D600: risk in buying used?

[stefan_g]

Happy New Year!<br>

 

I was thinking of buying a new D7000 (and got lots of good advice in <a

href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cGkP"> this thread </a>)

since they are available for $700 currently. But after looking at the

DXOmark low-light ISO scores, that would only get me a bit more than 1

stop improvement over my D70. <br>

To really get significantly better low light performance it seems full frame

35mm is my only option (see table):<p>

<IMG SRC="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-

hpzILvnm9VQ/UsHapGuFlRI/AAAAAAAAZDU/8nhs6ZqnOj0/s640/Nikons.j

pg"><p>

And the only remotely affordable camera in the upper tier (2.5 stops

improvement over a D70) is the D600, which seems to come with some risk

of excessive dust and oil/grease sensor contamination.<p>

 

So, my questions:<br>

What are the odds of getting a problematic used D600? 1%? 5%? 50%? <br>

Has anybody here bought one from KEH, and what was the experience and

outcome? <br>

And, can one just run 5000 shutter actuations (apparently the D600 has an

interval timer), clean the sensor once, and be done with the problem?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>What are the odds of getting a problematic used D600? 1%? 5%? 50%?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone can answer that question. Considering that there are cases where the shutter was replaced and the oil splatter returned after a few hundred shots - so refurbished might not be such a good option here. Then there are cases were people have no issue whatsoever. Nikon might have a percentage number available - but they aren't talking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, can one just run 5000 shutter actuations (apparently the D600 has an interval timer), clean the sensor once, and be done with the problem?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>According to numbers I have seen that would be more like 10,000 - and it might require more than just one cleaning. And I don't think I would want to run a camera continuously for 5,000 or 10,000 shots (would need a few battery swaps anyway).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>low light performance has only been improving slowly over the years, with (correct me if I'm wrong) the best 35mm DSLRs maybe 3 stops better than the D70 (I.e. ISO 6400 usable vs. the D70's 800)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>3 stops is actually quite a lot - it's all there is between fully open on f/2.8 zooms and where diffraction effects are reducing resolution for FX sensors (f/8 - f/11). It's the difference between shooting at 1/250s and freezing motion vs 1/30s and having anything that moves motion blurred. Some people are paying a lot of money to get a 1-stop increase.</p>

[roy_s4]

bought a refurbished D600 from B and H a few weeks ago...sensor was a mess..cleaned with gel stick and wet cleaning

kit..easy...perfect now..cost $1399...probably one of the best purchases I have ever made on photo gear...camera is

amazing...comes with 90 warranty, but you will probably have to learn how to clean the sensor, which is really NO big deal

at all.

[keith reeder]

<p>Not sure where you get the "ISO 6400 usable" idea from, Stefan.</p>

<p>Even my lowly, old Canon 7D can <strong><em>easily</em></strong> produce eminently usable 12,800 ISO images with the right conversion and post processing and some competence at the capture stage; the latest crop of full frame cameras from both Nikon and Canon should readily best that - again, assuming that the user makes good conversion and processing decisions.</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>I don't think it makes any difference whether you buy refurbished or just secondhand. I had my D600 cleaned by Nikon, and it doesn't seem to have oil problems any more, but it still gets dust spots very easily.<br>

I've not plucked up courage to try cleaning the sensor myself - despite so many people saying how easy it is, I still have in the back of my mind that if I mess it up, it's several hundred pounds for a new sensor !</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I use a D600, 14K shots with dust that shows up if I specifically look for it, but it is never visible with apertures more open than 5.6. I probably will try to clean the sensor myself if the dust ever shows up on an image that I want to use.</p>

<p>Agree with Roy S, a refirb or used D600 seems to me to be a great bargain. If the sensor shows up excessively dirty, just send it back.</p>

<p>I have not used a D7100, but did try a D7000 briefly. I decided to keep the D300 I had.</p>

<p>As far as high ISO performance, I need it to shoot bball. In our home gym, I need ISO6400 or a little higher to get enough shutter speed/fstop for action. The D600 delivers good results, as do the D3s and D800 bodies that I have used. I have used a D700 and D3 in that gym, with OK but notably less good results. Never could get good (enough for me) results with the D7000 or other DX format cameras that I tried (D90), but I <em>think</em> I could get decent results with a D7100 and a shorter lens opened up more, maybe.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Cleaning is easy as pie (unless you are completely non-technical). D70 and other older cameras for instance the D3 didn't have any self cleaning (sensor vibration) anyway so cleaning was the norm. So I wouldn't base any purchasing decision on that reason alone.</p>

<p>Dxomark compares noise on raw files, resampled to 8 megapixels. I have shot usable ISO 6400 images on the D70. But usable is not a universal definition so it could mean just about anything. I would shoot the D70 down to ISO 400 without any thought and the D600 down to ISO 1600.</p>

<p>Having shot both the D70 and the D600 extensively I would say that the D600 is better in all regards - except weight, flash sync speed and luminosity histogram which are better on the D70.</p>

<p>While the noise is significantly better at high iso the most apparent difference at high iso is that the colors are much better on the D600. But the perhaps largest difference is not noise but dynamic range. It's very easy to blow out the sky or get false colors in the sky with the D70 while the D600 is much better in this regard.</p>

<p>The D600 is also much faster to respond to menu changes and flipping through images on the LCD. The LCD is also significantly better.</p>

<p>When it comes down to bangs for buck I think the D600 is still too expensive for what it is. But that goes for all full frame cameras. While the D600 is without doubt better than any DX camera the question is if it is worth the premium to you. A used D7000 is probably the best value for a midrange dslr.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I had a D 600 with the spot problem. I know how to clean sensors, both wet and dry methods. I gave up trying to get those little spots off the sensor and took it to a local repair shop for a pro cleaning. He advised me that I would have to do it every 10,000 clicks or so based on all of the D 600' sensors he has been cleaning. I never experienced any of these difficult cleaning issues on my D 200, D300s or D 700. I finally gave up on it traded it in on a D 610. You know my advice. Stay away from it. Joe Smith</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I wouldn't buy a D600.</p>

[dave_petley2]

<p>I wouldn't buy a D600 or D610 </p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of people who have no problems with their D600; there are also quite a few people who have oil/dust issues, to various degrees.</p>

<p>I wouldn't hesitate to buy a new D600 if that is still available. I may even go with a refurbished one if the price is good. As long as Nikon is responsible and I can return it, I am willing to take a chance when the price is right, and I would immediately test it thoroughly. As long as I am getting a random sample, it is fair game.</p>

<p>The problem with a used D600 is that the seller maybe dumping it due to problems. You are no longer dealing with a random sample. Should you have problems, maybe a few weeks down the road, returning it might not be an option any more. And you'll have no warranty since Nikon's warranty is not transferable.</p>

<p>If you go the used D600 route, I would probe the seller for the history of the camera and why they are selling it. If you feel that the seller is not honest, I would walk.</p>

<p>Finally, if the objective is to upgrade from a D70, there are many choices that will represent a substantial improvement, such as the D7000 or D7100. I can't imagine that the OP is all that demanding on the latest technology or he would have upgraded from the D70 a long time ago. The D600 is not the only upgrade option.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>KEH is an exceptional company to purchase from. They include warranty with all their lenses and camera, I believe for 6 months. You would need to verify the period with them and confirm that if the camera developed an oil issue, that they would take care of it for you under their warranty. Although it does appear that the issue resolves itself eventually. I would have no difficulty getting one at the right price as long as it had some kind of warranty. FWIW, I bought a D800 and was aware of the left focus issue. Which I did have with mine. And it was properly corrected under warranty.</p>

 

[jim_mohundro1]

This is not meant to be a wholly off topic podt, but one wonders why the otherwise helpful chart, above, indicates there

are numerical ISO performance differences between the D600 and the D610, given the D610 modifications of the D600's

functions ought not to affect the performance numbers at all. Is this an indication of some inconsistency in the DXO

testing process of the two bodies or just a normal variation between two bodies with no apparently relevant differences

selected at random, or, if the latter, it would be, academically perhaps, interesting to see the variation over, say, 10 or 12

or 20 bodies.

[stefan_g]

Again, thanks for all the replies! In particular for the used buying experiences. So maybe a reasonably safe strategy

would be to try to find a used D600 from a reseller that allows returns, with

a good number of actuations already done (10,000 or so), and run a few

1000 additional actuations quickly. Except they might not let you return it

after that. Mhmmm. Have to ponder that.

<p>

Shun, good point about the biased sample when buying used. Also about

the not-so-demanding OP ;-) I prefer to see myself more in the 'very

demanding, but too frugal to spend' category...

<p>

Jim, my understanding is that those differences (between D600 and D610,

or even D7000 and D7100) are just random. That's why I added the color

coding. I assume anything in one of those three groups uses the same

sensor and amplifier/digitizer technology (not necessarily the same chip, and certainly not the same sensor patterning).

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>some inconsistency in the DXO testing process of the two bodies or just a normal variation between two bodies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite likely normal variation - couldn't find information whether or not DxO tests more than one sample and the values reported are averages or best case.<br>

In any case: in their own words: <em>A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. </em>Hence those differences aren't field relevant and quite likely not even statistically significant. Cameras with the same color codes in the above table should yield indistinguishable results.</p>

[stefan_g]

Dieter, do you think there would be a danger of something overheating

when running a few series of 1000 shots in a row? I read one post where

somebody used the interval timer to run several rows of 999 shots (and

probably had to recharge the battery in between).<p>

Regarding the speed of progress, 'only three stops', and why I haven't

upgraded the body (but instead bought faster lenses, and chipped some of them for exposure metering and trap focusing with the D70): I'm fine with

focusing and recomposing. So more (cross-type) AF sensors would be

nice, but not a necessity. A Nikon that could focus anywhere in the image,

and would know where I want it to focus (eye tracking?) would be nice, but

from what I have read that doesn't exist yet. I do agree that an extra cross-

type AF sensor in the upper third for portraits would be very nice.<br>

Ditto for resolution. I rarely crop and/or enlarge so much that I run into the

D70's pixels. The few times I have, a 24 MP DX camera would have bought

me a linear factor two, which of course is not nothing, but would not really

have improved the situation (tiny plane or bird in big empty frame)

significantly. <br>

Ditto for sensitivity and noise. I was very excited initially when the D200

and the D300 became more affordable, but the problem I have regularly run

into is dimly lit scenes at about LV (EV at ISO 100) 2 or thereabouts, i.e. I'm

at f/1.4, 1/30s, and ISO 1600 (and sometimes still underexposed). I'd want

to be at f/2.8 (so I can use a zoom), 1/100s or faster, with ok noise. That's

more than one stop. In the earlier thread Wouter pointed out that maybe

this simply is not a good situation for taking pictures.<br>

Maybe I should rent a D7000 and see what it looks like in that situation.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Stefan, I don't know (but doubt) that overheating will be a problem. To me, running a 1000 shots with a minimum of 0.5s interval between shots sounds a bit like a torture test to me; especially when repeated 10 times as fast as the battery recharges. I am looking at the practicality - what would you do if your D600 when run through that 10,000 shots sequence still displays the oil problem? Run another 10,000? Or return it - I doubt that will be possible without some problems. Then get another one and repeat? How many times would you run through this - after a couple of returns, the postage alone would have paid for the difference in price when getting a D610 instead. <br>

If you really want a D600 then buy one only if you are willing to deal with oil and cleaning should that D600 be affected. Or do 500 shots and check - if it shows up, return and get another - with the caveat that doing this a few times will eat up what you saved through the postage alone. Trying to speed up the process is not how I would deal with it.</p>

<p>Shun brings up a good point about random samples. Normally, I would assume that a refurbished body has the issue fixed - with the D600 I don't have that assurance. And with a used one the immediate question arises as to why the owner is selling a camera that is at best 15 months old - because he no longer wants to deal with the oil issue? You are quite likely someone else's problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>f/1.4, 1/30s, and ISO 1600 --> f/2.8 and f/125s </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's four stops - your ISO would be at 25600; that's D3S/D4/Df territory (and probably not even that good anymore). Wouter is right that this isn't a good situations to take pictures at all.</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Stefan,<br>

Are you a gambler? (just kidding)...Why on earth would you like to bet on a D600 that even Nikon have dismissed it in less than a year of it's product life cycle??? How much money would you save? Remember that a faulty camera is never a bargain! It's always trouble! I can't believe that there are no other candidates in your mind...but if you like it the hard way be prepared for the consequences. Cheers!</p>

[stefan_g]

Dieter, the idea would be to get all the oil flung off whatever is doing the

flinging, and then do one cleaning only after those 5000 shots. That would

be for a used camera with few shots. <br>

Ideally though there would already be more than a few thousand actuations

on the camera, and the 5,000 would be a test, under the assumption that if

the oil/grease problem doesn't show up (again) during that test, it won't in

the future.<br>

But, as Panayotis point's out, that's still a gamble. And I do not like to

gamble, at least not when money is involved...<br>

So, look for a well used D700? Keep waiting? I just took my D70 out to the

lakefront in the mini snow storm we are having here in Chicago, with the

85/1.4 AIS. So it's not like I'm without camera.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>And I do not like to gamble, at least not when money is involved...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And there's your answer ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, look for a well used D700?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I did earlier last year - though my 3-year old one wasn't exactly well-used with about 12,000 clicks. Mine came with a MB-D10 (that I don't actually need but haven't sold yet), an L-bracket and a couple other accessories. For a little more I could have purchased a brand-spanking new D600 - but for a variety of reasons that camera didn't/doesn't appeal to me. ISO3200 is perfectly usable for me on the D700 - I don't like pushing any higher though (and usually don't have a need to).<br>

The D70 was my first DSLR - I never really warmed up to it and it soon was replaced by a D200.</p>

[phialv]

<p>I bought a refurbished D600 from Nikon about a year ago and have never had a problem with it. I would do it again in a heartbeat. It's an excellent camera. Good luck.</p>

[johnw63]

Adorama has some refurbished:

 

http://www.adorama.com/INKD600R.html

 

and as a kit with the 24-85mm

 

http://www.adorama.com/INKD600K1R.html

[stefan_g]

John, thanks for the hint, but there's some

weird business going on with your link. There's

some ad server interjecting itself. The adorama link

should be

<a href="http://www.adorama.com/INKD600R.html">http://www.adorama.com/INKD600R.html</a>; but now the same is happening to my link. Sorry, not your fault, must be photo.net (or my tablet got hacked).

[pete_s.]

<p>It's photo.net that changes the link to point to an ad server (adtechus.com) so they can track clicks and also make some money when you buy something from adorama. This is also true for B&H and others.</p>

<p>So if you use ad block or have an ad blocking firewall you can't click on the link so you need to copy & paste the link as text instead.</p>

<p> </p>

[judsonr]

<p>I bought a new D600 and it now has 6700 clicks on it. I've never physically cleaned the sensor but I do carry a "rocket" blower and use it whenever needed to remove dust spots acquired from changing lenses (I live in New Mexico). Guess I'm one of the lucky ones....</p>