D600 Auto Focus Points - Who Thought That Would Be A Good Idea?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu
Senior MemberPosts: 5,232
Like?
Re: D600 Auto Focus Points - Who Thought That Would Be A Good Idea?
In reply to Paul Schatzkin, Mar 30, 2013

Paul Schatzkin wrote:

After waiting more than 10 years (since buying a D100 in the summer of 2003) for Nikon to introduce a full-frame DSLR in a price range that makes sense for me (like the price of the D300s I've been shooting for the past several years), about two weeks ago I picked up a Nikon D600.

You did not wait long enough, the camera you want has not yet been released, but it is close, just wait for 3 more years and I think what you want will be out.

But I am driven to distraction by the concentration of auto-focus points in the center of a small portion of the frame.  The auto-focus area falls well short of the thirds at either edge of the frame.

Who made the rule that auto-focus point ought to be at 1/3 the frame? check the mighty leica S2, 36000 USD SLR, it has just one single af point at the centre of the frame.

What genius designer/engineer/product manager thought that was gonna be a good idea?  I want their heads.

The idea is as perfect as they come - how do you make a 2000 dollar FF SLR in 2012 and maintain sales of 3000 dollar SLR and 6000 dollar SLR? the answer is not make them too similar or develop new AF system for it. Using the existing 39 point af from D7000 is both genius and generous. it makes the 2000 dollar FF possible, and it is way better than what canon offered. Check how many people are disappointed that 6D didnt get 7D's AF.

Now, I know, I'm supposed to be able to "focus and recompose."  But I shoot a lot of musicians on stage  They move constantly. I want their faces/eyes in the top third of the frame.    I need to keep the focus where I want it in the frame. Focus/recompose is really not practical in a situation like that.

So dont focus and recompose. your options are:

1, crop the frame a little to comply with 1/3 rule, or

2, live with the fact that faced are not at 1/3, or

3, spend the extra grand and get D800.

You complaint is akin to some one bought a new model Camero with said increased horsepower but complains that it still doesnt match the performance of a Corvette.

I just looked through the viewfinder of my D300s and note that the auto-focus points on that camera extend to a point that is well within the "rule of thirds" grid on either side of the frame.  It is easy set the focus in the portion of the frame where I want it and leave it there; auto-focus does the rest.  I can concentrate on the subject and the moments.

So why don't you buy D300s? is it because it is a DX?

Was I foolish to imagine that Nikon would include a similar functionality in a similarly priced camera?

You were foolish to think so. Product A has X not Y, product B has Y and not X, If you want both Y and X, you should buy product C for extra money.

I read somewhere that the AF points are arranged this way to make the AF area more compatible with DX lenses - which, it seems to me, completely defeats the point!

Isnt it rather obvious what you read is wrong?

From a marketing perspective, you'd think somebody would have suggested the exact opposite: instead of making the camera more compatible with lenses that don't take advantage of the full frame, drive customers toward the lenses that do!

Typical case of wrong analysis led to wrong conclusion.

In fact, I was getting ready to put several DX lenses on eBay… until I discovered this flaw in the D600 design.

There is no flaw. it is what it ought to be for its price.

Now I'm thinking instead that the D600 goes back to the store and I continue to wait for somebody at Nikon to get their bloody heads screwed on straight.

Yes, wait for 3 more years. I can guarantee you will get what you want then. But nikon did an A+ job as far as design of D600 goes.

I don't guess this can be fixed with firmware, huh?  The LEDs are hardwired into the hardware?

You would guess that, wouldn't you.

I guess I'm wondering if anybody else feels the way I do about this aspect of an otherwise worthy camera.

Some body outthere probably feels the same way as you do. Unreasonable people exist at large in this world.

Have any readers had the same response… returned the cameras to the store?

It is not as if the AF coverage was not extensively published all over the internet and nikon lied about it. I think it is immoral to return it to store. you should do the right thing, sell it on Ebay at a slight loss, and wait for 3 years for your camera.

Or has somebody come up with a reasonable work around?

Refer to top of the thread.

I know the D600 is supposed to be an "entry level" full frame camera, but why cripple it with such an ill-defined feature?

It is not crippled and it is not ill defined. It works as it is intended. It is a Camero, nto a Corvette.

I wanna storm the gates… where are the torches and pitchforks!  Off with their heads!

Did I say i think you are unreasonable?

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