While there is no doubt this is not a "pro" type of camera but is interesting to a weekend hack like me as a break in point for FX shooting with the price point. I don't think Nikon was going for a replacement for the D700 with this model but a entry level FX for us weekend shooters. With the comparisions to the higher end Nikon offerings in this thread, isn't that a bit like comparing a pickup truck to a Corvette on a race track?
Well, yes, but if you need a race car, it's nice to know that the model you're considering is a truck. Or vice versa. There's value in comparing features and comparing feature sets to intended usage.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
This from the Camera's Manual: "The mirror will be raised and the view through the lens will
be displayed in the camera monitor as it would appear in
the actual movie, modified for the effects of exposure."
Meaning, I cannot use Lv to ascertain my Movie, nor Still exposure. This just seems like a complete failure on Nikon's part. I think I could live with exiting Lv to adjust Aperture on a Af Nikon Lens, but a Modified image in Lv...Not good.
Just putzing this morning with the Camera and found this out. When doing some testing yesterday I did my normal, Shoot, check exposure/histogram and all, prior to movie recording. But today, just popped up Lv, took the shot and it was totally dark. Switched over to A from M and voila, it boosted the ISO from 1600 to 3200 and cut my Shutter in half from 60 to 30 to result in proper exposure. But you'd never know you were under/overexposed using Lv.
Meaning, I cannot use Lv to ascertain my Movie, nor Still exposure. This just seems like a complete failure on Nikon's part. I think I could live with exiting Lv to adjust Aperture on a Af Nikon Lens, but a Modified image in Lv...Not good.
Just putzing this morning with the Camera and found this out. When doing some testing yesterday I did my normal, Shoot, check exposure/histogram and all, prior to movie recording. But today, just popped up Lv, took the shot and it was totally dark. Switched over to A from M and voila, it boosted the ISO from 1600 to 3200 and cut my Shutter in half from 60 to 30 to result in proper exposure. But you'd never know you were under/overexposed using Lv.
And this is different from other Nikons how? I don't believe my D800 or D7000 work any differently. I've never used LV on my D3s.
This from the Camera's Manual: "The mirror will be raised and the view through the lens will
be displayed in the camera monitor as it would appear in
the actual movie, modified for the effects of exposure."
I don't get it, that sounds EXACTLY like "WYSIWYG". Isn't there a setting like on the 5D mk2 / mk3 that lets you view either regular live view, or exposure simulation? "Modified for the effects of exposure" sounds like WYSIWYG to me...
It's almost 10oz lighter than the D700... am I the only one excited about that?
No, you and many other outdoorsy / backpacker types are probably jumping for joy that they'll be more comfortable when lugging a full-frame setup into the wild.
Pair the D600 with some killer f/4 zooms like the 16-35 or 24-120, and you've got an incredible lightweight setup for nature / adventure photography. Now Nikon just needs to get on the 70-200 f/4 wagon! Although I guess if you're just shooting landscapes and not wildlife at twilight, a 70-300 is a better bet anyways. That thing is wicked sharp for landscapes on full-frame...
No, you and many other outdoorsy / backpacker types are probably jumping for joy that they'll be more comfortable when lugging a full-frame setup into the wild.
And to think, the old timers used to do that work with a view camera and an ash tripod.
And to think, the old timers used to do that work with a view camera and an ash tripod.
No, I'm talking about the Galen Rowell era, where 35mm was king and rock climbers / backpackers like Galen were even seen carrying cheap plastic 35mm SLR's instead of the chunky overweight F5!
So yeah. The D600 is targeted at the photographers who have an equal emphasis on image quality and portability, not JUST sheer resolution. (You can get a Betterlight 4x5 scanning back for about the price of a D4 / 1DX, I think!)
Here's just a quick high ISO shot of my dog in a very dimly lit room. I wanted to see how high the usable ISO is so I shot this at 6400 ISO using a 50mm F1.8 G lens at F2.5
This is just a jpeg with the high ISO NR off. I'm sure that the low noise in the raw file will be even better!
Here's just a quick high ISO shot of my dog in a very dimly lit room. I wanted to see how high the usable ISO is so I shot this at 6400 ISO using a 50mm F1.8 G lens at F2.5
Nice! (Good looking pooch, too!)
I would be very happy with that. I love my D300, but shooting my kids indoors in low light is a bit challenging. I don't like to go over 1600, so having output like that at 6400 would be awesome. How do you like the new 50 1.8G? Seems like that combo would go very nicely together, just like the D300 with 35 1.8G.
I'd better stop snooping around at the output from this new camera that are showing up online now that it's in the wild... I'll get myself in a heap of gear-lust trouble.
Heck, it's gotten to the point that ISO 6400 barely gets a "meh" on the high ISO meter.:D
From a professional wedding photography standpoint, 6400 still has a little way to go before I consider it as fully usable as 3200. Even with the 5D mk3 and D800, our studio is still sticking to 3200 most of the time and only going to 6400 in extremely dire circumstances. The noise may be much lower at 6400 than previous generations, but the colors and details still degrade way too much. And again just for the record, this is from the standpoint of pro wedding photography where we probably take 75%+ of our images at ISO 3200 actually, at a wedding for example that is inside a church instead of outdoors.
I'll wait and see what Lightroom 4 processing can do to the RAW D600 images before making any judgment calls...
I spent the last four days visiting Yellowstone National Park. I passed through the Grand Teton National Park on my way there (stayed in Jackson over night). Here are a few photos taken with my new D600 and 50mm F1.8 G lens. It was very smoky most of the day, but I got a decent shot earlier in the morning.
These were converted using the Nikon software. I'm not familiar with it and it is very limiting compared to Adobe's Camera Raw, so I didn't do hardly any post processing as I usually would. I can't wait for ACR to update for the D600, these images would be much better.
As a side note, I LOVE this D600! Images at 100% are outstanding in detail and sharpness, even at 200% there is really no noise and very little loss of detail.
I have been taking more people pictures that sports now that my daughter is out of high school and I am not going to as many races. I've been thinking of buying a used D700 to complement my D300. I rented the D-600 last week. I could not process the RAW as I have been using the Capture NX and never upgraded. But the JPG shots were stunning. I will have to rethink buying a used 700 now. I did miss some features that would come with the 700, mostly exposure points and matrix metering things. I tend to change a lot as I see different ways of takign shots. Now that I am not taking sports pictures in the rain the build quality of the 600 is just fine. The camera felt good in the hand.
I will go back to reading now.
Thanks for all you guys have taught me.
John
Great shots CJ, really making me want one of these more and more to replace my D7000! Are these right out of the camera??
Thanks. All the photos are very slightly post processed (I like to add a little contrast). The landscape photos are shot using a 50mm F1.8 G lens, Cokin P filter holder, a linear polarizer and a graduated ND filter. The wildlife shots were taken with a Nikkor 300mm F4 AF lens (the older version) with no filters.
No, you and many other outdoorsy / backpacker types are probably jumping for joy that they'll be more comfortable when lugging a full-frame setup into the wild.
Pair the D600 with some killer f/4 zooms like the 16-35 or 24-120, and you've got an incredible lightweight setup for nature / adventure photography. Now Nikon just needs to get on the 70-200 f/4 wagon! Although I guess if you're just shooting landscapes and not wildlife at twilight, a 70-300 is a better bet anyways. That thing is wicked sharp for landscapes on full-frame...
=Matt=
I have the d7000. All my lenses are fx. What advantages would I see in my images aside from the crop factor. I am an avid hobbyist and shoot fine art, landscape, pet, family, and some events in low light.
Advantages:
1. Shallower depth of field
2. D600 6400 ISO is slightly better than D7000 3200 ISO
3. While I really like the D7000 image quality, the D600 is just silky.
Disadvantages:
1. Bigger/heavier
2. Need to buy new tripod plate
3. Bigger file size
4. lower max shutter speed
5. lower flash sync speed
6. The AF-C seems to jump around a bit more than the D7000. I shoot with back button focus, and when I press the AF-ON, the focus seems to be more jittery than the D7000, but I think it is also slightly faster than the D7000.
Advantages:
1. Shallower depth of field
2. D600 6400 ISO is slightly better than D7000 3200 ISO
3. While I really like the D7000 image quality, the D600 is just silky.
Disadvantages:
1. Bigger/heavier
2. Need to buy new tripod plate
3. Bigger file size
4. lower max shutter speed
5. lower flash sync speed
6. The AF-C seems to jump around a bit more than the D7000. I shoot with back button focus, and when I press the AF-ON, the focus seems to be more jittery than the D7000, but I think it is also slightly faster than the D7000.
That's a pretty succinct and accurate summary. <strike> Additionally I add that the D600 lacks an FP/HSS flash capability. Taken in the context of the slower flash x-sync speed, this means that outdoor photography with flash will be somewhat problematic. For some of the types of photography you mention this may affect you.</strike> (This was posted in error. See Mark's post below.)
Assuming that you keep the D7000, that gives you a total "system" capability which is greater than either camera body alone. I recommend keeping the D7000 if you purchase the D600.
That's a pretty succinct and accurate summary. Additionally I add that the D600 lacks an FP/HSS flash capability. Taken in the context of the slower flash x-sync speed, this means that outdoor photography with flash will be somewhat problematic. For some of the types of photography you mention this may affect you.
Assuming that you keep the D7000, that gives you a total "system" capability which is greater than either camera body alone. I recommend keeping the D7000 if you purchase the D600.
The manual says you can do up to 1/4000 Auto FP High Speed sync. (P. 235.) with a compatible flash. The built in flash is limited to 1/250, apparently.
The manual says you can do up to 1/4000 Auto FP High Speed sync. (P. 235.) with a compatible flash. The built in flash is limited to 1/250, apparently.
Thanks Mark, you are indeed correct. (I edited my previous post to reflect.)
Adoroma is having a heck of a sale of D600 packages. I finally pulled the trigger today, hope to have it in hand by the middle of next week. Thanks to everyone that answered questions I had posted.
Comments
Gary
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
be displayed in the camera monitor as it would appear in
the actual movie, modified for the effects of exposure."
Meaning, I cannot use Lv to ascertain my Movie, nor Still exposure. This just seems like a complete failure on Nikon's part. I think I could live with exiting Lv to adjust Aperture on a Af Nikon Lens, but a Modified image in Lv...Not good.
Just putzing this morning with the Camera and found this out. When doing some testing yesterday I did my normal, Shoot, check exposure/histogram and all, prior to movie recording. But today, just popped up Lv, took the shot and it was totally dark. Switched over to A from M and voila, it boosted the ISO from 1600 to 3200 and cut my Shutter in half from 60 to 30 to result in proper exposure. But you'd never know you were under/overexposed using Lv.
And this is different from other Nikons how? I don't believe my D800 or D7000 work any differently. I've never used LV on my D3s.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Perhaps not different at all. Admittedly I am used to Lv in my Canon 5DMK2 which is basically WYSIWYG.
I don't get it, that sounds EXACTLY like "WYSIWYG". Isn't there a setting like on the 5D mk2 / mk3 that lets you view either regular live view, or exposure simulation? "Modified for the effects of exposure" sounds like WYSIWYG to me...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
No, you and many other outdoorsy / backpacker types are probably jumping for joy that they'll be more comfortable when lugging a full-frame setup into the wild.
Pair the D600 with some killer f/4 zooms like the 16-35 or 24-120, and you've got an incredible lightweight setup for nature / adventure photography. Now Nikon just needs to get on the 70-200 f/4 wagon! Although I guess if you're just shooting landscapes and not wildlife at twilight, a 70-300 is a better bet anyways. That thing is wicked sharp for landscapes on full-frame...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
And to think, the old timers used to do that work with a view camera and an ash tripod.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I own those items.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
No, I'm talking about the Galen Rowell era, where 35mm was king and rock climbers / backpackers like Galen were even seen carrying cheap plastic 35mm SLR's instead of the chunky overweight F5!
So yeah. The D600 is targeted at the photographers who have an equal emphasis on image quality and portability, not JUST sheer resolution. (You can get a Betterlight 4x5 scanning back for about the price of a D4 / 1DX, I think!)
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
This is just a jpeg with the high ISO NR off. I'm sure that the low noise in the raw file will be even better!
D600-50mm-F1.8G-Test-1-6400-ISO by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Nice! (Good looking pooch, too!)
I would be very happy with that. I love my D300, but shooting my kids indoors in low light is a bit challenging. I don't like to go over 1600, so having output like that at 6400 would be awesome. How do you like the new 50 1.8G? Seems like that combo would go very nicely together, just like the D300 with 35 1.8G.
I'd better stop snooping around at the output from this new camera that are showing up online now that it's in the wild... I'll get myself in a heap of gear-lust trouble.
My site 365 Project
From a professional wedding photography standpoint, 6400 still has a little way to go before I consider it as fully usable as 3200. Even with the 5D mk3 and D800, our studio is still sticking to 3200 most of the time and only going to 6400 in extremely dire circumstances. The noise may be much lower at 6400 than previous generations, but the colors and details still degrade way too much. And again just for the record, this is from the standpoint of pro wedding photography where we probably take 75%+ of our images at ISO 3200 actually, at a wedding for example that is inside a church instead of outdoors.
I'll wait and see what Lightroom 4 processing can do to the RAW D600 images before making any judgment calls...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I spent the last four days visiting Yellowstone National Park. I passed through the Grand Teton National Park on my way there (stayed in Jackson over night). Here are a few photos taken with my new D600 and 50mm F1.8 G lens. It was very smoky most of the day, but I got a decent shot earlier in the morning.
These were converted using the Nikon software. I'm not familiar with it and it is very limiting compared to Adobe's Camera Raw, so I didn't do hardly any post processing as I usually would. I can't wait for ACR to update for the D600, these images would be much better.
28-Sept-2012-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
28-Sept-2012-2 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
28-Sept-2012-3 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
As a side note, I LOVE this D600! Images at 100% are outstanding in detail and sharpness, even at 200% there is really no noise and very little loss of detail.
I'm really going to like using this camera.
I have been taking more people pictures that sports now that my daughter is out of high school and I am not going to as many races. I've been thinking of buying a used D700 to complement my D300. I rented the D-600 last week. I could not process the RAW as I have been using the Capture NX and never upgraded. But the JPG shots were stunning. I will have to rethink buying a used 700 now. I did miss some features that would come with the 700, mostly exposure points and matrix metering things. I tend to change a lot as I see different ways of takign shots. Now that I am not taking sports pictures in the rain the build quality of the 600 is just fine. The camera felt good in the hand.
I will go back to reading now.
Thanks for all you guys have taught me.
John
30-Sept-2012-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
30-Sept-2012-2 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
29-Sept-2012-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
30-Sept-2012-12b by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
30-Sept-2012-13 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
7-Oct-2012-1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
7-Oct-2012-4 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
13-Oct-2012-3 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
13-Oct-2012-5 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
13-Oct-2012-7 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
13-Oct-2012-8 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
Thanks. All the photos are very slightly post processed (I like to add a little contrast). The landscape photos are shot using a 50mm F1.8 G lens, Cokin P filter holder, a linear polarizer and a graduated ND filter. The wildlife shots were taken with a Nikkor 300mm F4 AF lens (the older version) with no filters.
Chris
www.chrisskrod.com Portfolio site for Portrait Photography
www.chrisskrod.smugmug.com My general photo sharing site.
www.instagram.com/chrisskrod Instagram
I have the d7000. All my lenses are fx. What advantages would I see in my images aside from the crop factor. I am an avid hobbyist and shoot fine art, landscape, pet, family, and some events in low light.
A Slice of Life
1. Shallower depth of field
2. D600 6400 ISO is slightly better than D7000 3200 ISO
3. While I really like the D7000 image quality, the D600 is just silky.
Disadvantages:
1. Bigger/heavier
2. Need to buy new tripod plate
3. Bigger file size
4. lower max shutter speed
5. lower flash sync speed
6. The AF-C seems to jump around a bit more than the D7000. I shoot with back button focus, and when I press the AF-ON, the focus seems to be more jittery than the D7000, but I think it is also slightly faster than the D7000.
Website
Facebook Twitter Google+
That's a pretty succinct and accurate summary. <strike> Additionally I add that the D600 lacks an FP/HSS flash capability. Taken in the context of the slower flash x-sync speed, this means that outdoor photography with flash will be somewhat problematic. For some of the types of photography you mention this may affect you.</strike> (This was posted in error. See Mark's post below.)
Assuming that you keep the D7000, that gives you a total "system" capability which is greater than either camera body alone. I recommend keeping the D7000 if you purchase the D600.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The manual says you can do up to 1/4000 Auto FP High Speed sync. (P. 235.) with a compatible flash. The built in flash is limited to 1/250, apparently.
Thanks Mark, you are indeed correct.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
http://muenchworkshops.com/blog/2012/11/30/camera-settings
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter