JDThomas: Here we have a rather innocuous piece of fluff news from Nikon's PR and somehow the DPReview forums have again turned it into an argument.
Seriously guys, does it really matter what corporation has manufactured more lenses? Is it really worth the time it takes to type up arguments and google search for meaningless facts that have no bearing on your daily lives?
I wonder if the heads of Canon and Nikon get together everyday and pick out two random DPReview members and debate on which one has produced more and better work at their job that day? Yeah, probably not...
Comments should be moderated. The general public are more apt to come in here then the forums, notice the children geek squad, giggle and then quietly leave, never to return.
photo nuts: Canon reached their 80 millionth milestone in Aug 2012. Why was that NOT reported in DPReview?
Now, C'mon, that was funny.
jim stirling: @Henry M. Hertz
You might want to check the accuracy of your claim or maybe not . Or provide an genuine link to the data
Donnie, not much of an illusion nowdays, if the data above is correct both canon and nikon sold 10 million lens in the last year, canon got there a bit quicker, but still pretty even if you ask me, especially since at the beginning of that period nikon was still getting up to speed from the loss of its factories.
Because with the canon you have to count copier lens.
Leonard Shepherd: Responding to Zerg2905 where Nikon is now is more important than where it was a few years ago.Nikon appear to be producing the most lenses a year and might soon be ahead of Canon. This would tend to confirm Nikons current market share is moving ahead of Canon.
Henry, just for you:
Henry, everyone knows theres not a nikon you wouldnt love to pi!ss on, its all you do, never post just go after Nikon. I would bet your a paid shill.
Spoken like a true fanboi
wakaba: No real viewer, slow and inaccurate AF, garrish coloroutput, too much sharpening, less than good lenses. Videocam with DSLR features. Expensive. Looks like a dog to me.
Where are these tests you speak of that show the A99 faster than Canikon flagships?
Gully Foyle: I will wait and see all the posters who defend the OVFs when Canikon releases their first EVF on a serious (i.e. >D7000, >60D) because...
...THEY WILL !!!
Wake up! The film became sensor, the MF became AF and many many other techs that you now take for granted, were once innovations on obsolete designs.
I bet, were there internet forums back in the '80s there would be the same debate between the ones that found AF a sad joke and the "others".
OVF is currently the future, next they have to get rid of the shutter and then, oh well, lenses!
All digital is the (not so new) dogma. Realize that and be happy with what you have.
I think you are partially right, you will see it on consumer dslrs at some point from Nikon and canon, mostly because they will be cheaper to build. I think it will be quite awhile before you see it on pro models, and even then they will still have to offer OVF, some will not switch, ever.
Dianoda: Does the D600 RAW output have less sharpening applied to it compared to the rest? D800/A99/5D3 @ ISO100 are all noticeably sharper at the pixel level compared to the D600 at the same ISO...
Nikon traditionally does not use much in body sharpening.
Shamael: If someone now can explain to me why a camera with a ton more features, with more comfort in use, with better sharpness, but with just a stop lower high ISO performance can get 3 points less then the Nikon D600. D600 AF is the worst Nikon ever made, the camera has quality issues, has not tilt and swivle screen, nor AF range setting for lenses to capture within a certain range, no focus peaking for MF, no composed image shooting for handheld in dark light and, and, and, and. DPR, you become more and more ridiculous.Compared to the A99, the D600 body is a cripple and here the fact the it has 39AF points opposed to 19 is not an excuse. The AF performs better than Nikon D600 AF, the major point where almost all Pro's who use it complain about. So, what on the end justifies this "bad" note compared to D600. Comparing both cameras is comparing a Ferrari to a Volkswagen, Nikon's D600 is primitive and Nikon has not make any effort to make this camera a modern tool, even D5200 offers more.
The D600 and Sony A99 are in different scoring class. And by the way, the Nikon D600 is one of the highest resolving cameras out there. from the DPR review " With its 24MP sensor, the D600 ranks among the highest resolution full frame DSLRs on the market, falling shy only of the 36MP Nikon D800.Impressively, it does this without introducing the sharpening-inducing halos that we've observed in rivals like the 24MP APS-C Sony SLT-A77 or the 22MP full frame Canon EOS 5D Mark III. Raw files can resolve a bit more detail here and can tolerate slightly more aggressive than usual low-radius sharpening for output that again compares very well against its peers.".
Nikons default sharpening is traditionally set to low, it sharpens beautifully. You do realize the D600 and A99 use the same sensor, don't you?
BTW, Nikon does not use NR in raw except for long exposures.
Lee W: Beats the D800 hands down!
Actually, it ties the D800E. Kudos Sony. So, will they come out with a variant to compete with the D600/6D? I almost think they have to.
Nice camera, great news for the Sony faithful. I like how Sony pushes the technology envelope. Great time to be into photography.
tkbslc: Geez, it's got to be at least a stop better for chroma noise than all the other APS-C and m4/3 cameras in both JPEG and RAW. Impressive!
tk, the review clearly says it has it. Don't get me wrong, the jpgs are out of this world good. I just want straight up raws to work with. If this thing could focus like a dslr, they could sell a million of them. really.
NR in raw. It loses detail too. i want to control raw myself.
Love everything about this camera except the over processed raw files. It is lacking detail compared to the other cameras shown. I want to process my own raw files. Can that be disabled? If not, I find it a non starter.
tlinn: I find it interesting that Panasonic has finally spec'd out an ideal superzoom camera, but waited to do it until it was too late. It's a shame really because it's not like consumers haven't been asking for a constant aperture, RAW-capable superzoom forever. But now there are so many other options offering larger sensors with higher image quality that, at least for me, make this camera irrelevant.
I read an article this week that detailed the decline of the large Japanese consumer electronic companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Sharp. I have to wonder if their tendency to hold back features and offer consumers the absolute minimum they think they can get away with from one product generation to the next is part of the problem. Canon is the poster child for this marketing strategy and it drives me crazy.
beach, the nikon v1.
mark l perry: Ok I too had the dust issue and I cleaned my sensor by blowing it out with Dry Nitrogen don’t know what went wrong on production but it’s not an issue it’s just an inconvenience, I have not seen any oil but I’m sure if it needs addressing Nikon will take care of it. I wet clean my sensors about every 12 months because the sensors build up a fog or film on them after a while like the inside of your cars windscreen and when you drive into the sun the film magnifies the glare imagine what that would do to your images. In-between wet cleans I use an arctic butterfly with a blower bulb and it works just fine. It is a waste of time griping over dust because sooner or later you will get dust on your sensor just clean it and forget about all the small stuff and who is better than who and go outdoors and take some fantastic images.
Rusticus does not have one, does not plan on having one. He is he as a shill, having fun jabbing Nikon.
Antony John: Well, the dust/oil spots on the D600 sensor can be fixed.The whining of forum members I'm not so sure about.Seems the site is becoming the photographic equivalent of Jerry Springer reffing a US presidential election ;-)
fierlingd, Then why did you say in your review you cleaned it once and the problem never came back?? And then you say in numerous posts you can't take 20 pics without cleaning. Which is it?
Really Fire?? And yet you say here: "http://www.dpreview.com/products/Nikon/slrs/nikon_d600/user-reviews-detail/7915315441"
Seems too me you joined dpr just to whine about nikon, at least thats all you have done so far.