Don't lose this card - it's almost as valuable as the photos on it.
Now you can put all your eggs in one basket.
But if that bothers you, you can buy two of them, for only slightly less than the cost of your new dual-slot D600 body.
We need new products like this that push the edge of technology, but the initial prices are a bit of a shock, and the use cases are somewhat limited right now.
DStudio: There's no way the SX50 HS can have ultimate image quality at 1200mm equiv., but 50x zoom still looks very impressive, with a decently sized sensor as well.
I can imagine many circumstances in which it would still be fun and/or useful.
These longer focal lengths seem to be usable handheld, especially with IS and/or a reasonable shutter speed. At least I don't have a problem with 432mm (FZ8) or 450mm (DSLR) equiv. So I can imagine it being usable up to 600mm or beyond.
fenceSitter: Next to Nikon's P7700 and Panasonic's FZ200, the G15 and SX50 HS don't look like winners to me.
The Panasonic FZ200 should have a better lens (especially with its constant f/2.8 aperture!), which is usually my first priority, and is critical.
But don't forget that the SX50 HS has a sensor which is twice as big and is designed to go 1 to 2 stops higher in ISO.
Nevertheless, as a satisfied FZ8 owner (considering its limitations) I'd probably lean toward the Panasonic.
There's no way the SX50 HS can have ultimate image quality at 1200mm equiv., but 50x zoom still looks very impressive, with a decently sized sensor as well.
J D Tranquil: A somewhat big leap lens-wise for the Canon G-series. Another me-too product in the fierce camera industry. Sorry but I'd rather see more change in this mammoth. As an owner of a Canon DSLR and the Canon G series, I'm very disappointed.
@cthart - The G15 may still be worth considering. But to answer your question (if it's too big) consider:
Olympus XZ-1 (especially at its current price), Fuji X10, or Pentax Q.
Of the new models, consider the Panasonic LX7, Olympus XZ-2, and Pentax Q10.
I have the XZ-1 and its only weak spot is the average sensor (which means it's still a great camera). The XZ-2 is supposed to improve that, so it should be nearly ideal. The XZ-1 just squeezes into a commonly available semi-hard Sony case, and then that just fits in my front pocket.
Canon should be commended for both improving the lens and making the camera slimmer. While still not the most compact of cameras, it looks like it will be the best model they've ever produced in this series. If only they'd made this much progress in the new S110!
The Canon Powershot S90 to S110 cameras are impressively small, which is important. But they still haven't improved the lens - it continues to have over 3 stops variation in the maximum aperture.
So if you really need a camera this small it could be a good choice. And interface improvements are always welcome. But if you can use a slightly larger camera there are much better choices from Olympus, Fuji, and now Panasonic. You really don't have to go as large as a G15 to get a proper lens.
migus: "front view shows just how much more compact the 6D is compared to the 5D Mark III.": Actually looks about the same, way larger than the 'compact' Rebels.
If its sensor would compete w/ Sony's column ADC in noise and DR, and these crippled specs would come in a 550gr. $1500 body, I'd be excited. Too early to comment on IQ, but i feel let down by canon.
Good point - the 6D may perform well in ways that we can't tell yet. For example, the specs suggest that the high-ISO performance could significantly outdo the D600. So we will have to wait until we can see how it performs in practice.
They also should be given credit for including the WiFi and GPS. It's almost as if they're specifically targeting travel and landscape shooters.
I'm still not convinced it will be as compelling overall as the D600, though.
bradleyg5: Pardon my French, but what a piece of junk. 11 point AF with only a centre cross point? They trying to make sure this thing doesn't compete with the 5dII or what? Why does a digital rebel get more cross points.
For some shooters, such as those who shoot mostly static subjects, the AF may be fine, and this camera could be a great choice. But it appears they've just excluded a large percentage of their traditional customers, who right now might need to choose between the 5DIII and 7D. Doesn't seem like a wise move, overall.
Although 36MP might not really be necessary for many photographers, by doing so on the D800 (and adding prestige with the D800E) Nikon made it easy on themselves because this left them room to make the D600 a nearly full-featured entry-level FF.
Wedding photographer: I really like the lenses of this company.Once I have done an entire wedding on Samyang Fisheye lens:http://zoomvrn.ru/portfolio/svadebnoe-foto/progulka-na-vertoleteI hope that new inexpensive 10mm 2.8 lens will be also useful too.
It looks like it was necessary for that wedding!
Probably not a good idea for most, though.
itsastickup: With such high modern ISOs, I can't see a justification for f2.8. Give us F4 and halve the price.
Well, many people will see the justification, and that will probably improve sales. Most buyers of manual focus prime lenses are more attuned to quality and speed.
Simon97: That certain other camera test site has samples up with many showing the same scene at different ISOs. ISO 1600 is nearly free of noise. Great camera for those old primes that APS-C cameras made too telephoto.
That's understandable about the WiFi - sometimes LTE works better if you (or Barney) is out of the office.
This was my sarcastic way of saying I'm impressed with how quickly you've moved here - and, yes, some daylight shots is a good idea! By the way, good choice of lens here - "the other guys" didn't seem to figure that out, either.
I was there in July, but it looks like summer's over and it's time to crank up the construction work!
I'd say the ISO performance is commendable. I'm glad you fitted it with an appropriate lens for this walk-around. I think it should be the right combination for a large percentage of D600 buyers.
Richard - you mean you're actually trying to use and evaluate their new technology in the process? How can you do that? Time is of the essence - you're already hours behind the other guys! ;)
JDT0505: Honestly, I just don't get it. The only downside to DX when it first came out was the crop factor and the fact that there were no DX lenses so the true wide-angle was gone. Now DX lenses match the full range of focal lengths as FX.
When the D3/D700 were announced FX was desirable because of the large pixel pitch and better low-light performance.
So now we have full-frame sensors with the same pixel pitch as DX sensors, and with near the same IQ for all practical purposes.
What is the advantage of a consumer level FX camera? (other than being able to use the 14-24 f/2.8) I can see the advantage for Nikon, they rake in the dough because Joe Fauxtographer want an FX badge on his camera, but he can still secretly use the scene modes.
It sounds like you'd rather argue the rules of physics and human perception, but I think you nearly hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph of your original post.
I don't shoot Nikon. But I was just thinking earlier today, even before the announcement, that if I really needed top quality wide-angle shots, it would be worth getting a D600 and a 14-24/2.8. Likewise, it could be worth buying a Sony body just to use a lens like their 135/1.8.
While some will still think of the body first, at this price point there are many pro-minded customers who will think in such rational terms.
OldScotch: While you're going on about how the $2100 is groundbreaking and brings back memories of $8,000 full-frames and how we can all enjoy full frame goodness at such a significant pricepoint - a sobering read might be an article published here about a $2,000 full frame camera. Five years ago:
I hate to break the news, Mattwd, but this site shows favoritism toward EVERY brand. So if you believe you live in a two-brand universe, you'll think they're favoring Nikon. But if you look closer you'll see they give every brand a fair shake, rather than bowing to popularity or marketing.
This is because 1) Every brand - Canon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, etc. - has certain aspects in which their product dominates, and 2) So long as a brand continues to provide decent products, we need them to stay in the marketplace to keep prices in check and spur product innovation.
Catallaxy: 1/4000 shutter, the poor 39 point AF (compared to CAM3500 in the D300/D700), and max 5.5 fps with no boost from the grip. These are the three things that will keep me from upgrading from my D700.
Lets hope they bring out a D400 that is better than this for wildlife and sports.
I wish Nikon success and they will probably sell a ton of the D600s, but it does not fit my needs.
Yes, this surprised me too - you'd expect this high a model to have a 1/8000 max shutter. But David's right - since the ISO goes down to 50 (expanded), for normal shooting you should still be able to get down to the same wide aperture without using a ND filter.
So what are you afraid of? Getting 24MP and all those other upgrades? I don't imagine the AF will be worse than the 4 year old D700 - why don't you wait and see?
It will be interesting to see how well this price tag works - this was about the max I figured they'd go. After seeing Sony's price for the A99, and thinking about the realities of the value of the dollar to the yen, I realized there was no way they'd be down near the $1500 price some had hoped for. The higher prices in US$ we're seeing for many cameras and lenses are not merely fickle decisions by Japanese camera makers - unfortunately, they reflect the realities of a devalued dollar and an economy that's worse than many Americans want to admit.
But back to the photographic side, it's great to see Nikon make full frame now accessible to a larger audience - it will be interesting to see how the competition prices similar products during the next year.
What we know is that the 4S had the better photographer! Really, that may be it - The 4S has pretty good sharpness in the foreground to the middle of the frame. The 5 seems slightly blurry throughout - i.e. camera shake, or loss of detail due to the VR mechanism. It's probably because Scott took the shot standing on his head in a tripod position.
DPR, I like your preview videos - keep 'em coming!