i will say this: it is a convenient package for some, and great for those "pro" photographers who sell blog hits, services, courses, e-books and so on. i'm just not interested in getting into a deeper dependency with this software suite, or renting software from adobe, which has been, ever since adobe raw, force-marching its customers to new editions just by leveraging its support of new cameras. if either PS or LR is no longer sold, I will no longer use those versions of them. if my photography really needs the latest version adobe photoshop or lightroom to succeed, i'm doing something really wrong.
why should this be believed. this is a business, it has no promises, no obligations to anyone except shareholders.
mark l perry: I’m now about 1 month in using the D600 and can’t complain about the functionality it was designed to do, I don’t compare the D600 against my D4, D3X or my D800 and I don’t expect it to keep up to the speed of my D4. What I expect from the D600 is superb image quality which the D600 unquestionably delivers and if you get down to the nitty-gritty is a little better than the D3X which is now a old very expensive good camera and I wonder to myself what Nikon will replace it with. I invested in the D600 because I wanted to reduce the weight I’m carrying for 6 hours a day, my D4 with my 14-24 2.8 or 24-70 2.8 gets very weighty after 2 hours. The D600 took me a few days to get use to the smallness coming from the larger bodies I’ve since added the battery grip and it feels perfect. I use the D600 now mostly with my old 35-70 2.8D lens and it’s a mirage from heaven.
that is a superb combo. i paired with 28-70 2.8 and results are outstanding. btw good to hear actual use experience instead of fluff and counterfactuals or just plain nastiness.
CarVac: Do you make sure that the output contrast from ACR is identical when comparing noise in raw? The D600 image is a lot flatter, and thus appears less noisy, when in reality both signal and noise are smaller.
The standard deviation ignores that fact, giving the D600 an unfair advantage in the graphs.
In the JPEG comparison, all of the cameras seem to have approximately the same contrast, and I can see that the 5DIII is quite clean, whereas in the raw samples it looks around twice as noisy (and so confirms the graph).
EDIT: Note: you can say the same things about the D800, which has contrast approximately matching the Canon in raw.
doesn't seem a "lot flatter" to me. one has to assume dpreview crew are a pretty bright bunch, figured out what they are doing by now, so as to not to introduce unfair advantage to any one make.
a lot of high-iso teeth-gnashing around here. for compare/contrast, also see the image samples by nassim at http://mansurovs.com/nikon-d600-high-iso-performance
FranciscoJG: The structural problem of D600 is just the tip of the iceberg.The D200, D300, D700 and the other professional range have better grip. By comparison, the grip on the D600 is uncomfortable as it is in the D7000. And I much prefer the control layout on the D300 and D800 because they're so similar, like that of D600 is a lot similar to the D7000Maybe convince the least technically advanced amateurs, who make pictures here and there, does not convince those who do use in long events, or in professional use. Even for professionals for whom the price is tempting, doubt the quality of use and durability. No doubt the quality of the photographs that she allows, but it will be money well spent?!Will it sell well?Is expensive for amateurs, is hardly useful for professionalsWhere is the replacement for the D300?Begins to be late for Nikon to react
I have the d600 now for over a week. I have used and felt the difference from my d7000 and d300. it is slightly bigger, feels better and is definitely more robust than a d7000. this is by far the nicest "enthusiast" body I have seen, sure maybe d400 (someday soon) will give the usual d300/d800 upper-level body plan, but this is going to be the lighter load...
Russ Houston: Is this a new feature for Canon? I thought most cameras had this for the past several years.
Still, this photographer put it to good use. Interesting article.
not many cameras. mostly nikon in digital, certainly nikon, minolta etc in film. as of nikon 801 9 exposures, f4 and f5 as many as you like. every nikon DSLR that i know of had multiple exposures. consumer models limited to 3 exposures, higher-end bodies 10 exposures. blending mode is auto-gain or not. operational in high speed or timed-exposure modes too.
ozan yigit: it is unfortunate that a sizable portion of the professional photographers and the comic book industry digital ink and color still depend on this beast and feel the need to keep up with the upgrades as if the difference between (say) cs4 and cs5 made *all the difference* to their art and craft. as more and more processing moves to capable workflow software, where adobe has good competitors, including a good open-source solution, it is not surprising adobe is trying to eek out as many dollars as possible from its rapidly shrinking user base. i'm kind of surprised that adobe hasn't introduced a per-core license for creative suite yet.
right. I said it is still young. there is already a very helpful ~90p book that goes with it too. i predict you will hear more and more about it.
Bob Meyer: It's not just Kelby who's criticizing the policy change. I've seen literally thousands of posts from PS users complaining about the change, and threatening to stick with their current version. I'm pretty sure CS5 will be the last copy of PS I buy. I use LR for most of my work, and for what I use PS for CS5 should do fine.
If users follow through on their threats, this could end up costing Adobe money rather than enriching them further.
adobe did this before. there was a big adobe-generated hoopla around nikon's locked wb. in the end, adobe got a lot of press, and lived happily ever after with nikon's sdk. this is yet another way to generate press. there is only so much mileage left in dying flash.
darktable. it is still young, but impressed me enough that I am actively working with & helping to develop it.
it is unfortunate that a sizable portion of the professional photographers and the comic book industry digital ink and color still depend on this beast and feel the need to keep up with the upgrades as if the difference between (say) cs4 and cs5 made *all the difference* to their art and craft. as more and more processing moves to capable workflow software, where adobe has good competitors, including a good open-source solution, it is not surprising adobe is trying to eek out as many dollars as possible from its rapidly shrinking user base. i'm kind of surprised that adobe hasn't introduced a per-core license for creative suite yet.
little over two weeks with X10. this, given its capabilities and feel, may well be the most important and capable little camera i have owned so far [out of g10, g11, s90, lx4, lx5, xz1] lens is very very good, viewfinder surprisingly usable, images are superb. [luminous landscape has a hands-on review. i agree with everything except what he considers annoyances. very little about this that annoys me.]
"the sensor is just too small" complaint is just meaningless, given some comparisons in various ISO levels we have already seen. this is turning out to be a groundbreaking camera in various ways, with a new sensor technology.
ozan yigit: lens does not impress. rest are expected upgrades to try to match the competition. hope it is at least priced right.
agreed. i have xz1 and also used lx5 extensively. both have superior lenses to this.
oh, bhphoto lists at $429. oops.
lens does not impress. rest are expected upgrades to try to match the competition. hope it is at least priced right.
as someone noted, ken rockwell dissing this camera and comparing to g12 is reason enough to pay attention to it.
pre-ordered this already. fuji learns fast, and I don't expect this one to have the peculiarities of x100. sensor size is interesting; it would not surprise me if fuji and nikon working together again, and this sensor shows up on nikon mirrorless.