D600 Announcement

ZBlack

http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0913_dslr_01.htm

Being a hobbyist with a D7000 this is tempting, but not a "OMG I MUST GET THIS" now. Considering selling my 7000 to help cover the cost since I'm not shooting weddings or anything professionally where I'd need a backup camera. One downfall is I wouldn't be able to afford a good fx wide angle for my landscape shooting for a while. I've got the cheap Tamron 10-24, so hopefully the DX mode on it still works with the 3rd party lenses. My other lenses are Sigma and also DX. The higher MP is a big attraction for me as I've been doing a lot more printing of larger sizes, even though I do upres with Perfect Resize.

Thoughts on this being the next logical jump from a crop to full frame for a hobbyist/very very part time money maker?

EphTwoEight

Hey, it was cool to see Matts name on my FB wall, for SLR Lounge! Cool.

Mav

Having abused my D90 for a little over 2 years I've been considering a new body. Like you, I don't have FX lenses and would take time to be able to afford them, but this body seems like a great way to get in to FF... Which everyone says is tremendous... I certainly never considered that I would ever be able to justify a D800, but this D600 is very tempting.

Matthew Saville

I think that Nikon will find out that the "get into FX affordably" crowd is a lot smaller than they think. I maybe completely wrong, but I can only think of a few people who wouldn't rather have a D7000 (or to be fair, whatever it's replacement will soon be) ...or a D800.

The only market that the D600 can truly target is the hobbyist who is too obsessed with image quality to be satisfied with the D7000 or it's replacement, yet is still not able to afford the extra $900 for the D800, ...or maybe is too intimidated by it's behemoth size and complex controls?

With a 1/4000 shutter speed cap and a 1/200 flash sync speed, and of course the missing PC sync port, ...I see a HUGE section of hobbyist portrait / wedding / action photographers who will not even think twice about the D600. Really, the only group of photographers who might be 100% satisfied with the D600 would be the go-light adventure / landscape photographers, or general outdoor / nature etc. hobbyists, who are more interested in the AIS / AF-D lens compatibility, the built-in intervalometer, (hopefully) the pop-up flash commander, ...and of course the affordable image quality.

It will be interesting to see what Canon has up their sleeve. With the 5D mk3 at $3,500, they are clearly making room for something well below $3K. Will Canon go for sub-$2,000 and just make a FF 60D? Or will they aim for $2500 and make an FF 6D? I'm trying to imagine what they could take out of the 5D mk3 to try and make it $1000 or $1500 cheaper, and I'm having a hard time brainstorming. Any thoughts? All Nikon seems to have done when comparing the D600 and D800 is, well, made it slightly more "amateurish"

=Matt=

perroneford

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think that Nikon will find out that the "get into FX affordably" crowd is a lot smaller than they think. I maybe completely wrong, but I can only think of a few people who wouldn't rather have a D7000 (or to be fair, whatever it's replacement will soon be) ...or a D800.

I've been saying the same for months and people treat me like I'm crazy. The problem is, many will talk themselves into this camera. I might buy a couple for remotes. I was going to buy another D7000 or two, but this may work depending on ISO performance.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The only market that the D600 can truly target is the hobbyist who is too obsessed with image quality to be satisfied with the D7000 or it's replacement, yet is still not able to afford the extra $900 for the D800, ...or maybe is too intimidated by it's behemoth size and complex controls?

I don't know much better the image quality is going to be over the D7000. I shot my D7000 tonight on a fashion shoot and MAN I forgot how good it was.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

With a 1/4000 shutter speed cap and a 1/200 flash sync speed, and of course the missing PC sync port, ...I see a HUGE section of hobbyist portrait / wedding / action photographers who will not even think twice about the D600. Really, the only group of photographers who might be 100% satisfied with the D600 would be the go-light adventure / landscape photographers, or general outdoor / nature etc. hobbyists, who are more interested in the AIS / AF-D lens compatibility, the built-in intervalometer, (hopefully) the pop-up flash commander, ...and of course the affordable image quality.

I think you may be right, though in my case these aren't big deterrents. Pocketwizard takes care of the flash sync issue. The 1/4000 isn't too big an issue really. At least no to me.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what Canon has up their sleeve. With the 5D mk3 at $3,500, they are clearly making room for something well below $3K. Will Canon go for sub-$2,000 and just make a FF 60D? Or will they aim for $2500 and make an FF 6D? I'm trying to imagine what they could take out of the 5D mk3 to try and make it $1000 or $1500 cheaper, and I'm having a hard time brainstorming. Any thoughts? All Nikon seems to have done when comparing the D600 and D800 is, well, made it slightly more "amateurish"

=Matt=

I truly don't know where Canon is going. Nikon really seems to be getting the better of them in a lot of markets.

NikonsandVstroms

I need to stop reading the rumor sites.....they were talking about a 1,500 dollar price tag which would make this camera a no brainer. But at 2,100 the D800 will likely be worth it especially if its high ISO/dynamic range is higher.

As to the D600 being at a magic price to get people buying FX bodies when I got my D700 in January of 2009 it was just a little more at 2,200 so this isn't really a game changer.

Wait Matthew there is no PC sync port?? Alright looks like I'm in the D800 camp.

NikonsandVstroms

ZBlack wrote: »

http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0913_dslr_01.htm

Being a hobbyist with a D7000 this is tempting, but not a "OMG I MUST GET THIS" now. Considering selling my 7000 to help cover the cost since I'm not shooting weddings or anything professionally where I'd need a backup camera. One downfall is I wouldn't be able to afford a good fx wide angle for my landscape shooting for a while. I've got the cheap Tamron 10-24, so hopefully the DX mode on it still works with the 3rd party lenses. My other lenses are Sigma and also DX. The higher MP is a big attraction for me as I've been doing a lot more printing of larger sizes, even though I do upres with Perfect Resize.

Thoughts on this being the next logical jump from a crop to full frame for a hobbyist/very very part time money maker?

If this is the reason then you should save/spring for the D800, possibly even the E model which is like another jump in resolution. It's a sizable increase in cost but you are getting a good bit for it.

Also do you need the AF for your large prints or are they mostly of static subjects? I ask because Nikon has the D3200 which would get you the resolution and work with your current lenses.

Mav

As the D600 is using the same focusing system as the D7000 but on FF does that mean the focus points will not fill the view as much? The example images from Nikon suggest that would be the case:

D7000


D600


I would have thought spread/coverage of focus points was as important as number...

Mav

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think that Nikon will find out that the "get into FX affordably" crowd is a lot smaller than they think. I maybe completely wrong, but I can only think of a few people who wouldn't rather have a D7000 (or to be fair, whatever it's replacement will soon be) ...or a D800.

The only market that the D600 can truly target is the hobbyist who is too obsessed with image quality to be satisfied with the D7000 or it's replacement, yet is still not able to afford the extra $900 for the D800, ...or maybe is too intimidated by it's behemoth size and complex controls?

With a 1/4000 shutter speed cap and a 1/200 flash sync speed, and of course the missing PC sync port, ...I see a HUGE section of hobbyist portrait / wedding / action photographers who will not even think twice about the D600. Really, the only group of photographers who might be 100% satisfied with the D600 would be the go-light adventure / landscape photographers, or general outdoor / nature etc. hobbyists, who are more interested in the AIS / AF-D lens compatibility, the built-in intervalometer, (hopefully) the pop-up flash commander, ...and of course the affordable image quality.

It will be interesting to see what Canon has up their sleeve. With the 5D mk3 at $3,500, they are clearly making room for something well below $3K. Will Canon go for sub-$2,000 and just make a FF 60D? Or will they aim for $2500 and make an FF 6D? I'm trying to imagine what they could take out of the 5D mk3 to try and make it $1000 or $1500 cheaper, and I'm having a hard time brainstorming. Any thoughts? All Nikon seems to have done when comparing the D600 and D800 is, well, made it slightly more "amateurish"

=Matt=

Always interested in your perspective on these topics Matt

What would you say the advantages are for the D600 over the D7000? For us mere mortals who have constantly been told how important/great FF is, it sounds like you're saying I would hardly notice the difference...

Icebear

For me, the D600 is a big bag of "so what." I'm still hoping for the D400.

perroneford

Icebear wrote: »

For me, the D600 is a big bag of "so what." I'm still hoping for the D400.

Ditto!

perroneford

Mav wrote: »

For us mere mortals who have constantly been told how important/great FF is, it sounds like you're saying I would hardly notice the difference...

Who the heck is saying that? Unless you regularly shoot at high ISO, or print at 16x20 or larger, you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I just did a magazine cover fashion shoot last night... on my D7000. I didn't even take the D800 out of the bag. Don't believe the hype.

cab.in.boston

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I think that Nikon will find out that the "get into FX affordably" crowd is a lot smaller than they think. I maybe completely wrong, but I can only think of a few people who wouldn't rather have a D7000 (or to be fair, whatever it's replacement will soon be) ...or a D800.

I count myself in the "want to get into FX" crowd, but have no desire for the super high MP body. I just want great image quality and low light performance better (hopefully significantly) than either my D90 or D300. I don't print big (heck, I hardly print at all) or excessively crop, but I do shoot my kids under poor indoor light and don't always want to need flash. I want good wide angle options, so Nikon could probably solve my needs by making a good, fast DX wide prime. What I think I REALLY want is the D3s sensor in a D700 body. I'd pay $2k for that... if I were really in the market for a new body. Fact is, my D300 very rarely truly lets me down and honestly there are plenty of holes in my lens arsenal that I want to fill before I consider a new body. I do plan on filling those holes with FX-compatible lenses "just in case" I do go FX someday.

Looking at the specs, the D600 looks like it would definitely be on my consideration list, but I want to see some of the lower-light samples from it, and get some real world impressions on it. On paper, it doesn't seem to be much (if any) of an improvement over the D700, since I care not at all for video. I am curious how the new metering system performs. But a good condition used D700 probably would suit my wants quite well. Since the upper ISO range is the same b/t D600 and D700, I'll be curious to see how they compare.

I'm glad it's physically larger than the D90, but it's not quite as large as the D300, which I find perfect for my largish hands. So I would have preferred it a little bit larger, but at least it's not tiny like the D90/7k.

I'm disappointed there is no dedicated AF-ON rear button. I'm sure the AE-L/AF-L button can be programmed as such, but then you lose that button, which I use for other purposes...

I'm surprised the bracketing will only do 3 frames. That's going to detract from the HDR crowd.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The only market that the D600 can truly target is the hobbyist who is too obsessed with image quality to be satisfied with the D7000 or it's replacement, yet is still not able to afford the extra $900 for the D800, ...or maybe is too intimidated by it's behemoth size and complex controls?

With a 1/4000 shutter speed cap and a 1/200 flash sync speed, and of course the missing PC sync port, ...I see a HUGE section of hobbyist portrait / wedding / action photographers who will not even think twice about the D600.

None of that bothers me in the slightest, but that's because I don't consider myself or have any interest in being (outside of my kids) a portrait/wedding/action photographer...

Matthew Saville wrote: »

the only group of photographers who might be 100% satisfied with the D600 would be the go-light adventure / landscape photographers, or general outdoor / nature etc. hobbyists, who are more interested in the AIS / AF-D lens compatibility, the built-in intervalometer, (hopefully) the pop-up flash commander, ...and of course the affordable image quality.

Sounds exactly like you often describe yourself...

I admit I was much more interested in the rumors of the D600 when it was putting the price well below $2k. Not that that was really ever totally feasible, but I was hopeful. Putting it over $2k takes it out of the realm of possibility for a while for me, but we'll see how the street price goes and how the used market reacts. I still don't see myself changing bodies for at least a couple of years and certainly not until I've plugged some of those holes in my lenses... Still I'm glad to see the first shot fired in the "lower price" FX battle.

ziggy53

The Nikon D600 does appear to have used Nikon's lowest quality shutter technology. With a flash sync of 1/200th and apparently no HSS/FP mode (although I do see a second curtain mode, which is nice), it will be interesting to see if "hypersync" techniques work with this model.

Otherwise, the slightly higher frame rate (versus the D800) will appeal to some, and the number of video modes is encouraging. (We'll have to wait for reviews to know the video quality.)

The lack of a PC flash connector is a bummer, but I wonder if this device would suffice?:

http://flashzebra.com/products/0266/

While Sony has built some of the imagers for Nikon cameras, the resolution and features are slightly different between the D600 and the Sony Alpha SLT-A99 and Cyber-shot DSC-RX1. (Just mentioning.)

The lower resolution of the D600 versus the D800 will appeal to some, who feel that the D800 is too high. (File size versus image utility. 24 MPix is still a great plenty. )

Dual card slots are always nice.

Shutter lag of 0.052 s is encouraging. (Nikon measurement, versus 0.042 s of the D800.)

---

If the imager is as nice as other recent Nikon entries, I suspect that this body will do very well indeed.

DsrtVW

Icebear wrote: »

For me, the D600 is a big bag of "so what." I'm still hoping for the D400.

perroneford wrote: »

Ditto!

Ditto +1
right know a used D3 is looking attractive I want frame rate and more buffer

ZBlack

I shoot primarily landscapes as mentioned in the OP, but with cheaper lenses Tamron 10-24. My portrait lenses are the Sigma 17-50 and the 50-150 (per Matt's recommendation, and i love this lens). I have been much more regularly printing 16x24 or larger prints for various friends and around my own house, but not sales for profit. Looking at the specs a bit more closely to my 7000, there are quite a few similarities. I imagine a newer sensor will provide better image quality and of course the higher MP count would play well into my landscape based shooting.

ISO seems to be in the same range, not sure on the FPS, but I don't need that, focus points are the same, dual card slots are the same, 3 shot bracketing I wish was higher, but my 7000 can do that as well; I think the 7000 can hit 1/8000 can it not, and be able to use HSS with my SB700 at those speeds? I have shot at 1/4000 with my flash as a test and it all seemed fine, but I'm not sure if the camera defaults to different settings, but the exif data shows it is what I set it to be. Apart from the sensor, and being better sealed to the elements, there aren't many selling points after a closer comparison. Of course jumping into fullframe is the other "advantage"


Since my main lens is a budget one, would dropping the same money more or less on the infamous Nikon 14-24 yield a larger quality increase to my images? Assuming of course I am using my camera correctly. Or would the sensor in the D600 provide enough image quality over my D7000 to consider seriously?

angevin1

Nikon mentions that this uses AF nikkor lenses, which means it has a drive motor in the body. That is a good feature. And could well appeal to the D90 crowd; the last non-FX body to have that feature.

Personally, I think it is tuned towards the DSLR video crowd: FX OR DX lenses Huge-huge deal. 720p @ 60fps. 29 minute (possible) recording time. Clean HDMI out for external recording and monitoring. And they are sticking with the Audio headphone out for monitoring recorded Audio. (note) A Camera is NOT and audio solution, but it has been requested and Nikon has continued it since the D800 intro.

From these standpoints I like it.

ziggy53

ZBlack wrote: »

... Thoughts on this being the next logical jump from a crop to full frame for a hobbyist/very very part time money maker?

ZBlack wrote: »

I shoot primarily landscapes as mentioned in the OP, but with cheaper lenses Tamron 10-24. My portrait lenses are the Sigma 17-50 and the 50-150 (per Matt's recommendation, and i love this lens). I have been much more regularly printing 16x24 or larger prints for various friends and around my own house, but not sales for profit. Looking at the specs a bit more closely to my 7000, there are quite a few similarities. I imagine a newer sensor will provide better image quality and of course the higher MP count would play well into my landscape based shooting.

... would dropping the same money more or less on the infamous Nikon 14-24 yield a larger quality increase to my images? Assuming of course I am using my camera correctly. Or would the sensor in the D600 provide enough image quality over my D7000 to consider seriously?

While the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S on "any" Nikon FF body is a killer combination, you may also wish to look at using multiple, overlapping, stitched images for static landscapes. You can achieve incredible amounts of detail, greater than any single exposure camera. You could accomplish this with your existing equipment* by adding a panoramic tripod head and appropriate software (including free software).

Do check out the best panoramic thread ever:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=101529

Results:

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=990541&postcount=274
http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=994328&postcount=293

Be sure to see what Baldy did here:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039964&postcount=362
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=1039966&postcount=363

---

*(If you wish to pursue stitched panoramic images I strongly suggest adding a medium-telephoto, true "macro" lens to your kit. I often use the Tamron 90mm, f2.8 macro and the very low angular distortion it provides make stitching much simpler. Most macro lenses are also extremely sharp and contrasty, generally beneficial in stitched panoramics.)

perroneford

angevin1 wrote: »

Nikon mentions that this uses AF nikkor lenses, which means it has a drive motor in the body. That is a good feature. And could well appeal to the D90 crowd; the last non-FX body to have that feature.

Uhhh, D7000?

cab.in.boston

angevin1 wrote: »

Nikon mentions that this uses AF nikkor lenses, which means it has a drive motor in the body. That is a good feature. And could well appeal to the D90 crowd; the last non-FX body to have that feature.

D7000 has the motor/AF-D compatibility, as does the D300s. The D3k and D5k series do not have it, but they have retained it in their high-DX bodies.

angevin1

cab.in.boston wrote: »

D7000 has the motor/AF-D compatibility, as does the D300s. The D3k and D5k series do not have it, but they have retained it in their high-DX bodies.

Wow. I'm impressed; Not kidding. I thought the feature had not been in the _000 range of bodies, and totally forgot the D300/s. Thanks!

Matthew Saville

Mav wrote: »

Always interested in your perspective on these topics Matt

What would you say the advantages are for the D600 over the D7000? For us mere mortals who have constantly been told how important/great FF is, it sounds like you're saying I would hardly notice the difference...

Honestly, yeah there is a little better image quality. But then again, the D7000 already does have AMAZING dynamic range; I've processed plenty of images from it and the dynamic range is just incredible; I'd take a D7000 over even the 5D mk2 or mk3, if I were shooting landscapes and was more concerned about size / weight than high ISO.

The D600 will offer you one main feature beyond the D7000: night shooting at high ISO's, for star trails and time lapses etc. For some landscape shooters this is very important, for others not so much. Personally, I'd consider the D7000 and D600 almost equally. I would also wait and see what a possible D400 may hold, since it will be 24 MP DX, and will have all the semi-pro features that the D700 / D800 has and the D600 has left out. But, that's just because I do also like shooting action and stuff. A DX D400 could be the nature / wildlife shooter's dream camera, if it can beat the 7D for ISO and dynamic range...

Mav wrote: »

As the D600 is using the same focusing system as the D7000 but on FF does that mean the focus points will not fill the view as much? The example images from Nikon suggest that would be the case:

D7000


D600


I would have thought spread/coverage of focus points was as important as number...

...Yep, that is one reason why DX still rocks for action / sports photography. The viewfinder is COVERED in AF points. I love my D300 for this reason, and still shoot it along side my D700 but only in broad daylight where I can stay at ISO 200. But that is a 2007 12 megapixel DX sensor, ISO performance has come a long way in DX bodies since then. If you shoot lots of action and sports, consider waiting to see what a D400 may hold. Just imagine a "DX D800, without any features left out like on the D600" ...and see if that interests you...

=Matt=

Zerodog

That focus spread looks worse than the D700.

Molotov Everything

Ahhh they just can't make these decisions easy.
I also have a D7K but full frame is appealing. A D4 is too expensive for me to even consider, but now I don't know, pre-order one of these? Save for a D800?
50ms shutter lag sounds great compared to the ~240ms of the d7000. Slower flash sync speed sucks. Max shutter at 1/4000 I guess doesn't bother me much, I almost never use 1/8000 for anything.
I guess I'll keep combing the internet the next few days and see if more hands-on reviews come out.

ziggy53

Molotov Everything wrote: »

... 50ms shutter lag sounds great compared to the ~240ms of the d7000. ...

That's why I qualified the shutter lag. Nikon rates the shutter lag for the D7000 at 50ms*, so the D600 may be similar performance. Still not too bad for a FF body with a lower end shutter.

Nikon obviously measures shutter lag, ... a little differently from most other sites.

---

*
D7000 shutter lag quoted from this page: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25468/D7000.html

D600 shutter lag from this page: http://www.nikon.com/news/2012/0913_dslr_01.htm

D800 shutter lag from this page: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features03.htm

martinjp2

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I count myself in the "want to get into FX" crowd, but have no desire for the super high MP body. I just want great image quality and low light performance better (hopefully significantly) than either my D90 or D300. I don't print big (heck, I hardly print at all) or excessively crop, but I do shoot my kids under poor indoor light and don't always want to need flash.

I agree with you. I'm shooting my grandsons and great nephews and nieces with a D90 and long for better low light performance. I don't even like going to ISO 400 with the D90, but then I never liked the grain of ISO 400 film for pictures of people in the old days. I'll definitely be interested in the D600 if the reviews of its low light performance are favorable.

24MP is more than enough for my needs. I've been happy with all the 20x30's prints from my D90. Dealing with the D800's files on my computers doesn't interest me. It's probably a contributing factor in the Smugmug price increase.

We have another grand child coming next spring. It's worked well for justifying new lenses with my wife for the last two, hopefully a D600 can be justified for the new baby.

I'm in the target hobbyist market. I don't have a lot of time to shoot, but will shoot 1,500 pictures during a weekend with the kids.

Jim

babowc

I'd love to see a successor to the D300s..
Same layout as the D800 in DX.. ah.. I would get rid of my D7000 with quickness, if something like that came out!
Although D7000 is a great camera, I hardly ever use it!

Dreadnote

For what it is worth, here is what David Hobby has to say about the 1/200th sync speed. It's worth the 3 minutes it'll take you to read it:

Here

Matthew Saville

The shutter speed issues don't really kill me. Slap on a circular polarizer, and you're down a stop or so anyways. Heck, Canon users have been "locked" at 1/180 for their fastest sync speed for a while, and only recently have their latest cameras jumped up! Same thing with 1/4000, that has often been the max shutter speed for Canon DSLR's.

Far be it from us Nikon users to expect more? I dunno.

Anyways, for me the real deal-breaker is the pc sync port. I use it on almost every job I shoot, and 100% of every wedding I shoot. The only way I could work around this would be if I invested hundreds, or even a thousand bucks, into a Radio Popper or similar "piggyback" system that allowed me to reliably command wireless flashes via methods other than a sync port.

I think that Nikon made a slight mistake here. This kind of omission would only have been expected if Nikon were able to hit a price point well below $2,000, in my opinion. But for $2100, they should have included at least two of these three missing features that portrait / action photographers value.

Oh well, I guess I'll just grab a second D700...

=Matt=

ziggy53

Matthew Saville wrote: »

... Heck, Canon users have been "locked" at 1/180 for their fastest sync speed for a while, and only recently have their latest cameras jumped up! Same thing with 1/4000, that has often been the max shutter speed for Canon DSLR's.

...

Naw, the Canon 5D series have always had 1/200th x-sync. Even the dRebels have 1/200th x-sync. Your information is just plain wrong.

BTW, Canon 20D through 60D have a 1/250th x-sync, as do the 1D/1Ds series. The latest 1D series also natively x-sync at 1/300th with some Canon flashes. (1D MKIV and 1D X)

The Canon 5D series have a 1/8000th maximum, as do the xxD and xD series bodies. It's only the dRebel series that are limited to 1/4000th maximum shutter.

The 5D MKII and 5D MKIII also have HSS/FP mode flash support, for shutter speeds above x-sync (to allow ambient light control with large apertures.)

Molotov Everything

Oh boy. Yesterday I was really waffling about whether or not I should really think about getting this camera, then today I got a bonus check at work for slightly more than the cost of this. I think its an omen. I'm not normally a superstitious person, but if the superstions are telling me to buy new toys I can make an exception. Maybe ill be dgrin's sacrificial lamb, preorder one and give you guys some test results.

Maybe. Still waffling a little.