D600 with full fat AF system!

[jonneymendoza]

Pause to let that sink in a bit as you obviously missed it. £500. On a salary of £30,000 per year, after taxes but with no other contributions, you'd need to work for a fortnight without spending a penny on anything - no bills, no food, no transport, no clothing, etc - to earn that. So even a living-at-home rent-free bachelor with no life and minimal spending is going to need a few weeks to save that extra bit for it. Fine for him, but the rest of the world that have dependents, cars, travel costs, food costs, rent/mortgages etc. £500 is a fortune.

And u have missed the point lol.

tell me, how did this same person manage to save 1.5k in the first place? 1.5k is more of a fortune then 500. you are forgetting that the person has "already saved 1.5k".

that a lot more then 500

 

[James J]

yes exactly mate. well said. the fact is, a d600 and a d800 is very different to eachother. teh d800 offers sooo much more. IMO more then £500 extra. IMO it easily offers excess of 1k worth of features

In your opinion, you missed that part, which is absolutely vital to what you are actually saying.

 

[James J]

And u have missed the point lol.

tell me, how did this same person manage to save 1.5k in the first place? lol

He's not missed the point at all, you just have a very different view to finances when it comes to photography. For you, spending a few thousand pounds on gear is normal, whilst to joe bloggs in the street, it would be probably seen as madness.

To reverse it, I think spending a few grand on a car is madness, but I don't even drive. If I did drive though, my choice of cars would be cheap, as I'd never justify the budgets that most cars require to buy, especially brand new.

This doesn't mean that my choice is wrong, it just means its more suited to my needs, be it financial, work, family or hobby based. What I'm saying is just because you can see the benefits of spending that extra £500 on top of £1500, it doesn't mean everyone will, nor should.

 

[jonneymendoza]

He's not missed the point at all, you just have a very different view to finances when it comes to photography. For you, spending a few thousand pounds on gear is normal, whilst to joe bloggs in the street, it would be probably seen as madness.

To reverse it, I think spending a few grand on a car is madness, but I don't even drive. If I did drive though, my choice of cars would be cheap, as I'd never justify the budgets that most cars require to buy, especially brand new.

This doesn't mean that my choice is wrong, it just means its more suited to my needs, be it financial, work, family or hobby based. What I'm saying is just because you can see the benefits of spending that extra £500 on top of £1500, it doesn't mean everyone will, nor should.

i never said people should. i have just explained why imo 500 is not much for some people..

to correct u though, the average joe blogg on the street would not even be looking to blow 1.5k on a camera.

So again i think u have missed the mark here. A perosn willingt o drop initially 1.5k on just a camera is usually a person who is either these:

1. an experience/semi experience togger who wants to upgrade to some serious gear

2. an average joe who is well off and can afford to throw 1.5k on something they may not enjoy or not or get bored of using.

In both cases a experience tog will look at his budget. look at what dif their is on d700 and d800 and then decide whether to wait a little longer to save £500 more.

an average joe with lots of money will most likely wont feel burned about adding an extra £500.

End of the day, given by what u said, an average joe from the street would not be looking to drop 1.5k lol think about it mate.

 

[jonneymendoza]

In your opinion, you missed that part, which is absolutely vital to what you are actually saying.

na not really as i given a example of saying this:

user saves 1.5k for product A

Product B has more features etc etc on paper and costs 1/3 more

if user really into the type of product they are buying, then they most likely may be patient and save more for product B.

product a and b could be anything, a car a pc, anything.

And this is where i asked u lot this and stil no answered as of yet:

Have u ever spent a little bit more on ANYTHING to get a better similar product?

 

[James J]

The problem is though you are purely looking at the financial value of something, not what it actually does and the problems it causes by getting such a product. The D600 has a clustered AF system which is a downgrade if you are use to using the 51point system on a D700. The D800 has retardedly massive files, requiring a very good PC in place to deal with them without retiring first from the wait. I've seen more and more people having to upgrade their pc's/laptops to cope with the demand the 36mp files from the D800 put onto their older machine. This is one of the major points that made me look at my D3 in the first place, which turned out to be the perfect product for me and just what I wanted and needed.

Lets put it another way for the sake of argument. Would someones photos be better or worse if they "found" that extra £500 and couldn't buy the lens they wanted? The difference in price between a D600 and D800 is nearly the cost of the sigma 85mm F1.4 lens, which is phenomenal!

 

[James J]

na not really as i given a example of saying this:

user saves 1.5k for product A

Product B has more features etc etc on paper and costs 1/3 more

if user really into the type of product they are buying, then they most likely may be patient and save more for product B.

product a and b could be anything, a car a pc, anything.

And this is where i asked u lot this and stil no answered as of yet:

Have u ever spent a little bit more on ANYTHING to get a better similar product?

Nope, but I've spent less on a better product

Work that one out!

 

[An Exception]

It's not such a great lens if focusing re-composing at 1.4...

 

[James J]

It's not such a great lens if focusing re-composing at 1.4...

It's sharpest in the centre and would be immense for studio work, where fancy composition isn't a requirement anyway.

All boils down to what you actually want to use the camera for, which is why saying just stump up another £500 for a product you don't actually need isn't a good idea.

 

[J1nxy]

So I bought one and I like it, I bought the kit with the 24-85 lens and in total that cost me 2k . I could afford the d800 if I'd wanted one, but personally I didn't like the additional bulk and the extra megapixels etc weren't required. The AF system for me works fine, maybe I'm not at the same level photography wise as some people on here but it does what I want it to do.

 

[jorzeh]

The only reason i wouldn't buy a D600 is the Focusing, Coming from a D700 with Pro level Focusing would be terrible

 

[James J]

So I bought one and I like it, I bought the kit with the 24-85 lens and in total that cost me 2k . I could afford the d800 if I'd wanted one, but personally I didn't like the additional bulk and the extra megapixels etc weren't required. The AF system for me works fine, maybe I'm not at the same level photography wise as some people on here but it does what I want it to do.

You don't miss what you've never had mate! When I had a canon 5D mk ii, I got on by with the AF system just fine. Its only when I upgraded to the nikon 51point AF system when I realised how big the difference actually is. It changed the way I shoot, but I get the same results regardless, just different techniques involved.

 

[DJ_Switch]

The only reason i wouldn't buy a D600 is the Focusing, Coming from a D700 with Pro level Focusing would be terrible

I won't argue that there's no difference however I think you'd be surprised at how good the D7000 AF is in comparison. I have a D7000 and D800 at the moment and had a D700 before that and can honestly say that the D7000 AF is neither terrible nor a deal breaker. The point placement in the 600 is another story though.

 

[An Exception]

Yeh I liked the D7000 AF. It's the AF placement that's the deal-breaker for me.

 

[James J]

Sods law though when you use a DX designed AF system in an FX camera. Still more than usable though.

 

[DJ_Switch]

Sods law though when you use a DX designed AF system in an FX camera. Still more than usable though.

It's not so much because it was a DX system but more that they've done it on purpose. It is supposed to be the FX variant of the system in the same way as the D3, D700 etc have the FX variant of the same multicam3500 system in the D300. I genuinely thought they'd similarly change the placings of the points in the D600 as they did with the multicam3500 when they made it FX too. It seems to have been done to keep an even clearer gap between it and the D800.....a shame really.

 

[jorzeh]

I won't argue that there's no difference however I think you'd be surprised at how good the D7000 AF is in comparison. I have a D7000 and D800 at the moment and had a D700 before that and can honestly say that the D7000 AF is neither terrible nor a deal breaker. The point placement in the 600 is another story though.

I've used the D7000, The D700 is a lot better in low light, It's all todo with what you shoot, If i miss a shot a client really wants then it's going to make me look unprofessional.. Factoring the Full FX Sensor plus better Focusing of the D700 is far better imho, IF you're in daylight shooting slow moving targets then the D7000 really is fine.

 

[James J]

It's not so much because it was a DX system but more that they've done it on purpose. It is supposed to be the FX variant of the system in the same way as the D3, D700 etc have the FX variant of the same multicam3500 system in the D300. I genuinely thought they'd similarly change the placings of the points in the D600 as they did with the multicam3500 when they made it FX too. It seems to have been done to keep an even clearer gap between it and the D800.....a shame really.

Does the 39 point AF in the D7000 cover the entire frame though (well edge to edge?) as the 51 point one in the D300/D300s does. You can literally focus on everything you can physically see through the view finder, whilst obviously on the D3/D700 etc has a zone where you can't focus on due to the larger sensor.

 

[An Exception]

The frame coverage of the D7000 is about the same as the D700/D3. Of course when you then put that system onto a FF sensor, they are terribly cramped.

 

[James J]

The frame coverage of the D7000 is about the same as the D700/D3. Of course when you then put that system onto a FF sensor, they are terribly cramped.

Ouch really? I never knew it was like that. The d300s I owned was had a focal point over literally everything in the frame that you could see. If you stick your D700 into DX mode, thats exactly what a D300s looks like down the viewfinder.