D600, for me too little, too late for too much

Started Sep 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
ThomasH_always
Regular MemberPosts: 286Gear list
Like?
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much
In reply to freddyNZ, Sep 15, 2012

freddyNZ wrote:

FTH wrote:

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

[....]

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

I'm sure there are plenty of regulars in this forum who don't take such umbrage at the fact that an FX sensor will totally outperform crop sensors for many uses.

What's "not normal" is to have an FX sensor dslr available with nikon mount for about $2,100 list price, a premium of about $900 over the D7000 list price, compared to a premium of about $1300 for the D700 over the D300 when they were released.

There shouldn't be an "argument" about DX vs FX, they are just different formats.

And why not? The DX format was created because manufacturing costs of 35mm sensors used to be very high. After that, many photographers complained about changed focal length and depth of field of their lenses. But after many years of use on DX bodies, isn't that so that the same argument can be applied in opposite direction? Glass in a DX set is clearly smaller, and on the wide end we have alternatives going down to 8mm (12mm 35mm-equivalent.) Thus the argument is that the horse is out of the barn, we have millions of DX users counting Nikon/Canon together, and many people would like to keep the format and have a semi-pro body to play with.

Yours is about the most childish (and ignorant) post I've seen relating to the D600.

Why would you say something so unkind? I think he provided fine observations, its a good talk.

And to answer these who ask why to mention a FX body here in this forum: Because apparently Nikon will not upgrade our D300 style body, and rather launches an "affordable" FX body with a DX mode, corresponding to D200 in resolution.

I just saw Tom Hogan's commentaries about the D600. He also wonders about the price rumor. He wonders why the rumor source got all the details right, but not the price, which held for so long and so persistently, almost to the last day:

http://www.bythom.com/d600.htm

He believes though that D600 will sell well. On

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_war.shtml

you might find a "leaked" Canon memo of Feb. 2012, which though assessed a proper introductory price for the D600. Apparently they both (Nikon/Canon) are trying to protect the profit margins.

 ThomasH_always's gear list:ThomasH_always's gear list
Leica V-Lux 3 Canon EOS 6D
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