|
Re: Mid-Course Correction...
In reply to Robin Casady,
6 months ago
|
Hi again Robin,
You seem to be inclined to argument, and also prone to mistakes. That combination can be a problem for people trying to have a useful exchange of information.
Some corrections and comments below...
Ed
Robin Casady wrote:
Old Ed wrote
To add an editorial comment, it seems to me that buying either an D600 or a D800 for small or medium JPEGs is like buying a 10 ton truck for picking up two bags of groceries at the local market. If you aren't planning to shoot RAW, I think you don't really need FX.
I would have to disagree here. I find RAW very useful, even on my little LX-7 sensor. And I know "pro's" who always shoot JPEGs, because they consistently get them right without the margin for error that RAW provides.
If you do shoot RAW, then I misunderstood your intentions. You spoke only of JPEGs.
Correction: I spoke only of pixels in my original post, and mentioned neither RAW nor JPEG.
JPEGs came into the conversation later, in connection with discussion on whether that format was the only one affected by L/M/S selection.
The only time in this entire thread that I mentioned what format(s) I shoot was my response to your comment about only FX shooters needing RAW (above).
The pros who shoot JPEG usually do so because they are shooting volume and/or have tight deadlines. For them, post processing from RAW is too costly, or there is no time for it. Outside of photojournalists, I don't think you will find many high-end pros shooting JPEG only.
Also, it's not clear (to me) that the downsized modes affect only JPEG files. I have asked a question about that in a new post, below ("Let's talk NEFs...").
The downsize modes do not apply to NEFs.
Other posters have agreed with this. Thanks to you and them for that info.
Lastly, I wasn't too happy with the recently published D600 "teardown." It's construction seems more unserviceable/disposable than I'd like. I'd like to believe that the D800 is more serviceable, not just heavier. Does anyone know? Has anyone seen a D800 "teardown?"
Nothing yet...
Not sure what you want here. Pretty much nothing is user-serviceable when replacing parts. NikonUSA wont sell you parts. They wont even sell them to independent repair shopts. New policy; probably aimed at cutting down grey market sales.
I was not planning DIY parts replacements. But products designed to be difficult or impossible to service cost more when repairs are needed, no matter who does it. That's relevant to us low-budget folks.
I'm confident that the D600 was not designed to be a non-repairable throw-away. What you are really asking is do D600 repairs cost more than D800 repairs. Cost of replacement parts could be a factor there as well. The D800 is made in Japan. The D600 is made in Thailand. Component parts for the D600 could be cheaper than similar parts for the D800.
I am the judge of what I am "really asking," and that is something I don't farm out.
Your speculation about comparative costs is interesting, and could even be right. But my question did not ask for speculation.
The only thing you will be able to find is anecdotal and hearsay evidence. A few people have reported that Nikon Service centers have returned cameras with the problem fixed. Others are still complaining. There have been some statements that current production cameras do not have this problem. However, who could say if the pipline has been cleared yet?
There are well-known and published Nikon "guru's" out there who have spent some time investigating this problem. I consider their findings to be more than "anecdotal and hearsay evidence." YMMV.
I have no dog in this fight (yet); but I would like to know if production improvements have been made in this area. Another poster reports that Hogan says such improvements have indeed been made. I'll check out his remarks when I get a little time to do so.
If Hogan was told by a Nikon rep that the problem was solved, and you heard it from Hogan, it is hearsay. Someone else reports that a rep at a Nikon service center just said that Nikon was still investigating. Without some hard evidence, it is hearsay.
I give more weight to credible sources, and less weight to dubious ones. YMMV, and you are entirely free to set your own standards, of course. But it appears that your definition of unacceptable hearsay would rule out 99% of what appears on this site. So one might wonder why you're spending time here.
I award you the last word, if you want it. I'm done with this little sub-thread.
--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 6 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | 1 | ||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago | |||
| 6 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
