Nikon Introduces D600, 24.3MP FX, US$2099.95

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by shuncheung, Sep 12, 2012.

  1. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Nikon is introducing yet another FX-format DSLR, which is the 3rd in 2012, following the D4, D800/D800E (which I am counting as just one model) and now D600.
    • 24.3MP, 35.9x24mm, Nikon FX format sensor
    • 5.5 frames/sec
    • ISO 100 to 6400
    • Multi-CAM 4800 AF module, same as that on the D7000 but for the FX format, can AF with f8 lenses
    • Dual SD memory cards
    • New MB-D14 vertical grip/battery pack, not sharing the D7000's MB-D11 nor the D800's MB-D12. The MB-D14 does not boost the D600's 5.5 fps maximum frame rate
    • US$2099.95 body only, $2699.95 with the recent 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR lens
    Nikon Japan link: http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0913_dslr_01.htm

    Here are a few more links:
     
  2. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    This is an image from Nikon USA showing the back side of the D600. It is very similar to the back of the D7000. Namely there is a dial on the left side of the camera to select the SPAM exposure mode, ok, maybe not spam, but P, A, S, M.
    There is also no separate AF-ON button; it is merged into the AF-L/AE-L button.
    These two features could bother some photographers as we have seen complaints about similar features on the D7000.
    00aofJ-496449984.jpg
     
  3. The new Communication Unit UT-1 looks quite interesting too:

    The UT-1 is compatible with the Nikon D4, D800, and D800E cameras for professional and advanced amateur photographers, as well as the D7000 for photo hobbyists. ...


    The Wireless Mobile Adapter WU-1a and WU-1b can be used to easily transfer highquality images captured with cameras such as the D3200 and D600 to a smart device, or to control the camera remotely (remote control over movie recording is not supported).
     
  4. I agree, the chance to look at the picture in an iPad on the fly, provides more information during a studio session. Besides that, the Time-lapse options really saves time and no need to work more in a computer, as long the Nikon options really satisfy our creative demands.
     
  5. Prayers answered :))
     
  6. I praise nikon for making a 2k FF. I haven't had much good things to say of nikon in the past 2-3 years, but this deserve it. Now, if I was still interested in dslrs, this would definitely be it. Great job, Nikon!
     
  7. Body size appears to be about that of a D300/D300S. Wonder what's the reason behind the reduction of the flash sync speed to 1/200s? But it does support high-speed FP.
    Scene modes in an FX DSLR - never thought I would see that.
    Max ISO 6400 - same as the D700.
    Fairly convinced now that there won't be a DX D400 - don't think there is enough demand for a high-end DX camera these days. The DX mode on the D600 is about 10MP - that's back to the D200 resolution.
    Bet quite a few people now wish they had not "splurged" on a D800 they didn't really need but had to get because the D700 was all of a sudden so "yesterday". Wonder how often Nikon can repeat this game until people catch on?
     
  8. Engadget has some sample photos:
    http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/13/nikon-d600-full-frame-dslr/
    As the resident contrarian, I want three things in an FX D200 replacement: small size, great high ISO capabilities, big viewfinder. Come on Nikon, sink your R&D money into things that directly impact photo creation.
    I don't care a single bit about WiFi, movie junk, Android apps (really?). Scene modes? Sigh. Given the heavy consumer/toy emphasis, I wonder how well it'll work with screwdriver AF lenses. At $2,100 though… how bad can it be? :D
     
  9. I want three things in an FX D200 replacement: small size, great high ISO capabilities, big viewfinder​
    Small size, big viewfinder? like a caddy interior in a mini? Yeah...
     
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Recall that back in June, some D600 images leaked: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aVF6
    Some rumor site was promoting the idea of a $1500 FX DSLR and this was what I wrote in June:
    Shun Cheung [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Jun 15, 2012; 01:29 a.m.
    However, while I have no insider info, I think those who expect some $1500 FX body will be disappointed. I expect any "consumer FX body" will be $2000 or perhaps a little more.
    Fairly convinced now that there won't be a DX D400 - don't think there is enough demand for a high-end DX camera these days.​
    Nikon's priority for 2012 seems to be FX. The Sony DSC-RX1 ($2800 FX point and shoot) and SLT-A99 ($2800 FX DSLR) look very expensive in comparison. We'll see what Canon has to offer in the next few days before Photokina.
    Since I already have a D700 and a D800E, I am not interested in a D600. Actually I think there will be a D400 (or some DX successor to the D300S), but that will probably be late this year or early 2013. For wildlife photography, it is hard to beat DX, and I don't need 24MP or 36MP; I need frame rate.
     
  11. AF down to f/8 - in the D600 brochure the 200-400/4 is shown with a TC-20EIII (it has always been my understanding that that zoom doesn't work particularly well with TC - am I mistaken?). Wonder if I could use a TC-20EIII with reasonable results on a 300/4 - the resulting 600mm focal length would almost suffice for most of my shooting - though f/8 would be quite limiting. But compared to the D300, I should be getting at least 1 if not 2 f-stops from upping the ISO.
     
  12. The Sony DSC-RX1 ($2800 FX point and shoot) and SLT-A99 ($2800 FX DSLR) look very expensive in comparison.​
    $2100 for the D600 vs $3400 for 5D III - just out of curiosity I wonder what Canon's reply will be - if there is one.
     
  13. After having D800, the only new Nikon body I will be interested is D400 DX. And I hope it will come soon before I get rid
    of all DX lenses.
     
  14. Somehow Nikon shys away from saying clearly if this camera has mechanical shaft auto focus mechanism. If the picture was a bit bigger it could asnwer this question.
    The D3200 was not purchased by many because it did not offer the auto focus mechanism needed for older AF (not AF-S) lenses.
    Take the "metal body" lightly. It has 2 out of 4 surfaces made of metal shielding plates. More like the D7000 camera, but not as good as the D700 or D200.
    The number 600 places it below the D700, as the specs show.
     
  15. So the D300s, D700 (+MB-D10) and D4 still rule the high FPS sports arena..... :-(
    Guess they don't want to take ANY sales away from the expensive, 'low res', high-speed D4.
    No QXD card either.....
    Mind you, if $2000 really becomes £1350, that's the same as a mint secondhand D700.
     
  16. Does not make me regret choosing a D300s last year over waiting. I want frame rate, no preset dial on top, and Dx is great for me, I doubt if I will ever go to Fx. The D300s so far surpasses my expectations.
     
  17. I'm not understanding why all of these toy/consumer cameras are coming out with higher resolution than the "flagship" D4. I'm financing starting a studio, and I really balked at whether or not I need a D4 anymore.
     
  18. Scott, do you need the fastest AF? Do you need the highest frame rate? Do you need the longest battery power? If not, you don`t need a D4, despite of the Mpixels, for whatever.
    "If you don`t know if you need it, you don`t need it".
     
  19. A big miss... the AF-ON button and the "good old" eyepiece type.
    Likes; the card system and the compact size&weight with a 100% viewfinder. Great.
     
  20. This looks like a great camera now that it's off the rumor circuit and we actually have true specs, accessories, and the like from Nikon. I actually think it's the prefect travel camera...lightweight and easier to use. I don't regret buying a D800 a month ago though...the frame rate is quite low and the focus system is not quite what I need for professional purposes.
    It's clear that Nikon wants customers to pay for the high frame rate on FX. Right now, unless someone spends $6000 on a D4, they cannot have it with any of the newer bodies Nikon has announced, DX or FX. I imagine that when the D700 was announced Nikon sold a lot less D3 cameras, and the company doesn't want to make that mistake again. Understood. The D600 market position was probably what Nikon was going for when they released the D700 way back then. With this though, I still think there may be a follow-on to the D300s in that $1600 range. I find it hard to believe it's $6000 or bust for someone who wants more than 5.5fps. But for me at least, I now have to save up for a D4 or a used D3s.
     
  21. Jose, I know, there are still a ton of reasons the D4 is worth what it is, in the ergonomics and controls alone. But it still stands to reason that their top of the line camera would be their highest resolution. I mean, this is the same resolution that the D3x blew our minds with, and that was almost four times the price. We're getting back to the point that a consumer can carry higher resolution in their pocket than what the professional grade bodies are capable of. As a portrait photographer it's a hard selling point when your customers believe they have better equipment than you.
     
  22. I'm not understanding why all of these toy/consumer cameras are coming out with higher resolution than the "flagship" D4
    This is a very simple question to answer. A lot of prosumers and amateurs lust after the highest resolution, whereas professionals more often care about speed, ergonomics and workflow efficiency. Each customer group gets the camera they ask for. I happen to be in the extremely small minority who specifically wanted the integral grip and high resolution, but the majority of customers seem to think it's an ill fit.
     
  23. The real surprise for me is they have done away with the rear af button,that shoots it down for a lot of users including myself.
     
  24. The AF-L and AE-L button can be programmed to act as AF-ON in the D7000; I am pretty sure this is the case for the D600 as well. The camera does have the in-body AF motor to drive older AF Nikkors:
    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/compatibility02.htm
    5.5 fps at 24MP per image with a large buffer makes it in my opinion a nice general purpose FX camera.
    I noticed in the specifications that the eyepoint is now 21mm yet the camera retains 100% viewfinder. I'm very disappointed that Nikon put a 17mm eyepoint on the D800; the D4 has 18mm with recessed ocular (so it doesn't need quite as much eyepoint as the recession leaves the photographer's nose more room). I'm very happy to see Nikon does pay attention to the needs of eyeglass wearers, even if only sporadically.
     
  25. Ha, just had my first "Buy a D600" email! Surprise Surprise, it's the same old story...
    ££££ POUND : $$$$ DOLLAR parity......:-(
    Body Only £1955.......
     
  26. Ha, just had my first "Buy a D600" email! Surprise Surprise, it's the same old story...
    ££££ POUND : $$$$ DOLLAR parity......:-(
    Body Only £1955.......​
    Take it as a compliment. Everybody must think we Brits are rich (or stupid).
     
  27. Thanks Jamie!
    If it wasn't for Nikon's warranty system, I'd pop on a plane and buy one over there.... and come back through Customs... +20% ~$400 and it's still cheaper!
     
  28. Like Shun I always found the $1500 claims silly, but I am quite surprised the official price is "just" $2099 - that is already a fairly aggressive price point. After the announcements of Sony yesterday, I figured a bit higher price, really. And I think there ought to be place for a D300 replacement. It will be even more of a niche camera, but only the D4 now seems optimised for sports/wildlife, a little brother for that market specifically would still make sense to me.
    The price I see for the Netherlands is €2149... Not as overdone as the Englishg price, but the valuation of the US$ by Nikon seems a bit off.....
    (Overall, a really nice camera by the looks of it, and at the same time makes me happy I got a new D700 from one of the last production batches.... Not much wrong with the D7000 body, but just a fraction too small to my liking, while the D300/D700 just fit my hand like a glove.)
     
  29. (Overall, a really nice camera by the looks of it, and at the same time makes me happy I got a new D700 from one of the last production batches.... Not much wrong with the D7000 body, but just a fraction too small to my liking, while the D300/D700 just fit my hand like a glove.)​
    Same here. Really very happy with the D700 and I'm keeping the D90 until I see what the high end DX body is. I bought the D700 for the body and specs more than the FX. This looks nice, just not the cam I really wanted - D400. So the watch continues.
     
  30. Looks like it will be a good camera, but with the recent price drops on the D800 in the UK, this camera is virtually pointless; it is just too expensive!
    UK price £1955.99, around $3155.... US price converted to pounds comes in at £1302.81.
    Current D800 advertised prices from stock: £2249. The D600 needs to be an awful lot cheaper than the D800 to make any sense on this side of the Atlantic. Somewhere around £1600 to £1700 would make more sense and it will probably come down towards that level once initial orders have been fulfilled.
     
  31. These two features could bother some photographers as we have seen complaints about similar features on the D7000.
    For me the problem with the SPAM dial in the D7000 was that it is easy to inadvertently nudge into a different position without noticing. The D600 has a lock on the dial so this should not happen. The position of the AF-ON/AF-L/AE-L button near the ocular in the D7000 was initially an issue as my thumb and forehead competed for the same space when shooting verticals on the D7000 (without vertical grip) but it remains to be seen whether the D600 body shape is the same or different enough here. I hope the increased eyepoint (over the D800) makes the use of the camera easier but the shape of the rubber shade is different so ... only testing will reveal how it works.
     
  32. The D600 needs to be an awful lot cheaper than the D800 to make any sense on this side of the Atlantic.
    Why? It is 1) faster, 2) lighter, 3) takes in more frames in the buffer, 4) has greater eyepoint, 5) is less expensive, 6) requires one third less investment in hard drive space over the long run. Plenty of incentives to buy!
     
  33. As far as the features are concerned, this is clearly an "enthusiast" camera. Nikon is un-blurring the lines between pro and enthusiast these days.
    I still think it's great.
     
  34. Impressive features for the price. But many D7000 users have complained about the AF and the SPAM dial (I had no issues with either). For those who can afford it and require superior AF, ergonomics and features, to me the D800 may still be a better choice and is still a bargain considering its low price.
    "200-400/4 is shown with a TC-20EIII (it has always been my understanding that that zoom doesn't work particularly well with TC - am I mistaken?)" On the D800, that TC/lens combination works exceptionally well.
     
  35. This release confirm my expectations: there will be never again a D700 "type" or "concept" camera. But there is still a chance, if the D4 sensor is installed in a D800 body... anyway, who cares; the current offer is so good.
     
  36. Jose, I would like to see the D800 sensor installed in a D4 body!
     
  37. Thom Hogan also says in his updated review that the 200-400 and the TC-20E III work well together (that was before the f/8 AF cameras). I tried this combination on the D800 and found it quite useable. But autofocus results varied from shot to shot quite a bit. Also the rig tends to vibrate a bit even on a solid tripod, I think the zoom's tripod mount is designed to be ok for the 200-400mm range but with TC on, one really can use the VR. Elliot, do you have some results you could share taken with that setup? Thanks.
     
  38. Come to think of it, I'd like the D600S, the standard D600 but will do 9fps, bit like the D700, but without the need for the MB-D10 too. ISO 6400 is OK for me.
    ..........or is that a D4? :)
    Just NOT going to happen, it would KILL the D4 sales overnight.....apart from the mega high ISO users!
     
  39. The production of the D600 certainly sheds light on why my D800E bodies are on backorder for months on end. Given
    Nikon's limited production capacity, it'd be swell if Nikon would produce adequate numbers of flagship products to end
    backordering before starting to produce down-market products.
     
  40. The anticipated $/£1500 price didn't IMO leave much room in the lineup for a D400, but the $/£2000 price does. I for one, wont be moving to FX, but am now more hopeful for a D400 in the not to distant future.
     
  41. I had thought that $1995 sounded like a nice number. I never thought it would come in at $1500.
    Big sensors, little cameras. I like the idea. Of course, there's always that pesky size problem with lenses to cover those sensors. Smaller apertures, anyone?
    --Lannie
     
  42. RE Allans point. here the d800 is £2379 and the d600 is £1955. That's only about 18% less so doesn't really make the d600 a
    huge bargain. There's even less difference if you buy a lens at the same time as Nikon have around £100 discount for that but only on the
    d800. I'd be very tempted to save a bit more for the d800
     
  43. Chris check out Ffordes website, D800 is down in price there.
     
  44. +1 Chris L.
    £2249 for a D800, ~£2000 for a D600....~11% Hummmmm........
    (Can even find the D800 for £2159...new...not grey.....3yr warranty)
    Interesting choice.
     
  45. 42 oz. body?!?! That's got to be a typo. The D4 weighs 41.6 oz.
    LOL, Nikon, proof read your specifications.
     
  46. While I am impressed with the 24mp, I just don't see me paying $2100 for an entry level camera. It's not even small eitheir. Unless a more compelling reason to buy this comes out, I'm going to pass. I continue my wait, but am growing impatient as Canon is reported to be ready to replace their excellent 7D already. Meanwhile, money I would have spent on new Nikon gear will continue to go to vintage camera gear. I have my eye on a 1949 Leica 3.5cm Summaron f3.5 for my Leica IIIc! (I am avoiding putting big $$ into digital cameras where it quickly devalues. Vintage Leica prices are a better value from my POV.)
    Kent in SD
     
  47. Nice to see all this technology in a 'mid range' camera, but can't help thinking I'd have preferred a straight 24MP D700 successor to either the D600 or D800. The D800 is slowed down by the overhead of its large files, but the D600 gets Nikon's second string AF and (apparently) D7000-style handling (which I'm not mad about). The current UK pricing makes the D800 look like the better deal right now, though the D600 will presumably drop to the current D700 price range eventually (the UK D600 and D700 launch prices were similar). The D600 seems a bit like the old D100 - first rate specs in a third tier body (and about as expensive).
     
  48. Kent -- what's your frame rate on the IIIc? I'm getting 0.47 frames per second on my IIIf red dial. And I have to admit the AF is not up to recent Nikon releases. But I'm sticking with it until Nikon releases its long anticipated digital SP.
     
  49. for an entry level camera
    The D600 is not "entry level"; it appears to have similar body design as the D7000 which is an enthusiast / advanced amateur / prosumer model that is in widespread professional use. The D3200 is entry level camera, with pentamirror viewfinder, no AF fine tune, no AF motor in the body and quite bad user interface if you want to take control. The D600 appears to have the best viewfinder in any current Nikon DSLR, has two card slots, AF fine tune, AF motor in body, mid speed, quite high resolution, in a lightweight body for the sensor size. Although there are things about the D7000 that I do not like, including aspects of its ergonomics, and autofocus, it is still a solid, well made camera with good to excellent image quality, and the D600 is similar but for the FX format.
    FX is becoming more and more mainstream and Nikon is supporting it with strong introductions in bodies and lenses.
     
  50. Sounds like the sensor from the D3x packed into a consumer(ish) body. With the release of the D800 and D600 I pity anyone who shelled out big bucks for a D3x. There's a lot to be said for the pro build of a top of the line DSLR but not when you're paying £3500 extra!
     
  51. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    While I am impressed with the 24mp, I just don't see me paying $2100 for an entry level camera. It's not even small eitheir.​
    Come on Kent, the D600 is not an entry-level camera, and since it is FX, the mirror, penta prism, etc. can't be that small. If you want a small FX camera, pay $2800 for the Sony RX1; they even include a Zeiss 35mm/f2 lens into that price. The problem is that you are stuck with that one lens (which is not a zoom) and one focal length.
    For all practical purposes, the D600 is the FX version of the D7000, which is a higher-end consumer DSLR with dual memory cards, a 100% viewfinder, etc. The D600 is retaining the scene mode selection on the D7000; that gives you a clue of its targeted market.
    The one thing I don't like about the D600 is the Multi-CAM 4800 AF module, with 39 AF points and 9 of them cross type. That module works quite well on the D7000. However, I have been complaining about the 51-point Multi-CAM 3500 since it debut on the D3 back in 2007. Those 51 AF points are too concentrated in the center of the FX frame, and Nikon has not improved that layout in the D4/D800 generation. Unfortunately, on the D600, it is changing in the wrong direction. I am sure that is one way Nikon is differenciating the consumer D600 from the higher-end D4 and D800.
    However, even though the D800 uses the same Multi-CAM 3500 AF module as the D3, D700, and D300, I have concluded that AF accuracy on the D800 has improved even over the D3, D3S, and D3X, all of which I have tested but do not own. Unfortunately, with the introduction of the D600, it is clear that there won't be a true successor to the D700, which is a downsized D3 and shares its sensor and almost the same frame rate. If you want D4 performance with a lower pixel count, I am afraid that there won't be a cheaper option in FX. Hopefully there will be some option in DX.
    Another somewhat annoying issue is that back in the D300/D700 generation, they share the MB-D10 vertical grip. Today, the D7000, D600, and D800/D800E use three different grips.
     
  52. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Is there a 10 pin connector?
     
  53. Ikkla--
    I just don't see FX as becoming mainstream. The 4/3 is where the market & technology is going. That's clear with the latest Sony release and Canon jumping into the field. My take is that Nikon is trying to carve out a NICHE market, mainly in an attempt to sell more lenses. A second reason is to avoid competing head to head with the larger Canon and Sony. In 1922 the 35mm frame was the future, but not now.
    Vince--
    Frame rate on the Leica IIIc is not quite as fast as what I get on my 1951 Rolleiflex MX-EVS, but is still faster than what I get on my Chamonix 4x5 & c.1922 Heliar lens. :) For the price of a D800 & 24-70mm lens, I've put together a pretty nice little collection of first class historical cameras & lenses. I can resell it for at least what I paid for it. More importantly, I'm having fun and learning a lot!
    Kent in SD
     
  54. The distinction should be made that the D600 in not an entry level camera in an absolute sense (out of all cameras)....but certainly it can be considered entry level, for an FX camera. Certainly its now the lowest cost to entry for FX.
    I say hopefully the trend continues. Imagine something like the Sony RX1 in the sub-$2000 range? That would get very interesting for me.
     
  55. Shun--
    OK, maybe it is more mid-level. I wasn't thinking of something like the D3100. It's definitely not a pro body though, with flash sync of only 1/200s etc. I am surprised they couldn't make it smaller as that would have definitely broadened its appeal. As for the new Sony, it looks pretty impressive!. The fixed lens wouldn't bother me so much as I've mostly been shooting a 1951 Rolleiflex all summer. However, the camera I really lust for is the Leica M9! It IS small and the lenses are outstanding! I got to play with one for a Saturday morning about a month ago. I fell in love but just can't justify putting >$12,000 into a camera ane a lens or two. Yes, I could wait a few years for the M8 to drop in value and pick one of those up, but I have no doubt that meanwhile the price of Leica lenses will only climb. One of the things that's really caught my imagination about the 4/3 system is I can mount Leica lenses both new & old on them, along with Voigtlanders, Dallmeyers, Darlot, Zeiss Protars.......
    Kent in SD
     
  56. Certainly its now the lowest cost to entry for FX.​
    Canon 5D MkII is cheaper and still a current body (officially)
    In 1922 the 35mm frame was the future, but not now.​
    True, but no matter how advanced these new smaller sensors get, they will never achieve the bokeh of a 35mm sized sensor and a lot of people use full frame solely for that reason (myself included).
     
  57. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    This should be called the D6000, not D600. Still waiting for a true D700 replacement
     
  58. I find it strange how buying the D600 and 24-85 VR separately comes out a dollar cheaper than buying the kit. Unless my math is way off, that kinda defeats the purpose of buying the combo.
     
  59. Virtual horizons... If I use the D600 in portrait orientation, will the viewfinder tell me if I'm pointing up or down or level, ie pitch in portrait!...or is that only on the back screen?
     
  60. Shun Cheung - convinced now that there won't be a DX D400 - don't think there is enough demand for a high-end DX camera these days.​
    For sure there was a demand - I along with many others was (still am) waiting for the D400 to move on from my trusted D70. Instead at the beginning of this year with a need for higher resolution beckoning for specific exhibition project, I purchased a D5100 based on the fact that it is essentially a D7000 disguised in a cheaper body and so far, apart from trying to get to grips with the new control interface and live view (very alien when compared to a D70) it has been a superb performer and an inexpensive option to boot.
    I think Nikon faced a problem with many pros and serious amateurs being quite happy with an upgrade on the well built weather proofed solid DX Nikon and as such the D300s was proving to be a barrier rather than a jumping post for photographers to move up to FX.
    Therefore I think this is generally just about the market's perception and Nikon have decided that there needs to be an easier financial incentive for photographers, whether amateur or pro, to move from DX to FX. The D300s was considered to be a Pro DX by many and at the same time the D700 was not considered an Amateur FX - it was just an alternative FX to a D3.
    Now I believe the market perceives the D5100 to be an amateur DX, the D7000 a serious amateur DX, the D4 a serious pro FX and the D800 an alternative serious pro FX which lets the D600 become a serious amateur FX - essentially filling the hole left vacant by the lack of D300s replacement. This way the jump from DX to FX feels less momentous financially. For sure if they had announced a new 24MP D400 with awesome low light capabilities, a strong hi-tech magnesium alloy, fully weather proofed body - many of us (me included) would not bother the consider FX for a considerably longer while yet.
    I believe they are trying to ensure the desirability of FX remains for all Nikon photographers and to achieve that it is important that the DX range does not get so good that wanting to move up to FX eventually becomes an unnecessary. Then of course at the same time they still have to respond to the competition and that in turn blurs the categories even further.
    For my part the performance of the D5100 is outstanding and rather than continue to fret about bodies I have started trading up my glass. The never used D5100 18-55kit lens and my Nikkor 18-200 have been traded in for 17-55mm 2.8DX for event work, a Nikkor 50mm 1.4G was purchased at the same time as the D5100 for formal portrait work, and I retain my favourite Nikkor 105 VR 2.8 Micro for candid portraits, macro work and my current project which involves focussed stacked macro gigapans.
     
  61. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Is there a 10 pin connector?​
    None on the D600.
    The 10-pin connector is only on the "higher-end" bodies such as the D200, D300/D300S, D700, D800 and the D2, D3 and D4 families. The D7000 is kind of in between high and low end; it has the aperture follower tab for AI lens metering, 100% viewfinder, and dual memory cards but no 10-ping connector. Again, the D600 is more like the FX version of the D7000.
    I find it strange how buying the D600 and 24-85 VR separately comes out a dollar cheaper than buying the kit. Unless my math is way off, that kinda defeats the purpose of buying the combo.​
    Try B&H, you get $100 off if you buy the D600 and the 24-85 VR together: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/892428-REG/Nikon_D600_Digital_Camera_with.html
    Virtual horizons... If I use the D600 in portrait orientation, will the viewfinder tell me if I'm pointing up or down or level, ie pitch in portrait!...or is that only on the back screen?​
    On the D800, you can view the virtual horizon in both the back LCD and inside the viewfinder (as dotted bars indicating the amount on tilt, along the bottom and right side of the viewfinder). I assume that the D600 has the same feature, but I have not seen a D600 yet.
     
  62. Patience is a virtue but still not buying. Patience and more patience. Don't understand why 1/200 sync speed. Cannon was right then ? 5.5 fps ? Are we getting into a new frame rating concept ? Why 5.5 and not 6 or 5 ? Looks like a joke to me and apparently it does not increase even if you attach the new battery grip. Are you kidding me ? Why don't take away the video ( which means nothing to me cause I am not a videographer ) and increase the fps instead ?
    24 mp CMOS ? It would have been better 16 like the D4 in my opinion. D4 professional sport shooters got enough mega-pixels to get all the details they want in their pictures. More than that is not necessary at all !
    39 position auto-focus sensor instead the 51 that I got in my D300 ? The sensor is better than the one in the D300 but why they did not improve it to 51 position auto-focus like the D300/D3 and D4 ? That would have been a plus !
    So, I will give up everything I got for what ? More mega-pixels ? It is the same D7000 but FX.
    In this case I am better off with the D7000 at 1K than this new camera at 2k price doing the same thing the D7000 is doing, except for bigger sensor and buffer-free problem. U1 and U2 are welcome but not necessarily beats my banks in my D300. In a few seconds I can change to a different bank. So, I don't see a big improvement on what we already got, like the ones we had long ago when the D300 / D3 hit the market ... unless I wanted to have a FX camera at an affordable price.
    Are we getting something that makes us go crazy for it like we were some years ago when the D300 / D3 were introduced in the market ? I don't think so ! D800 users will probably buy this camera and wonder why they did not wait a bit longer and spent 3K + in a camera that has been a problem with its focus issue. They would love the D600, cheaper, focus-problem-free and not anymore blurry pictures ( we hope ), U1 and U2, more fps ( 1.5 is a BIGGG improvement .. lol ), so I guess the D800 price will drop drastically. Not buying and still more patience. Let's see how does it behave on the field. Photo.net Nikon forum will be crowded.
     
  63. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Conrad Webb , Sep 13, 2012; 10:20 a.m.
    Shun Cheung - convinced now that there won't be a DX D400 - don't think there is enough demand for a high-end DX camera these days.​
    Sorry, that was NOT what I wrote. I was quoting Dieter Schaefer's comment at Sep 13, 2012; 12:40 a.m.
    I have no insider information, but I believe that Nikon will introduce a successor to the D300S, a DX-format sports/action camera in the coming months. If Nikon does not, Canon and Sony will eat their lunch.
    However, we might as well call Photokina 2012 "the FX Photokina." Sony already announced several FX-format cameras, a DSLR, a point and shoot, and an FX NEX camcorder. Most likely Canon will have something to announce in the next few days.
    DX will just have to wait. So do the Nikon 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR lens, 300mm/f4 with VR and some 80-400mm zoom with AF-S and VR.
     
  64. There is something SO special about full-frame shooting, and I have shot plenty of Nikon DX and Canon 1.6x crop cameras, not to mention many other formats.
    I am truly glad to see full-frame coming to smaller cameras, and not only because these arms and shoulders are getting old. I really hope that more people will begin to understand why some of us rave about full-frame shooting, especially when shooting in near darkness or when shooting wide--and I want to see more people have the opportunity to shoot full-frame without mortgaging the house.
    I want the opportunity again myself!
    [link]
    Could have been a Nikon. Wasn't, but who cares? We've come a long way since the 5D and the big Kodaks.
    My next one, God willing, will be a Nikon. I have waited a long time for the opportunity.
    --Lannie
     
  65. Shun, I should have included Nikon's text for 'translation'...:)

    ......as well as a virtual horizon feature showing not only horizontal tilt to the left or right (roll), but also forward and backward tilt (pitch; only the roll indicator is displayed in the viewfinder).
    ............is that like the D800? I think it's NOT, but I'm not sure! Pitch only visible on the back screen? That's daft and another reason to buy a D800!
    EDIT Found the answer here.... Only roll in viewfinder.
    http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/features04.htm#a11
     
  66. The UK recommended price of £1955 is unrealistic. Cameraworld in London is currently selling the D800 for £2099!
     
  67. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mike Halliwell, Nikon's virtual horizon in 2012 is now 2D, which can show both horizontal tilt and upward/downward tilt. I actually recorded a video on this feature a while ago (using one D800 to capture the video on a second D800 showing this feature), but my wife has not put it on YouTube yet.
    See the attached image of a D800 (not D600). The green line shows horizontal tilt and the blue/brown areas indicate upward/downward tilt. In this case my D800 is pointing downward, so you see more brown area (ground) and less blue (sky).
    00aolC-496493584.jpg
     
  68. Kent, Nikon makes digital SLRs and accessories for them - that's one of their main businesses. Mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses are a new product segment which Nikon doesn't appear to be very interested in competing in. They have the 1 series but the image quality and lens lineups aren't that great. There are two problems with DSLRs that have DX sized sensors. First, the viewfinder is small, and so one of the key advantages of the DSLR design, a large, crisp, optical, real-time viewfinder is reduced in value and usability. Ok, in top of the line DX cameras like D7000 and D300s, it can still be quite good, but I always found it difficult to identify subject expression using DX viewfinders. Secondly, the flange distance of the F mount appers to prevent the design of reasonably compact, affordable, and high performance wide angle primes that would help realize the small camera concept. To see how much difference there is, compare the size of e.g. the 24/1.4 AF-S or 25/2 Zeiss with the 23mm f/2 lens in the Fuji X100 camera. The 28/1.8 for FX is obviously also big, but not as much considering the sensor size. The price performance of the 28/1.8 is much better than for the 24/1.4 on DX - assuming you want this kind of a cornerstone lens for e.g. reportage and event photos. The DX DSLR has its special field of use also, which is long lens photography, for which it may well be the best type of camera. So both camera types have their own ground for which they are best. Neither sports/wildlife photography nor low light reportage are "niches" but extremely widespread fields of photography in which thousands of professionals make their living, and many amateurs and families also participate in documenting animals and the lives of their own families and friends indoors and outdoors. And for documenting people indoors there is no better type of camera than the FX DSLR.
    IMO cameras with EVF/LCD only, and no optical viewfinder are ill suited for photographing any type of moving subjects. Tried the Nikon J1, when shooting a series of shots you do not get a continuous viewfinder during the series but a series of delayed playbacks. The same is true of the Sony SLT cameras, reportedly, when using high fps. So in practice you get very few shots where the subject is fully included in the frame, unless you use quite short glass and look past the viewfinder! If you think photographing moving subjects or the photography of people indoors are niches, then what is the photography of trains at night with strobes?
    Personally I happen to think that the 24x36mm format has never been as strong as it is today. It is the undisputed leader of low light photography, has the broadest range of lenses available, is highly suitable for action photography, portraits (allows separation of subject from background), the recording of human life, landscape etc. There are of course many applications for smaller cameras, as well as larger ones, but for sheer diversity in possibilities FX is without rival.
    Let me know how you will pull out this kind of background separation with a micro four thirds camera:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/7866754968/
    At nightfall, no less. In my opinion the problem with MFT is that no matter how fast lens you get, there's no way you can pull off such clean direction of the visual focus of the viewer. If you get a Nokton you might have a shot but you'd have to go ISO 3200 and it would be a normal lens, not a short tele. With FX I can do good separation of the main subject using depth of field using any focal length from 24mm to 200mm, shooting virtually in any light in which humans can see the subject, and then darker, without flash. No smaller format camera can do that, and never will, since sensors are getting so close to the theoretical limits possible due to photon statistics. (Medium format could theoretically be even better but the manufacturers do not appear to have access to good high ISO sensors nor are making very fast lenses. Hardly small, either.)
    What is happening is that on the consumer front, there are cameras that are producing good results in bright light on stationary subjects that are smaller than before, but the high end equipment is getting more and more powerful in terms of what kind of shots can be made, and in what kind of conditions. The standards of photography are moving up; professionals and many advanced amateurs seem to be electing to use somewhat bigger equipment to get more performance and creative options rather than settling for the same old results only using a smaller camera. Nikon is answering by increasing the performance of their cameras and lenses to match user requests.
    Lenses for 35mm cameras used to be quite small, especially primes, but now it seems users only care about performance, not cost or size, and witness the popularity of lenses like the 14-24/2.8 which is huge but sells like hot cakes. People that buy this class of cameras now seem to care about is what can be done with it, not so much about what it costs or how big it is. I used to have the Nikon 24/2.8 as my extreme ultrawide and it was very popular for film cameras. Now it's neither good enough nor wide enough. That's where the world of DSLR photography seems to be going towards. So there is both a tendency for miniaturization in the mirrorless camera segment, which is thriving, but DSLR lenses have not gotten smaller, quite the contrary. Nikon wants to ride the area of photographic equipment where they have a history and expertise. It is not small cameras. For small cameras, IMO you're best looking at MFT, Sony, or Fuji (maybe Canon). I don't think Nikon can be blamed for their choice: they sell cameras and lenses like hot cakes by sticking it out with the type of gear they do best.
     
  69. I hope Nikon continues the D7000 and D300s lines with new high performance DX cameras (e.g. D400) as many nature photographers need them. However, I do believe a greater part of the market for other things than tele-oriented photography will move to FX, as the prices of the cameras are slowly reduced. A good part of the former entry level DX DSLR market may move to NEX/Micro Four Thirds etc. because of the compacness but for people who want to photograph action I think they will stick it out with DSLRs, some DX and some FX.
    I also hope Nikon overcomes whatever reasons they have for not making a compact wide angle prime for DX DSLRs, as many people have use for such a lens. The 35/2 (DX equivalent would be 23/2) used to be not only the reportage photographer's standard lens but also this focal length was the most popular for fixed focal length film compacts (e.g. the Olympus Mju-1 and -2) though with slightly reduced aperture for compactness. If you look at mirrorless cameras all the manufacturers include this type of a lens or its close approximation, so it cannot be that there is no market for it for DX DSLR users.
     
  70. I pre-ordered mine last night from B&H. Hoping the supply issues won't be as dramatic as the D800 stories I've heard, but I'm basing my expectations on a 2-month wait (of course I won't complain if it comes in sooner). While I was hoping for a slightly lower price, like $1899, I was highly skeptical at the $1500 rumors. I am excited that most of the specs were accurate, even the slight drawbacks to this camera are miles ahead of my D70s. For example, I know some don't like the 'plastic-y' body of the D600 but I'm a small woman, so I'm thankful that it's lighter - it doesn't matter how sturdy a camera is if I can't handle it easily. Plus it'll still be an upgrade to the construction of my current camera.
    I bought my D70s in 2006 & have really enjoyed it. However, I've been camera shopping for 2years and the D70s's performance, even after an expensive Nikon repair, has deteriorated. As a non-pro, the D800 was just too far out of my price range, so I'd planned on a D7000, resigning myself to 5-6yrs more of DX. The D600 price is a stretch but worth it to me to have full-frame (all my lenses are FX as I started out with a N80). I'm sure I will have a learning curve but I'm looking forward to it. :) I also enjoyed Thom's article on the D600, especially the sychronicity (for me personally) of this: "All in all, the D600 seems very well rounded. Indeed, I believe it will start the FX revolution-for-the-mainstream pretty much the same way the D70 started the DX DSLR revolution-for-the-mainstream oh so many moons ago...".
    I also wanted to say thanks to Shun & the other knowledgeable commenters on these forums - I always research here before making any photography decisions. Even if my shooting needs are not the same as more advanced users, I always appreciate the insight.
     
  71. A camera for all the people who ever thought: "if I only had a bigger sensor, my life would be perfect".
     
  72. Shun, Thanks for that but it was the viewfinder info I was after. It seems the pitch is only displayed on the LCD and NOT the viewfinder....unlike the D800.
    [​IMG]
    This is the D600's Virtual Horizon.
    The in-camera virtual horizon can detect both rolling (horizontal inclination) and pitching (forward or rear inclination) directions and display the inclination of the rolling and pitching directions on the LCD monitor and rolling direction (ONLY) in the viewfinder..
    [​IMG]
    I've met the D800's virtual horizons in viewfinder (as Above) and LCD, and love them.
    Better buy a D800 for £100 more.....!
     
  73. A big sensor does not always mean 'big' performance. I am sure The D600 has an excellent sensor but if you recall, Sony's original 24mp full frame camera did not give the best IQ. Even the D3X is exceptional at low ISOs but not as good at higher ISOs).
    It will certainly be interesting to see how it stacks up to the D800 and 5DMKIII. Assuming similar performance to the DdMKIII, this body could sway a lot of buyers to Nikon instead of Canon (if they were considering one over the other).
    Illka, I will post samples of the 200-400mm with the 2x TC in another thread.
     
  74. Based on the image quality of the D3200, which is not bad, I am expecting great things from spreading the same number of sensors out a bit.
    A camera for all the people who ever thought: "if I only had a bigger sensor, my life would be perfect".​
    Sanford, don't go spoiling the party. A lot of us have been waiting a long time for this day--ever since the D3X came out, in fact--about $5,000 ago.
    Say, I wonder how it will match up (image quality wise) against that old veteran!
    --Lannie
     
  75. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Mike, I am checking with Nikon USA to see when we can borrow a D600 to test it out. This should be an excellent high-end-consumer camera. However, I don't think I will buy one; as I said, I already have a D800E and a D700, which is still fine IMO, and I am looking for better AF. Once we have a D600, we'll provide the details and answer those little questions.
    Better buy a D800 for £100 more.....!​
    That is very odd. In the US, the D800 is $3000, and the D600 is 70% of that at $2100. That seems to be a reasonable difference.
    Personally, I have no doubt that there will be a D400 in the coming months. However,
    I also hope Nikon overcomes whatever reasons they have for not making a compact wide angle prime for DX DSLRs, as many people have use for such a lens. The 35/2 (DX equivalent would be 23/2) used to be not only the reportage photographer's standard lens but also this focal length was the most popular for fixed focal length film compacts (e.g. the Olympus Mju-1 and -2) though with slightly reduced aperture for compactness. If you look at mirrorless cameras all the manufacturers include this type of a lens or its close approximation, so it cannot be that there is no market for it for DX DSLR users.​
    Some fast DX wide-angle prime is unlikely going to happen.
    The problem is that even a 20mm lens is not that wide after the 1.5x crop factor, and any DX DSLR lens still has to have to original registration distance designed to clear the mirror for 35mm film. Anything 20mm or wider will be quite extreme and will have plenty of optical issues, especially at f1.4 and f2.
    If you need a wide angle and need low light performance, you are much better off getting FX, which is now as inexpensive as $2100. Mirrorless also has the advantage that it doesn't need to clear the mirror. Tokina's 11-16mm/f2.8 is probably as close to a wide-angle DX "prime" as you will ever get for Nikon and Canon APS-C DSLRs.
     
  76. I do agree with the concept that this camera is an entry level FX camera. Still I do believe it is a D7000 but FX. Very sad there is not replacement for the D300. Are DX days over ? :-(
     
  77. Sun Cheung - my apologies for the wrong attribution of the quote.
     
  78. Ilkka Nissila[​IMG][​IMG], Sep 13, 2012; 11:24 a.m. I hope Nikon continues the D7000 and D300s lines with new high performance DX cameras (e.g. D400) as many nature photographers need them.​
    +1. Autofocus is very challenging for close-ups of insects. I sold my D7000 because the AF was a step back from D300/D700 (using 105VR and 300F4AFS) and still hope there will be an alternative body.
     
  79. I find it strange how buying the D600 and 24-85 VR separately comes out a dollar cheaper than buying the kit. Unless my math is way off, that kinda defeats the purpose of buying the combo.​
    With the current $100 rebate, buying separately actually saves $100. At least when I checked last night at B&H.
     
  80. Shun, D800's are just over £2050 here in the UK, which finally kinda equates to the opening selling (US) price of $3000.
    That is very odd. In the US, the D800 is $3000, and the D600 is 70% of that at $2100. That seems to be a reasonable difference.
    Opening price here for D600 is £1955......... now if it drops to £1400 (that's a 25% drop) difference is re-aligned. Some hope!
     
  81. Looks like what a lot of people have been waiting for! Once the price drops to $1,600 or so and they've had time to work out all the bugs/problems, I'll seriously consider buying one to replace my D7000.
     
  82. I'm glad Nikon is keeping the market moving. Its still a good thing even though I don't want a D600. I'm really happy with the D700 I got in the spring. For me the biggest things I noticed moving from my D7000 to my D700 were the AF system is so much better. Along with the three custom buttons for Metering mode (spot, center and full frame), the lever for single focus, multi and auto, finally the lever for Continious, Single Servo and Manual. For me that makes the camera since I don't have to hunt the menus to change those things. I don't know how I lived without easy access the these three functions before.
    The D600 would be step back for me since I wouldn't use many of the new features other than resolution that I don't really need. Ditto for the D800. But this also leave room for Nikon to improve AF and other things in the next generation.
     
  83. US Price for a D800 is $3000 = £1860, BUT shop price is £2050
    US Price for a D600 is $2100 = £1304 OK, EXCEPT it's £1955..that 50% more!!
    Still, I like Lisa B's thinking!
     
  84. B&H shows the weight of the body at 18oz, which sounds more realistic, LOL.
    Also, it will be interesting to see where the D700 used market prices go now.
     
  85. Gup

    Gup Gup

    A camera for all the people who ever thought: "if I only had a bigger sensor, my life would be perfect".
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sanford, don't go spoiling the party. A lot of us have been waiting a long time for this day--ever since the D3X came out, in fact--about $5,000 ago.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Landrum, not sure what the $5,000 ago refers to? When I realized I wasn't willing to pay Nikon what they were asking for the D3x, I bought a used D700. Then I sold it in anticipation of something better being released last spring (2011), which didn't happen. So, I bought another used D700 for a planned vacation. I sold it in September, again in anticipation of something better being released, which didn't happen again due to the tragic weather incidents last year. So, again I bought another used D700 in January prior to the D800 announcement in Februrary for a trip to England. These three bodies were all 'mint' with less than 4,000 clicks each and were then again sold within days of posting the ad. I'm still waiting for Nikon to release something I want to buy and 'keep'. It may never happen, but in the meantime, I have been shooting FX for years for less than $2000 a body. My current one has 1,700 shots on it and I bought it for $1600 from a guy who owned it for three years!
     
  86. Gup, I was talking about waiting for a Nikon FX that has 24 megapixels, as the D3X had--but it cost(s) about $5000 more than the D600, maybe more than that.
    As for "waiting," I've been shooting mostly Canon FF since 2006, as well as Kodak FF from time to time from 2004 to the present (using my very few Nikon lenses). I got rid of much of my Canon gear this spring. I love full-frame, but I have been having a lot of fun of late with the D3200, and before that with the D90.
    My dilemma now would be between the D600 and the D800, depending on just how good the D600 is in low light.
    --Lannie
     
  87. I too will be waiting for some image reviews. I shot a d90 for a long time, then moved to the Pentax K5 for better files and access to primes, then recently made the massive mistake in renting a d800 and 24-70 2.8 for a job. I love shooting in challenging (interesting) light, and the quality of the files at iso 6400, @ 2.8 w/ that particular lens is so impressive. The AF hit rate was much much better than with my K-5 (granted they are quite different classes of camera) that I've realized for what I enjoy shooting I'd be better with a d-800 and 24-70 than my K-5 and six lenses (or whatever I have.) If I could save $800 by buying a d600 that would free up money for a fast tele zoom. But if the low light performance doesn't match the d800 then I will really be scratching my head to decide. Is there a good reason that the d600 shouldn't match the d800 in low light performance?
     
  88. "Is there a good reason that the d600 shouldn't match the d800 in low light performance?" Yes, because the sensor is not the same resolution and the high resolution is in part what gives the D800 images such great low light performance.
     
  89. "Is there a good reason that the d600 shouldn't match the d800 in low light performance?" Yes, because the sensor is not the same resolution and the high resolution is in part what gives the D800 images such great low light performance.​
    Isn't that the exact opposite of what we heard before the D800 appeared - that it is the size of the pixels that matters and that the larger pixels (D700, D3, D3S, D4) have the advantage in high ISO (which I equate with low-light)? Or are we to include down-sampling the higher resolution images in this statement? Hasn't the going argument always been that the D800 can't have the same high-ISO performance as the D700 because the pixels are a lot smaller and hence produce more noise?
     
  90. Ikkla--
    I'm familiar with the F-mount's limitations. That's one reason I've been thinking of breaking free of it, at least to some extent. Over the past year I've been actively shooting many different formats--DX (Nikon,) 35mm (Leica,) 6x6 (Rollei, Hassy,) 6x9 (Voigtlander Bessa,) 4x5 (Chamonix,) and half plate (Waston & Sons.) I feel no allegiance to any one of them and none seem at all inherently magical. What I like about DX are two things: increased DoF per f-stop and the 1.5x added reach. As for bokeh, when that is important to me (e.g. formal wedding portraits,) I've been going to either my 150mm or 240mm pre-war Heliars and shooting 4x5. I know I've made some sales because I used a pre-war (Civil War, that is!) Petzval lenses too. This is certainly a niche market but I'm finding it very lucrative! I shoot more than trains. :) As each new camera/lens comes out I look it over and decide how it fits into my style and system. Like Shun, I am quite surprised Nikon has so far not addressed three obvious lens needs: 70-200mm f4 VR, 300mm f4 VR, 80-400mm VR AFS. Those have been bread & butter lenses for Canon's "enthusiast" customers. It's the lenses that make a photo system useful, more so than a camera body. Without the up to date lenses, Nikon's cameras become far less attractive.
    Kent in SD
     
  91. I'll (belatedly) add to the voices expressing concern about the tiny price delta between the current street price of the D800 (currently around £2000 duty free in Heathrow, by the way) and the RRP of the D600. If the D600 drops to nearer the US price - sub £1500 - it makes much more sense.
    If the prices stay similar, to me - without having seen the low light performance (and if the D600 matches the D4 for per-pixel noise then I'll take it all back) - the D600 seems to have few advantages over the D800 (slightly faster, a few more images, C1 and C2 if you like that sort of thing) but the cut-down autofocus and metering, among other features, mean that to me it seems like an inferior camera to the D800 even for a general purpose user. I'm not sure I was expecting that.
    With the D800's autofocus and 6-8 fps, the D600 would be a more obvious 5D3 killer and the obvious D300 upgrade path (other than needing pixel density - I'll still be interested in what any D400 might look like) that dpreview are claiming it is, and an alternative to the D800 (and D700 upgrade) for people who want a sports camera rather than the medium-format replacement D800. Until the D600 price drops - and I'm sure it will - it's hard to make its case, in the UK.
    Still, glad to see the leaked lack of surprise turn up. So long as the price stays below market discounts, I'm sure it'll take some more interest from the 5D3 (especially if low light keeps up), so good on Nikon.
    I'm envious of the quiet shooting mode (that works), though.
    My $.02.
     
  92. A year ago, 24 MP full frame would have set you back $7-8,000 in Nikon land. The price of the D600 is outstanding, but it reaffirms my
    long held sentiment that the D3x was overpriced. 2012 is turning out to br a good year for Nikon.
     
  93. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    A year ago, 24 MP full frame would have set you back $7-8,000 in Nikon land. The price of the D600 is outstanding, but it reaffirms my long held sentiment that the D3x was overpriced. 2012 is turning out to br a good year for Nikon.​
    The D3X was introduced in December, 2008 and matched the $8000 price tag for the 22MP Canon 1DS Mark III introduced in August, 2007 (just days before the D3 and D300). I got to use the D3X for a few weeks; while I am glad to have 24MP in some occasions, I decided against it. I have been burned once before with the $5000 D2X; it was great in 2005 but was superseded by the $1800 D300 two years later.
    With the 36MP D800 at $3000, I don't think we'll ever see any Canon 1DS Mark 4 or Nikon D4X at $8000. There will be essentially no market for such cameras any more.
     
  94. I was waiting to see if the D600 would have a fps boost with the battery grip. Since it's max'ed out at 5.5 fps, I decided to pick up a D700 today. This thing was pretty hard to find...I literally called all of the stores in the Philadelphia area and found one with a great deal on a used one in Delaware. But now with a D800 for the critical work (marco, landscapes), the D700 for action-type work (also for sports, events), and both having excellent low-light ISO performance, I feel pretty good about my gear. I can retire my D300s and my 16-85 to the auction sites, or maybe use it to get into IF.
     
  95. "Isn't that the exact opposite of what we heard" While some have said that, the reality is that typically (but not always) the increase of resolution has generally improved higher ISO performance. But with cameras of equal resolution, for example the 12mp D300 vs the 12mp D3, the D3 has the advantage because of the size of the pixels. Comparing the D7000 vs the D3, the D7000 is virtually the same in the high ISO department at the D3 because of its improved sensor and higher resolution. The D800 does not have a higher pixel density than the D7000 but because of the larger sensor, down-sampling contributes to give the D800 superior results. It is the combination of improved 'everything' (with regards to the sensor) plus the total resolution that contributes to the exceptional results it delivers.
     
  96. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

  97. Still not the camera I want. Still no replacement for the D200/D300/D300s. :-(
     
  98. While some have said that, the reality is that typically (but not always) the increase of resolution has generally improved higher ISO performance.​
    I'm sorry, but that's absolutely not been the case historically in the camera industry. The D3x is outperformed in low light by the D3; the D800 is outperformed in low light by the D4; the 5D3 is outperformed in low light by the 1Dx; the PowerShot G10 was outperformed in low light by the G11. Each pixel carries some overhead in terms of electronics which typically has a detrimental effect on quantum efficiency. By downsampling you recover the reduction in light gathering power that came simply from having smaller pixels, but extra pixels have still had a slight negative effect.
    It's true that generational changes also matter - the D800 beats the D700 because it's newer, but then so did the D3s - and so does sensor size (FX sensors receive 2.25x as much light at the same relative aperture compared with DX) but, all else being equal, high resolution sensors have typically been at least slightly worse than lower resolution sensors on an image-size-by-image-size measure. What was surprising to many (or at least me) is how small this disadvantage was on both the original 5D2 and on the D800 - but the 5D2 was still not as good in low light as a D700, and the D800 is still not competing with the D4.
    I will be very interested to see whether the D600 combines the dynamic range (low ISO background noise) of the D800 with the higher-ISO (absolute light capture performance) of the D4. However much of it is just down to JPEG processing, the press coverage I've seen still reports the 5D3 as a slightly superior low-light camera to the D800, in the dark. As a Nikon fanboi, I'm interested to see how they compete. (There are also rumours of a cheap Canon full-frame camera - although there are plenty of quite servicable 5D2s floating around used - so the market may be about to get more interesting.)
     
  99. I did a pre-order of Nikon D600 at B & H.. Hope to receive it by September 24 or 25, 2012. Trying to buy FX lens from Tokina.
     
  100. It sounds like high ISO performance is due at least in part to in-camera software as much as any other single factor. Something else I've noticed is my high ISO noise goes down in winter, when temps are below zero F, than in summer. (Long exposure noise drops even more.) I read somewhere that as a sensor is in use, it heats up just like any other electronice device. Heat is infrared light, and the sensor intreprets this as noise.
    Kent in SD
     
  101. Kent - you're right about temperature. Sensors used for astronomy (which obviously need to be good in low light) are often actively cooled. So are some medium format backs.
     
  102. Andrew, you may want to read this article:
    "Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise"
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!
    " but the 5D2 was still not as good in low light as a D700, and the D800 is still not competing with the D4." I owned and used the 5DMKII and I found it to be almost as good as the D3/D700 (very, very close). The D800, according to DXOMark, gives equivalent results to the D4.
     
  103. Is this a D3x sensor?
     
  104. Thanks Shun,
    While I'm still in the "like vs. need, category....."
    This is an honest attempt for the D300/s user to bite & go fool circle back to an FX body. Basically, if this appeared several years ago, it would have eliminated the revenue and hype from DX gear.

    After initial shipments and some wait time, discounted, rebates, and refurbished units will put the body in the $1500-$1800. range. Possibly worth waiting for, as most of my lenses are primarily FX.

    I actually was spot on in my prediction of this model when the D7000 was released. I emailed a fellow Pennsylvania shooter who maintains his own Nikon related website. (Guess who?) He replied that I was talking out of my hat.

    However, given the cost of the D600 and the DX, D7000, there is little to no wiggle room at a price point between the two, for a "high end" DX body.
     
  105. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Is this a D3x sensor?​
    I am sure it is not. The D3X was introduced on December 1, 2008. That was almost 4 years ago and any technology from that era is quite out of date. The D3X produces a 4032x6048 RAW file and tops at ISO 1600.
    The D600 produces a 4016x6016 RAW file and tops at ISO 6400; it also has video capability. The sensors look quite different to me. The main thing in common is that both are FX and both are "24MP."
    However, given the cost of the D600 and the DX, D7000, there is little to no wiggle room at a price point between the two, for a "high end" DX body.​
    I wonder why you feel that way. The D600 is $2100 while the D7000 was $1200 but is now down to $1000. The D600 is approximately twice as expensive as the D7000 (depending on which D7000 price you use). To me, there is plenty of room for a successor to the D300S around $1600 to $1800, while the future successor for the D7000 goes back to $1200. If Nikon does not produce another high-end DX body, Canon, Sony and even Pentax will eat Nikon's lunch. DX is a far more important market than FX. For the time being, the D7000 is a major bargin at just below $1000.
    As I pointed out on another thread, as far as I know the D600 is produced in Thailand. Given how high the demand on the D800 was at $3000, I am sure the D600 at 30% cheaper will keep the Thailand factory busy. Any "D400" will have to wait for a little while.
     
  106. I will await the arrival of the D400 - my current cameras still do their jobs, I am happy with DX, and I simply refuse to yield to Nikon's marketing strategy of getting me to buy a D800 or D600 instead. If my priorities change, I will certainly re-evaluate - but the way things currently stand, I hope for a D400. If working with Nikons has taught me one thing, it is to have patience. Still (im)patiently waiting for that 70-200/4 AF-S VR, 300/4 AF-S VR, 80-400 AF-S-VR while Nikon manages to throw a whole new System on the market and some more DX lenses and some more highly-prized FX ones - but not the ones it could sell boatloads of (IMHO).
     
  107. Indeed, I saw the images last night and I almost .....in my pants. Although there was some noise, but the 25K image blew me away. As to DX, well it does have more DOF in macro, but unless the next DX rig is 24MP (and who knows ?), the D600 would do nicely on FX/DX plateau. Not only with the clean ISO's, but I'd get DX image that's equivelent or better than D300.
    But, but, but, Ronnie Gaubert whose photos are all over Pbase and Dpreview show us one thing, that technique matters and lowly D200/D300 in the right hands will outperform the latest and greatest. As a matter of fact, from what I've seen, the IQ of his photos equal D3X (personal opinion).
    Les
     
  108. Seems prudent to invest your money into quality Nikon lenses and not the bodies. D4, etc.
     
  109. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Seems prudent to invest your money into quality Nikon lenses and not the bodies. D4, etc.​
    As I said when the D800 was announced, 36MP is an overkill for a lot of people. The D600 is more in line for higher-end, fairly serious amateurs. I wouldn't say a $2100 DSLR is exactly very affordable, but your down side is fairly limited. Most people will do fine with a D7000.
    I would buy a good enough DSLR to meet your needs but no more than that. Digital cameras are not investments; they will lose their value fairly quickly. Around this time back in 2008, I paid $2800 for a D700, whose price dropped some more a month or two after my purchase. Today it probably worths some $1800 or so, perhaps a bit less. $1000 for four years of use; I have no complaints.
     
  110. Nikon mentions a restriction with the use of a PC-E lens. Does anyone have any information as to what the restriction
    might be?
     
  111. I must agree with Shun when he writes
    I wouldn't say a $2100 DSLR is exactly very affordable​
    I doubt we will see much discount on the D600 this Holiday Season, but Holiday Season 2013 should see a decent price drop - and give Nikon time to address any "bugs".
    Other than price, this looks like the DSLR I have been waiting for. But I also want to see the reviews and tests.
     
  112. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As I said, the D7000 started at $1200 in October/November 2010. It dropped by $100 a year later. And then it was the flood in Thailand that interruped production for a few months. Now two years later, it is down by another $100 to just below $1000. Expect a 10% to 20% price drop for the D600 in 1 to 2 years. By the time it hits $1800 to $1700, we'll be talking about a replacement. FX DSLRs are on a slower upgrade cycle.
    The 24mm/f3.5 PC-E works fine on the D800. When I get the D600 test sample, I'll mount the PC-E on it to see whether there are any issues. I kind of doubt that Nikon would miss something so obvious.
     
  113. I think I finally did something right in my camera life the last few years... I moved from a D80 to a D700 and a 24-70 2.8 in 2010. Since then, I've added a 105 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 70-200 VRII 2.8, 50 1.4G, 85 1.4G. I wouldn't touch a new D800 given all the press on the left alignment issue and now they throw a hi-res D600 in the mix. I'll be old before I can really make use of the stuff I have and crank out pictures I can sell (I've started to do that now...). I only need to invite one of my (true professional) photographer friends over and hand them my latest lens and have them shoot some pics of my place or me to convince me it's so much more the person before all the tools than the tools themselves. It's nice to remove all the technical excuses such as "if only I had a better lens". I think (and have beenn told by a few pros) that lenses matter 100% more than bodies. Bodies come and go. Lenses stick around. I'll happliy stick to 12 MP for a LONG time and excellent low light capabilities.
     
  114. I completely agree with Shun when he says he would buy a good enough DSLR to meet your needs but no more than that. Since digital cameras get upgraded so often, it just makes sense to me to buy the cheapest body that fits your needs. It's not like the film days where it might have made sense to buy a higher end body built to last 20-30 years or more. I feel kind of bad that already I'm thinking about replacing my great D300s that I just got in October 2009. That camera is built to last a lifetime.
     
  115. Andrew, you may want to read this article:
    "Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise"
    (link)
    Sensationalist headline. The DXOMark link for this actually says "More pixels offset noise!", which I agree with. It's not fair to compare the per-pixel performance of a D800 with the per-pixel performance of a D3s (except in the context of whether you can print images sqrt(3)x bigger with the D800). There's no doubt that binning the pixels together improves the noise behaviour, or that a high resolution sensor is better if the noise-per-image-fraction is equal (which is a point they feel the need to make).
    However, there's a difference between "considering the noise averaged over a number of pixels within an image area helps to offset the high noise that tiny sensor sites produce and makes the comparison fair", and "increasing the resolution makes for better noise handling than a low resolution sensor". The only people I've seen making that argument are Nokia, and they're glossing over the fact that the PureView 808's sensor is huge compared with other cell phones (and it receives a lot more total light irrespective of resolution).
    " but the 5D2 was still not as good in low light as a D700, and the D800 is still not competing with the D4." I owned and used the 5DMKII and I found it to be almost as good as the D3/D700 (very, very close). The D800, according to DXOMark, gives equivalent results to the D4.​
    Yes. I have to say that, given the 1Ds3's performance, a lot of people, including me, were surprised about that the 5D2 behaved as well as it did - the consensus that I've always heard is "not quite as good as a D700, but much closer than you'd think" (although, of course, there's always the D3s...) Not having personal access to a 5D2, I have to defer to your experience. Equally, I have no access to a D4, but DXO claims a significant dynamic range gap at higher ISOs in favour of the D4 (compared with the D800E and 5D3), for the graph I'm looking at. Of course, all comparisons are incremental - there just isn't that much difference between the sensor technologies, and the pixel wastage issue for high res sensors isn't that significant any more, but nonetheless we can't make the counter claim that higher resolutions are better at handling noise. There's very little disadvantage (at least in modern DSLR sensors with very efficient microlenses) to the noise handling by increasing the resolution, but - if there's any difference - it's still in favour of bigger sensor sites. If the D800 is better for low light, which I expect to be unlikely, it would be because Nikon cheaped out on some of the converter components for the D600. But I'd be astonished if that were the case.
    Let me put it another way:
    Comparing the D7000 vs the D3, the D7000 is virtually the same in the high ISO department at the D3 because of its improved sensor and higher resolution.​
    No. The D7000 is virtually the same as the D3 in high ISO (at least if you don't look too closely at the shadows) because the sensor efficiency improved over time almost enough to make up for the 2.25x area reduction. Higher resolution has nothing to do with it. If you compare the D7000 against a lower-resolution but newer vintage D3s, the big sensor smokes it.
    The D800 does not have a higher pixel density than the D7000 but because of the larger sensor, down-sampling contributes to give the D800 superior results.​
    Down-sampling and the fact that the larger sensor means that, at the same ISO and f-stop, the D800 gets 2.25x as much light gives the D800 superior results. Again, the 36MP is irrelevant. Compare the DX crop mode of the D800 against the D7000 and the results are very similar, since the sensors are of similar vintage.
    Is this a D3x sensor?​
    I am sure it is not.​
    So am I. If a "D700x" had appeared a couple of years ago, I might have expected the D3x sensor. Now, I'm more surprised it's not the sensor from the slt-a99 - unless of course it does have that sensor, and Nikon merely aren't using the on-sensor autofocus points. (As with the other Nikon sensors that Sony fabs for them, I'm sure it's a "Nikon design", but probably that means a Nikon tweak of a Sony design. That's an educated guess, and doesn't remove from the fact that Nikon seems to get some "secret sauce" out of the sensor that Sony doesn't, but there are often sufficiently similar specs that you have to expect some shared lineage).
    I wonder whether there's an issue with the PC-E lens clouting the flash housing in some orientations, as with the D700 etc. (which, I believe Shun reported, isn't a problem because you can just rotate the lens 180 degrees). Or it's possible - though I'd think unlikely - there's no support for the electronic aperture control.
    Dieter - the D600 is no D300s replacement, no matter what DPReview claims. It doesn't have the autofocus, frame rate or reach (pixe density) you'd expect from a "D400". I still hope there'll be one, and I'll still be interested to see whether it's in the 16MP range or 24MP range. I don't see a problem with a "D400" costing more than the D600 so long as it's faster and has better autofocus, even as a DX camera - it'd be a cut down D4, after all, and priced accordingly. I do still think that - if (and only if) the frame rate and buffer were "sufficient" - it would be an easier sell to charge a lot for a high end D400 if it has the same resolution as the D600. With the best engineering in the world, the D600 will be the better low light camera, by the laws of physics, so there may be little point trying to compete. I'd have a better idea of where the gaps might be in the pricing structure if the UK market rate for the D800 and D600 weren't so similar - there really has to be a discount sooner rather than later.
    Not that any mooning over the D400 detracts from how welcome a D600 is, at least at US prices - each camera to its place (eh Kent?)
    I'm off to look at the dpreview sample images, but I'm sure I'll be impressed. Though - other than a negligible weight difference - the only things that are likely to make me envious are the C1/C2 settings and the genuine low-noise shutter. Unless someone dumps a cheap D3s somewhere I spot it, I think my D700 is safe from replacement, at least once I get a battery grip.
     
  116. I feel kind of bad that already I'm thinking about replacing my great D300s that I just got in October 2009.​
    I sympathise. I got a D800E because I hit a specific limit of my previous camera (resolution/dynamic range), but it's still a lovely bit of kit and I plan to continue using it alongside the new toy. And my previous camera was a D700.
    Well, actually my previous camera was a GF2. And the one before that was a cheap compact from a supermarket. Then a Pentax 645. Then an Voigtlander Bessa R. Then an F5. But the one before that was a D700. Each camera to its benefit, but the D700 was the previous one intended for anything like the use of my D800e (and they're still complementary).
    I can't say my Eos 300D is getting much of a work-out these days, though. (Next up, a 5x4 of some sort, although an Eos 3 is a little tempting...)
    But it's not usually that the old camera is obsolete - it's that a different one will fill a use case. Ironically, with the D800, it's my lenses that I'm beginning to consider obsolete.
     
  117. Seems to me the 24MP is the new pixel benchmark now. The D3x would eventually be upgraded, as did the D700-800. It's nice to see a new FX camera that is more affordable. I'm one of the few that only use base ISO and I am happy with the printer output. I only print 8x10 or 16x10s.
     
  118. Ray - Canon haven't updated the 1Ds3 (and arguably they realised that the 5D2 was a better 1Ds3, at least for landscape shooters). I don't do much studio, but I imagine that the cheaper range of medium format(ish) cameras with leaf shutters still have a significant benefit there, so I'm not sure that the D3x is all that likely to get an update, however much KR whinges about the handling. The upgrade for an $8000 D3x is a 40MP medium format back - although the D800E is a pretty good option if you can live with the flash sync behaviour!
    You could make a very reasonable case that the D800 isn't a direct replacement for the D700 - it's a very specialist camera, and that specialism isn't the same as the D700's. The D600 is nearer to the D700 in frame rate, gripless, but inferior in autofocus system (at least in point count) and build. Like the D300s, the D700 hasn't had a direct update (except via the D3s/D4 upgrade route) - but maybe it won't get one.
    Happy days that some many good cameras are available, some of them cheaply on eBay! (But even if you only make smallish prints, don't rule out the ability to crop - from anywhere in the image - that a high pixel count gives you, and the D800's dynamic range is still as big a sell for many of us as the pixel count was.)
     
  119. Having pored over sample pictures for the last two hours (and having shot the 5D II for three years), my first impulse is to say that the overall image performance at high ISO (6400) in low light is better than the 5D II but perhaps not as clean at ISO 6400 as the 5D III. I say that not to be inflammatory, but because that is my prima facie conclusion--and thus subject to change. Not having actually shot the 5D III, I am reluctant to say more than "perhaps" not as clean as the 5D III at high ISO.
    I looked for shadow noise in the darker photos in trying to make those admittedly unscientific comparisons. I am quite sure that the 5D II has more shadow noise at ISO 6400 than the images that I just looked at at DPReview of both the D600 and the 5D III. I will be interested in seeing what someone thinks who has done a more systematic comparison than I just did--and who has had experience shooting all of the cameras I just mentioned.
    Given the price, however, none of this is a complaint about the images from the D600. As a veteran low light shooter, I would have to say that the D600's images look very good in low light at high ISO. These first images are very impressive.
    --Lannie
     
  120. I should point out that the comparisons that I just made were of the full-sized files. With down-sampling, the noise that I saw at ISO 6400 quickly disappears--even in the 5D II. I didn't try looking at higher ISOs because I never use those settings.
    All of this is very impressionistic, of course. I have no dog in this fight at this point. I sold my 5D II back in the spring to cover some unexpected expenses. (Right now my old Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n is the only full frame DSLR left in my house.)
    --Lannie
     
  121. All right, already! Which focus does it have? :D
     
  122. "Nikon F mount (with AF coupling and AF contacts)"
     
  123. Incidentally, although I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention it, Nikon seem to have done a good job at predicting the spec of the Eos 6D, even if they've not provided everything that those looking for a cut-down D4 might have wanted.
    The D600 is faster, higher-resolution, has better autofocus and 100% eye relief (I'm struggling a bit with the other specs from a dodgy web connection). For those deciding between systems, the D600 really looks - to me - like a pretty slam-dunk better option by a number of small improvements (something that's not quite true compared with the 5D3), even if it's probably not enough better to tempt existing Canonites. Although Canon obviously couldn't afford to sink their own 5D3 sales (which, like the D800, are heavily discounted already) with the new camera, so the 6D is crippled to approximately 5D2 levels. Good job, Nikon. I wonder how fast the 6D price will drop?
     
  124. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As I wrote earlier, the 2012 Photokina or perhaps the entire 2012 should be named the year of FX in terms of DSLRs. While I am glad to see that Canon also has a $2100 FX DSLR in the 6D, when I started reading the spacs, I almost stopped as soon as I saw that Canon is once again bringing back the 11-poing AF module with just one cross-type AF point onto the 6D. I am glad that it has the GPS built-in, though. My primary concern for the D600 is that it only has 9 cross-type AF points in the center of the frame.
     
  125. Are there any full-frame DSLRs that offer edge to edge AF coverage? The only thing on paper that looks competitive about the 6D is the high native ISO range. If that comes down to Nikon being more conservative in its ratings, the tepid response on the Canon side seems appropriate. Looks like a nice 5DMk2.5.
     
  126. Are there any full-frame DSLRs that offer edge to edge AF coverage?​
    Not from Nikon for sure - don't know about other manufacturers.
     
  127. There is no full frame DSLR with full AF point coverage (unless the mirror is up, in which case contrast detect AF is used and that does cover the whole frame); the size of the mirror box (AFAIK) limits the coverage of the (phase-detect) AF points. Since DX sensor is smaller and yet has about as big a space under the mirror it can cover a greater proportion of the frame, but the downside is then that since they use the same flange distance and lens mount there can apparently not be fast and compact wide angles. To solve both the AF point coverage and wide angle problems in the same camera, one needs to take out the mirror, but then there is no optical viewfinder, or the optical viewfinder is limited like in a rangefinder or Fuji X-Pro1. The Sony RX-1 may be a 24x36mm camera with a full coverage of the picture area in AF points.
     
  128. Illka is sort of right about why there are no edge to edge AF section points in "full frame" (24x36mm) format cameras. I
    asked Canon's Chuck Westfall about that a few years ago and it is apparently an optical path imposed limitation involving
    the angles the off axis angle light is traveling at as you get closer to the edge of the frame.
     
  129. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I have never used Canon's 1DX or 5D Mark III, but at least on paper (or should I say at least on web display), I like the way their cross-type AF points are located, with some farther away from the center. Ellis can probably provide some first-hand comments on that.
    Recall that the 1DX was announced last October (2011) althought it wasn't available until many months later. For a while I was hoping that Nikon would do something similar for the D4 generation. Unfortunately, Nikon's D4 continues to use the Multi-CAM 3500 from the D3/D300 era. As soon as I saw that back in January, I knew that Nikon would be staying with the 3500 for a few more years.
     
  130. This shot of Bobby Burns' shoe will blow your socks off:
    [link]
    --Lannie
     
  131. As far as AF point spread goes, I wonder if Sony's on-sensor PDAF would allow for better coverage... wonder if we'll see on-sensor PDAF in non-Sony bodies. Hmm.
     
  132. Here is the shot I tried to link to above:
    [link]
    Viewed at the original size (approximately 6,000 x 4,000 pixels), the detail is incredible, especially around the shoe.
    --Lannie
     
  133. My neighbor just got one after ordering it two days before from Amazon. He let me fool around with it for a little while and it is a winner.
     
  134. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Clearly, Nikon has already manufactured quite a few D600 prior to the announcement. After merely a week, I have already received a test sample yesterday, and as Szymon and Tim mentioned above, people are already receiving it.
    Side by side with the D7000, the two camera definitely look similar from the front side. The D600 has a larger viewfinder housing to accommodate the prism for the larger FX focusing screen.
    [​IMG]

    Left D7000, Right D600
     
  135. Mine came on Tuesday Sept. 18, before noon. It was a shocker since I didn't expect it for few more weeks.
     
  136. Does anyone know whether using Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD cards in the D600 make a difference over using Ultra 30MB/s SD cards when shooting?

    When I use the ultra cards it handles quite a few shots before the buffer fills but then I am left waiting while it finishes writing them to the card/s.

    Not so bad when set to JPEG but I need to shoot raw doing weddings. I have not tried the Extreme Pro cards yet as they are 3x the price and I need at least four x64GB cards to shooting weddings, 1 in slot 1 for RAW and 1 in slot 2 for Fine JPEG as back up and would need to have the second set once they fill up.

    As far as I can tell I will get roughly 1,400 images per card which is just enough to want a second set in case I shoot more than 1,400.

    So to get 4 cards at $180 Australian dollars each (cheapest I can see on the web) that's $720 just for memory cards when the Ultra (if the extreme pro cards don't make any difference) 4x ultra 64GB 30MB/s cards are $60 each which is only $240 I already have 2 so only need to spend another $120.

    So has anyone used both and know if it does make a difference?

    I have looked everywhere but can not see the actual write speed of the D600.

    Hope someone can help as I have a wedding booked for this Saturday the 10th of November 2012
     

Share This Page