D600

cab.in.boston

Given all the pre-release chatter there was regarding the D800 and 5d3, I'm surprised I haven't seen any discussion here yet about the rumored D600.

At 24.7MP, same ISO range as D800 (100-6400, expanded down to 50/up to 25.6k), 39-pt AF, and at $1500 (or at least <=$2k)... seems like a very likely candidate to replace/supplement my D300 and a nice match to Nikon's recent FX 28/50/85 f/1.8G primes. This is a camera that I am (potentially) very excited about.

perroneford

I've seen a bit of chatter about it, but quite frankly, most Nikon users I know get excited about features, not price. The D600 isn't going to wow anyone with it's ISO performance, it isn't the top of the range when it comes to megapixels, with the several year old D3x it's equal, and the new D800 WELL beyond it. It has no more focus points than the consumer/prosumer D7000. What it is, if reports are to be believed, is cheap. It's an inexpensive way to get into an FX camera path. That just doesn't seem to excite the Nikon faithful much.

If you go this route, I wish you the best with it. The D600 really doesn't bring anything to the table for me, but I suspect it will for those stepping up from older DX cameras, or those who want to bypass the D3200/D5100s and move straight into a "pro" model DSLR.

cab.in.boston

Ok, fair enough. Frankly, I'm not really interested in being at the top of the MP range. The D3x has the same count (with a sensor that's years old and only goes to ISO 1600), but I'm fine with the 12 in my D300, on FX I'd prefer 16-18 (and in my financial world the D4 is never going to be realistic), and 36 seems like just a boatload too many for me. "A D700 seems perfect for you," one might say. And indeed it may, except that sensor is a few years old and I expect improvements to have been made over the years, even at the "entry level" sensor range the D600 will occupy.

What does excite me about this camera is, as you say, an affordable (for me) way into the FX world of brighter viewfinders, shallower DoF, and better ISO (than my D300) that I've been hearing all about from full-frame users. I'm a hobbyist with absolutely no desire to make money with photography or interest in video. I want better-than-D300 ISO so I can shoot my kids indoors with f/1.8 glass and reasonable shutter speed, so if I had a cleaner 1600-6400 I'd be very happy. (Again, a used or end-of-life new D700 could be the way to go for me to achieve these ends.) Whether the D600 wows with ISO performance is yet to be seen, it's the same nominal range as the D800, so I'd like to see testing before I make any decisions on that.

The reviews and praise of the D800 I've been reading are fantastic That's all great to see, but $3k is well out of my price range, even notwithstanding my ambivalence about the high MP count. If I were to drop $3k on camera gear including a body, that needs to also include at least one nice lens as well. There's no way I could justify it on the body alone. Maybe I'm in the minority of Nikon users who has a limited amount of discretionary income.

perroneford

The D600 seems to hit the sweet spot for you. And I suspect for many others like you. No specific need to make money from the camera, D700 would work but it's an older model, want more MP, don't have a lot of lenses.

In some cases I think Nikon users/owners do spend more on their camera systems than other DSLR buyers. And many seem to stay in the brand for a LONG time, and thus have an accumulation of lenses by the time they are looking at some of these more advanced bodies. I think the D600 may be the first time I've seen Nikon push newer owners into an advanced body with the understanding they may not have legacy glass.

The D800 is a fantastic camera, but really aimed more at pros, though many more casual buyers are snapping them up and subsequently having issues that non-pros would tend to have. I think the D600 will avoid this completely.

...now if Nikon would just give me my D400.

cab.in.boston

Seems about right. I, too, have been anticipating the D400. Not necessarily to buy one immediately, but because I'm interested in the continual evolution of the line. I love my D300, albeit with the aforementioned desire for better noise performance, and I'll likely be shooting it until the shutter wears out. But OTOH, my kids aren't going to be this young forever, so if I am going to jump in for a better low light camera, I might rather do it while they're still young enough to let me take their picture without too many complaints. I've been stunned by some of the low light samples I've seen here and elsewhere from the 5d3 and D800. I don't want or need shoot-in-the-dark performance but cleaner shots inside my less than ideally lit house would be great, without needing to use flash all the time. I've always frankly thought I'd be happy with DX indefinitely, and maybe I still will. But the rumor of this FX body and all that comes with that, at a price I'd expect to pay for my next DX body, well, that's got me going "Hmmm..." However, to be realistic, I likely won't be buying a D600 anytime soon even if it turns out to be real. Even its rumored low price could get me 2-3 of the lenses I have on my wishlist. I need to work on the glass collection before putting money into replacing the D300, which is still a fine camera. But, it does put me in a frame of mind to put more effort into ensuring that glass I buy is FX-compatible, whereas a few months ago I didn't really care. Now I think an FX jump is more feasible for me.

Overall, I'm happy with Nikon and what they offer, and I see myself as one of those "stays in the brand for a long time" types. But yeah, as of now I don't have any really special glass that I've been using for years. I expect over the years I will add some and so am happy to see that they are trying to continue to make great bodies to match the glass with so I can keep playing for the long run.

Icebear

I'm still waiting for the D400. The announcement (OK - Rumor) of the D600 is a big disappointment for me 'cause it pushes the D400 back. I really want a DX body to replace my D300, and am sure not interested in replacing my D700 with a newer, but less capable, body.

Zerodog

Icebear wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the D400. The announcement (OK - Rumor) of the D600 is a big disappointment for me 'cause it pushes the D400 back. I really want a DX body to replace my D300, and am sure not interested in replacing my D700 with a newer, but less capable, body.

Not at all excited about less focus points. I use mine. I could say I wish I had more than 51. Especially on FX and I want them to cover the viewfinder like DX. To me that would be an upgrade worth upgrading to.

24mp seems to be the new standard for Nikon. I think this number is still ridiculous for most shooting. I grapple with space all the time on my laptop. Always shifting files around to deal with more pics from the current event I am shooting. This is with images all at 12mp. 24 would be twice that and slower to handle in every way. I am glad I am really happy with my D3s and D700. I would love to see a 16MP D400 with all of the great features my 300s has with great higher ISO capability and maybe more FPS. That is it. Just a tiny compliment to my D3s

perroneford

And I guess this is why it's so hard for Nikon. I am ECSTATIC that 24MP is the new standard. I do agree with you on the focus points covering more of the sensor, but I wonder if for some reason that causes issues.

I guess the question is, well two of them really, why are you shuffling files around on your laptop hard drive? I don't put ANY photo files on my laptop unless it's an emergency. And then only until I can connect one of my externals. Externals are cheap and I always keep a few around. The other question is how old is your laptop if it's having issues with D3s files? Might be time to upgrade that puppy before getting a new camera.

By the way, if all you want is a backup for your D3s the D7000 is a nice DX camera with 16MP. Not quite as fast FPS wise as the D300, but beats it in most other ways. And it's relatively cheap.

Zerodog wrote: »

Not at all excited about less focus points. I use mine. I could say I wish I had more than 51. Especially on FX and I want them to cover the viewfinder like DX. To me that would be an upgrade worth upgrading to.

24mp seems to be the new standard for Nikon. I think this number is still ridiculous for most shooting. I grapple with space all the time on my laptop. Always shifting files around to deal with more pics from the current event I am shooting. This is with images all at 12mp. 24 would be twice that and slower to handle in every way. I am glad I am really happy with my D3s and D700. I would love to see a 16MP D400 with all of the great features my 300s has with great higher ISO capability and maybe more FPS. That is it. Just a tiny compliment to my D3s

jmphotocraft

man... if this happens the 5D3 will look pretty over-priced.

I'll have my 1 more fps and 22 more AF points though. Yeah.

Zerodog

No my laptop isn't bad with my D3s. I have a d700 and 300s as secondary bodies to the big one. It is just that I know it will drag with more megapixels. I shoot events. Most end up with 4-5000 pics. Doubling file size with my current system wouldn't be so hot. I have some external drives that I warehouse event catalogs. But I like to keep my current stuff on my laptop to work on it anywhere. I just need to upgrade to a 1tb internal drive. I am always fighting with it with the 500. Right now my current working catalog is 260gb. Throw in a 2 50gb events and I am overflowing.

perroneford

I keep a slim 500GB drive in my laptop case. When I shoot, all my work goes on there. I can do my basic processing there if I have to with Photomechanic and LR4. When I get home, the external gets dumped to my desktop system where I keep 4TB live. My laptop flies because the drive has nearly nothing on it. I think it's got 92% free space or some such.

But yea, event shooting is like sports shooting. You end up with a TON of stuff. Not fun, and can really tax machines trying to process it all.

Matthew Saville

Zerodog wrote: »

No my laptop isn't bad with my D3s. I have a d700 and 300s as secondary bodies to the big one. It is just that I know it will drag with more megapixels. I shoot events. Most end up with 4-5000 pics. Doubling file size with my current system wouldn't be so hot. I have some external drives that I warehouse event catalogs. But I like to keep my current stuff on my laptop to work on it anywhere. I just need to upgrade to a 1tb internal drive. I am always fighting with it with the 500. Right now my current working catalog is 260gb. Throw in a 2 50gb events and I am overflowing.

Yep, you can talk all you want about how cheap CF cards and hard drives are, but the bottom line is that Nikon needs to do something about the lack of an sRAW mode and/or crank up their RAW compression, if they don't want to start rapidly losing the prosumer and semi-pro (sub-$4-5K body) market to the 5D mk3 and it's 6 FPS with (and without even!) 10 megapixel sRAW mode.

Honestly, I'm fine with buying more CF cards and hard drives. It's the computer upgrade, and the FPS *downgrade*, that I'm NOT cool with...

This whole talk of a D600 is kinda making me sick because I know it is in fact the path that Nikon "needs" to go down in order to keep breaking new market ground, even though a D4 sensor in a D800 / D700s type body is what I REALLY want right now... As do a few hundred thousand other full-time pros who don't care to pony up for a D4, versus those (admittedly equal in number, but at a lower profit margin) who would be interested in a D600 type camera...

=Matt=

cab.in.boston

Matthew Saville wrote: »

This whole talk of a D600 is kinda making me sick because I know it is in fact the path that Nikon "needs" to go down in order to keep breaking new market ground, even though a D4 sensor in a D800 / D700s type body is what I REALLY want right now... As do a few hundred thousand other full-time pros who don't care to pony up for a D4, versus those (admittedly equal in number, but at a lower profit margin) who would be interested in a D600 type camera...

=Matt=

Matt, if they were to offer a D4 (or D3s) sensor in a D300/700/800-class body, and would/could sell it for <$2400, I'd be VERY interested in that and would be willing and happy to save up longer for it vs. a D600. Not that I could afford it in the near term, but that would be exactly what I'd want as a hobbyist and for family shooting. I don't care for video, fast fps, or ultra-MP. I want good (great!) low-light performance, I only need enough MP to print up to 20" or so, and file size that won't make me have to redesign my entire home network. A 12 or 16 MP FX body with clean ISO6400 or higher would be my nirvana. But until that happens, I'm excited about the prospect of a reasonably priced FX body with "only" 24 MP. I think the D600 could be a good "enthusiast" camera for us enthusiasts who don't have tons of money to burn, as opposed to the pro/semi-pro D800.

I'm looking forward to seeing when/if this rumor becomes official, and then seeing the real price and ISO performance. Then I can start stuffing money under the mattress for some lenses that will work well with it, and eventually upgrade from the D300.

perroneford

Matt,

In the numerous forums I am on, you are literally the only person I've ever seen ask about an sRAW option. Not to say your opinion isn't warranted or valid, but it does seem interesting to me that I just don't hear it echoed anywhere else.

To me, Nikon has several markets they are trying to address or need to address

1. The DX to FX step-up no pro. This appears to be who the D600 is aimed at.
2. The DX pro who is looking for a replacement for the D300. This person has waited the longest for an upgrade. (Possible D400)
3. The FX user who wants an upgrade similar to the D700. Meaning the sensor from the pro body and it's low light performance in a smaller form factor (Nothing announced)
4. The DX semi-pro or advanced amateur (addressed with the D7000)
5. The beginner. (addressed with the D3200)
6. The full-time pro sports shooter or PJ (addressed with the D4)
7. The studio shooter (addressed with the D800)

It will be interesting to see where this market goes, but I don't see a wholesale jump to the 5Dmk3 under any of these circumstances. Especially for someone at the D700 level who is likely to have a stable of lenses.

lifeinfocus

Price - $1,500? Hmm?
I think it is too early to know exactly what the features will be and more importantly the price. If I recollect well, I think there were some major surprises when the D800/D800E was finally announced. So, I will wait and see the actual features and price. I am guessing it will be priced higher than $1,500.

Phil

cab.in.boston

lifeinfocus wrote: »

I think it is too early to know exactly what the features will be and more importantly the price. If I recollect well, I think there were some major surprises when the D800/D800E was finally announced. So, I will wait and see the actual features and price. I am guessing it will be priced higher than $1,500.

Phil

As I recall, the rumors for the D800 prior to its release were 36MP, $4k. What the rumors were on other specs, I don't remember. They nailed the MP and were a little off on price. I do remember the D800E being a pretty big surprise, though. $1500 is probably on the low side for this camera, but if they come in at or below $2k, I think they'll have a sales winner.

Dooginfif20

I dunno about everyone else, but I am interested. The D800 sounds great, but the 36MP is too much to handle for me. I have been on the fence with jumping to FF, and this may be the door opening for me. My D90 has been wokring great, but after 3 years and a crazy deployment its starting to show signs of wear. Ive already spend the money on glass and lights, so the next logical step for me is a camera and I dont see any reason as to why this wouldnt work for me. I agree though that I highly doubt it will be $1500. The D300 and D300s (lower MP, DX sensor) came out at $1800. If it comes out at $1800 ill be more than happy to get one! I am just curious to see if its low light performance will be better or worse then the D700 because of the increase in MP.

lifeinfocus

Dooginfif20 wrote: »

I dunno about everyone else, but I am interested. The D800 sounds great, but the 36MP is too much to handle for me. I have been on the fence with jumping to FF, and this may be the door opening for me. My D90 has been working great, but after 3 years and a crazy deployment its starting to show signs of wear. Ive already spend the money on glass and lights, so the next logical step for me is a camera and I don't see any reason as to why this wouldn't work for me. I agree though that I highly doubt it will be $1500. The D300 and D300s (lower MP, DX sensor) came out at $1800. If it comes out at $1800 ill be more than happy to get one! I am just curious to see if its low light performance will be better or worse then the D700 because of the increase in MP.

I have the same need and thinking the same as you. Twice I have had the chance to buy a used D700 with very low shutter counts around $1,800, but declined because of the above.

Phil

Matthew Saville

cab.in.boston wrote: »

Matt, if they were to offer a D4 (or D3s) sensor in a D300/700/800-class body, and would/could sell it for <$2400, I'd be VERY interested in that and would be willing and happy to save up longer for it vs. a D600.....

See, that's the thing. Everybody talks about how such a camera is "impossible", and how it would kill D4 sales, yadda yadda... But all Nikon really has to do is wait a year or so, sell the D4 to their little hearts' content, and THEN release such a camera. Just like they did with the D3 -> D700. It'd be a huge profit maker for Nikon, and those of us who don't care about megapixels will survive with our awesome D700's for another year.

But a D600 is a wrench in that plan, for sure. Will Nikon make THREE "affordable" FX camera bodies, on top of the flagship D4? I dunno, but it seems like that might still be an option depending on how they play out the D600. If it truly is as "amateur oriented" as the rumors say, (basically a full-frame D7000) ...then in my opinion there is still room in the market for a D800 with a D4 sensor, in ~12-18 months.

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

perroneford wrote: »

Matt,

In the numerous forums I am on, you are literally the only person I've ever seen ask about an sRAW option. Not to say your opinion isn't warranted or valid, but it does seem interesting to me that I just don't hear it echoed anywhere else.....

Probably because the rest of the people like myself are already too busy busting their ass working to shoot and edit the quarter-million images per year, in the volume-based wedding & portrait business model where such concerns about the D800's filesize are most valid.

Most every high-volume Nikon shooter I've talked to in real life either couldn't care less about the D800 because they're already happy enough with their D700 or D3 / D3s, ...or they shoot JPG.

In the last 7 days for example, I managed the processing of over 32,000 RAW images, (I work as part of a 6-person studio team, I'm in charge of workflow) ...and all I can say is that I am EXTREMELY glad that our Nikon shooters all use D700's, and our Canon shooters all shoot in mRAW... The bottom line is that for our business model, D800's across the board would require tens of thousands of dollars in storage and processing upgrades. So yeah, we're staying in the 10-16 megapixel range for as long as we possibly can...


=Matt=

perroneford

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Probably because the rest of the people like myself are already too busy busting their ass working to shoot and edit the quarter-million images per year, in the volume-based wedding & portrait business model where such concerns about the D800's filesize are most valid.

Most every high-volume Nikon shooter I've talked to in real life either couldn't care less about the D800 because they're already happy enough with their D700 or D3 / D3s, ...or they shoot JPG.

In the last 7 days for example, I managed the processing of over 32,000 RAW images, (I work as part of a 6-person studio team, I'm in charge of workflow) ...and all I can say is that I am EXTREMELY glad that our Nikon shooters all use D700's, and our Canon shooters all shoot in mRAW... The bottom line is that for our business model, D800's across the board would require tens of thousands of dollars in storage and processing upgrades. So yeah, we're staying in the 10-16 megapixel range for as long as we possibly can...


=Matt=

Well, I am certainly not as high volume as you, but I am generally in the 10k a month club. I'll have to see how it all shakes out for me, but for right now, I'm not overly worried about the storage. G-Tech has just released 4TB and 8TB RAID drives with Thunderbolt ports. I am thinking of trying a pair of those for the fall.

Mav

So is the D600 real??

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/14/first-leaked-nikon-d600-images.aspx/#more-40710

ziggy53

I can't consider anything "real" until I see an announcement from the manufacturer. Even then, it's impossible to know the exact time of channel fulfillment and delivery. Then, early adopters generally have to deal with "birthing pains" as the product gets refined through firmware, etc.

I'm more than happy to wait for a product to get through all of that early stuff and when the supply chain is fully filled before I place my order on anything.

Ed911

Matthew Saville wrote: »

In the last 7 days for example, I managed the processing of over 32,000 RAW images, (I work as part of a 6-person studio team, I'm in charge of work flow) ...and all I can say is that I am EXTREMELY glad that our Nikon shooters all use D700's, and our Canon shooters all shoot in mRAW... The bottom line is that for our business model, D800's across the board would require tens of thousands of dollars in storage and processing upgrades. So yeah, we're staying in the 10-16 megapixel range for as long as we possibly can...=Matt=

Wow, Matt. 32,000 images in 7 days...hmmm...that's one image every 19 seconds 24 hours a day, or one every 6 seconds if you're working an 8 hour day.

Mind telling us how you're achieving that kind of product processing with quality output?

I'm just curious about how many people are working on this project post processing those images.

Mav

Ed911 wrote: »

Wow, Matt. 32,000 images in 7 days...hmmm...that's one image every 19 seconds 24 hours a day, or one every 6 seconds if you're working an 8 hour day.

Mind telling us how you're achieving that kind of product processing with quality output?

I'm just curious about how many people are working on this project post processing those images.

Doesn't Matt say that he's managing a team of six?

I'm also guessing that many shots can be dismissed in a matter of seconds, giving more time to those that warrant it.

Ed911

I'm sure you could cull images pretty quickly. But, then what happens to the images.

I'm curious about how many of the 32,000 images survived the cull and are actually processed for delivery to the customers...and how many weddings it took to generate that many photos.


What about it Matt...how about a look into your world as work-flow manager...

Not trying to put you on the spot...just curious about how that much gets done in a week...7 days.

Matthew Saville

Ed911 wrote: »

I'm sure you could cull images pretty quickly. But, then what happens to the images.

I'm curious about how many of the 32,000 images survived the cull and are actually processed for delivery to the customers...and how many weddings it took to generate that many photos.


What about it Matt...how about a look into your world as work-flow manager...

Not trying to put you on the spot...just curious about how that much gets done in a week...7 days.

32,000 images is six weddings, (A few of them being 12+ hour Indian ceremonies) ...plus 4-6 smaller sessions througout the week. (Sangeet / Mehndi ceremonies, engagements)

There are 4-5 lead photographers, some shooting double-headers Sat-Sun. There are 5-6 second and third shooters. Lead photographers shoot 2-3+K images, 2nd and 3rd shooters shoot 1-2+K images

Each wedding generates anywhere from 3-7K images, each engagement / small event generates 500-2,000 images.

Culling usually kills 60-70% right off the bat, but that still equals a few thousand images that need to be color corrected. We have pretty high standards for color correction. (http://linandjirsablog.com)

That is an above-average weekend, though, some weekends only have 2-3 weddings and 3-5 engagements. But then again, some of them are at extremely difficult locations where the lighting is brutal and requires hours of extra attention in post-production.

Either way, my point was simply that it'd cost us far more than just a few hundred bucks in CF memory expenses, to upgrade our entire system to a 24/36 megapixel RAW workflow. It'd cost many thousands of dollars, not counting the cost of the cameras themselves.

Bottom line- We're gonna stick with the 10-12 megapixel range for a while longer. (D700's, and 5-series cameras in sRAW1/mRAW...)

I understand that Nikon can only please so many industries / business models per camera generation. Last generation, the D3, D3s and D700 were amazing (almost flawless) photojournalism / sports cameras.

I understand that with nothing FX over 12 megapixels for less than a whopping $8K, Nikon desperately needs to satiate the hunger of both hobbyist and professional landscape, studio, architectural etc. photographers...

I just know that sooner or later, Nikon will have to make an "affordable D4". It is inevitable, as the D600 will probably not sufficiently satisfy D700-shooting pros, even though it may be the perfect camera (along with the D800) for advanced hobbyists and aspiring pros in the landscape etc. arenas.

=Matt=

Ed911

Thanks Matt,

Man are you guys busy. Happily, it's not me...lol...