D600 @ < $2000 according to Nikon rumours.

Started May 24, 2012 | Discussions thread
Marla2008
Senior MemberPosts: 2,381
Like?
Re: D600 eats the 5d3s lunch?
In reply to Louis_Dobson, May 27, 2012

Louis_Dobson wrote:

We're all going on rumours, but I don't think they will cripple it. The high end Nikon policy seems to be to introduce something expensive, sell a load of them, then offer something nearly as good for half the money. See D3 / D700. There were a lot of people (me included) who bought a D3 for the sensor before the D700 came out and ended up with a far more expensive camera than they needed.

In fact Nikon has a history for doing that ! See D100> D70, D300> D90, etc...

I usually buy the second introduced model and even get better software performance, since while the sensor is the same, the output has been tweaked even better with the few extra months of feedback/fine tuning etc.

So I'd not be at all surprised to find the D600 is a D800 with less MP. Commercially, it means they have milked all the people who just wanted FF but never needed 36MP, and now they can flog a load of cameras to people who won't pay D800 prices, and still trickle D800s out the door to people who really do want MF performance in a dSLR.

Also very much what I expect. Regarding the price it IS strongly rumoured to be around 1600, in ALL cases under 2000. And most of you seem to have missed it, but Canonrumors states Canon will ALSO come up with an "entry" FF model around the same time frame. Except Canon has their head securely inserted in their butt as they don't offer a crop mode, which does not draw historic APS-C users in...

As for 24MP, hmm. My observation is you only get a really worthwhile difference when you double the pixel count...

Big Ga wrote:

Louis_Dobson wrote:

I've no interest in a D600, 16-25 MP is not enough of a jump, I don't need the high ISO, and I don't want to hump it around.

I've been thinking about this.

24MP is noticeable as a step up from 16MP. Certainly 12. And 36MP is straining a lot of lenses, so 24 might be a nice safe high res figure for FX.

And for me, I'm finding that for volume shooting, I'm using the D800 in DX mode most of the time, but even here, there is no need for 16MP.

A 24MP FX camera in DX mode will give around 11MP, which is a lovely size to work with 99% of the time. (which of course means the D3X is a great camera ... apart from the £5K !!)

So while I wasn't particularly excited about the D600 initially, I'm actually now wondering if it wouldn't make a more practical camera than the D800. Lots will depend on the other specs. I have a feeling it will have to compromise in a number of areas to hit a lower price point. In this regard, it might be as the D5100 is to me. An absolutely amazing sensor, in a fairly inexpensive camera that does pretty much everything you'd want, but implemented with enough 'crippling' as to make it irritating to use

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow