I am on the fence for D600 but I think I will do it. Here's why.

[carl_becker2]

<p>If you are happy with the D80 keep using it, you have the lens set. Pondering about some rumored new body is a waste of time. Waiting 6 months to a year after a release may be a good idea but is sort of like rumors, unknown until after the fact. If you are bleeding edge buy the first one, if very cautious buy much later, if NAS scratch the itch when budget allows.</p>

[peterd]

<p> Sorry guys I posted that last one after a bottle of wine and kinda regret it now. :( Thanks for all input and yes rumors is a waste of effort.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>As a musician first this whole thing reminds me of the guy who came to audition with a Peter Frampton signature Les Pal Custom that he couldnt play much less tune. I think someone told him buy it they will come but sorry he was awful ad that 5k he spent must still sting. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm also a musician, and I have to say, the comparison is valid... BUT... if you can afford to have and get nice things to make whatever your hobby/passion/avocation is more enjoyable, it's worth every penny.</p>

<p>But a good analogy might be that if a guy can afford a 5K guitar but has no money left over for amps and pedals... it's not money well spent, if a guy can afford a 2K or 3K camera, but has to put 200 and 300 dollar lenses on it, it's not money well spent.</p>

<p>Does that make sense?</p>

<p>So... how do you shoot? How do you use your photos?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Les Pal: is that similar to a Chapocaster?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>FX has become more affordable with the latest introduction of 28/1.8, 50/1.8, and 85/1.8 AF-S primes, as well as the two f/4 zooms. If the camera has a focus motor (as do all current and past Nikon FX cameras), then a much larger affordable prime collection can be used with good results. I never saw the economy in DX cameras because of the lack of some basic lenses such as wide angle primes etc. (yes, I know you can put an FX wide angle prime on a DX camera but it's not that good an idea in my experience), the extremely stringent requirements on focusing accuracy that the small format imposes and the limited aperture range that gives good sharpness on this format. Thus it was never a question of whether I would buy FX - and I think for a lot of advanced amateurs it's only a matter of time and money. Most DX lenses are of the f/4-5.6 variety which hold absolutely zero appeal to me. Nikon seems to be adamantly holding to the position that DX is only a stepping stone for users to FX by restricting their DX lens introductions of the past five years to inexpensive consumer lenses only. Otherwise they would have made a full set of DX lenses including primes and kept the 17-55 up to date with new designs, nano-coating etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the time has come by now that Nikon introduces a 1500-1800 EUR FX camera instead of a DX high-end model, since the FX pixel density has reached sufficient levels that the crop factor is merely a theoretical advantage (16/24MP vs. 15MP in DX crop mode with the D800). Most serious photographers want the higher quality when they don't need to crop, and capture the full imaging potential of their lenses since the majority of the expense is in the lenses (over the long term if not initially). The rush to get the D800 has basically proven that a lot of of people were merely waiting for the pixel density of FX cameras to catch up and then suddenly the price seems to matter little (I'm not saying it doesn't matter it's just that it seems that the pixel count has seemingly made a lot of people blind to the fact that it's actually a pricey camera!). Almost everyone who I know personally and who is serious about photography is scrambling to get one. Some aren't even that serious ... oh well. Perhaps there are even some who simply want to belong to the group.</p>

<p>If Nikon wants to market DX to advanced amateurs and professionals, I think it would be prudent to introduce 2-3 wide angle primes specifically for DX as these would make the format's claimed small size actual reality (using a 1800 EUR 24/1.4 as 36/1.4 kind of with the DOF of a 36/2.2 doesn't quite have the appeal to me frankly). Then update the 17-55 to rid it of the flare issue and maybe even a 50-135/2.8 compact zoom for DX and a D400 with a 16MP or 24MP sensor and the latest AF - then we're talking. But no such message is to be seen. Gaps in the lens lineup have been filled up on DX but they persist on DX as if they never intended to close them. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>remember, an entry-level FX camera is still an FX camera. meaning, you need lenses for it. that's a substantial investment if you're coming from DX unless you already have a stable of FX-ready lenses and/or are willing to go bargain hunting for legacy glass.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>To the OP (Peter) -- It was a little hard to follow your posts to hear your real questions, but I'll try.</p>

<p>I would have no problem buying a new Nikon camera the day it's introduced. Nikon has done a good job, though they have had some things to fix, and they do fix them. It's not like a new major release of Apple OS or Windows where I wait until at least the first followup "point" release.</p>

<p>But, staying on the bleeding edge with cameras is expensive. I try to buy one step behind the latest for camera bodies, and this saves me probably half. When the D300 was introduced, I bought a D200 for $700 and sold it a year later for $650. When the D300s was introduced, I bought a D300. If you are on a budget and really want FX, then buy a D700 now.</p>

<p>As far as replacing your D80 with another DX model: Today's DX cameras have moved the bar quite a bit from the days of the D80-D90. I think you would be surprised how much better they are. I still get good images from my D70 in good lighting, but my D300 is a quantum leap forward. D7000 is even better. Try a current DX camera before the allure of FX numbs your senses.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what my opinion is worth on the D600 rumours:</p>

<ol>

<li>I never thought it was logical for Nikon to skimp on relatively cheap backward-compatibility in a system that's in the price bracket enforced by a full-frame sensor.</li>

<li>However, maybe Nikon have decided that they have enough AF-S lenses to justify using lack of compatibility to sell them, even in the FX bracket.</li>

<li>Sony shipped a relatively affordable (compared with the D3x) 24MP full-frame camera. I'd like to think that Nikon would use a more modern sensor, but maybe it can be done for nearer the price of the D300 than that of the D800.</li>

<li>If Nikon do want to introduce a low-end FX sensor, the D3200 makes it difficult to justify a pixel count much below 24MP.</li>

<li>If they can make a D600 shoot faster than a D800 (say ~7fps), I suspect they'll head off a number of people considering the 5D3, and who don't really need the bulk of a D4 - especially wedding shooters who might want a second body. (I'm planning to keep my D700 as a backup for much this reason.) I'm not sure that the ~5fps rumour would be enough to distinguish them, although if it's cheap enough then it may be more tempting for other reasons.</li>

<li>I suspect if the only difference from the D800 was the pixel count, they'd have trouble selling the more expensive model. A lot of people are scared by the idea of 36MP.</li>

<li>I don't want one (unless I win the lottery and want a backup). I'll keep saving for the D800, ta. In addition to the pixel count, I have too many screwdriver (and AI!) lenses. The talk of custom user modes is interesting, though - there's a list of things I'd like in the D800 if it gets a BIOS update (or if it gets cracked), and this is on the list.</li>

</ol>

[peterd]

<p>That is a lot of great info.<br>

Peter Hamm: I hear ya on that. I see lots of guys with that fancy Les Paul or PRS and playing through a super crappy solid state amp. Kinda silly as a bad guitar will sound good through a great amp where a great guitar will sound bad through a crap amp. In the camera world it relates I think more to the lens than the body though the body is important. Question is where is the priority and I think for most its the lenses where the money really adds up and whatever I get should leverage the lenses I own.<br>

That said, I tend to be an opportunistic shooter. I like to shoot people and some architecture and art but not a lot of landscape etc. Usually I am on foot and on the move so tripods are not usually practical and I just ordered a clik elite so I can strap my dslr on my lower back when I take off riding. I am a fan of VR bad as that may peg me as a perpetual noob. I am interested in exploring some fashion style photography so hence in my case i would probably get good value from an FX but as I said its not a pressing need.I have a lot of pics I need to get off my arse and get online.They are sitting on my drive from my trips to Poland, Spain etc. <br>

Now that said, without a doubt if I had 3k and could indulge my every whim the d800 would be sweet. I think the D700 is a great option as suggested but likely I would wait if I went that route as more D800s get sold the stock of D700 used will increase and prices should drop. I only have a couple of AF lenses so its not a big deal if I had to swap something out due to a newer body. I have not dismissed the D7000 as it looks great but I am not sure I really need it. With my luck if I got one Nikon would just update it a month later anyways. I am unlucky that way. I need to get my friend to buy some of these so I can borrow his and decide. :) I think the biggest allure of the FX is getting the whole pic. It looks like a lot is cut out as a result of DX crop and since i have an 85mm and 50mm I like to use, that would be probably beneficial with those in that mode.</p>

<p> </p>

[jack flannery]

<p>The price of the D7000 is very reasonable. I picked up a refurb for $1k (as I recall). I added it to the cart to see the price and they got me. I find it to be a great camera and use it more than my D700, due to size. But if you want a FX sensor, the D700 is not a pile of antiquated crap. At all. I hope Nikon will keep the D700 or a derivative of it in production at a somewhat lower price point. I certainly am not going to replace it with the D800. I don't need it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm actually not that sure how much the appearance of the D800 will cause D700s to end up on the used market. I'm certainly planning on holding on to mine as a back-up, and will probably get a battery grip for it so I get more fps as an option (to justify to myself the need for both). I'd been considering a DCS 14n for a long time, but now the D700 will become the back-up system.<br />

<br />

If a D600 appears, I'm not sure I'd swap the D700 for one, even as a back-up to the D800. With the D700 I have full lens compatibility, and I'd expect to wheel out the D800 most of the time when I need pixels.<br />

<br />

I can see people coming to Nikon for the D800 deciding that the D600 (as rumoured) is a better back-up than the D700 - the D600 is more of a "lesser D800", less complementary to it - but I'm not sure about existing D700 owners. I suspect many people considering the D700 and wanting 4fps + 20MP would have been sold something by Canon. Going from a D700 to a D600, if rumours about the autofocus are right, would be a lot like going from a D700 to a D7000, and I've got used to the D700's abilities. Besides, I have CF cards, not SD.<br />

<br />

Of course, I'm assuming everyone thinks exactly the way I do, which is always the danger in these discussions. I wonder how the 1-system is selling?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>the D600 is more of a "lesser D800",</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"is" ?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>"is" ?</blockquote>

 

<p>Ah, be fair, I did say "as rumoured" in the same sentence. We're obviously all indicating (factually, I assume) what our interest would be if Nikon were (speculatively) to produce the D600 whose (rumoured) specifications are floating around. Obviously, this being the Photo,net Nikon forum, we wouldn't possibly comment on the veracity of those rumours or suggest that anyone base a purchasing decision on rumour. But I'm interested in what features other people find desirable in a camera - it might teach me to use mine differently, and it'll adjust the way in which I make feature requests to Nikon (because I'm wasting my time if I suggest something that won't mesh with the needs of other users).</p>.

[kj_thomas]

<p>I say if you are not in a hurry to upgrade, then just wait (keep in mind you could be waiting a while). But for your original question of how long to wait before you buy a new camera: Nikon is a highly respected company, and cameras come with a 1-year warranty. If you buy one and for some strange reason the first "batch" is bad, I'm sure you won't have a problem replacing it with Nikon. This is all assuming you are fortunate enough to get one in the first batch due to high demand of practically all new Nikon products.</p>

<p>Also, I disagree that replacing a D80 with another DX camera is not a substantial improvement. Any of the latest DX cameras (D3200, D5100, D7000, D300s) will smoke a D80 in IQ and ISO performance. The most comparable camera, the D7000, is worlds better than a D80 in my opinion. I know a lot of pros that shoot with one FX camera (either a D700 or D800) and have a D7000 in the bag or on the shoulder as a backup. I think they would be quite apprehensive going on a job if that D7000 was a D80. And if you want to go FX, you can get a D700, which in my opinion is still much better than a D80 and will be relevant for some time to come.</p>

<p>In the end, there's no sense in speculating on some D600. If it happens, great...I'm sure it'll be a success. But for now, the D600 is a pipe-dream.</p>

[peterd]

<p>Good points all. I was bored last night and I looked up the history of the D series and they update on a roughly 18 month schedule. As I am definitely not in a rush I will sit tight to see what comes out through the end of the year. Who knows, maybe I will have a moment of insanity if BB has a long no interest finance promotion and take a drive to Portland and grab a D800 which would get me in serious trouble but would probably cover for the next 10-15 years. :) (yeah I am dreaming) I think waiting is prudent bc when I got my D80, dammit if they did not release the D90 withing 90 days (such is my luick)and my gut feeling says the D7000 will get an update in the next 6-12 months and time is on my side. We shall see but in the meantime I will love my D80 as I have all along and keep shooting. I do know in the next year I will do something. Just don't know what yet.</p>

[dan_south]

My doctor told me not to read this. I'm getting rumortoid arthritis.

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I wish you could embed YouTube vids here.</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTNyGa6TSh4</p>

[romuald.janik]

<p>Stumbled on this thread by chance...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the biggest allure of the FX is getting the whole pic. It looks like a lot is cut out as a result of DX crop and since i have an 85mm and 50mm I like to use, that would be probably beneficial with those in that mode.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would state rather the opposite - the biggest allure of DX is the crop! In this way you get much cheaper longer lenses than those available on FX format. I like to shoot telephoto and close-ups of fragments and details so from this point of view a crop camera is better. Of course, one may say that on the FX one can crop in postprocessing - but shooting with cropping in mind takes some joy away from photography. I prefer to frame in the viewfinder for what would be the final composition.</p>

<p>Also your lenses will change their `personality' on FX and you would have to use them quite differently than now. Now 50 on DX is a nice portrait lens and 85 is a short telephoto later the 85 will be roughly what the 50 is now, you will loose the short telephoto (no big deal in fact)..</p>

<p>Summarizing, I would say that the main advantage of FX is high ISO perfomance, the possibility of a shallower depth of field, but not the crop factor. It will shift around the uses of your lens collection - only you can decide if it will suit your photography or not..<br>

Cheers,</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>As usual, the feature set on this rumored "D600" is now changing. Earlier the rumor was that it has no build-in AF motor. Now there is an AF motor. I have no doubt that rumor sites will continue to milk this "D600" with changing stories to generate more and more headlines; that is exactly what they have been doing all along for years.</p>

<p>Again, if that is "entertainment" for you, by all means enjoy it. Otherwise, I would take those rumors with a grain of salt and certainly would not plan any future purchases based on rumors.</p>

[andylynn]

Imagine how many links can be generated by back-and-forth over whether it will have GPS. And they haven't even

started on compatibility with the D3200 wifi module, metering with AI lenses, or leaked photos that are actually

photoshops of a D7000 with a new logo and a slightly larger red bit on the grip!

[peterd]

Shun have you been following rumors? ;) I wonder how long NR outed the D800 like they are the 600...

[ShunCheung]

<p>I read DPReview Nikon Forums, in these days mainly to follow how long people have been waiting for their D800/D800E to arrive, but there is plenty of D600 rumor discussions there that I read a bit in passing. Typically I get tired of reading the constant whining about B&H and Amazon taking way too long to ship and move on.</p>

<p>I can tell you that D4 rumors started to surface about a year to two after the D3 was introduced. The D3 was introduced in August 2007, and the rumors started around 2008/2009. Of course the original rumor had little resemblance of the eventual product. I can tell you right now that there will probably be a D5 in 2015/2016 before the Rio De Janeiro summer Olympics, but knowing the model number and likely release time frame really doesn’t tell you a whole lot.</p>

 

[peterd]

True i was just amused is is all. I take it all with a grain of salt. If it comes to be great. If not great. Because whatver

direcion i ultimatly go is a win regardless. That said i think we will see something new this year so i am staying put. Whats

6 to 9 months in tech? A lifetime. But truth until digital we were not so disposable of our gear. A shame really. Where do

digital cameras go to die? Reminds me of that movie AI...

[ShunCheung]

<p>As long as people take rumors as "entertainment" with a grain of salt, I don't see there is a problem. I too think Nikon will have a 3rd FX option besides the D4 and D800/D800E, but that could merely be wishful thinking from my part, and nobody outside of Nikon knows for sure that if there is such 3rd option, it will be available later in 2012. It could be later in 2013 ....</p>

<p>As I have said a few times, IMO the D800 was priced too low at $3000. It probably should have been $3500 (like the Canon 5D Mark III) to even $4000, and we would not have seen such shortage in the last couple of months, and some scalpers benefit from flipping D800 to eager buyers. Why should Nikon price the next camera to benefit scalpers instead of themselves?</p>

<p>IMO some "$1500 FX D600" is completely wishful thinking. FX sensors are expensive to produce, so I kind of doubt that Nikon can make a profit from $1500 FX bodies in 2012, and if it were priced that low, it would certainly make the D800 shortage look like nothing. Nikon is currently selling refurbished D700 at $2000 or so and new ones are from $2200 to $2600: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00aQLs">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aQLs</a>. The D700 is now very old technology. A new Nikon FX body with current technology should be considerably more than an old D700.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Then again, Shun, who'd have guessed that in 2012 Nikon's cheapest FX body would be it's highest in resolution!</p>

<p>I've already said that I think there very likely will be a 2K FX "D400" or "D600" or whatever (I think 16MP), and the upgraded D300s will be a "D8000" or some such (though with all the goodies that action shooters need in the D300 enhanced... in other words a D7000 form factor with a D300-like feature set).</p>

<p>But I'm purely speculating on what makes marketing sense to me, not what people actually want... Hopefully Nikon can make those two concerns come together.</p>