D600 with full fat AF system!

Rojin · 13 Sep 2012 at 22:34

An Exception said:
^^^
CA probably needs to as it's bankrupt.

Yeah not good. Just read the thread I had noticed it in, Amazon also started charging sales tax in Texas last month (8.25%, CA 8%).

D.P. · 13 Sep 2012 at 23:47

Rojin said:
I though this was something they are cracking down on? Amazon have started charging sales tax for online purchases in CA?

You would normally pay sales tax if you live in the same state as the HQ of the shop, so if you live in NY state and buy from BHphotovideo you probably have to pay sales tax. However, many companies offer to pay the sales tax if you happen to live in the same state anyway.

For this reason many online stores have their HQ in relatively unpopulated middle of no where, states that are also conveniently located in the center of the US. So if you live in Kansas or south dakota you might end up unlucky and pay sales tax.

I don't know about Amazon, their HQ is WA not CA. Perhaps California is enacting a special tax rule for online orders. This is nothing illegal done by online shops, the sales tax is paid by the consumer to the state. If you don't live in that state you don't pay the tax and the shop wont ask for the tax. There is nothing to crack down on. I guess with the econom situatiopn in some states they want to derive more tax revenue so are changing their tax laws, not cracking down on illegal tax fraud per se.

jorzeh · 14 Sep 2012 at 09:21

It would be cheaper to Fly to America and buy a D600 and Fly back with it hidden down my nickers then buy in the UK, I'd rather buy a second hand D700, Lets face it the D700 is enough really, Unless you're blowing pictures up to 30".

Rikki · 14 Sep 2012 at 10:02

D.P. said:
at current prices, it should slip down to about 65-70% D800 prices as it is in almost every other country. You cannot compare current D800 prices with RRP D600 prices.

Dunno about that.

The D800 RRP on launch went from £2399 to £2599 ! And thats what people paid at the outset.

I know this because I pre-ordered in Feb.

Rikki · 14 Sep 2012 at 10:03

D.P. said:
All D800 bodies shipped in the last couple of months have been fine and the number of D800 bodies affected by the calibration issue before that were far, far smaller than the internet would let you believe. People like Thom Hogan tried to get people to properly test their D800 purchases but 90% of people claiming to have left AF issue were incapable of properly conducting the test and many of the issues were unrelated such as miscalibrated lenses, focus shifts, DoF issues, field curvature, misaligned targets, misaligned lens elements, standard phase detection issues, diffraction limits, vibration blur, etc. etc.
There was a thread on DPreview and the same thing, almost everyone claiming to have the left AF issue had a flawed test setup or experienced other standard effects like lens calibration issues.

For sure there is a real problem but it is now where near as wide spread as you might think from the whining of internet amateurs buying their first high res FF body. Nikon should have made an official statement and offered proper testing for free and perhaps thrown in a memory card or something for anyone affected.

Well I know its a real problem because the D800 I have has suffered from it from day one and I actually know how to take decent photographs LOL!

If I could afford to be without the body for 10 working days Id have sent it back to NPS by now.

An Exception · 14 Sep 2012 at 10:26

jorzeh said:
It would be cheaper to Fly to America and buy a D600 and Fly back with it hidden down my nickers then buy in the UK, I'd rather buy a second hand D700, Lets face it the D700 is enough really, Unless you're blowing pictures up to 30".

Tbh images still look stunning on my 30" monitor. I think prints could go way bigger if needed.

jorzeh · 14 Sep 2012 at 10:29

Yeah True i think i'll get myself a D700, They can be had for £1100, The D600 would have been my choice had it been £1300, But not £2000, Nikon really taking the miccie compared to US pricing, Alittle angry i waited 4 months.

Rojin · 14 Sep 2012 at 10:44

An Exception said:
Tbh images still look stunning on my 30" monitor. I think prints could go way bigger if needed.

What res is that though, 2560X1600? That's way below what you're looking at for decent 300dpi prints. A 15x10" is 4500x3000.

Also on the 1/4000 front, with the base ISO dropping to 100 then it shouldn't really be any different to your D700 with a base of 200?

An Exception · 14 Sep 2012 at 10:54

Rojin said:
What res is that though, 2560X1600? That's way below what you're looking at for decent 300dpi prints. A 15x10" is 4500x3000.

Yes 2560x1600, which is approx 50% magnification with D700 files.
I remember seeing a comparison somewhere that showed DPI really doesn't need to be 300dpi to get quality prints. I also remembered reading a comparison of the D700 5dii prints that said the difference was minor.

Rojin said:
Also on the 1/4000 front, with the base ISO dropping to 100 then it shouldn't really be any different to your D700 with a base of 200?

It depends on the highlight recovery of the sensor. For instance the D7000 has much more overall DR than my D700. Yet from what I remember my D700 can recover much more highlight detail than the D7000.

If the D600 has a similar amount of highlight detail recovery as a D7000, then it would actually be worse than my D700.

Also part of the reason for me to upgrade bodies is to get to native ISO100. 1/4000 kills that benefit for me.

Rojin · 14 Sep 2012 at 11:00

An Exception said:
Yes 2560x1600, which is approx 50% magnification with D700 files.
I remember seeing a comparison somewhere that showed DPI really doesn't need to be 300dpi to get quality prints. I also remembered reading

It depends on the highlight recovery of the sensor. For instance the D7000 has much more overall DR than my D700. Yet from what I remember my D700 can recover much more highlight detail than the D7000.

If the D600 has a similar amount of highlight detail recovery as a D7000, then it would actually be worse than my D700.

Also part of the reason for me to upgrade bodies is to get to native ISO100. 1/4000 kills that benefit for me.

I'll go down to 240dpi, but I can see the quality start to suffer below that. This is for printed work for clients. I will and have gone lower for personal stuff. I also picked up genuine fractals for enlargements, I've got better results using this to get to a 300dpi print size rather that using a non-enlarged lower print dpi.

Well you might get lucky and be surprised with the performance? I'm sure RAW files will be online before long for you to have a good play around with

An Exception · 14 Sep 2012 at 11:34

I find it confusing why an image at 72dpi looks great on a monitor, yet apparently doesn't work in print?

Rikki · 14 Sep 2012 at 11:45

Thats because a monitor has little bits of blank space between the pixels whereas print doesnt. Hard to explain.

But also why Outrun on the Amiga looked amazing at 320x200 resolution on a 21" CRT telly due to the black scanlines between the lines of graphics but looks crap on an LCD without it.

Rojin · 14 Sep 2012 at 11:53

Dpi has little relevance to onscreen viewing, an image sized to fit your screen (2560x1200) will look exactly the same at 20dpi, 72dpi, 300dpi etc. The overall physical size of the image changes but the resolution you are viewing it at doesn't change.

An Exception · 14 Sep 2012 at 12:01

DPI of most monitors is apparently around 72 -100 DPI, but images still look good at 72-100 DPI at least on a monitor. My question was then why not in print?

Raymond Lin · 14 Sep 2012 at 12:06

An Exception said:
DPI of most monitors is apparently around 72 -100 DPI, but images still look good at 72-100 DPI at least on a monitor. My question was then why not in print?

No need to ask, just try it and see.

Google DPI for newspaper if you are wondering.

Dj_Jestar · 14 Sep 2012 at 12:10

Monitors are backlit, so the low DPI is harder to see. Prints (obviously) rely on reflected light so it is way easier to see.

Rojin · 14 Sep 2012 at 12:22

An Exception said:
DPI of most monitors is apparently around 72 -100 DPI, but images still look good at 72-100 DPI at least on a monitor. My question was then why not in print?

Do you not print very much? You'll soon see the difference.

James J · 14 Sep 2012 at 12:23

Rikki said:
Dunno about that.

The D800 RRP on launch went from £2399 to £2599 ! And thats what people paid at the outset.

I know this because I pre-ordered in Feb.

The left focus point issue on the D800 has me worried if I'm honest as I was gonna buy from one of the many good hong kong companies to save myself a fortune (£1905 for a D800 with one of the most reputable ones atm!) but the whole warranty situation if I do indeed get a body with the fault will be a headache.

I'm also annoyed at the price of the D800E which has gone back up in price in the UK compared to around 2-3 weeks ago where it could be had for around £2400 with it rising to £2650 ish in most UK stores that sell it.

I also need to decide what I'm gonna do with my current D300s and official MB-10 battery grip, oh and the 18-200 DX lens I have. If I sold them I could probably get a AF-S 50mm F1.4 and a AF-S 105mm F2.8 micro lens for my new D800, which would give me a rather tasty lens lineup then, but then again I might just keep it as a second body incase I need to send the D800 off -.-

An Exception · 14 Sep 2012 at 12:53

^^^
I thought recent batches didn't suffer with the left AF point issue?

James J · 14 Sep 2012 at 13:00

An Exception said:
^^^
I thought recent batches didn't suffer with the left AF point issue?

Thats what I assumed also, yet theres still people on TP forums experiencing the issue with bodies bought in the last 2 weeks. The problem is, how the hell would we know if the body we bought was from a new or old batch? With the D800E, they are so rare in stores theres probably a better chance of them being right from the off, yet we still don't have a clue as consumers.