birdman said:
I would consider it. We'll all see how this plays out of course. I hear a lot of criticisms about the D800's high ISO abilities and need to have it extremely balanced for a non-blurry shot.

I don't need 51 or 61 AF points, personally. I am shooting with a 5d2 and have the D800 on order. If it doesn't meet my needs, well I would order the D600 especially if High ISO trumps it noticeably and DR is very similar. Being heavily invested in CF cards will upset me if the D600 ONLY accepts SD.

I'd suggest, keep your 5D2. I am assuming that the sensor is Sony made, therefore, it will have about the same noise performance as 5D2. The dynamic range will be much better, but only at the shadows. Which means, you can choose to shoot at lower ISO and pull at post without much negative effects (low read noise). On the highlights, you get not much benefits (of course, you can underexpose slightly, but that would increase noise). The AF system should be similar to 5D2 with just more focus points you won't use. Weather sealing should be as good as 5D2, maybe a bit worse. Metering should be much better than 5D2, because AF could detect faces, which means that they are putting the D4/D800 meter inside the D600. Oh, and CF? I think, sooner or later it will be phased out.

If I were you, I would just keep my 5D2 or buy the D800. The motion blur and diffraction talks are rubbish. Motion blur and diffraction don't increase because of megapixels. It's just b***sh*t.

If you can afford the D800, just go with the D800, no regrets.

Thanks for fleshing that out msmoto.
What qualifies as an action camera these days? I'm getting 4FPS on the D90 and I'm happy as a clam with that rate. Granted I'm shooting rugby not motorsport...

shawnino said:
Apologies if I am wrong, but isn't this a little bit of a red herring when discussing D800? D800@36MP would give you a bucket of 15-16 MP or so in DX crop mode (or more MP in a custom-DIY crop from an FX image). So the illusion of the "longer focal length on DX body" kind of goes away as the DX crop or DIY-crop-on-FX is "more than enough" MP for most applications?

(I'm asking, not telling.)

Thanks.

I suppose the discussion is about having a 300mm DX lens, and getting the equivalent of 450 mm in FX. Now I understand one can put the DX lens on the D800 and shoot DX mode, but why buy the camera in the first place. Why not buy a DX camera which will shoot 7-10 FPS, has ISO of 25,000 and is set up more for action/sports? It does not make sense to me to shoot DX in an FX camera... of course, having said just that, i have returned from a short track in Wisconsin, and shot with the 70-200mm TC20-EIII on FX and then cropped to about the size of 8x10mm equivalent on the image. But, I was shooting at ISO from 10,000 to 50,000 in horrid conditions. Now, if I had a DX camera, same ISO same 9FPS, the body would be less expensive, the results the same. And the rest of the DX lenses could be used in DX mode. But, if I had an FX body, I would want FX lenses.

In a week, i will be putting a 400mm f/2.8 w/TC20-EIII, on the D90. DO this in FX and one users a 600mm f /4.0 on D4. Cost factor is about $7,000 more to do it on FX. And this is due to the 1.5 factor. Now, the D90 will choke every four to six frames.. but I usually shoot bursts.A pro DX body will handle the large buffer required for multiple exposure at hi FPS. For a lot less money. The D800 does not appear to be an action camera, however, the may prove to be an incorrect assumption on my part. Especially as TTJ seems enticed by it over a D400, as the D400 may be a product of our imaginations.

But this is only our individual thinking. No one is right or wrong.

bjrichus said:
So Nikon had better churn out more than the paltry D800 production run quantity if the updated specs are anything to go by... It could well kick some serious rear-ends out there ...

Anyone care to predict the lead time if we all order one as soon as pre-orders are open?

6 months? A year? :-(

My feeling is that the D600 will be built in the newly rebuilt plants in Thailand, which have a reported greater production output. The demand will be even greater then the D800 if the rumored price of the D600 is around US$1,500.

Answer to post is: Most definitely the D600 over the D800 for me. Enthusiast not pro.

msmoto said:
Y
And, if one shoots long shots (telephoto) the cost factor is even higher as one loses the 1.5 multiplier.

Apologies if I am wrong, but isn't this a little bit of a red herring when discussing D800? D800@36MP would give you a bucket of 15-16 MP or so in DX crop mode (or more MP in a custom-DIY crop from an FX image). So the illusion of the "longer focal length on DX body" kind of goes away as the DX crop or DIY-crop-on-FX is "more than enough" MP for most applications?

(I'm asking, not telling.)

Thanks.

Hi all,

@DaveyJ,

"Granted the D600 looks interesting now."

Indeed.

My best,

Mike

The fps will tell all. I really want a D4 but I am too poor to invest in one (more important business expenses) If it shoots faster than the D800 I will get it, if not Ill have to try it.

I would consider it. We'll all see how this plays out of course. I hear a lot of criticisms about the D800's high ISO abilities and need to have it extremely balanced for a non-blurry shot.

I don't need 51 or 61 AF points, personally. I am shooting with a 5d2 and have the D800 on order. If it doesn't meet my needs, well I would order the D600 especially if High ISO trumps it noticeably and DR is very similar. Being heavily invested in CF cards will upset me if the D600 ONLY accepts SD.

kevin pan said:
Now we know more about d600 specs. I am curious to know how many people will get the d600 instead of d800. ( i ordered d800 but have no idea when will i get it in my hands)

Please let me know.

Hell no

I could see myself upgrading from my old D200 til a D600 but I do have a few reservations:
- An AF-motor in the house is a must as most of my FX-lenses are without a focus motor. This requirement seems to be met.
- It would probably be a deal breaker if handling isn't similar to my D200. I really like the ergonomics of the D200 - especially the big handgrip which is just right for my big hands. I have tried the D7000 where my fingers didn't fit between the lens throath and the handgrip. Of course, I could buy a battery grip, but it is not a very attractive thought having to spend extra money on a battery grip just after having bought a D600.
- The pricing should not be more than 2000-2500 dollars tops.
If these requirements are not met, I could be tempted to live without the video and opt for a used D700 or maybe a used D300s. The latter would give me video - although not state of the art video, but perfectly alright for someone like who just wants to play around with video to find out if it is something with appeals to me.

msmoto said:
Yes, the cost of the camera body is the least of the problems.... when one goes to NIKON's website and prices out a few FX zooms, the cost factor goes to several thousand if one wants a nice range covered. Then, specialty lenses...at $1500+ and up...

And, if one shoots long shots (telephoto) the cost factor is even higher as one loses the 1.5 multiplier. And that is why I am waiting for the D400.

I've thought of going Sigma if I ever go FX. Looking at their lenses, they seem to have 70-90% of Nikon quality at 30-60% price for non-special lenses (not really happy with the quality control though). The body is not really an issue. At slightly higher price than D7000, why not? I know I could still use my DX lenses on it, but then what's the point of buying it? If I add a D600, Sigma 24-70mm, 70-200mm, and some other accessories, the price would go up to $4000, which is really expensive in my country when you convert it. Prices of cameras in my country is generally more expensive, up to 30% more. So I'd be paying $5000+ if converted just to upgrade to FX. But it is tempting...

MikeWhis said:
Yes. I would buy this camera. But the problem is, I don't know if I'm willing to spend more money buying FX lenses. I'd spend at least $2000 even if I sell my current unwanted gears if upgraded.

Yes, the cost of the camera body is the least of the problems.... when one goes to NIKON's website and prices out a few FX zooms, the cost factor goes to several thousand if one wants a nice range covered. Then, specialty lenses...at $1500+ and up...

And, if one shoots long shots (telephoto) the cost factor is even higher as one loses the 1.5 multiplier. And that is why I am waiting for the D400.

Yes. I would buy this camera. But the problem is, I don't know if I'm willing to spend more money buying FX lenses. I'd spend at least $2000 even if I sell my current unwanted gears if upgraded.

Hmmm...specs refinement has me thinking. I could always keep my D5000 as a back and for my DX lenses. I also would like to see what a D400 would have to offer DaveyJ before I take the dive.

I sold both my DX lenses.

I pre-ordered the new AF-S 28mm f/1.8G ( this replaces the AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G I had ) and also purchased AF-S 50mm f/1.8G.

This is why I am looking forward to D600 when it is available. Larger viewfinder 100%will be one feature that I will love over viewfinder in the D5100 I have at moment.

Dan

I think the release of the D600 is great for Nikon shooters and if I was waiting for my D800 I'd just cancel the order. The specs look very impressive for the D600 and its a great price! However, will you be waiting too long for the D600 as well?

Granted the D600 looks interesting now. Still would like to see the D400 with evolutionary upgrades from say the D300s. Then see prices and reviews on both. Realistically waiting around for these cameras requires lots of patience and I for one have work to do.
At this point I am certain the D7000 could use some major upgrading. Nikon's present direction seems awfully FX oriented and I am going to bet that DX next announcement (D7100, D400) will net more profit than these FX cameras. Given that I have a fair amount of FX capable glass you'd think I would be more FX prone, but just ONE necessary FX lens addition would be pretty pricey, and if you haven't noticed there are some CURRENT lens shortages from B&H who I buy from.

The D600 seems to be a far more balanced camera than the D800, I could easily see myself getting one if the price is right (under $2500).

bjrichus: Indeed. It actually kind of stinks that new models are getting pre-announced before existing model pre-orders are getting filled. I wonder, though, if D600 bodies get cranked out quick, how many D800 pre-orders will get cancelled. I'm thinking "not many", but I'm often wrong.

So Nikon had better churn out more than the paltry D800 production run quantity if the updated specs are anything to go by... It could well kick some serious rear-ends out there ...

Anyone care to predict the lead time if we all order one as soon as pre-orders are open?

6 months? A year? :-(

Well dang, if the updated specs are correct (built-in AF motor and 100% viewfinder) I think this will be my next camera body. Those were the two big things for upgrading to a full-frame camera. Not the most thrilled at the 39-point autofocus, but for those cases where I'm focusing on something on the edge of the frame, I can just use live view like I do now.

Im hoping to acquire a D800 sometime in the summer and hawk my D700 shortly after. Then around christmas Ill see what I like more, a D600 or a likely very cheap used D3s.

Ok, I think it's time to reawaken this thread :-D

So now that the D600 seems to have the AF motor seems and 100% viewfinder coverage, I'm wondering how many of you are reconsidering buying the D600?

The Man From Mandrem said:
I'm quite surprised by the "lack of market" for a cheaper FF.
Most people I know would buy a $1500 FF in a heart beat IF:
(1) It has a metal body --> Should not be a problem from a cost perspective and
(2) It has an AF screw.

Most people I know who are serious about photography but non-pro ("Consumers") own DX bodies and mostly FX lenses (105 DCs, 85 1.4s and the 2.8 FF zoom trinity) with the dream of moving some day to FX. To sell something new to those poeple, a VERY strong incentive to upgrade. I'm sure that's a very significant SAM.

I think there was a comment here last year or before that most people already have DSLRs now so the market is different --> New capabilities need to be packed in to motivate replacement.

I don't know about "most people" having DSLR's. I can see this being a really appealing first SLR for someone coming from a P&S or bridge camera (or, if it's really good, maybe peeling off a few NEX and Micro 4/3 people), but you've also hit on something regarding DX people who buy FF in hopes of an eventual upgrade. I oughta know, 'cause I'm one of them; the only DX lens I've got is the 18-105 that came with my D7000, exactly for that reason. Granted, I don't have pro-level glass (a couple of fast-ish primes, the 70-300, the 28-300), but I'll be taking a serious look at this camera once it's tangible and not theoretical (with that said, I'd love to see a screw drive for my D lenses). I can't justify a D4, but if the compromises between this and the 800 are acceptable, count me in. If not, I'll keep saving my pennies (by which point, the D900 will probably have replaced the 800 anyway; either way, I win. ;) )

It

photoguru2 said:
Are you joking with the ISO range? Nikon isn't going to put that native ISO performance on an entry-level full frame.

It's perfectly possible.