< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Refurbished Nikon deals

Nikon-refurbished-deals
Few refurbished Nikon deals from Adorama:

This entry was posted in Nikon Deals and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Imperious Images

    Correction on the link:
    “Refurbished Nikon D7000* for $629″
    I was really shocked to see they had found enough D700’s to advertise refurb.

    • koenshaku

      Nah the D700 goes for around 3K online still. Nikon really should fill in a successor to the D700 because the D800 seem more a successor to Canon’s 5D mark II where as the 5D mark III seems more of a successor to the D700 at leas that is my opinion anyway.. I think this is mentioned everytime the word D700 is typed though hehe

      • phosgene

        whaaa? I just scooped up a low-shutter count D700 for $1200. Are we talking USD?

      • Ronan

        You can find refurb D700’s for $1500 and second hand in EXCELLENT condition, low shutter for $1000-$1200.

        You can find brand new D700’s for $2000 (usually come’s with the MB-D10 grip).

        Where do you find them for 3k?…

  • Mikey

    I got excited thinking that they had refurbished D700s for $629. It’s a typo. The link trashes you refurbished D7000s.

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ Nikon Rumors

      Fixed it – it’s a D7000, sorry.

  • Mansgame

    I’m really curious how many D600’s were returned to the stores due to the oil/dust spots on the sensor issue. I know many people who returned several before either giving up or sending it to Nikon hoping for a solution. Getting an FX camera with the latest sensor (it’s the same as the D610) for about $1400 once you sell the kit lens is an amazing deal, but be forewarned. The spot issue is real. Even if you get a new shutter. For $1400, it might be worth cleaning the sensor every week. For $2100, it’s not.

    • Ronan

      Not many returned it, most just got it cleaned and moved on.

      I doubt you know many people that returned there’s. Even if you knew 100 persons that returned it and showed you proof, that’s a very small number compared to how many D600’s were sold.

      • Mansgame

        Since you obviously work for Nikon, what are the numbers you have?

      • Aldo

        I didn’t return mine because I got it at 1.5k “brand new” … at anything close to 2k I would have gotten the d610

    • IslandNature

      I’ve sent mine to Nikon two times so far – first time, shutter replaced, second time they cleaned the sensor. Less than 400 actuations later the spots have returned. Cleaning the sensor is an option, cleaning it every time before going out on a shoot isn’t practical. Even with 5 or 6 spots/image if you’ve got a couple of hundred shots that require spot removal that adds up to a significant amount of time in post processing. Even at this price it’s not worth the time and frustration … if you’re looking for the kit deal I’ve got a Nikon serviced D600 and kit lens that I’d be more willing to part with.

      • Mansgame

        Similar story with mine. I should have returned it to the store when I had the chance.

    • AlphaTed

      You dont need to get the kit, there’s a refurb body only for $1,399.

      • Mansgame

        Wow, my estimate of $1400 was almost right on! Of course if this was The Price Is Right, I’d go over and the guy who bid $1 would win. Nobody likes that guy.

      • Aldo

        I would buy used with shuttered replaced already. A refurbished one doesn’t guarantee shutter replaced.

    • Aldo

      Mine has a late serial number… sent it twice as well… First a shutter replacement… then cleaning… going for a third time soon to clean it up once again. I put about 1k shots every week.

  • Mike

    $47. Sign me the f up.

  • Bigeater

    Sounds awesome and I’m in the market for full frame, but are D600s safe to buy now?

    • CSIROC

      Are you willing to ship it back if it has issues? Are you willing to clean the sensor should it need it (seriously not hard)?

      If yes, then yes, take the risk. If no, then no, don’t.

      I bought a refurb D600 in October. Sensor needed minor cleaning when I first got it, but a few thousand shots later, no issues (I take regular reference shots). But I bought it with full expectation I could have issues. You should too. While I do believe the issue has been overblown, there is no denying it is real and that a significant number were affected.

      Anyway, LOVE LOVE LOVE this camera. Image quality is astounding. I’ll likely keep this thing until it falls apart.

    • Aldo

      My theory is that ALL d600s have the issue. It isn’t a BIG deal… but all of the bodies have the issue nonetheless… of course if you shoot fast apertures you will never see it. Shutter replacement by nikon minimizes the issue but it takes several more cleanings to get rid of the spots for good. If you get a good deal on the d600, make sure it has the shuttered replaced… or it has warranty left so that you can send it in to have the shutter replaced. However anything more than 1.5k you should just buy a d610.

    • Mansgame

      Unfortunately, D600’s were never at any time safe. It doesn’t matter if you bought the very first D600 off the line or the last one or what serial numbers they had, they all have the issue in my opinion. Some are more severe than others and a lot of people may not notice it or know what it is.

      That’s why the D610 came out. I have not seen a single D600 without this issue. Even the ones that were sent back to Nikon and returned spotless get the issue again and even those with new shutters get it – though a little less at first. I can’t explain why or how it’s possible but I think there was probably both a manufacturing issue (perhaps dirty factory) along with a bad design of the shutter.

      Myself, after sending mine back to Nikon more than once, I’m coming to terms that $2100 is my cost of a life lesson. If you shoot everything at f/2.8 then you may not notice them, but you would notice it at low as f/5.6. If you do any kind of macro work where you’re shooting at f/22 or f/35, then you’re not going to have fun.

    • AM

      I haven’t seen any reports of people getting injured by a D600. So yes, you should be safe.

  • Hoser

    $1599 refurb d600 on Woot tonight

  • Spy Black

    Nikon needs to finally discontinue the 24-85 for 2014…

    • Kynikos

      This.
      24/70 4 and/or existing 24/120 4 fills the niche.
      Give us something we need instead.

      • JXVo

        The 24-85 is lighter, smaller and less expensive and image quality in tests shows up basically as good as the 24-120 f4 in the shared range, just 1 stop slower.

        • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

          Agree, and no creep! The 24-85 VR is underrated. I’ve owned, and shot ALL Nikon’s standard zooms. I’ll never give up my 24-70/2.8, but this is a lovely walkaround lens.

          The 24-120/4? Meh.

        • Kynikos

          ahahahahahahahahaha
          Keep printing to Facebook with that 24-85.

    • AM

      Why? It’s just a kit lens.

      • Spy Black

        Um, because it’s a complete piece of shìt?

        • AM

          Really? Is that all you can come up with?
          As I said, it’s just a kit lens, which is much better than the DX equivalent.
          I got mine for free as part of the deal one year ago with a D600. I’ve barely used it, but I keep it in my bag as a backup.

          • Spy Black

            If you’re shooting natural landscapes, you’re probably not noticing the insane amount of pincushion distortion that lens has just north of 45mm. Lots of barrel too, but that’s more typical of these kind of lenses. However except for an area around 37-43mm, you go from lots of barrel to LOTS of pincushion. Overall it’s not that sharp either. The 18-55mm DX kit lens is quite respectable by comparison, so to say it’s much better than the DX equivalent is quite amusing.

            • AM

              Its distortion is easily correctable in post-processing.
              Is it not that sharp? compared to what? to a prime or a pro lens? I agree. To the 18-55mm DX? The 24-85mm is sharper.
              I still keep my DX system, which includes a 18-55mm VR back from the day of my first DSLR. This is a lens that was designed for lower pixel densities than the ones in newer DSLRs. It clearly shows its weaknesses on a D7000. I would assume that on a D7100, those weaknesses are more noticeable.

            • Aldo

              It’s very hard to correct the distortion of the 24-85 because the distortion is different at almost every focal length… If you shoot one or ten pictures no problem…. if you shoot hundreds then it is a real pain in the azz.

            • Spy Black

              It’s not easily correctable when you’re zooming around. Apparently you’re also not aware that distortion correction costs you image detail, especially at the levels you need to apply to images created with this lens.

              But hey, you own it, knock yourself out with it.

    • lobsterhat

      My opinion: When DX DSLRs finally disappear in the next 3-5 years, this or its cheaper, more mass-produced successor, will be the replacement (by analogy) for the 18-55 kit lens.

      Once the price of the D800E sensor or its equivalent drops down to consumer levels (Moore’s law would say 36-54 months) DX is officially dead.

      • Guest

        So you like to keep paying for big glass rather than improving the DX senseor? Or is it that your style of photography is the only one that matters?

        • Mansgame

          Where did DX come from? Was it because it provided an advantage? Was it because film photographers who had shot 35mm for decades requested a smaller sensor size with less detail? NO! DX was invented as a way to make DSLR’s less than $1000 and buy enough time before full frame sensors could be developed economically.

          The smart camera makers decades ago rightfully decided that 35mm is the best size to produce the best images possible and still have a robust camera. Large format and Medium format cameras are just too big for most photography. As such, everything from the physical size of the camera to the lens, to the viewfinder is optimized for full frame cameras. If DX is improved, it means FX is improved 1.5 more so why waste time and energy with both?

          • CSIROC

            You do realize that 35mm film is just 70mm film cut in half, right?

          • umeshrw

            There is no perfect sensor size. Only what works for you. True that Dx was invented as a compromise but it worked for a lot of people. So there is no harm (except maybe to nikon profit strategy thinking) in letting it stay and develop. As long as the people are happy and are buying nikon products …………

            • Mansgame

              except everything else for decades was designed with 35mm sized sensors.

            • umeshrw

              Because at those times that was the best compromise. Like I said earlier, if newer works better for you; then why not go for it? Also like you said Dx was a compromise but many PGs (sports, birders etc) liked it. And if nikon wanted to do something about it then Dx sensor would have been much better than now. Why many pro people feel that quality of MFT or small mirrorless is sufficient for them . Then in that case Dx surely is good for those who want more reach without spending a bomb. I am not saying that Fx is useless. Just that Dx is good for specific uses and for specific price conscious people.

            • lobsterhat

              A point I was trying to make that I think is getting lost here is that the pixel pitch (inverse of density) and price of FX sensors are coming down so precipitously that those with a significant stock of DX lenses looking to upgrade bodies can just get at some point in the future an FX and crop when they have to. Right now the d7100 has a pixel pitch of ~3.8 microns – which means it is diffraction limited at about F6.3 (assuming a perfect lens) – hence the lack of an AA filter. In other words adding more pixels to DX’s current 24 MP standard isn’t going to make much difference. I have a strong suspicion that we will see a similar 3.8 micron pixel pitch FX sensor in the next year or two (just a guess based on trends – I don’t have the admin’s scoop on things, but the D7000 and the D800 have exactly the same pixel pitch). This would be a 60 MP camera. Fast forward a few more years and it’s going to be obtainable for the masses. Telephoto/DX shooters can just crop away in post. For the common shooter, DX cameras will be as obsolete as film is by 2020 if not sooner. That is, if DSLRs are still around.

          • lobsterhat

            This is a good point. APS-C was not very successful as a film format except in cheap compact cameras.

        • Mansgame

          Where did DX come from? Was it because it provided an advantage? Was it because film photographers who had shot 35mm for decades requested a smaller sensor size with less detail? NO! DX was invented as a way to make DSLR’s less than $1000 and buy enough time before full frame sensors could be developed economically.

          The smart camera makers decades ago rightfully decided that 35mm is the best size to produce the best images possible and still have a robust camera. Large format and Medium format cameras are just too big for most photography. As such, everything from the physical size of the camera to the lens, to the viewfinder is optimized for full frame cameras. If DX is improved, it means FX is improved 1.5 more so why waste time and energy with both?

        • lobsterhat

          Between ISO/noise performance, VR, and inherently shallower DOF the consumer photog won’t need big glass. This 24-85 isn’t really that big/heavy. And if you still like the DX “style” crop mode still leaves you with 16 MP if you have a 36 MP FX sensor.

  • XT

    still so expensive in US? I can get a brand new D600 body in HK with 1yr warranty by 1150USD.

  • rt-photography

    D600 owners-
    did you notice heavy chroma noise after iso 4000? sometime I shoot to 6400. my D3 isnt this bad and I thought that the IQ is supposed to be better on the D600 by a bit. resolving power is obviously better.

    • Mansgame

      Other than the spots on the sensor problem (along with the other specs 1/200 max sync speed, close af points, no video aperture changing etc.), the images are fantastic. Nothing wrong with the sensor itself at all.

    • lobsterhat

      Yes, I have. I wouldn’t call it “heavy” though. If the scene is relatively dark and I am in incandescent light I will need a little more chromatic NR in post .

    • Aldo

      Your image may be underexposed… as weird as it may sound.. sometimes higher ISOs will give you relatively “less” apparent noise if it means a better exposed image than kicking up the exposure/shadows/blacks on lower ISO images slightly underexposed. Give it a shot and you will see what I mean.

      • rt-photography

        I understand you but this is mainly in the shadows. usually even like to OE by 1/3 a lot. cleans up wrinkles/imperfections on the face very nicely. I prefer it to UE and bringing exposure up in PP.

        If I shoot a manily high key picture I could shoot all day at 6400 if I need to but this D600 is new and the chroma is horrible. spoke to my friend and says high iso NR should be on high. he uses 2 D4 and 1 D3s so configuring wise he knows his shit. will try it out tomorrow at an event and see.

        • Aldo

          People who “test” high ISO’s with good lighting don’t see this issue… But I’ve also experienced nasty noise at high ISO’s. If your prints don’t exceed an 11×14 .. you won’t see the noise. I always have to remind myself of this when I’m zoomed in pixel peeping. You also have to realize that at 4k-6400 ISO you are reaching the limits of what the sensor can do, so high noise is expected. Downsampled.. the images out of the d600 should be a tad better than the d3s as far as noise goes. And the d4 should be better by at least 1-2 stops.

        • umeshrw

          Sometimes having some noise in the image is preferable to high iso NR in camera.

      • umeshrw

        +1. Worked for me since my D200 days.

  • saywhatuwill

    You know, all these refurbished prices makes me wonder if it’s worth buying the cameras new or not? The markup must be really high for them to sell so low. For example, the D600 was $2000 or more and now it’s $1699. A D800 sells for $2798 right now with the current discount, but the refurb price is $2395. That’s quite a bit of savings for buying a camera that’s been serviced at Nikon.

  • Back to top