Let's see the stats: Are you buying the Nikon D600?
Are you buying the Nikon D600?
Direct poll link
Big NO. Nikon forgot loyals for spenders.
I do think for certain Sahaja’s analysis is right. The plant which is producing D600s is set up now to do that. If the D400 were introduced now it would be raising havoc with their sales of the D600. I am certain the serious photographers who I know personally would rather have had a D400 or even a D7100. RC on this D600 topic has campaigned for the FX way over DX. I am going to guess that means is not a field wildlife photographer. I have looked very close at the D800. I see no advantages to me personally over say the D600, and must weigh very heavily that the D700 we owned got sold as the amount offered to us was almost what we paid. The D700 was a big camera (and very, very good) but alas, no video. Make certain that I believe in using the best tool for the job. I admit that I looked very close at the D800. But it is big and expensive for our use. My crew is out there today at a race with a D7000 and quite a few Go Pros and a Sony video camera. Please realize, not everyone is as set on still photos as many here on NR. I always say to my guys….Be sure to take some still overall scenery views, not just action shots. All that said the D7000 is capable of doing very good video. And I also am SURE that the D800 and D600 video is very good also. Many who are taking videos with these DSLRs are thinking they are going to do a George Lucas. There are young people getting some amazing videos on the Internet. I personally believe a MIX of very good stills and video is a nice ticket. That is why I continue to follow the D600 story and still wonder were my next Nikon PURCHASE will fall.
Sorry to belabor this issue, but I hope DX is not dead. There for sure is a distinct shortage of Nikon glass for field use FX. I have pulled out photos of a friend taken on the recent Niagara Falls tight rope walk. He used a Nikon D300s with a 200-400 Nikkor lens. He did feel for the style of field work we usually do…..the 200-400 Nikkor is WAY TOO BIG, and yes Expensive
Nope. Originally I thought I might when the price was rumored to be much less, but now it makes more sense to save up the money to get the D800. Also I don’t care for the plastic body.
For two grand make it metal.
The only thing this FX sensor gives us is a higher price tag. They are expensive to produce, and so you pay a lot more to get the little gold FX badge.
I really, really don’t see the point of an ‘entry level’ FX. It beggars belief. There are plenty of entry level cameras. Why build an expensive, handicapped FX?
I’d rather see a better quality DX sensor in a better quality DX body. Perhaps they could loose the kiddie’s mode dial too. They could call it the D400 perhaps.
Just an idea
you are a bunch of dx quality cameras running around… making more dx don’t make sense… quality can only get so much better when you are dealing with a small sensor.
Why? To obtain the huge physics advantage of twice as a big a sensor.
No, a higher pricetag is not what FX gives us. Do you not know the benefits of FX over DX?
How have these “handicaps” negatively affected your photography?
So let’s say DX improves 1 stop. Big freakin’ deal. An FX sensor gathers much more light. The difference is huge.
It doesn’t affect my photography. And that’s my point. An amateur body does affect my photography.
I don’t need a D3000 with an FX sensor. It doesn’t make sense.
I want a quality pro body, and for the price range, that means DX. If I wanted an FX I’d buy a D800
FX gathers about 2.4x as much light as DX – a little more than 1 stop, which is 2x the light. The difference isn’t huge – it’s just about as big a deal to get 1 stop more performance from DX as it is to move from DX to FX.
For many D300 series shooters like me, the extra stop from FX is not worth the extra cost, weight, or tradeoff with flash sync, FPS, weatherproofing and other sacrifices the budget FX system brings with it, particularly when that system needs to include long telephoto lenses. It takes a 450mm f/2.8 on FX to equal what a DX system gets with a 300mm f/2.8. Guess what – there’s no 450mm f/2.8. If there were, I’m guessing it would be a little hard to hand-hold. And are you going hire someone to carry it for you on your next birding expedition?
While a certain segment of what I shoot would benefit from a 24mp or 36mp FX sensor, for most of it, the tradeoff clearly goes advantage DX, as long as there’s a high-performance DX camera available. I’ve been shooting Nikon for 50 years. If Nikon drops the ball here (and also fails to deliver those wide fast DX primes), I won’t be happy about it, but I’ll have to shop elsewhere.
The difference may not be “huge” if you’re comparing sensors of the same generation but the senor in the D300 is OLD. Virtually all DX cameras produced today have at least a 1 stop advantage over the D300. If you move to FX, that’s another stop or two. The difference isn’t so small anymore.
Add onto that the decrease in DOF and FX becomes very attractive to many.
Keeping my d700 backup to my D4. D600 is more than likely too small and will probably feel unbalanced with pro lenses. If I can get my hands on one I would love to take it to shoot a concert as a backup and put it to the real test. Shooting live concerts w/ inconsistent lighting, poor lighting and fast moving subjects is a real AF and ISO test for sure. Penny for my thoughts
Why not start a poll to see who would buy a D400?
….no D400 yet in real life, why bother?
Good suggestion. Just wonder what the other 77% of the poll response would have preferred…
This part of the 77% would have preferred a D400, just a little bit enhanced from what they’ll probably deliver (eyepiece shutter, bigger battery, screw-in eyepiece accessories, XQD, illuminated buttons). Then in a year or so, add a 60-mp D800x for those medium-format applications I’ve been wanting to work on.
I voted other as I am really just waiting for a D400 for birding/wildlife. As nice as the D600 sounds, and it would make a great travel camera for me, it’s a want not a need. I shoot D4, D700, D7000 already so I have enough cams for now. My next two planned purchases in order of priority are D400 in 2013, and D800E in 2014.
I don’t get the whining. If you don’t want this camera, ok. For the resto us, it’s an incredible opp to FF. Think about it for a second: this IQ, 10 months ago, was only available ina 6+K USD body (actually, the IQ of the D3x is likely lower than that of the D600). Add a nice compact body, good video, etc. No wonder it’s at the top of all photo products at Amazon. As my grandmother used to say (free translation from Portuguese), “the dogs bark as the caravan moves along …”.
This is a flawed poll. I checked NO, and that segment is the largest. However, I said no because I have a D800E. If I were floating in money I would buy one of these to fill my long standing wish for a digital FM2. The D600 is small, light, and with something like the new 28mm G lens I think it would be absolutely amazing.
And of course most people browsing a website are not going to buy a camera. It would be useful to know whether someone who has a D200, D300/D300s, D700 etc. is interested in this camera, not some random person that hits this website.
I had a D90 and a D300. I just went for the D7000 as this came out. On the plus side I like that it is slightly bigger than the D7000, but smaller than the D800. I can live with that and the build as I look after my gear and am not in the habit of chucking my gear around. On the downside I scoffed at that price. Here in SA this will set me back R23 000. I’m sorry, but then I can rather buy a used D700 (albeit older, used and heavier with no video). What also puts me off is the flash sync speed of 200 and the maximum shutter of 1/4000. Now some one elsewhere suggested that I counter this by using ISO 100. Well that’s one stop. Going from 1/4000 to 1/8000 involves more than 1 stop or am I missing something here? Thus I won’t be buying it. I’d be waiting until a D700 comes along in the condition I want for the price I want
Stopping down 1 full stop (to f/2.8 for example from f/2) = half the light, exactly the same as going from 1/4000 to 1/8000. If you square two f/stop values (getting numbers that are proportional to the area of the lens opening rather than its diameter) you’ll see the ratio of light admitted through the lens between the two.
Not flawed…just not very revealing. What is interesting is not so much how many will or won’t buy a camera that you’d expect to make up only a modest fraction of Nikon’s total sales (since the overwhelming majority are entry level models), but why those who won’t buy it decided that way.
It would have been quite a bit more revealing to break out the “No” responses with a couple more options, such as:
– No, I own/will be buying a higher-end body.
– No, it is out of my price range.
– No, I am not in the market for an SLR.
and maybe, although the responses would be skewed at a Nikon-specific site:
– No, I’m choosing another brand of SLR.
My own response would be, “No, out of my price range.”
I very seriously considered it, especially when there was still a chance it would be under $2000 ($1500 strained my credibility, but $1800 is pretty achievable, in my opinion).
Ultimately, I decided I wasn’t willing to commit quite that much of my spare cash into my hobby.
It wasn’t so the much the cost of the body that settled my decision, but the combined cost (and to a lesser degree weight, since I hike a lot with my camera) of the body + lens collection I ultimately want.
So for my budget, DX will have to remain a reasonable compromise.
D600 or D400 or D7200 I will buy one of these just bring them all out so I can make up my mind!
DX is dead. And good ridance.
I wont buy one because the D800e sat on my bench does 9, 20, and 36mp already, has a better focus system, isnt a toy plastic camera (whats the point in using a tiny plastic camera on heavy big full frame lenses?) etc.
The D4 only adds speed, and doesent have better noise at the same output size, just worse detail. So thats gone the way of ebay. As has my D800 since the E version has yet to make any moire that I have seen. So is the only camera I need. Its also a DX camera when I use a cheap small lens for snaps on holiday. Does all.
And for those of us that can’t justify the price of a D800? Maybe it’s not a problem of not being able to afford one, but how do you justify $3K if you’re not earning money from it?
So we’re in the same boat (almost). I don’t want a toy plastic camera either. And certainly not an FX toy plastic camera. So what do I up grade to?
Entry level FX isn’t an upgrade. A better quality DX would be
But whats the point of DX now we have the pixel density. Other than as an amateur format with cheap lenses? And they also work on full frame.
PRO is full frame 35mm equivelent. DX is that cute thing they used to do before full frame came along for amateurs. Theres almost nothing to gain by making another D800 with some of the sensor missing…
Substantially less expensive, more compact, more portable, better flash sync, uses substantially smaller and lighter tele lenses for the same reach. A 300mm f/2.8 on DX has the same reach as a 450mm f/2.8 on FX. I haven’t seen one of those. A 400mm f/2.8 on DX has the same reach as a 600mm f/2.8 on FX. We probably won’t ever see a 600mm f/2.8. Certainly not hand-holdable.
If Nikon drops APS-C, then there are lots of others that will pick up the pieces and the profits. The DX format D600 isn’t out there yet, but it will still cost only 65%-70% of the price of the FX D600. That’s the D7000 replacement we expect some time next year. The lenses when produced specifically for DX also typically cost half to 75% of their angle of view and speed equivalents on FX. That’s a substantial savings for someone who doesn’t need the low-light performance of the larger pixels.
The camera I am looking for is the high-performance, rugged, weatherproof DX camera – much faster shooting, bigger buffer, better focus, better handling, more rugged than the D600. That’s the camera I still expect to come out as the D400 within the next 6 months. It will probably also be no more expensive than the D600 for much more performance.
I may also eventually get or rent a D800 for those shots that call for the higher resolution and lower noise of this generation of FX sensors but don’t require medium format. But for my everyday shooting, the D300 is just right for me – updating it to a higher resolution sensor, easy wireless to a tablet, no-brainer for me, provided they (or Zeiss, or somebody) comes through with some wide primes for DX that perform with the higher-resolution DX sensors.
Thank you Pat Mann!
Burgerman, we are amateurs, that’s the point. I know how to use a camera, but I don’t earn any money from it. I am an amateur by definition. FX does not improve my photos in any way.
I I showed you two photos, could you tell me which one was FX and which one DX?
This FX snobbery is the most stupid thing I’ve ever come across. Yes, it’s more true to 35mm. So F*cking what! should I start driving on wooden spoked wheels because it’s more true to the Model T?
I want a reasonably priced pro bodied camera. And for the technology available right now, it’s DX. I am not paying $2k+ for a D3000 with a bloody FX sensor shoe-horned in.
If you want a kiddie dial with an auto mode, you aren’t a pro……..and let’s be realistic, how many of are?
OK we get that it doesn’t improve YOUR photos. Because YOU don’t need the extra light a FX sensor captures. But did you ever think about the fact that YOU are not the onley motherf*cker on this planet who takes pictures and that there are definitliy people who want to capture more light and have a true focal length without the crop factor? I’dont mind if the body’s not on a super pro level. I’ll put a vertical grip on it and it’s just fine for my needs. So pleas stop acting like you’re the only customer Nikon has, because you’re not!
Funny how for many people FX seems to be the holy grail…
I’m just an amateur shooter, and I prefer high end features: AF, weathersealing, rugged, full HD filming, … I know the D800 would suit me, but it sort of renders my 17-55 useless (buying a D800 to use crop mode is a bit pointless), so going FX will be an expensive step as I would need to upgrade my main lens as well.
So, I’m not arguing that FX is not better than DX. I don’t even fully agree with the bird watching argument, but it is an argument for some. I just don’t get why for some people it is so hard to believe that there are people out there that are willing to make the comprise of having a DX sensor if the other features are high end?
I pre ordered a D600 because I like using small manual focus lenses for a lightweight overall feel. I also want smaller RAW files compared to the D800, which I end up shooting in JPEG quite often to save space. I guess I should buy a new computer.
If you like using wide primes, using any manual focus lenses, or shooting at high ISO, then FX is a huge upgrade for you. For me FX was all about taking advantage of the lens selection – esp. wide primes – and getting the luxury of a big FX viewfinder.
That last comment was supposed to be a reply to “No FX”
I agree with what you say, to a point. I do like shooting high ISO, but if FX was my heart’s desire, it’d be the D800.
The only camera in Nikon’s line up that is even remotely appealing right now is the D800. Nikon seems to have forgotten about us DX shooters.
Perhaps the D600 is just an attempt to force us to by the D800 as there’s nothing else in the line up for us at the moment.
Bring on the D400 at a similar price as the D300s,and that’ll be a seller……but it would probably eat into the D600 sales
I hear ya. Nikon does not appear to be catering to higher end DX users at all. Where are the wide primes, for example?? That’s why i went FX.
What would be amazing for wildlife is a very high MP D400. Say 36 MP DX. I agree they would not release at the same time as D600 so as not to cannibalize sales. Gotta run a business, right?
There almost ALMOST no lenses that would give more detail at even 24mp and DX than at 16mp. So that 36mp resolution is pointless on DX. You would not gain a thing. You need a bigger sensor for that. Oh yes, we have one of those already! DX is now an amateur format.
Burgerman, that’s an interesting point. Presumably the smaller the image circle, the more difficult it becomes to manufacture a lens that will resolve finely enough to fill more megapixels?
No, 1/200th sync speed killed it.
So 1/250 somehow makes a world of difference to you? Please do explain.
No pro finder, no GPS = no sale.
Too high in price, in the UK it’s £1950, while today the best price on a D800 is £2099, I would say this camera should be about £1250 and it would sell well, in fact I’d have one as a back up to the D800.
Although the D600 is a nice camera, for only £149 savings I don’t think too many in the UK will buy a D600 over a D800 – that amount might get you a 50mm f/1.8G lens there, but nothing more.
I can’t believe that the D600’s UK price won’t quickly come down to where the differential is something more like it is in other markets.
Exactly my thoughts. I won’t be getting a D600 unless it hits around the price you mentioned also. It doesn’t make sense otherwise with the D800 as ‘low’ as it is and close to the launch price.
I’m hoping the price plummets after launch, but expecting to be disappointed.
Exactly. If I’m lashing out £2000 I may as well go £2200 and get the real deal rather than its cut down brother. Nikon ought to reduce the price to £1500.
Yes, I’ve preordered it. I’ve been waiting to upgrade my D3000 for a long time. And this camera perfectly suits my needs for higher picture quality, better low-light performance and a good video mode. (about the ‘shortcomings': never needed the high speed flash sync, and have always managed with the 1/4000 speed of the D3000).
I’m in the US though, I don’t think I would have bought it at the European prices.
Can the menage of people stop bitching about the prices if it has been mentioned OVER and OVER, and OVER again that it’s dependent on the country’s tax and whatnot. Also, to any real knowledgeable people about digital camera builds, is there a way (if at all possible) that there could ever be a firmware update that could make the flash sync speed faster (or FPS or shutter speed)? Just asking in case any of the things in the D600 could possibly be changed with such an update. And also HAS there been such an update before that changed such things to a camera like those features I mentioned?
@BigJ – NO in the case of the D600 as it has a mechanical shutter wherein the speeds are governed or decided when manufactured. In the case of say a Nikon 1 V1 where an electronic shutter is also employed along with a mechanical shutter, then yes – maybe for the electronic shutter that can be changed or increased via firmware.
* Mechanical shutter actually is electro-mechanical meaning electronic control of a mechanical shutter – got it?
Thanks for clearing that up
I understand their frustration. Price is a HUGE issue, and needs to be discussed here at length!
Taxes etc are the same for ALL cameras, so why is a D800 selling for 2,200 pounds ($3.5K) and the D600 2000 pounds ($3.2K) in the UK? the price differential is ridiculous.
In the US they are $3K and $2.1K respectively. That difference might make a few sales. if I was in the UK and wanted a D600, I could fly to the US buy a D600, spend a few days, and get back for less than the list price in the UK
Comparing a D7000 to a D600
Not to sound overly critical, but perspective issues and misalignment make that a rather rough comparison.
However, the D600 is already up on camerasize.com. I’ve never double-checked their scaling, but it shouldn’t be terribly difficult to make it reasonably accurate.
In my country announced price for D600 is 2100€.
A month or so ago you could get D700 for less and when it run out D800 price dropped to 2300€.
So far we have not received a single inquiry about D600 and that is very strange for a new model, usually we receive many of calls very next day.
What is even more strange is that d600/24-85 kit is announced at 2700€ and we already have 24-85 VR available for 550€ so one could get a better deal separately and that was never the case so far.
Perhaps when they release a camera Nikon insure themselves against currency fluctuations and base their local prices on what they have to pay for that. If banks are betting that the € and £ are quite likely to plunge over the next 12 months that might explain some of the differences.
Far too expensive compared with the D800
So just don’t buy it then. There’s nothing else cheaper, so I don’t see why they need to lower the price.
The d600 is the perfect camera for me, right now. Wide lenses, like my 24 1.4 or 14-24, will be its main use. Also handy will be the 35 1.8 (a dx lens) used with the camera set to fx capture. I have used it on film with my f5’s and love the look, and the size! This new camera supplements my d7000 for weddings. I will use my 135 f2 on my dx (making for a 200 f2 in a compact package), while saving my wide primes for the FX body. The biggest plus is that they will both be about the same size, with one on each shoulder. For all the people who are whining about nikons lineup: you don’t need a new camera; you need new glass, and a lot more practice. With a grip on it, the d7000 is about the same size as an F5, so please stop complaining about the small size… Nobody was complaining in 1997 that the f5 was wimpy! 1/200th flash sync is a non-issue, because anyone who is seriously using these for flash work will be using high-speed (auto-fp) up to 1/4000th, with the help of a few radiopopper px’s or new pocketwizards… Don’t like the game? Stop playing already and leave the photography to the pros. 99% of the limitations that these cameras have are not inherent to the camera, they are caused by the brain behind the viewfinder. Autofocus not working in the dark with a slow zoom on the camera? Try manual focus pal. My only possible complaint with this camera will be if it doesn’t ship sept 18th… “I’ll wait for the d400″- LOL… Enjoy your d40 while you wait! I will be enjoying my 24 1.4 in all it’s full-frame glory.
Amen. Wide angle manual focus on FX is a dream.
In the end, what matters most in a digital camera is its image sensor – not magnesium this or weather-sealed that or a “professional” designation by Nikon’s marketing department.
If you appreciate FX then the D600 looks like a very attractive option at $2100. If you’re indifferent to FX then you should be equally grumpy about all of Nikons other full-frame offerings. They’re even more expensive.
Of all the other camera features that have no direct impact on image quality, I especially like the light weight and U1/U2 recall modes. I could use those two qualities on my D3 much more often than I select 1/8000 second or use the camera to hammer pitons.
Autofocus performance might be another story. Sub-par autofocus can be a drag. We’ll have to wait and see.
Of course the image sensor is a critical element. But if your camera stops working because of inadequate weather sealing (as has happened to me) then it doesn’t matter how good your image sensor is.
If the poll is any indication, I’d say that the concept of the D600 far outreaches its usefulness in today’s economic climate. Nice as it is, it is my prediction that according to the way technology is priced by these Japanese camera manufacturers for a few millimeters of advancement will inevitably outgrow the market’s need for such technology. They each dazzle us with marginal improvement over previous generations by making us believe that the impact of such improvement is greater than it actually is. They preserve market share by temporarily upstaging each other with the single purpose of making a few bucks, quarter by quarter in a fiscal calender while simultaneously counting on the hype that websites like this create, with mindless debate between meaningless differences that in the end, constitute little in the way of tangible advancement. It’s self preservation. And it’s brilliant. Because anyone with at least an average understanding of what is necessary to capture imagery knows that it just doesn’t matter. In a few months, canon will release the 6D for $800 less, essentially 6 months ahead of moore’s law in terms of tech, speed, capability, and while we move to debate the merit of its contribution, much in the same way we’re doing here, now, about this camera, people who decided that what they have is perfectly suitable for what they do will turn out to signify a quintessential truth- the better they make a thing, the less of a requirement there will be to waste money on something that is not technically better save a few pixels or a frame with a little less noise at ISO’s that allow f/5.6 lenses with as many UD elements as far more expensive f/2.8 lenses provide.
Canon vs. Nikon is irrelevant. I see no reason for DX or APS-C to lose their usefulness because the people who make cameras have decided to make more full frame cameras available. Spatially, there is no difference.
I also see no reason to discontinue using my canon 60D every six months one of these companies comes out with a camera that presents such marginal improvement. We’re already exceeding the capability of film in even a crop frame platform. When are you people going to stop being consumers and start creating again?
Dude. The poll is asking random people on the internet. For all you know, some 5 year old kid just voted for fun.
DX is only around because it’s cheap. All this about wildlife shooters is just secondary. If people had a choice (both cost the same), the majority would choose FX over DX.
There’s nothing out there right now that’s anything like this camera, so I’m not sure where you’re getting the ideas from about incremental upgrades.
“There’s nothing out there right now that’s anything like this camera”
The 6D wasn’t announced at the time the original post was made. You also didn’t make a point. No one interested in the D600 is going to consider that thing (sarcasm here).
At this price, I can’t overlook the 1/200 sync speed, the 1/4000 maximum shutter, the DX autofocus points, the cheap viewfinder, having 24 MP instead of something lower in favor of better high ISO, and overall a cheaply built camera.
I might have overlooked it if it were just one or even 2 of those things, but this is a $2100 camera. That’s not chump change. If the price comes down a few hundred dollars, I might pull the trigger. At this price, not so much.
My next camera will however be FX. Maybe a used D3s. When did Nikon forget about the image and became an MP camera?
Nikon isn’t forgetting about the image. They compromised a few peripheral nice-to-haves in order to make an inexpensive camera with a great image sensor.
It is not practical to be waiting for a new camera body all the time and to be able to buy a new model every time a new model is presented. Many professionals or serious enthusiasts have already got their D4 or D800 and the rest was waiting for a well under 2000 USD body. I am not saying that is feasible to do, the only thing I am saying is that maybe many dreamed on a small, light, FF and under 2000 USD body, dreams fed by some rumors as well. I am not sure if it is possible to achieve something known long ago, and affordable version of Leica-M and an affordable and popular Nikon-F. Sony is working on the first (still working) Nikon is…
No – have a D800.
If I had waited for the D600, I think I’d still go for the D800 unless the D600 High-ISO performance is FAR better.
Nice that this camera is available for people who need a camera with these specs.
I am not one of them. If I wouldn’t have a D700 which functions fine (great), I would certainly consider this D600, or the D800. Full frame opens up great possibilities with apropriate lenses (especially the fast primes). I guess I would save on for D800, perhaps the price would drop a bit in the mean time.
No, i’m not going to buy the D600….
It really feels like a step backwards from the D300, comparing the specs that I most need in my line of work.
I really need that 1/8.000… Yes, on a sunny day about 50% of my photos are with a shutterspeed higher then 1/4000.
No Pc sync port…
Autofocus with only 39 AF Area points instead of 51
And the list goes on…
FX is also not an advantage… I’d have to buy a VERY expensive 300mm f2.8 lens to get the same pictures that i get with my 70-200mm VRI now…
I don’t think there’s going to be a D400. Or at least not any time soon.
So i just came back from the camera shop with a D800 today.
Now THAT is an upgrade… A step forwards. Especially for that little difference in price between the D600 and the D800.
I’m (again) a very happy camera owner…
Can’t wait to start using my brand new D800.
What was Nikon thinking with this camera!!!
It seems like Nikon forgot who they are and where they came from. They certainly did not make the D600 for their loyal customers they already have. I think Nikon let their marketing people do all the thinking and left their existing photographers out!
It was most likely all about how do we get customers who will buy more of our lenses. A new FX customer will buy at least 2-3 lenses while an existing customer already have his lenses and will not generate more revenue. By doing so Nikon left their existing customers out in the cold.
There is nothing between the D700 and D800 of any quality. At least over in Canon’s camp you can get a full frame 5D MarkII 22 megapixel with video for $1899.
I’m so bummed out! I really feel like I bet my money on the wrong horse! All that was needed was an upgraded D700 build quality 18-22 megapixel camera with 1080p video. How difficult could that be to figure out NIKON!!!
Sorry for my rant but just like so many others I’m just bit irritated with Nikon atm.
To those of you saying that the price difference between the D600 and the D800 is to small, you’re right. But who says you have to buy it immediately? Wait 2 or 3 months and there will be a significant pricedrop to about 2/3 or even 3/4 of the release price.
So i just tested the D600 for a tiny, little time 10-15 minutes and i have to say I’m pretty impressed by what it offers in terms of how it feels in your hands and the couple of testshots i took with the new 24-85 kitlens and the 85mm 1.4 were pretty pleasing. At the moment i’m really considerig to buy this pretty thing to replace my D7000. Compared to the size of the D7000 this camera feels bigger and not as cheap and plasticy as a lot of people here think.
So all i can say is try it before you judge it!
To RC: You are very sadly mistaken about DX versus FX in terms of buyers. You have made your campaign for FX versus DX. I think you would be better off if before launching this bigger is better mentality you had read more posts from some who thought DX cameras like D400 had been mistakenly overlooked. I for one cannot buy cameras or lenses for shallow depth of field. I have reviewed what it would cost in terms of weight and field use to buy a D800, a 200-400, etc. The price is right up there. I have spent enough money this year in my own business and also must look pretty carefully at what changing to more FX would mean. As a former owner of lots of large format gear and medium format I know first hand what large cameras in field work mean. Most of the working pros I know are using DX.
Their newspapers, etc. would be facing a rather large layout to invest in FX glass alone. I have half FX glass already from my Nikon F5 days. The other important assessment we ALL must make is what is our final use. I have scanners that will scan up to an 11×14″ original sheet of film. I don’t use them today. I prefer the convenience and workflow of digital. But I have shot FX and also know that a can make an awfully big and sharp print with what I have now. The REASON I am on this site today is to once again try to evaluate the D600 for my own use and those who I directly correspond with. Maybe the case could be made that the larger sensor is more environmentally wasteful???? I am not evaluating DX versus FX that by the way. What I do care about is dynamic range, and the ability to record scenes the way the human eye (given very good eyesight) would. I do care about write speed to SD cards, in stills and for sure in video. Just please realize that your FX over DX bent is not the whole story. I have reserved judgement in this case. Perhaps so should you. Let’s wait to see the reviews and how well the camera works in sufficient numbers to make these evaluations. Fair enough?? We also know this Nikon will not be releasing a D400 anytime soon. Too bad as just the Expeed 3 processor, etc. would be very useful.
In the spirit of cooperation,
I sincerely thank you for your respectful and informative reply. I completely understand what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree. I myself have been waiting forever for the D400 but the only reason I use DX is because the D700 was too expensive for me at the time. But that’s beside the point.
A lot of my posts are directed at D7000 owners/advocates that minimize the difference between the D600 and D7000. I’m not really pushing for the extinction of DX because I do realize that there are still some that benefit from it such as yourself. But I really do believe that if people had a choice, they’d pick FX over DX if the price was the same.
Remember the DCS-315? It had a 2.6X crop factor, and it disappeared. I wonder how many people complained about that.
Would the DX crop mode work for you? If not, why not?
Most of the time, when I post here, I post my personal opinion (often with sarcasm). I’m not writing a newspaper article, so I don’t worry about both sides of the story. I thank you for being civil.
Look so nice with that lens. But im not a pro. I have a D90 and he still good for me. Maybe in a few 3-4 years I will buy a new one.
No buy with USB 2.0 cause it means 200% the tranfer time of my D700 for each RAW… USB 3.0 would have mean 20% of the time !
D 600 Camera will not be good for HDR Photography with only a 2 – 3 stop range on auto bracketing. For the life of me , I can’t figure why Nikon did this! I could have lived with the 1/200th sync speed.
Enter your email for daily blog updates: