
Doesn't have the better viewfinder.
Doesn't have a PC sync port.

so basically I like everything about it but that fact it's not a D810 with the 24MP sensor.

 

[KmH]

The D600/610 is stuck with entry-level subsystems because it is Nikon's entry-level full frame camera.

• Multi-CAM 4800 AF module
• 2016-pixel light metering sensor
• No 10 pin connector
• No PC (Prontor/Compur) flash sync cable port
• 1/200 max flash x-sync speed
• 1/4000 shutter

 

[cgw]

Let Google take you to the fanboy sites.

 

[MOREGONE]

You will be blown away by its capabilities from your 3100. Sure it may not have X, Y or Z but seriously, the 3100 only had A-G, and the D600 as A-W, and only the D800 or D4 have X, Y and or Z

 

[boomer]

The D610 will be more than a capable camera regardless of what one would say its shortcomings are. I've had my D610 since last November and am quite satisfied with it. AF was my biggest concern before I bought it but honestly, it feels to be on par with my D700 and I shoot at f/1.4 A LOT!

 

[Derrel]

The D600/610 is stuck with entry-level subsystems because it is Nikon's entry-level full frame camera.

• Multi-CAM 4800 AF module
• 2016-pixel light metering sensor
• No 10 pin connector
• No PC (Prontor/Compur) flash sync cable port
• 1/200 max flash x-sync speed
• 1/4000 shutter

You heard "the facts" above. Now what they really mean.

D610 shoots at 6 FPS, has a new 3 frames per second Qc or "Quiet Continuous" shutter. It shoots 1080-p video, offers built-in HDR.

No 10-pin connector??? WHo gives a crap,really. Instead , the D610 and MANY other Nikons use the $17.95 Nikon ML-L3 infrared remote control tranmitter. Nikon ML-L3 IR Remote Control Transmitter 4730

No, the D610 does not have a 10-pin connector: thats a legacy from older cameras. It also does not have a PC port for hooking up a PC-cord flash unit, that's true. The D610 ALSO does not come with a phonograph player, nor does it have a built in film cutter like a 1944 Exakta 35mm SLR. It also lacks a built-in cigarette lighter and also does not come with a cassette deck. Why? It is NO LONGER 1974. Or even 1984, nor even 1994, and it's also not 2004. We need a new brick of ice for the icebox.

1/200 second top shutter speed with flash....ohhhh, ANOTHER utterly unimportant non-feature, the lack of 1/250 second X-sync. Maybe she should spend $7,000 to buy a D4s to get a 1/250 second flash synch speed? A whole third of a stop faster...woo-hoo! Call the band--Johnny's home from the war!

"Only" 1/4000 second top shutter speed? Adequate for the first 150 years of photography were top speeds wayyyy slower than 1/4000 second. Top speeds that began around 1/30 second, then by 1930 1/300 second was a common top speed, then 1/500 second. Until the 1970's, 1/1000 second was the top speed on MOST 35mm cameras. For many years, 1/500 second top speed was pretty much the absolute top speed possible on leaf shutters, with as I recall, only one specially-designed shutter that could reach 1/800 second in a leaf design. The fabulous Hasselblad 500C and 500C/M topped out at, you guessed it, 1/500 second. OMG, how did we ever live without 1/8000 second shutters and 650 cable-channel TV packages and Netflix on demand?

ONLY 39 autofocus points. Hmmmm, the Leica 35mm cameras had ONE point, and were the world standard best-made camera for street and documentary use for five decades, and they had to be focused by hand, in ONE place....Hmm...another non-issue. NO FULL frame camera, from ANY maker, has the AF area coverage width of a DX camera. Canon used a 9-point AF diamond in the 5D, then added a few "helper" AF brackets, hidden, not marked, in the 5D-II, and yet, those were the top wedding cameras for eight years, in the FF class. PRO, flagship bodies Nikon D1-D1h,D1x series had what was it? Was it five AF points? And the D2 series topped out with 11 AF areas. So somehow 39 AF points is a bad thing?

 

[ruifo]

This is a good vdeo review about the D600, that mostly apply to the D610 as well.




Se these as well:

Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D610 - DxOMark

Best lenses for Nikon D610: Short telephoto and standard focal lengths - DxOMark

 

[PaulWog]

The D600 was an amazing deal for a full frame DSLR when it came out. At the $2000 price-point in September 2012, it offered a ton of features for an enthusiast photographer. The D610, about 2 years later, is still a good buy. At $1800, it's a good camera. However, remember that the D610 is (for all practical purposes) just a fixed version of the D600. So, what you'll be buying into is technology which is 2 years old, at $200 less.

For the enthusiast, the D610 is a great choice if you want to get moving on photography right now. Going full frame makes sense. I'm not making money, and the D5200 cuts it for me, so I'm sticking it out and waiting for something better. The big thing to note is that I'm not in the business doing work each day that may require something better.

For a professional such as yourself, the D610 makes a lot of sense (as Derrel has mentioned). The biggest downside to the camera, in my opinion, is the older focusing system. Being able to focus better in low light conditions could be important.

If the D3100 has been cutting it for you, you can only go up from where you are now by getting the D610. Given what you do, assuming you've got a steady flow of clients, I think it might be a mistake to *not* get the D610. I think for your line of photography, being able to produce a shallow depth of field is very important. The difference between full frame and a crop sensor camera is tremendous: The difference is essentially a 50% slower aperture worth of bokeh on a crop sensor camera. What you've been shooting on your 50mm at f1.8 has been the equivalent of shooting at f2.7 on a full frame camera. Once you move to full frame, if you shoot at f1.8, you will produce a much shallower depth of field. That alone expands what you can do by a fairly significant margin. You will also see better high ISO performance (significantly-so due to two factors: the better sensor, and going full frame), better battery life, a much nicer pixel-count (over 24 megapixels versus what you're working with right now), a much better dynamic range, and so on. Also note that your lenses will essentially be better. On a D3100, a 50mm lens acts like a 75mm lens. If you shoot with an 85mm 1.8G on full frame (a similar field of view), you will get much better images. Your images will be sharper (it's a sharper lens), and you will get much nicer bokeh. The 85mm 1.8G simply produces better bokeh. The same thing goes with 35mm 1.8G: It produces worse bokeh than the 50mm 1.8G. And again, if you put the 35mm 1.8G on a crop camera, the field of view will be similar to that of the 50mm 1.8G on a full frame camera. So the optics you get to select for a job will actually improve (if you shoot 50mm on a crop, moving to 85mm on a full frame will be a major upgrade, and likewise moving to 50mm from 35mm will be a huge upgrade optically). The downsides that have been mentioned likely aren't important, and if they are, you'll know since you probably have a good idea of why you want to move from the D3100 to the D610.

 

[jaomul]

^^. Probably a lot of good points but lenses being better is not true, the opposite in fact(though crop sensor resolution can also be a factor). Fullframe users often prefer using lenses at their intended length, yes. But generally lenses performance is best at centre and deteriorates at edges. Crop cameras don't uses as much of the lens as fullframe so don't use extreme edges of the lens. Therefore they are often said to use the better part of the lens. This may be nit picking but some lenses (Nikon 70-200mm vr version 1) being the extreme example work well on crop but not so good on ff. Point being probably no point in going ff unless you have good lenses

 

[Derrel]

The Fro Knows Photo video in Post #9 is a good example of a guy fretting about the specifications of the AF system/module, and then ACTUALLY USING the camera for night-time high school football, and coming away totally,totally impressed with the autofocus system's capability, and the image quality at from 2,000 ISO to start, then 4,000 ISO and then right up to ISO 6,400. The Fro Know Photo video is a perfect summary of the way many people worry about "only" 39 AF squares, located centrally. Well, as I mentioned above, the TOP Nikons for a while, the D1, D1h, and D1x, had FIVE AF squares. The D2h, D2Hs, and D2x, and D2Xs models, all four of them, had an 11-area AF system, and it worked great. The Fro Knows video is a great example of a guy talking about how the AF system is too central, but then he allows the camera to work the way the engineers designed it, using 11- and 21-point (Nikon's two best multi-point "action" AF configurations,according to most serious shooters) and the friggin camera is NAILING night-time football action, consistently, and producing great files.

The CAM 4800 AF module actually seems to work pretty well, even though many people think it's somehow inferior. Read the Thom Hogan review of the D600, and then imagine the sensor/lubricant splash issue having been resolved in the D610. Also note the buffer of 16 RAW images when shooting 12-bit RAW, not 10 or 11 images. Fro used the D600 in 14-bit RAW mode, which has a 60% performance penalty for almost zero gain in image quality. Nikon D600 Review by Thom Hogan

 

[shadowlands]

You would love the D600, period... low light performance will blow you away. I grabbed a D700 last year, and I'm still blown away, the D600 is more recent.

 

[Braineack]

to clarify, I don't dislike having 39-pt; it would just be nice to have 51-pt. The D600 is a huge improvement over a D3100 (what I replaced mine with).

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Does the D610 have the same crammed into the centre focus points that the D600 had, for focus points i prefer the D7100 as the focus points are more evenly spread.

John.