D600 with full fat AF system!

^^^
Bet you any money it's weather sealed. It's a DXXX, so it's not a consumer camera. Even the D7000 which IS a consumer camera has good weather sealing.
I seriously doubt Nikon will go to such lengths as to gimp this camera.
 
Fair enough, I guess I'm more saying that there is definitely room for a d3200 + full frame sensor in the market, not necessarily that Nikon will fill it. Heck half (conservative estimate) of the reason I got my 5DC was because of herp derp blurry backgrounds, and I'd be surprised if that wasn't a major part of a lot of other people buying them nowadays. If there were new, very cheap (around the magic £1000 mark you were waiting for, Raymond) full frames I reckon they could take a fair chunk of market share.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I'm selling my mkii for less than £1k atm with no takers lol

I did say that but I said that back in 2006! It would be a LONG wait if I had waited.
Click to expand...

Haha if you sign it I'll take it :P I think the problem for the Mk2 is that the Mk3 fixed every single problem it has, and the Mk2 doesn't offer a hell of a lot more in practice than the original. Still, I've been seeing them selling at £1100 so it's odd that yours isn't selling, particularly as, in the world of online forum photography, it's practically celebrity memorabilia :P
 
An Exception said:
^^^
Bet you any money it's weather sealed. It's a DXXX, so it's not a consumer camera. Even the D7000 which IS a consumer camera has good weather sealing.
I seriously doubt Nikon will go to such lengths as to gimp this camera.
Click to expand...

Even so though, weather sealing a body when its smaller is inherently harder to do as it requires even more accurate placement of the rubber pads and positioning of buttons etc.
 
To be fair, you could always just use a variable ND filter? I know they get pretty bad as you start approaching the really dark end but the lighter ones are helpful to keep stuff below 1/8000. Plenty of times even 1/8000 isn't fast enough with naked lenses and it's not like any f/1.4 outdoor work will be stuff that will blur at anything faster than 1/200.

I'm also talking from a Canon perspective where base ISO is 100 rather than 200 (though that's changing).

If you're using a D700 where base ISO is 200, afaik, then the D600 may well provide the same wide-aperture ability by dropping base ISO by a stop, but also slowing the shutter by a stop?
 
Ksanti said:
To be fair, you could always just use a variable ND filter? I know they get pretty bad as you start approaching the really dark end but the lighter ones are helpful to keep stuff below 1/8000. Plenty of times even 1/8000 isn't fast enough with naked lenses and it's not like any f/1.4 outdoor work will be stuff that will blur at anything faster than 1/200.

I'm also talking from a Canon perspective where base ISO is 100 rather than 200 (though that's changing).

If you're using a D700 where base ISO is 200, afaik, then the D600 may well provide the same wide-aperture ability by dropping base ISO by a stop, but also slowing the shutter by a stop?
Click to expand...

The standard ISO range on the D600 (if it exists) would probably be 100-6400, just like the D800, with an expandable range to cover iso 50.

Still right about probably having to use a ND filter though in a few situations, but highly depends on your shooting style. If you have very fast glass and shoot wide open in bright sunlight, makes sense to have faster than 1/4000, but if thats what you shoot primarily, you'll probably have the filters anyway to regain sky detail due to the amount of haze that harsh sunlight can cause on digital photos.

I'm still not sure why Nikon doesn't stick faster shutter speeds into their DSLRs as they already have a 1/16000 shutter in their J1/J2 and V1/V2 compacts.
 
Ksanti said:
To be fair, you could always just use a variable ND filter? I know they get pretty bad as you start approaching the really dark end but the lighter ones are helpful to keep stuff below 1/8000. Plenty of times even 1/8000 isn't fast enough with naked lenses and it's not like any f/1.4 outdoor work will be stuff that will blur at anything faster than 1/200.

I'm also talking from a Canon perspective where base ISO is 100 rather than 200 (though that's changing).

If you're using a D700 where base ISO is 200, afaik, then the D600 may well provide the same wide-aperture ability by dropping base ISO by a stop, but also slowing the shutter by a stop?
Click to expand...

Depends if the D600 has anywhere near the highlight recovery of the D700. My D700 has around 3 stops.
The D800 is looking more tempting to me now.
 
James J said:
I'm still not sure why Nikon doesn't stick faster shutter speeds into their DSLRs as they already have a 1/16000 shutter in their J1/J2 and V1/V2 compacts.
Click to expand...

The J1 and J2 don't have a stonking great mirror to slap up and down, or anything like the area to cover over the shutter mechanism.

I think it would be better to see a base ISO 25 or 50 35mm studio/daylight based camera than faster shutter speeds, personally. But then that would probably hurt the high ISO - you can cut light filters but you can't gain it, so ultimately IQ suffers with lower base cameras.

An Exception said:
Depends if the D600 has anywhere near the highlight recovery of the D700. My D700 has around 3 stops.
The D800 is looking more tempting to me now.
Click to expand...

Good point, but there hasn't been a 24.7MP camera yet (a850/900 were 24.6, D3x was 24.5) so we'll have to see how the sensor performs in testing before making any choices on that front. It's Nikon, so I'd be surprised if DR was limited severely.
 
I am still temped by the D600 but the sensor has to have a noticeable benefit over the D800 in terms of low light and DR but I don't think that will really happen. Even then the D800 has immense low light performance, only bettered by the D3s and D4 (and probably 1D-X). Likewise, nothing touches the D800's DR which is critical for my landscape work.

24MP at FF is plenty for my landscape/architecture/still life but will leave about 10.5MP in DX so will be a noticeable step backwards for wildlife from my 12MP D90. It is almost making more sense to buy a D7K or a 24Mp D400 DX body if one appears, with th intention of buying the D800 at a later stage.

D800 just gets ore and more tempting as time goes by. I was a little hesitant of 36MP but it really makes so much sense when the apparent cost in terms of sensor performance is so small. One hasn't given up much noise performance to get to 36MP (you expect quantum efficiency to decrease with pixel density due to readout lines taking up proportionally more space). The end result is the ultimate landscape FF and the ultimate wildlife camera all in one.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You guys should just get the D800, otherwise there is the forever What If in your minds.
Click to expand...

That is true I just don't see the point in buying the highest end bodies when within a few years better cameras will exist. I am still perfectly happy with my D90 for most uses, I don't feel the need for the highest end bodies.

I still have some serious investments to make in lenses, so a cheaper body will allow quicker purchasing of lenses. The D600 is reported to cost as little as $1500 and is likely to be 90% of a D800 or 5DMKIII.

If the price starts heading north of 2K then there is less interest for me.
 
James J said:
Exactly. Get the best you can afford, its always been like that and always will be when it comes to cameras.
Click to expand...

Not really, a D700 was very similar to a D3 if you didn't need the large buffer, so for many people, the D700 was a better buy and would leave change to get some nice lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom