I can't find on the specs list how many shots can the D600 hold in buffer in RAW and fx mode?
D600 Discussion and Questions
(204 posts) (44 voices)-
Posted 9 months ago #
-
Damn. I read somewhere. Cant remember where but I read that it can shoot 57 shots at full res( Fine JPEG ), 100 shots for all the other Jpegs and for RAW something like 20 or 30.
Posted 9 months ago # -
According to Nikon's website, 16 14bit RAW (lossless compressed), 23 12bit RAW (lossless compressed).
Posted 9 months ago # -
KenRC, I changed the title of the thread to make it a bit more general. It's probably time to let the speculation thread die, anyway, now that the D600 has been announced. There's been quite a bit of good discussion over there, though (including a discussion of buffer size), so here's the link: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=5685
Posted 9 months ago # -
Ahh.... progress....Thanks, Jonny, I agree a general D600 discussion thread is appropriate. And now, maybe the link from the thread I had posted on the video of the pre production model which shows the guys using the D600 in much the same way the D800 Chicago motorcycle commercial was done, only it was just two guys without a production company.....
msmoto said:
Posted 9 months ago # -
Lots of DSLR video rigs and accessories now a days for the video chasers. I do not feel like turning into a Lucas wannabe and staying a Adams wannabe.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I've never bought a camera that hadn't been out a for a while so I'm asking for people with this experience: How long does it typically take before Lightroom releases updates with RAW support for new cameras?
I'm hoping I don't have to use JPG or other programs for too long before I can mess with RAW files from the D600.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I wonder how is the ISO compared to the D700? BTW, what is the buffer for the D700? If the buffer for the D600 is 16 14bit lossless then that would be good enough for me. That means I can take continuous for 3 seconds. I usually don't shoot continuous for longer than that.
If I do get this camera what SD card would write fast enough to the 5.5 fps at RAW 14bit lossless? Right now for my D7000 I have one 32gb 45mb/sec, two 16gb 30mb/sec, and one 8gb 30mb/sec?
jonnyapple said:
KenRC, I changed the title of the thread to make it a bit more general. It's probably time to let the speculation thread die, anyway, now that the D600 has been announced. There's been quite a bit of good discussion over there, though (including a discussion of buffer size), so here's the link: http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=5685No problem, thanks!!
Posted 9 months ago # -
It depends on where Adobe is on their update release cycle, but typically 3-4 weeks, rensuchan. I'm thinking it has happened within a week of a camera release, but I may be remembering wrong.
Ken, you won't find a card that writes that fast. I'd estimate 22 MB files, so at 5.5 fps, that works out to about 130 MB/s to be written to the card to keep up with the camera. Don't worry, though, because that's the reason for the buffer in the first place. With a card writing 20 MB/s, you'll get appx. a 3.5 second burst before the D600 buffer fills. Edit: For comparison, if you use a card with a 2 MB/s write speed, you still get a three second burst before the buffer fills, but then it takes 2.5 minutes to completely clear a 320 MB buffer vs. 15 seconds with a 20 MB/s card.
Also, someone is probably going to wonder about this, so I'll mention it. Video bitratre on the D600 is 28 Mbps max according to Thom Hogan, which works out to 3.5 MB/s, so class 4 SD cards are sufficiently fast to keep up with it in video mode. Incidentally, if 28 Mbps is available for 24 fps, this is going to be absolutely gorgeous video!
Posted 9 months ago # -
jonnyapple said:
It depends on where Adobe is on their update release cycle, but typically 3-4 weeks, rensuchan. I'm thinking it has happened within a week of a camera release, but I may be remembering wrong.Ken, you won't find a card that writes that fast. I'd estimate 22 MB files, so at 5.5 fps, that works out to about 130 MB/s to be written to the card to keep up with the camera. Don't worry, though, because that's the reason for the buffer in the first place. With a card writing 20 MB/s, you'll get appx. a 3.5 second burst before the D600 buffer fills. Edit: For comparison, if you use a card with a 2 MB/s write speed, you still get a three second burst before the buffer fills, but then it takes 2.5 minutes to completely clear a 320 MB buffer vs. 15 seconds with a 20 MB/s card.
Also, someone is probably going to wonder about this, so I'll mention it. Video bitratre on the D600 is 28 Mbps max according to Thom Hogan, which works out to 3.5 MB/s, so class 4 SD cards are sufficiently fast to keep up with it in video mode. Incidentally, if 28 Mbps is available for 24 fps, this is going to be absolutely gorgeous video!
I doubt that it would be 22mb files because my D7000 gives me 18-20mb files in RAW 14bits.
Posted 9 months ago # -
You're right—no wonder my hard drives are filling up faster than I expected. I think I had the bit storage confused with the file size since I never see the files except in lightroom anymore. ;-)
It doesn't change much with the math to have them be 25MB files, though. The buffer is probably closer to 400 MB and you'd need 140 MB/s to keep up.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Sure enough, I went here http://www.macandphoto.com/2012/09/fichiers-raw-et-jpeg-du-nikon-d600-%C3%A0-t%C3%A9l%C3%A9charger.html and downloaded the raw file of one of the busy pictures. 30 MB—ouch!
So with 30 MB files (I'm sure this is getting old!) the buffer is 480 MB and you'd need 175 MB/s to keep up. I'm done. ;-)
Posted 9 months ago # -
Nikon has made it hard for D300/s users to feel good about upgrading to a D600. Smaller body, less user banks, no dedicated ISO & WB buttons . One can only think Nikon's preference for a D7000 type body ( when there was already an ideal shaped body like the D300 ) for the D600 is a move to change the game that has been going on for the last decade.
It looks like Nikon has decided and designated FF as the way to go for all serious amateur and professional photographers. The idea behind the D600 must be to encourage even entry level body users upgrade directly to FF . Go back to where the format was 10 years ago - with film.
Sorry if this was mentioned/discussed before - I haven't followed previous D600 topics( gossips ).
Posted 9 months ago # -
Looking at the specs comparison it seems like the D600 will be a great camera. I still think Nikon has the timing and pricing wrong on it. Had it come out before the D4 and D800 it might have been a different story. I really think the D800 took away half the market for a D600. The price although reasonable for what you get really is just too much. Maybe Nikon wanted to test the water and see who would buy their least expensive FX camera yet, but it doesn't seem to have near the hype or market that the D800 did. Especially when I am not sure a working/pro photog is going to want the camera and it is hard to just a joe schmo like me to justify the price of $2100. I could buy two D7000's and possibly a lens for the same price.
And I am really not trying to hate on the camera. I know many have said everyone was crazy for expecting the $1500 price tag. I have looked at the videos and pictures taken by it so far and it really seems like a high performing camera. It just seems odd to me. Perhaps they wanted to move more users to FX or just to expand their FX offering, but I don't see a large market share in this level/type of body. Maybe I am wrong.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Good thoughts, tcole. I think you and paperman are right on with your comments, although I feel like the real target market is D7000 upgraders. The D800 was for D300 users and matches the control style more closely. I still expect a D300 replacement eventually.
It's just unfortunate how much more expensive each camera is than its counterpart (I bought my D300 for $1800 and my D7000 for $1200, both right at release). Part of that might be down to how strong the yen has gotten relative to the dollar, but it's hard for me to find $900 worth of upgrades to the D600 from the D7000, let alone $1100 if you take current price difference.
I don't think that $1800 would have been a completely unreasonable release price.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I feel like the D600 is more for the D4 user as a small backup camera, perhaps a second body. It's a bit on the slow side (fps), but I guess it wouldn't matter for video too much.
But then you could argue, couldn't that pro get a D7000 instead?
Posted 9 months ago # -
except the D7000 is DX and would therefor have a completely different FOV on each lens compared to the D4...
My biggest issue with the D600 is the sync speed - 1/200th is just too slow, how come the D40 was such a beast and Nikon have been regressing ever since? I think i'm going to stick with my bet up old D700 for now. Maybe go the whole hog with a D800 once the price is right
Posted 9 months ago # -
fraew said:
except the D7000 is DX and would therefor have a completely different FOV on each lens compared to the D4...Not to mention the lack of battery and memory card overlap for both of those cameras. I think the D4 is the backup camera for the D4 user. ;-)
The sync speed doesn't bother me much (learned on an OM-2 with 1/60 sync speed), but it would be nice and it is a little odd that they backpedaled there.
Posted 9 months ago # -
fraew said:
except the D7000 is DX and would therefor have a completely different FOV on each lens compared to the D4...My biggest issue with the D600 is the sync speed - 1/200th is just too slow, how come the D40 was such a beast and Nikon have been regressing ever since? I think i'm going to stick with my bet up old D700 for now. Maybe go the whole hog with a D800 once the price is right
Besides the whole FOV thing, it has similar AF, sealing and even shares memory card formats. If you don't mind the crop factor, it could do fine.
The D40 has an electric shutter. From what I can tell, the last use of an electric shutter in a Nikon DSLR. Which is why I'm hanging onto mine and I'm going to experiment with a speedlight when I have the funds.
jonnyapple said:
Not to mention the lack of battery and memory card overlap for both of those cameras. I think the D4 is the backup camera for the D4 user. ;-)The sync speed doesn't bother me much (learned on an OM-2 with 1/60 sync speed), but it would be nice and it is a little odd that they backpedaled there.
Haha, you're right, the D4 isn't paralleled by any other Nikon DSLR. Perhaps a new pro DX model with the same FPS for a little less? Would anyone want such a camera? Maybe a D2xx? :D
Probably has to do with why the fastest shutter speed is only 1/4000th as well. That's a bit of a step back I think, especially with fast primes.
I can see how a D600 looks expensive- you could argue you're just getting a new chip and a viewfinder for $1100. Obviously I'm oversimplifying, but it is a bit of a jump over a D7000.
Like others have said, expect something in between indeed. Nikon can't let that gap be so apparent. I say November launch of a high FPS DX body. :D
Posted 9 months ago # -
Ok, so I've been silent for a while now and for good reason too. I got to admit I was a bit (ok a lot) taken back by the price and that lead to some initial disappointment. I honestly was not expecting it anywhere above the $2000 mark MAX with $1600-$1800 being ideal. Or if it was any higher (as it turned out to be) then maybe Nikon could have surprised us with something such as a built-in wifi/gps or something else to at least make it "feel" worthwhile. IMO, as it is right now, the only saving grace for the D600 is it's sensor performance... and if I may say, from what I've seen/heard/read so far, I'm beginning to appreciate why Nikon priced it so.
So yes, I'm still contemplating buying the D600. After the announcement, I did dable with the idea of going for a D800 instead but the more I read on various first impression reports, the more I feel the D600 is going to be a great fit for me. That, though, won't be for at least 6 more months or so.
For one thing, I really want to wait and make sure there are no quirks or mishaps (a la D800 left AF) and if there exist any that Nikon does in fact address the issues. Yeah, in that regards I think Nikon did themselves a huge diservice with the way they handled/handling the left AF fiasco.
The other reason I'm not buying the D600 now is just simply that I really want to start making some money with the gear I already have before I invest in an FX camera. This has always been my plan since I acquired my D7000 one and a half years ago. It would be nice to actually be able to justify my indulgences instead of just throwing away my money ;-)
<fanboism> OTOH, has anyone taken a look at the latest 6D rumor? It appears that Canon will officially announce it later today with a price tag of (surprise, surprise) $2099. Based on specs so far and compared to what we got, the 6D looks like a total "fix-a-flat" job. One thing that (very negatively) stands out is the 11 point AF system. And from the previous rumor it will only have one f/2.8 cross-type in the center, whatever that means (center point will only focus with f/2.8 glass?). It does have a few merits though. Canon did actually include both built-in GPS and WiFi into it, that and it does appear to go up to 1/8000 SS (maybe those who whined over the D600's max SS will finally be happy and switch to Canon now ;-) </fanboism>
One other point I want to mention (yeah I now, I've been rambling too much and going on many tangents so thank you very much if you're still reading :-), anyone else notice how Nikon is mating together certain cameras from their previous line-up to produce their current line-up? Think about it. D3x + D700 = D800. D700 + D7000 = D600. Except for the D4, did we really get any direct camera replacements so far?
I think this leads to another question though. If this trend holds true and Nikon decides to continue on with it into their DX line, then is it fair to expect the hotly anticipated D400 to be the baby product of two other Nikons? And if so then which ones? D300s is one of them of course... could the other one be D5100?
Posted 9 months ago # -
iris chrome said:
I think this leads to another question though. If this trend holds true and Nikon decides to continue on with it, then is it fair to expect the hotly anticipated D400 to be the baby product of two other Nikons? And if so then which ones? D300s is one of them of course... could the other one be D5100?Maybe it will be D3s + D300s...
If they can produce a pro DX camera in the 18MP to 24MP range, with a tough build, good high ISO performance and fast AF, they will have a hit.
Posted 9 months ago # -
-
From my perspective. When I jumped into the dSLR game I spent around $1100 which got me a D5000 and 18-200. I assume most spend around $1000 for a kit lens and body. So at this point much isn't invested in lenses. I would say 90% of people that buy a setup such as this just continue to use their kit lenses and maybe expand to add another lens which is most commonly another dx lens.
So as of a couple months ago I had:
D5000
Tokina 12-24 F4
Nikon 35 F1.8
Nikon 18-200 F3.5-5.6
Nikon 105 F2.8I sold the 18-200 and 12-24 and now I have:
Nikon 35 F1.8
Nikon 17-55 F2.8
Nikon 105 F2.8
Nikon 300 F4So being not really the typical dx user I have accumulated 2 FX lenses and still have 2 DX lenses. To get to a D600 I need a walk around zoom which means I either sell some more lenses or spend more $$$.
I would like a new body at some point to upgrade from my D5000. I now have significant money invested in my lenses, but to get to that point has taken basically saving every extra cent I get to go toward buying theses (and lots of pleading with my wife). So now my options for body upgrade are a D3200 or 3 FX bodies over $2000 and the move to FX would cost at least an additional $500 for the new variable aperture FX zoom....which would be somewhat of a downgrade from my 17-55 F2.8.
The D600 just doesn't do any good for my situation and it seems like many others. I would say I even have a hand up on most dx users by already have 2 pro FX lenses. I know on the forum most have more then just a kit, but as I am out and about I think the typical user really has just the kit lenses and body. So who is the D600 targeted at? Someone that can at least drop $2700 for the body and kit lens. That is only a little less then I have total in all my camera gear if I were to sell it now. And I would get a pretty good body and an ok lens, but lose some great glass.
So that is where I am coming from and why the D600 just doesn't seem like a good option. I could save and possibly justify a $1500 camera at this point...especially if it was DX as I wouldn't need anymore lenses, but to move to FX it just increases that cost all the more. I think those on the forum are not typical users in that we are here talking about upgrading camera stuff and most have more then the kit lenses. Lots on here are paid or working photogs, but I have an unrelated job and I make no money at this point taking pictures. I have outgrown my D5000, but does Nikon really think that the D600 was my next step? Surely I am not the only enthusiast out there who is hoping to upgrade, but can't afford the FX jump and is still stuck without any options.
Posted 9 months ago # -
I wouldn't say no options, Tcole. You don't like your options, but I feel your pain. 2100 is still pretty awesome for an FX release price— and even if we think it could have been lower, it probably will go down in the next year or so.
What about keeping your lenses and buying a 50mm? Back in the film days, I had a 50mm and a 28-135, but I used the zoom a lot less frequently than you might think. You have a better setup than that and the D600 would still be a great DX crop camera while you work on replacing your DX lenses if you feel like you need to.
One thing that makes me happy about this camera is that even though it's an entry level camera they didn't cripple it by removing the AF screw and it meters with AI lenses. This does keep the market lots bigger for those of us having trouble justifying the FX jump.
Like Iris, I still want this camera but the price has set me back some time.
Posted 9 months ago # -
iris chrome said:
<fanboism> OTOH, has anyone taken a look at the latest 6D rumor? It appears that Canon will officially announce it later today with a price tag of (surprise, surprise) $2099. Based on specs so far and compared to what we got, the 6D looks like a total "fix-a-flat" job. One thing that (very negatively) stands out is the 11 point AF system. And from the previous rumor it will only have one f/2.8 cross-type in the center, whatever that means (center point will only focus with f/2.8 glass?). It does have a few merits though. Canon did actually include both built-in GPS and WiFi into it, that and it does appear to go up to 1/8000 SS (maybe those who whined over the D600's max SS will finally be happy and switch to Canon now ;-) </fanboism>
One other point I want to mention (yeah I now, I've been rambling too much and going on many tangents so thank you very much if you're still reading :-), anyone else notice how Nikon is mating together certain cameras from their previous line-up to produce their current line-up? Think about it. D3x + D700 = D800. D700 + D7000 = D600. Except for the D4, did we really get any direct camera replacements so far?
I think this leads to another question though. If this trend holds true and Nikon decides to continue on with it into their DX line, then is it fair to expect the hotly anticipated D400 to be the baby product of two other Nikons? And if so then which ones? D300s is one of them of course... could the other one be D5100?
Yes, I saw the Canon 6D- it looks like a cheap stopgap direct replacement for the 5D Mk II and its piss poor AF system. :D
A Nikon D90 and a D300 had a baby named the D7000, if you're thinking about camera offspring. :D
Yes, there's a $1000 gap between the D7000 and D600, a $1500 high end, high speed DX would be very appropriate.
TCole1983- what is the draw for you for FX? Incredible ISO performance? There's the D7000 that would gladly take your DX lenses. From your wording it seems like you'd absolutely like to force a switch to FX. If you do and don't mind manual focusing, I guess you could pick up a couple old AI-S primes.
FX would be nice, but don't think that it's the end all or be all.
Posted 9 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
