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!
Once again, great job DPR - way to be on top of it with previews of the most interesting equipment! Even during a busy week like this, you manage to bring us the good stuff!
Superka: This is for studio, only. Nobody will take it to the mountains.Hasselblad X5 cost 20K $. And you can buy lots of cameras for saved money: from Xpan to 617 panoramic.My 617camera is 160Mpx equivalent and I can take it everywhere.
Actually, landscape photographers (hobbiest to semi-pro) are a significant slice of the MF market. Generally, these are people who DON'T have to justify it by getting a good ROI - they just want the best camera. So weather proofing can be an important selling point - after all, who wants such expensive equipment to get ruined by the weather!
makofoto: For a treat, you can rent one. But, beware. Once I used the H4D with a 60 meg back ... 180 meg tiffs ... everything else looked very coarse! Some of the things on these 'Blads are very primitive. LiveView is B&W with 1 second updates ... hardly Live!?
The 1 second B&W LiveView is a technical limitation - I believe it comes from using a CCD sensor. But that same CCD sensor is what gives it the high image quality it has. The superior auto focus system largely negates the need for a faster LiveView.
It's good to see that the Multi-Shot versions are continuing - the ultimate camera for applications that need it, such as art reproduction. The 200 megapixel Multi-Shot is the absolute best camera you can buy for static subjects in normal lighting.
It's also interesting to see that the free Phocus software is continuing on to v2.7.
I don't see any mention of the model that takes third-party backs - that will probably come later, just as it did with the H4D. Hassy is known to have the best bodies, especially with the True Focus (a feature DSLRs really should have) and many people prefer their lenses. But Phase One is widely understood to have the best digital backs, so unless you need Multi-Shot, combining them is the optimal solution.
RStyga: If this is the flagship model and offers no focus peaking, unlike the 'lowly' K-01 and K-30, then I might just redefine 'flagship' in my dictionary and, in order to use more effectively a legion of wonderful MF lenses, get a $400 K-01. Anyway, let's wait for a full review...
@pentaxination - Actually, some of my best images DO come off of old Pentax glass. In fact, the biggest problem I have when using them on the K-5, compared to a slightly older CCD model, is getting the focus right.
halai: I like the idea that Pentax is keeping at 16mp. For most people, this is more than enough. If AF-C anywhere near the Nikon D700, I will upgrade my K-5 in a heart beat, and Pentax will hit a home run out of the park. A lot of Pentax users including myself are waiting for this. If it's slightly better than the K-5, I will past and continue to use my K-5 until it dies. In the meantime, I will get the D600 when it comes out to replace my D700.
@HowaboutRAW - yes, a D600 with the D3S' sensor and ISO performance would be amazing - however, the info seems pretty solid that it'll have a 24MP sensor.
Some have theorized that 10 or 12MP is more optimal for APS-C - from my own experience I'd say it usually doesn't seem any worse than 16MP - sometimes perhaps better.
DStudio: I doubt many of the critics of the Q have ever held one in their hand, let alone used one or seen the results. With the current Q, just the small size and the appearance makes you want one, as well as the build quality.
Those who own one give it very high ratings and produce nice images.
Wow ... apparently conjecture carries more weight than experience! Talk about confirmation bias - "I'm certain Q buyers waste their money, even though I've never tried one. I'm sure glad I'm smarter!"
mgm2: This is a great system. The availability of the adapter puts it head and shoulders above the RX100.
I don't know about head and shoulders above, although it should be interesting.
tbcass - I want to be sure we're talking about the same camera. You mean the RX100 with a 3-stop variance in the minimum aperture? The f/4.9 lens at 100mm equiv.? Compared to 80-250mm equiv., all at f/2.8?
But honestly, you need to use a prime to get better quality on the Q, which shows that the sensor's not the limiting factor. You can see for yourself here: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=&lens=4072
Like I said, tkbslc ...
I doubt many of the critics of the Q have ever held one in their hand, let alone used one or seen the results. With the current Q, just the small size and the appearance makes you want one, as well as the build quality.
Charles2: The K-5 has been wonderful and will remain so for me. Evolutionary changes will serve new buyers well.
Let's face it - sometimes the biggest changes look small at first. If the AF really is improved significantly - such as they claim for low-light shooting - it will make it much better for some shooters.
As we know, 24MP would grab attention, but these changes - if implemented well - will make a bigger difference. In fact, 16MP with no AA filter may turn out to be near-optimal - time will tell.
So while it's entirely possible it wouldn't help you, those who sometimes shoot sports, moving kids, and in low light could benefit greatly.
Since Pentax is class-leading in many other areas, if they can just get close to par in their weaker spots it will be huge for them in the long run.