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.
@Ron: Where is the 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent? The 17-55mm f/2.8.
Wide fast primes have always been exotic and expensive. A 16mm f/1.4 DX (24mm equiv.) would cost more than the D600 and that's not the market they're after.
Sorry Viking, exposure is unilateral it doesn't change with format size. f/1.4 at 50mm and f/1.4 at 35mm is the same amount of light.
The ONLY difference is DoF and field of view.
If you know what you're doing why would you need to use scene modes? In any case I've been shooting with FX cameras since the day the D700 came out right alongside DX cameras and the shallow DoF isn't really that noticeable unless you directly compare them side by side. For all practical purposes it's not a huge deal.
The aperture lets in the same amount of light no matter what. The ONLY benefit would be a slightly shallower DoF. Exposure settings do not vary with sensor size. If your exposure is f/2 @ ISO 250 for 1/200 that isn't going to change because of a smaller format, only the field of view and DoF would be affected.
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.
plasnu: Any reason to choose D600 over D800, other than slight price difference?
"Any reason to choose D600 over D800, other than slight price difference?"
Higher build quality, easier access to essential camera controls (less menu searching), better battery performance, CF cards (more durable than SD), no unnecessary scene modes.
Yep. A full frame D7000. *yawn*.
Intence: Can someone please enlighten me, i'm puzzled and confused as to why anyone would purchase this camera. I'm not trying to be a troll, I really don't understand. Low FPS, no major advantages over 5D3 or D800 and similar pricing (keep in mind 5D3 can be had for just over $3k routinely). Specifically, far fewer AF points than both C&N, fewer lens options, relatively average FPS, along with fewer accessories/thid-party support.
Unless you're heavily vested in compatible glass, why would ANYONE purchase this over the D800 or 5D3. I just don't get it? Sony is the underdog in this arena, yet they've priced themselves inline with the competition. Some enthusiasts who have $3k to drop on a camera may buy it, but I can't see pros moving to Sony without either a clear price or feature advantage?
I can undersand the motivation behind the RX1 (FF in a VERY compact package), but I just can't fathom who the target market for the A99 would be.
I don't know why this camera would appeal to videographers more than let's say, the NEX VG-900 full frame video camera with the same sensor.
JDT0505: That's a lot of dough for a point and shoot. Personally, I'd go for an X100. Even though it's got a smaller sensor simply because the wider feature set. Seriously, $2800 and it's got a hot-shoe mounted viewfinder?
The pixel pitch on the two cameras are about the same as is the focal length. The Fuji can be got for less than $1000 these days. The only thing it's got going for it is the Zeiss "named" lens. Sorry Sony. Fail.
Why is pixel pitch important? Physics. Larger pixels better light gathering capabilities. Same pixel pitch equals about the same low-light performance.
24MP is unnecessary. Trust me, I have a D800 and I downsize everything. Even my agency told me not to send full size files. A 12MP file will fulfill the needs of 98% of photographers considering most people only post to the internet anyway.
As far as point and shoot goes, what ISN'T point and shoot about this camera? Slapping a huge sensor and a fixed focal length on a body like this doesn't make it a "pro" camera. It's a point and shoot. What pro is going to use this for paid work? Could you see yourself showing up at a wedding with this? If you showed up with an X100 at least you'd have something that looks like a real camera.
Then you have the ridiculous price and a $600 optical viewfinder that is really nothing but a magnifying glass.
I really don't think pros are going to be jumping ship from Nikon and Canon for an EVF camera. Only 6 fps? Isn't one of the reasons for using SLT to up frame rate by not using a moving mirror? I guess the processor isn't really up to the job. Sony is just throwing out high dollar junk today.
That's a lot of dough for a point and shoot. Personally, I'd go for an X100. Even though it's got a smaller sensor simply because the wider feature set. Seriously, $2800 and it's got a hot-shoe mounted viewfinder?
bigdaddave: Why is dp reviewing an aftermarket copy grip at all?
I totally agree with you micahmedia, the D800 doesn't replace the D700. For low-light the D700 is a much better camera. I own both. I shoot both side-by-side for concerts, but the D700 is always my main. And it's still running strong after 251,000 clicks.
And as far as knock-off grips go, I sure as hell am not using a $99 grip on a $3000 camera. The only review I'd trust on this grip is one where the grip has been used for at least a few months. A few hours with the grip isn't going to reveal structural and/or electronic failings. Shame on DPReview for promoting this junk.
I sure hope an FX 16MP D400 is in the works.