D600 Auto Focus Points - Who Thought That Would Be A Good Idea?

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Thanks

antoineb wrote:

On the weight:  your figures are correct of course.  I guess what I mean, is that the D7k is already large and heavy enough that it seriously limits my ability to take a good camera to all the places I'd like to take it to (business trips including to distant places, daily commute, various sports, mountaineering etc) - WITHOUT HAVING TO PACK SPECIAL just for it.  As photography is not my professional activity.

In other words, 6% increased overall weight will change nothing, right?

On AF:  I think if Nikon had truly improved it, they would have said this in their marketing material.  So I will assume it is largely unchanged.

Not that simply. there are any improvements that are either too minor to mention, or was fixing a defect so advertising it would amount to acknowledgement of that previous defect. For example D600's successor will no doubt have an improved shutter that does not splash oil, do you think nikon will make a big deal advertising it? of course not, they will continue to pretend every SLR had a perfect shutter.

On high ISO:  frankly my D7k is quite good up to about ISO 2000 even in JPEG with auto WB, then starts breaking down a bit though can still deliver quite useable images up to ISO 4000 or so.  So even if I can get a couple stops more from a D600, this won't matter to me.  It might matter to people regularly photographing musicians in clubs.  Or sports in low light.

the improvement of high iso provides photographer an advantage in 3 ways:

1, you can now shoot at even lower light than before - for example in candle light dinner

2, for the same shooting condition, IQ is now better - for example indoor flashless iso 800-3200 portrait.

3, for the same shooting condition, while maintaining the same IQ, you can use higher shutter speed thus less motion blur - for example candid shots in a party or of a pet.

On resolution:  the D600 is 24mp, vs my D7k's 16mp.  If I can still count, this is a mere 50% additional resolution.

There is more to it than that. D600's sensor is much larger, its pixels are about 50% larger too, thus it is less demanding of the lens. Most lenses are imperfect, resulting in reduced final image resolution. For example 28 F1.8G gives 19mp on D3X (D600 would get the same result), but only 9mp on D7000.


And that's just 22% more linear resolution each way.  Don't see how this is going to make any real difference except for the few situations with perfect subject and shooting conditions, and where I would want to enlarge to several feet each way.

Whether you see it or care for it is a different matter. As I said you do not have to want these benefits, but do not pretend they do not exist.

On shallow DOF.  I sometimes enjoy shallow DOF, but I also see that quite a few photographers overdo it.

So basically you are idiot-proofing yourself by not going FF.

With my 85mm f1.4 at short range, it is already a challenge to have enough DOF on portraits - I don't see what even less DOF would give me.

How about 28mm F1.8? or 50mm F2.8?

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