D600, for me too little, too late for too much

Started Sep 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
sshoihet Senior Member • Posts: 2,592
Re: D600, for me too little, too late for too much

freddyNZ wrote:

FTH wrote:

freddyNZ wrote:

reddirt14 wrote:

It's an FX camera. Why does everyone compare it to the D7000 and D300s? It's not intended as an upgrade to those cameras.

Exactly. Some Dx users will move to Fx, some won't.

I'm so tired of reading the "d600 disappointment" threads. For what many people buying this camera will use it for, it will easily outperform the D3x - at 1/2 the size and 1/4 the price.

If they know that they need an AF button, more pixels, less pixels, or higher burst speed, then they should be able to work out what to buy instead.

Because the author is 100% right about quick obsolescence of DSLR cameras and the fact that Nikon doesn't even match his own cheaper products such as the D7K with the D600 : The D600 is clearly an outdated shrink out D7K with a "FX" sensor and this, is not normal, especially for a 2000$ camera. Moreover their is NO proper innovation in video since years now which is mind-blowing, knowing the fact that Nikon was the proud "inventor" of video DSLR...

And the argument of FX vs DX is quite obsolete also today, you may gain 1 stop of noise and be able to take advantage of a wider angle prime lens such as the 28mm 1.8G but that's about it. If the goal is to add more weight to your shoulders and pay an arm for bigger Tele-photo glass, it is up to you. I do Like FX cameras but the D600 doesn't fit well in any category, especially at this price tag : it is a 800$ body better than a D3200 and worse than a D7K, with a FX sensor and outdated video.

I'm sure there are plenty of regulars in this forum who don't take such umbrage at the fact that an FX sensor will totally outperform crop sensors for many uses.

What's "not normal" is to have an FX sensor dslr available with nikon mount for about $2,100 list price, a premium of about $900 over the D7000 list price, compared to a premium of about $1300 for the D700 over the D300 when they were released.

There shouldn't be an "argument" about DX vs FX, they are just different formats.

Yours is about the most childish (and ignorant) post I've seen relating to the D600.

Most people that really needed a FF already bought a D700 or 800. The D600 is here to suck in consumers that think their photography will be better when they spend $2100 instead of $1000 on a D7000.

It's being compared to DX because that's who the target market is, people who have older DX bodies or first time buyers that were considering going DX for the lower price or smaller body.

depending on your application, the D600 may be more of a sidegrade from the D700... for landscapes the D600 extra resolution may be nice. For portraits, the D700 is still a great camera. For low light, high ISO performance, the D600 appears to have a slight edge but depending on how you display your images, this might not be readily apparent anyway.

 sshoihet's gear list:sshoihet's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M Nikon D600 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +13 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow