D600 too expensive

Started Oct 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
astigmate Regular Member • Posts: 333
Re: amateur camera

Give us YOUR facts, not your opinion.

the reality is that there isn't MUCH difference in noise between D600 and D700, but the later still has an edge. Also, the iso values are closer the reality on the D700. But as I said, the sensor on the D600 is the only good thing about this camera, it's good enough. The AF is still open to discussions, there is no proof that it's better than D700 at all. In the end, you still have a wanabee overpriced amateur camera. Sorry.

here is what DXO says about signal to noise ratio :

AllOtherNamesTaken wrote:

astigmate wrote:

yes it is, the only good thing about this camera is the sensor (close to a d700 but noisier), the body itself is nothing but a D7000 with sub par specs, 1/4000 shutter instead of 1/8000, 1/200 x-speed, slower fps...etc

So yes, its overpriced. But nikon just want you to buy expensive FX lens, so the price will drop, quiet quickly.

Actually the noise is better than a D700, and significantly so. I'm not sure where you're getting your data from. The AF is also better than the D700, and the DR is much better as well.

The only real differences are 1/4000 shutter vs 1/8000, 1/200 vs 1/250 sync, and the full magnesium body. All those three things affect a very small percentage of photographers, and were probably the best things Nikon could have taken away to keep the price down as low as it is.

This is a $2050 body, not $2700 like the D700 was when it was released, and it's not $650 worse to most people.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow