Nikon D600...

[Mav]

So am I the only one who thinks the Nikon D600 hits a great sweet spot by fitting a full frame sensor in to a crop size body? Seems like much of the interweb chat seems to be more focused on how it's not a D800...

It's weather sealed, has a handy 5.5 fps, 39 focus points, a half magnesium body, all wrapped around a 24MP full frame sensor.

I am sorely tempted to upgrade my D90



Anyone else tempted?

[Mav]

Of course, a D7000 is something like half the price

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Nope, look at the price tag....

2,100 for a camera with tiny AF coverage, worse high ISO performance (from the samples I've seen), the resolution in many ways is a wash as for 95% of photographic uses 24 is more than enough....hell I've been living with 12 since 2012, but the extra bit from the D800 would be nice. And NO PC SYNC PORT!?!?!? The Olympus E-30 I almost got over the D700 had one and that was a ~1,000 dollar camera.

Now if it was 1,500 (like the rumors said) sure that's a huge gap....but 900 dollars is a lot closer and in the UK it's only 200 GBP.

[infoatnmmoto]

I have a D90 and felt like you when I saw the D7000.
I ended up waiting and got a D800.
The decision was partially made because I wanted to upgrade some lenses as well.
From what I've heard about the D600 looks to be an excellent choice as well.
The file sizes of the D800 has me shooting it more like a film camera than digital
until I work out a good storage solution. I am enjoying it for sure though.

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by Mav

Of course, a D7000 is something like half the price

And the only sacrifices are that you get ~2/3 the resolution, and maybe a step down in high ISO but those seem to be the only big differences. Unless you have a bunch of FX lenses I'd go that route.

[infoatnmmoto]

Originally Posted by NikonsAndVStroms

Nope, look at the price tag....

2,100 for a camera with tiny AF coverage, worse high ISO performance (from the samples I've seen), the resolution in many ways is a wash as for 95% of photographic uses 24 is more than enough....hell I've been living with 12 since 2012, but the extra bit from the D800 would be nice. And NO PC SYNC PORT!?!?!? The Olympus E-30 I almost got over the D700 had one and that was a ~1,000 dollar camera.

Now if it was 1,500 (like the rumors said) sure that's a huge gap....but 900 dollars is a lot closer and in the UK it's only 200 GBP.

I imagine rebates will be available shortly.

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by Mav

Of course, a D7000 is something like half the price

Originally Posted by infoatnmmoto

I have a D90 and felt like you when I saw the D7000.
I ended up waiting and got a D800.
The decision was partially made because I wanted to upgrade some lenses as well.
From what I've heard about the D600 looks to be an excellent choice as well.
The file sizes of the D800 has me shooting it more like a film camera than digital
until I work out a good storage solution. I am enjoying it for sure though.

3TB and USB 3.0 for 140 bucks:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Essential.html

If it's CF cards you need I recommend going with Transcend, and youprobably should get a UDMA 7 because my normal UDMA (the 700x) gets bogged down with RAW+JPEG on burst.

For 50 you can get a 16GB UDMA 7 one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...h_Extreme.html

And since there are dual cards I'd get a 32GB SD as a backup:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mory_Card.html

That card's read speed is about the same as the CF's but the write speed is half as fast so you will notice a little lag but if you are shooting just RAW without bursts it shouldn't be too bad.

It's 31 dollars.....the 16GB is 23 so it's worth the jump, plus with 48 GB of memory you're going to have ~600-800 shots.

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by infoatnmmoto

I imagine rebates will be available shortly.

D800's are still hard to come by so this will probably pick up some of that demand, and for amateurs the things I mentioned might not matter as much so the little bit less than 1/3rd off still will get a bunch of people. That's 2 nice used, 3rd party, or even some Nikkor FX lenses. So at least for the next 3-4 months I wouldn't expect much of a rebate, though they might do some package deals where you get o many hundred off when you buy X lens.

Though if you have time wait a bit longer and we could see a drop in both, the D700 came out in July 2008 for 3,000 and I got mine in January 2009 for ~2,200.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by NikonsAndVStroms

Nope, look at the price tag....

2,100 for a camera with tiny AF coverage, worse high ISO performance (from the samples I've seen), the resolution in many ways is a wash as for 95% of photographic uses 24 is more than enough....hell I've been living with 12 since 2012, but the extra bit from the D800 would be nice. And NO PC SYNC PORT!?!?!? The Olympus E-30 I almost got over the D700 had one and that was a ~1,000 dollar camera.

Now if it was 1,500 (like the rumors said) sure that's a huge gap....but 900 dollars is a lot closer and in the UK it's only 200 GBP.

Is it really tiny AF coverage?

And when you say worse ISO performance, compared to what?

And, just to illustrate my total n00bness, what the heck is PC Sync port and why is everyone so bloody upset about it not being there??

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by Mav

Is it really tiny AF coverage?

And when you say worse ISO performance, compared to what?

And, just to illustrate my total n00bness, what the heck is PC Sync port and why is everyone so bloody upset about it not being there??

D600


D800


Compared to the D800.

It's a standardized port used for mostly studio lighting.

In the UK the prices are so close I'd go for the D800 no question. It's a bit tougher in the states for someone who doesn't "gotta have" those features since the price difference is nearly double.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by NikonsAndVStroms

D600


D800


Compared to the D800.

It's a standardized port used for mostly studio lighting.

In the UK the prices are so close I'd go for the D800 no question. It's a bit tougher in the states for someone who doesn't "gotta have" those features since the price difference is nearly double.

I don't do any studio work so I don't need that. As for everyone else moaning about it, should people be looking at an entry level camera for studio work, even if it is FX?

And yep, those UK prices are bonkers - I'd be picking one up stateside.

As for the AF coverage - that image makes it look worse than poor! Although probably still better coverage than my D90..

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by Mav

I don't do any studio work so I don't need that. As for everyone else moaning about it, should people be looking at an entry level camera for studio work, even if it is FX?

And yep, those UK prices are bonkers - I'd be picking one up stateside.

As for the AF coverage - that image makes it look worse than poor! Although probably still better coverage than my D90..

Studio work doesn't need fancy AF, and this camera supposedly has a sensor better than the D3x's which was Nikon's studio/landscape pro camera, so yes this would make a very nice one based purely on the sensor. Think of it this way, if it had the PC sync port you'd be getting almost everything you needed from the D3x for 5,000 dollars less

Nope, you're D90 while having fewer points has much better coverage. I actually use that AF a lot since it's the same as my Fuji S5 Pro (which is a D200 with a Fuji sensor).

What are your intended uses for this camera? And what lenses do you currently have? I'm asking to see if you really need FX, or if the D7000 is a better option.

With the D7000 it has basically the same AF but it covers much more of the frame:

[skysailor]

Like to upgrade my D200. The new D600 is close enough to the D800 to go that route. I'll probably go with the D7000, simply because my DX lenses will work. I'd really like to see what they're replacing the D300s with? I AM buying before the new year. 7000, or wait for the 400? That's the question for me.
Lyle

[Mav]

Originally Posted by NikonsAndVStroms

Studio work doesn't need fancy AF, and this camera supposedly has a sensor better than the D3x's which was Nikon's studio/landscape pro camera, so yes this would make a very nice one based purely on the sensor. Think of it this way, if it had the PC sync port you'd be getting almost everything you needed from the D3x for 5,000 dollars less

Nope, you're D90 while having fewer points has much better coverage. I actually use that AF a lot since it's the same as my Fuji S5 Pro (which is a D200 with a Fuji sensor).

What are your intended uses for this camera? And what lenses do you currently have? I'm asking to see if you really need FX, or if the D7000 is a better option.

On my first point, I meant to point specifically to the sync port...

My main uses are travel and street. My D90 has been bounced around from Moscow to Morocco, from Norway to NYC, it spends a bunch of time with me on the bike, and now that I'm doing a bit of work with the army, it's getting out in to the field - literally!

The main reasons to upgrade are: I have some permanent hot pixels along with a bunch that come out in hi temp/ISO situations, I find the buffer pretty small, and the low light performance often leads me to a long shutter speed leading to blur.

So do I need an FX, certainly not. But if I'm going to replace my body shouldn't I get the best I can?

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by Mav

On my first point, I meant to point specifically to the sync port...

My main uses are travel and street. My D90 has been bounced around from Moscow to Morocco, from Norway to NYC, it spends a bunch of time with me on the bike, and now that I'm doing a bit of work with the army, it's getting out in to the field - literally!

The main reasons to upgrade are: I have some permanent hot pixels along with a bunch that come out in hi temp/ISO situations, I find the buffer pretty small, and the low light performance often leads me to a long shutter speed leading to blur.

So do I need an FX, certainly not. But if I'm going to replace my body shouldn't I get the best I can?

You should get what fits your needs. I'm pretty much the anomaly as I have nice bodies with basic lenses but that is due largely to physical restrictions like I can't hold a 70-200 VR, so I have a 70-210 F4.

The build quality will be pretty much the same so they are equally rugged.

Image quality for your uses will be very similar, a little more dynamic range and maybe a stop more high ISO with the D600....though the AF isn't as useful which is your trade off. And the price is twice as much which could get you 1-2 nice lenses.

What lenses do you use most? And can you list all the ones you own? Coming from a D90 your lenses will be a different equivalent focal length on FX, and some wont work except in a crop mode where you will have lower resolution than the D7000.