Gasman66: Personally, I don't really care whether there's a mirror or not. But I have no intention of re-learning photography to accommodate the micro 4/3 format. If Canon make a 5D mirrorless that has a full frame sensor and accepts full frame lenses, I'd certainly consider it.
Yes, and no.
Personally, I don't really care whether there's a mirror or not. But I have no intention of re-learning photography to accommodate the micro 4/3 format. If Canon make a 5D mirrorless that has a full frame sensor and accepts full frame lenses, I'd certainly consider it.
It's so obviously manipulated in post processing that what could've been an ethereal, haunting image has been spoiled for me I'm afraid.
ARB1: Dang Nikon, were is our video update?
Don't be hard on yourself ARB1. A Nikon is a great compromise for people that can't afford a Canon. :)
I owned an X-100 for just over a year before I sold it. Build quality is excellent. Lens quality is too - as long as your subject is more than a metre away, and you don't want to focus quickly. Ergonomics were so-so, and software was just plain awful - and remained so after several software upgrades.
Because of this, I quickly found myself not using the camera, and it effectively became jewellery. That side of me misses it. My photographic productivity - doesn't.
I don't see enough new in the X-100s to dramatically change any of this. It's an improvement, but only an incremental one.
Nicely lit, nicely composed photos that were quite clearly taken on rubbish gear. People have been trumpeting this concept since the "it's possible to take great pictures with a pinhole camera" days. Does it make decent gear redundant? Not a bit of it.
CameraLabTester: The debris is coming from the pins that hold the shutter curtains together.
It is not a mirror box problem.
It is the actual shutter itself.
Can I ask how you know this? If true, it would mandate urgent replacement of those pins or even the entire shutter mechanism I would've thought.
sean lancaster: The D800 had the AF issue that turned me away. Now the D600 has the dust issue that turns me away (along with the lack of 1 button press to get 100% review), so I am down to the Canon 5D Mark III and the Sony A99 (or keeping my NEX 5N and getting an RX1). I wish Nikon had better Q.C.
A quality control issue is one where components fail due to more units being produced than the production line can cope with. This is different. It's a design issue. The D600 camera was obviously put into production too soon; Nikon were probably too keen to have it on the shelves to coincide with Photokina.
This doesn't make Nikon the arch-demon camera manufacturer. Talk of off-loading an entire set of Nikkors over this is just plain daft. What *will* however turn Nikon into the "bad guy" is if they continue to stonewall on this issue. There is still time for them to put this issue right - but not for much longer.
As an aside I recently agonised over D600/D800/5DMkIII for many months, and went with the Canon. Turned out to be a perfect decision (for me). I particularly like the build quality, AF performance and low light performance.
Stephan Def: I think there is quite a huge cultural gap between Japanese Corporations and U.S. customers. As this case once again illustrates. Its fairly ubelievable that Nikon leadership is just shutting-up and thinking that they can silently ride this one out like all the other quality incidents they rode out before this one.
If APPLE had such a problem at the launch with one of their new products then some top brasses head would role, as did happen in the past, for example, with the Iphone 4 antenna problem, for which Mark Papermaster publically got fired. I am sure we would never see someting comparable happen in japan, apparently the clocks still count time very differently there.
My expectation is: at least some qualified statement and a stop-gap solution, like a free but effective cleaning-kit from Nikon. Such a simple measure would go a long ways to patching things up a litlle bit.
Yet Canon don't seem to have the same issue. The two recent design issues they've encountered (hand grip on 650D and light leak on 5DMkIII) were quickly acknowledged, and fixed.
Shamael: You all do not understand this. If you buy a new car, you break in the engine and change oil. So here, shoot a 5000 shots first and then, change the whole shutter mechanism. This will then end with a totally broken in camera.
We might joke on this, but, NIKON, we take this serious.
Finally someone with the right "can-do" attitude. In keeping with the "breaking in a car" analogy, it would also make sense to only use slow shutter speeds - slower that 1/100 sec or so - for the first 5000.
Noogy: Good camera, not so good quality control. In the rush to market, there was so much pressure to not airtight some aspects of quality control. There is always an acceptable failure rate every NPI or new product introduction. Any data if this happens to, say, every 3 of 10 units? Don't get me wrong, this should not have gone to market at all in the first place if this was taking place inside the camera.
This doesn't really look like a quality control issue though. Quality control is more about the occasional dead pixel, loose circuit, dud flash etc. etc. What is happening here seems to be an inbuilt design fault. It's going to mandate a product recall.
Peace On Earth: I am so grateful for this post because I have been considering buying my first nikon d600. Coming from canon, I have to buy lenses etc too. Now, wondering if I should buy 6d or wait for D600 to be fixed before I buy one ?
Don't switch. I've just been through the same process, nearly traded my Canon L series lenses and bought a D600. Instead I bought a 5DMkIII. Never been happier with Canon as a brand.
Beach Bum: It's about time people woke up to the deficiencies within Nikon.
I can't say that I've ever been on the Nikon bandwagon, but my first taste of these deficiencies were when I was considering buying a bridge camera and first tried the Nikon P500. It took me a while to realize what a piece of junk it was, but I eventually realized it couldn't compare to the Sony, Canon, or Panasonic offerings.
Yet, when I read online reviews, they seemed to be giving some kind of deference to Nikon that was clearly unmerited by the quality of their product. It was then that I realized that something wasn't kosher with online reviews, and this type of bias in reviews would threaten the quality of cameras in the future. Apparently the Nikon name opens up a lot of doors that shouldn't be opened.
This is where a forum like this really shows its value. The average person has a voice and can demand some change, without Nikon being able to censor or silence people, like they do on their own site. :)
1.So you are saying that if Nikon offered NASA a hundred billion dollars to take a competent, but potentially unreliable camera (like the D600) into outer space, they wouldn't do so - correct?
2. It is intuitive to think "wow outer space! that equates to techno/ruggedness/cutting edge/no-margin-for-error/Houston-we-have-a-problem" but as far as the camera that gets taken along, how valid is this really?
3. But the number of cool Nikons featured on "Dexter" very very nearly had me buying me one. :)
digitalanalog: Large companies' products are getting more and more 'shabby'. Canon, Nikon, Apple - you name it. Looks like they don't care at all - which is probably the truth. It's a shame.
Absolutely true Mark, and if sh*t does happen, particularly if you're a company like Nikon, you should acknowledge it and fix it. Trivialising or ignoring the issue will only serve to alienate people even more.
Sorry Nikon boys - the fact that Nikon were "chosen by NASA to go to outer space" really should not have any relevance to anyone here.
Firstly, it was almost certainly nothing to do with camera quality but a commercial transaction, and even if there *were* camera factors particular to the Nikon that were pivotal to the space mission - how many shots in outer space did you take last week?
wutsurstyle: Would you rather have this or Canon's light leak in Mark 5D III?
And the light leak was a misnomer. It was only relevant when shooting literally in the dark, and anyway, has long since been rectified. To Canon's credit, it was also quickly acknowledged.
Spectro: The Nikon D600s needs to be out in the beginning of 2013. Funny I asked my local camera shop and they said they sold like 100s and only one guy came back about it, I think that is an understatement. This tolerance of dust is not acceptable, even thought it is more in the extreme case and high sharpening, by the demo; most people won't notice.
Well really, the D600 itself should've been released in the first quarter of 2013. It's apparent that a few more months of pre-release testing were in order here, that had it happened, would've avoided a lot of heartache for purchasers and Nikon alike.
SDPharm: Wait, let me put on my old man hat. There. Remember the good old film days, dust, film scratches were all very common. Sometimes when Santa Ana was blowing and humidity dropped to single digit, you just could not avoid static cling.
But now, thanks to digital botox for photography, aka healing brush, that's a lot easier to deal with during post processing.
It's about more than just the odd spot. A greasy film over the sensor will reduce overall resolution, contrast and clarity too.
Two things need to happen to make this right.
1. Nikon needs to acknowledge the problem, and look after its existing customers. By all accounts this isn't happening (yet).
2. DP review - the worlds largest and arguably most reputable on-line camera review site, need to acknowledge the seriousness of the issue - at the very least adding a qualifying statement to their otherwise glowing review of this camera. The review as it stands would not deter anyone from buying one right now - and it needs to.
MikeFairbanks: They'll get it fixed. But it is a bummer. On a related note, why would anyone argue for or against Nikon/Canon? They both make excellent gear. Neither can claim superiority in general. That's just silly.
Actually I think they can. I've spent more time than is healthy over the last six months examining the relative merits of each brand, as I was upgrading and evaluating whether to switch. I opted for the manufacturer that produces solid, good "all round" bodies throughout the range and also has a lens lineup that isn't a shambles for the sake of maintaining compatability back to 1971.