D600 with full fat AF system!

So I bought one on Friday with the 24-85mm kit lens and the 50mm F1.8G. So far I'm quite impressed, the low light/High Iso performance seems to be very good along with the focus speed. One disappointment is the video and the lenses as they are still noisy when focusing so you can hear them chattering away, even though they are the SWM versions. Will decide in the next day or so if its a keeper or if I go back to the OMD EM5
 
J1nxy said:
So I bought one on Friday with the 24-85mm kit lens and the 50mm F1.8G. So far I'm quite impressed, the low light/High Iso performance seems to be very good along with the focus speed. One disappointment is the video and the lenses as they are still noisy when focusing so you can hear them chattering away, even though they are the SWM versions. Will decide in the next day or so if its a keeper or if I go back to the OMD EM5
Click to expand...

Just out of interest do you think the 1/4000 shutter speed limitation will ever be a problem if photographing wildlife or sports? Like freezing a bee in flight or a water fountain etc. Or is 1/4000 enough for 99% of situations?
 
Gayjin said:
He feels that the camera is technically above his photographic skills.
Click to expand...

Just don't get this mindset, never have I felt a camera was above me.
For me, a better body just = more avenues of possibility now, and much more in the future with practice.

Unless you are a perfect photographer, just about any camera ever made is above our skill-set.
 
Richdog said:
Just out of interest do you think the 1/4000 shutter speed limitation will ever be a problem if photographing wildlife or sports? Like freezing a bee in flight or a water fountain etc. Or is 1/4000 enough for 99% of situations?
Click to expand...

For me I doubt it'll ever be an issue to be honest. I'd expect 1/4000 to be fast enough as the ISO performance on this thing seems immense.

Couple of quick shots of one of my girls, taken with the 50mm and cropped otherwise straight from the camera.



 
An Exception said:
Just don't get this mindset, never have I felt a camera was above me.
For me, a better body just = more avenues of possibility now, and much more in the future with practice.

Unless you are a perfect photographer, just about any camera ever made is above our skill-set.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not a complicated concept: how does it benefit me spending 2k+ on a DSLR when my uses are relatively simple (pure hobby snapper), and im not very experienced? Much better to get a good crop camera like a D7000 and explore that fully for less than half the price. By the time I get good enough with photography to take advantage of a 2k DSLR, the next wave will be out and the D600 will be a year or two old with the next models out. It just doesn't make sense to blow big money on a D600 if I don't think I will get the most out of it or use it enough to justify the outlay. :)
 
It will probably be 4 years before it's replacement is out. Most people lose money buying and selling, when they should have just got what they really wanted to begin with (budget allowing).
If you don't plan on progressing your photography that far, then obviously, an expensive body might be a waste of money.
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
It will probably be 4 years before it's replacement is out. Most people lose money buying and selling, when they should have just got what they really wanted to begin with (budget allowing).
Click to expand...

4 years? Mhmm, doubtful imo. Plus, you lose little money buying a used D7000 at half price over rrp, they hold their value very well on the used market.

Anyway, none of that changes the fact that I don't need one, and that disregarding whether I can afford it or not, it is certainly well in excess of what I need as a rank amateur hobbyist... I just wouldn't use it enough to justify buying an advanced FF DSLR. End of story. :)
 
I don't quite understand why nikon gave it that AF system as even if it did have the same as the D800, they are still completely different camera's aimed at different users. If it was in a pro body with the same AF system as the D800 it would be the new wedding photographers camera, whilst studio, macro and landscapers get the D800 instead. Instead, if you actually want to control composition without running into potential problems with focus recompose (field curvature), you HAVE to buy the D800 over the D600, regardless of anything else.

If sony put the D600 sensor in a better body with better AF, nikon could lose some rather loyal customers imo, especially now that third party lens manufacturers are producing lenses that rival or beat the big two's!
 
Richdog said:
Well, it's not a complicated concept: how does it benefit me spending 2k+ on a DSLR when my uses are relatively simple (pure hobby snapper), and im not very experienced? Much better to get a good crop camera like a D7000 and explore that fully for less than half the price. By the time I get good enough with photography to take advantage of a 2k DSLR, the next wave will be out and the D600 will be a year or two old with the next models out. It just doesn't make sense to blow big money on a D600 if I don't think I will get the most out of it or use it enough to justify the outlay. :)
Click to expand...

Depends what you want to shoot tbh. Cameras are quite specific to different types of photography unless you go straight into the top end of gear, which is very expensive. Crop sensors are confusing to learn on for a beginner due to the crop factor, especially when you need to learn what aperture, iso and shutter speed actually do and how they are all connected.

I think if someone got a camera with very good iso performance, which had an auto setting, they could start producing some good shots pretty much from the word go. Its rare that most users have to shoot over 1600 iso, let alone 6400 for example, so learning how to get the most out of flash photography, which is very hard to master, wouldn't be anywhere near as essential as it is on a body which has poor iso performance.

Saying that though, I'd still never condone someone new to photography paying £2k for a camera (or even over £1k tbh) as they might not even like the hobby anyway, potentially wasting a large chunk of cash!
 
This is probably going to sound superficial, but half the reason that's stopping me move to Sony is how ugly their bodies are. They just don't look how a camera should look imo. If they stopped trying to copy Canon and Nikon yet still look different, and instead went back to a retro design that Fuji showed there was demand for, I would be all over it. I would even be tempted by SLT technology. Sure ISO won't be quite as good, but F1.4 with stabilisation would be immense in low light.

For now I'd rather shoot with a Nikon body, but I'm keeping an eye on Sony...

Off topic prediction.
I'm expecting the new FF Sony P&S to beat the D800E's DXO score!
 
Sony bodies are indeed ugly and odd to hold. the d600 and d800 feels very weird as well compared to a canon. for me a canon body feels more smoother and natural to my hands compared to nikon bodies that feel more direct and hard in surface and texture.

there is like a nice cushion and moulds well into my hand
 
James J said:
Depends what you want to shoot tbh. Cameras are quite specific to different types of photography unless you go straight into the top end of gear, which is very expensive. Crop sensors are confusing to learn on for a beginner due to the crop factor, especially when you need to learn what aperture, iso and shutter speed actually do and how they are all connected.

I think if someone got a camera with very good iso performance, which had an auto setting, they could start producing some good shots pretty much from the word go. Its rare that most users have to shoot over 1600 iso, let alone 6400 for example, so learning how to get the most out of flash photography, which is very hard to master, wouldn't be anywhere near as essential as it is on a body which has poor iso performance.

Saying that though, I'd still never condone someone new to photography paying £2k for a camera (or even over £1k tbh) as they might not even like the hobby anyway, potentially wasting a large chunk of cash!
Click to expand...

Also of course different cameras are suited to different things... that's why I can make a reasoned decision. I'm not new to it, i'm just not so prolific over the last year or two since I broke my old camera (RIP Pentax).

I do think though that a crop camera is fine to learn with despite any slight differences in the maths, most people in the world do it do they not? I think every low-end and beginner camera from Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc is a crop... so not sure I wholly agree with that.
 
Last edited:
£1399 on Digital Rev.

I wonder how many people are absolutely screwing at paying a full whack £500 more when it was released?

I'm reading in a few places that the autofocus grouping issue on the FX sensor isn't exactly helping.

I'm guessing that sales are way below estimates for the UK, or even totally tanking, hence the drops. Perhaps there might be even more to come in the near future too!?
 
£500 is £500. That's more than a months rent for many people. It's more than a month's worth of food for most people. £500 is a half decent lens. This is £1,500 for a camera without any type lens.

So: Yes, for many it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom