Nikon Introduces D600, 24.3MP FX, US$2099.95

[orcama60]

<p>I do agree with the concept that this camera is an <strong>entry level FX camera</strong>. Still I do believe it is a D7000 but FX. Very sad there is not replacement for the D300. Are DX days over ? :-(</p>

[conradwebb]

<p>Sun Cheung - my apologies for the wrong attribution of the quote.</p>

[nick_baker]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+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.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With the current $100 rebate, buying separately actually saves $100. At least when I checked last night at B&H.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Shun, D800's are just over £2050 here in the UK, which finally kinda equates to the opening selling (US) price of $3000.</p>

<p><strong><em>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.</em></strong></p>

<p>Opening price here for D600 is £1955......... now if it drops to £1400 (that's a 25% drop) difference is re-aligned. Some hope!</p>

[lisa_b4]

<p>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.</p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>US Price for a D800 is <strong>$</strong>3000 = <strong>£</strong>1860, BUT shop price is <strong>£</strong>2050 <br /> US Price for a D600 is <strong>$</strong>2100 = <strong>£</strong>1304 OK, <strong>EXCEPT </strong>it's<strong> £1955..</strong>that 50% more!!</p>

<p>Still, I like Lisa B's thinking!</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>B&H shows the weight of the body at 18oz, which sounds more realistic, LOL.</p>

<p>Also, it will be interesting to see where the D700 used market prices go now.</p>

[Gup]

<p><em><strong>A camera for all the people who ever thought: "if I only had a bigger sensor, my life would be perfect".</strong></em><br>

<em><strong>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</strong></em><br>

<strong><em>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.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</em></strong><br>

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! </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>My dilemma now would be between the D600 and the D800, depending on just how good the D600 is in low light.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[adam_weaver]

<p>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? </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>Is there a good reason that the d600 shouldn't match the d800 in low light performance?" </em>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.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"</em><em>Is there a good reason that the d600 shouldn't match the d800 in low light performance?" </em>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

[Two23]

<p>Ikkla--<br />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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I'm envious of the quiet shooting mode (that works), though.</p>

<p>My $.02.</p>

[dan_south]

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.

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>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.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>Isn't that the exact opposite of what we heard"</em> 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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The key to high-ISO performance on these high-pixel cameras is down sampling: <a href="00aEHd">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aEHd</a></p>

<p>When I get the D600 test sample, I'll try the same test.</p>

[StanleyBeck]

<p>Still not the camera I want. Still no replacement for the D200/D300/D300s. :-(</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>While some have said that, the reality is that typically (but not always) the increase of resolution has generally improved higher ISO performance.</blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry, but that's absolutely <em>not</em> 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.</p>

<p>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 <em>still</em> not as good in low light as a D700, and the D800 is <em>still </em>not competing with the D4.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

[nsibulo]

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.

[Two23]

<p>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.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>