Nikon Introduces D600, 24.3MP FX, US$2099.95

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>Sample Images (Nikon site) :<br>

<a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/sample.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/sample.htm</a></p>

[elliot1]

<p>Andrew, you may want to read this article:</p>

<p>"Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise"</p>

<p>http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!</p>

<p>" 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." 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.</p>

 

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Is this a D3x sensor?</p>

[steven_p]

<p>Thanks Shun,<br>

While I'm still in the "like vs. need, category....."</p>

<p>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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. (<strong>Guess who</strong>?) He replied that I was talking out of my hat.<br>

<br />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.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Is this a D3x sensor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 That was almost 4 years ago and any technology from that era is quite out of date.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.</p>

<p>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."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>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).</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>DPReview has posted some sample images: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2210310/dsc_3930?inalbum=nikon-d600-preview-samples">http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2210310/dsc_3930?inalbum=nikon-d600-preview-samples</a></p>

<p>The ISO 100 through ISO 6400 images look very good. Even the ISO 25600 image looks good.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>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. <br>

But, but, but, Ronnie Gaubert whose photos are all over Pbase and Dpreview show us one thing, that <strong>technique matters</strong> 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).<br>

Les</p>

[bob___10]

<p>Seems prudent to invest your money into quality Nikon lenses and not the bodies. D4, etc.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Seems prudent to invest your money into quality Nikon lenses and not the bodies. D4, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[pcassity]

Nikon mentions a restriction with the use of a PC-E lens. Does anyone have any information as to what the restriction

might be?

[bgelfand]

<p>I must agree with Shun when he writes</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't say a $2100 DSLR is exactly very affordable</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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".</p>

<p>Other than price, this looks like the DSLR I have been waiting for. But I also want to see the reviews and tests.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[kevin_beretta]

<p>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.</p>

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>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.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, you may want to read this article:<br>

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise"<br>

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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 <em>huge</em> compared with other cell phones (and it receives a lot more total light irrespective of resolution).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>" 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." 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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>quite</em> 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.</p>

<p>Let me put it another way:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Down-sampling <em>and the fact that the larger sensor means that, at the same ISO and f-stop, the D800 gets 2.25x as much light</em> 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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Is this a D3x sensor?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am sure it is not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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 <em>does</em> 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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?)</p>

<p>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.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>

<p> I feel kind of bad that already I'm thinking about replacing my great D300s that I just got in October 2009.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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...)</p>

<p>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.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>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. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ray - Canon haven't updated the 1Ds3 (and arguably they realised that the 5D2 <em>was </em>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!</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>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 <em>prima facie</em> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[wogears]

<p>All right, already! Which focus does it have? :D</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>"Nikon F mount (<strong>with AF coupling</strong> and AF contacts)"</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>