Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 12:07:42 am

Title: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 12:07:42 am
24MP, 100% viewfinder, sealed body, 760 gr, 5.5 fps... at 2,100 US$ and available in... 5 days. :)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/13/Nikon-D600-24MP-Full-frame-DSLR-with-39-point-af-and-uncompressed-1080p-video

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: aaronchan on September 13, 2012, 02:17:58 am
24MP, 100% viewfinder, sealed body, 760 gr, 5.5 fps... at 2,100 US$ and available in... 5 days. :)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/13/Nikon-D600-24MP-Full-frame-DSLR-with-39-point-af-and-uncompressed-1080p-video

Cheers,
Bernard

But this is not as cheap as the rumor said, 1500.
I know the 5D2 is discontinued but for 2100, I think I would still go for the 5D2

aaron
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Tony Jay on September 13, 2012, 02:23:30 am
I know the 5D2 is discontinued ...

Feel free to correct me but my information is that the Canon 5D II has not been discontinued but will continue to be produced alongside the Canon 5D III.

Regards

Tony Jay
Title: Re: D600
Post by: mac_paolo on September 13, 2012, 02:33:54 am
But this is not as cheap as the rumor said, 1500.
Never thought for a second that would have been the price.
To me, taking what it offers, it's still quite cheap.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Fips on September 13, 2012, 02:44:43 am
The best thing is that is has an AF-motor. I had guessed that they would leave it out to push the price down as much as possible.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Wayne Fox on September 13, 2012, 02:44:54 am
Feel free to correct me but my information is that the Canon 5D II has not been discontinued but will continue to be produced alongside the Canon 5D III.

Regards

Tony Jay
The  5d2 is still on the price list.  The d700 has been discontinued (a few weeks ago).
Title: Re: D600
Post by: kers on September 13, 2012, 05:52:58 am
But this is not as cheap as the rumor said, 1500.
I know the 5D2 is discontinued but for 2100, I think I would still go for the 5D2
aaron

I would not be surprised if the sensor of the D600 would be a lot better, in line with the d800..
great high iso and dynamic range. Looking forward to see the DXOmarks.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 07:44:09 am
I would not be surprised if the sensor of the D600 would be a lot better, in line with the d800..
great high iso and dynamic range. Looking forward to see the DXOmarks.

Unless you are invested in Canon lenses, there is simply zero reason to pick the 5DII.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 09:35:04 am
This is a more than mildly disappointing announcement.  There is, as of yet, still no legitimate successor to the D700.  Nikon seems to have taken a bracketed approach; coming out with a model higher and one lower in the lineup and left D700 owners twisting in the wind. 
Title: Re: D600
Post by: jeremypayne on September 13, 2012, 09:39:42 am
This is a more than mildly disappointing announcement.  There is, as of yet, still no legitimate successor to the D700.  Nikon seems to have taken a bracketed approach; coming out with a model higher and one lower in the lineup and left D700 owners twisting in the wind. 

I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Ellis Vener on September 13, 2012, 10:00:52 am
Unless you are invested in Canon lenses, there is simply zero reason to pick the 5DII.

Cheers,
Bernard

I fully agree.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: sean mills on September 13, 2012, 10:24:16 am
I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?

What a lot of Nikon shooters feel that they are entitled to, a D4 in a D700/800 body for $2500-3000.
I highly doubt that that will happen again after the D3/D700 scenario.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 10:32:22 am
I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?

Depends on what anyone considers 'legitimate' I guess so somewhat open to interpretation.

The D700 is a damn fine camera that fills a lot of needs.  It's full frame, has very good image quality, very good noise performance (even by today's standards).  It doesn't have video but no camera at that time did.  It's got a good burst rate which you can make faster with the accessory grip and proper battery.  It's got terrific AEB functionality (which could be made better if Nikon expanded the spacing to beyond 1 stop with a minor firmware update - the D600 has Nikon's lower end, hobbled AEB functionality) and a built-in intervalometer (haven't seen any mention of that in D600 writeups).  Haven't seen any mention of multiple exposure functionality in the D600 either.  The D600 has a lower end AF system than the D700 and, I believe, a less sturdy, less well sealed body.

What I would consider to be a 'legitimate' upgrade to the D700 would be a retention of all of those features, addition of video with uncompressed HDMI out and a resolution of 18MP.  I would buy that camera.  I won't buy the D800.  I likely won't buy the D600.  
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 10:40:54 am
I won't buy the D800.    

Why? The D800 has...
- better high ISO performance,
- better AF,
- better DR,
- more resolution,
- ...

than the D700.

I owned D3 and D3x, I know what I am talking about.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Morris Taub on September 13, 2012, 10:52:58 am
Why? The D800 has...
- better high ISO performance,
- better AF,
- better DR,
- more resolution,
- ...

than the D700.

I owned D3 and D3x, I know what I am talking about.

Cheers,
Bernard


I wouldn't buy the D800 either...not everyone needs 36mp files...18-24 would be plenty for me and my needs...I'd rather have better dr and iso noise control...I'd also like to see a d4 sensor (ok, it can be a new version in a year that's 24mp's) in a d800 body...man, that would be more than sufficient for all my photographic needs...hmmm, that and one of sony's rx1's under the christmas tree  :)
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 10:59:54 am
Why? The D800 has...
- better high ISO performance,
- better AF,
- better DR,
- more resolution,
- ...

than the D700.

I owned D3 and D3x, I know what I am talking about.

Cheers,
Bernard


Thank you for suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about just because I don't happen to agree with you.  

Better high ISO performance is nice if you routinely use high ISO settings.  Useless otherwise.  Better noise performance is a more generally useful improvement but that's simply a matter of technology improving, it's not something that the D800 has and no other camera does.  The D4 has better noise performance than its predecessors and I expect the D600 will have better noise performance than the D700.

Better AF?  The AF on the D700 is pretty damned good.  And there have been focus alignment issues with some D800 bodies.  

More resolution?  Sure, OK.  But the camera I'm suggesting as would be a good upgrade to the D700 also has more resolution.  Not everyone needs 30+ million pixels of resolution.

Better dynamic range?  HDR or some other form of blended exposures.  It's not so significantly greater that it's going to make HDR or other blending techniques obsolete.  Given advancements in technology, I expect the D600 will have better drange than the D700 too.  I expect that the camera I'm suggesting as a successor to the D700 would have better drange too.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: sean mills on September 13, 2012, 11:55:01 am
You guys do know that no one is forcing you to take 36mp files with the D800 right? You know it has other shooting resolutions right besides the native yeah?

Like 6144 x 4912, 6144 x 4080, 5520 x 3680, 4800 x 3200, 4608 x 3680, 4608 x 3056, 3680 x 2456, 3600 x 2400, 3072 x 2456, 3072 x 2040, 2400 x 1600

Also, I've compared the high ISO of the D800 to the D700 and 5D3, better than either in all real world applications in my estimation. Notably so when we resample to comparable resolutions. It's really quite an advancement. I've used it extensively since its release, on everything from studio portraiture, to on location landscapes, casual street photography, making use of all ISOs in the default range (I never enter expansion on any camera, they're disabled for a reason).
Of course it isn't a D4, that's a $6,000 camera. It's unrealistic to expect that for 2-3 grand before a few years have passed. I think getting the D3 sensor in the D700 for as cheap as it was, was a one time deal by Nikon.

Bernard does know what he is talking about, however that doesn't mean that anyone else with a differing opinion doesn't.
This place doesn't have to descend into incivility like DPR.

To those who don't feel that there is a true D700 successor, look into the a99. It seems right up your alley. Sony has some excellent features and some excellent glass (some key players not withstanding), I used to own the a900, I know what I'm talking about. ;D
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 12:34:27 pm
For the record, I wasn't suggesting Bernard doesn't know what he's talking about.  I was simply taking issue with his assertion that I don't because I disagree with his position.

WRT the other resolutions on the D800, why pay for something you aren't going to use?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Now, sure that could be said for many camera features that are included but never used, but when the sensor is such an important part of the camera and a big driver of the cost of the unit, it doesn't make a great deal of sense.

The new Sony?  So people have to sell of their Nikon gear and buy all new Sony gear?  You're on the wrong side of the bid/offer.  I did that when I switched from Canon to Nikon a couple years ago.  It does offer full HD at 60fps, so it does have something going for it.  ;D
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Hulyss on September 13, 2012, 12:56:51 pm
This D600 is for me a non event especially with this price. It is 50% plastic body, and sub pro level ala D7000 style. Saying this is the D700 successor is proving to the world you are high on LSD. No way... nor the D800.

So, to be clear, the D800 have too big files for a pro use like reportage; it is overkill. It need a huge logistic to stock the files and a lot of time to process the files. Many pros that I know who bought D800 and even sometime D4 made a step back. 200 or 300 D800's NEF out of a weeding can kill all motivation of every photographer. The D4 do not overkill at all the D3s. They made step back to D700 + D3s.

Even some mates from AFP (Agence France Presse) didn't liked the D4 and get back to the D3s.

Most important, the upper performances of the D800 over the D700 are totally overrated :) I extensively tested the D800 and ... was not that impressed. In a normal PRO use like weeding or reportage, to make money, to show to clients and agency, having a D800 is absolutely not mandatory. Even more, clients don't care at all.

D800 is fashion and architecture only, when we speak about reality of agency in 2012. D4 is for ppl who didn't had the chance to buy the D3s and want to go pro grade monopbloc body.

The D700 stay one if not the best reflex for pro today because he is well balanced at ALL levels (File size, ergonomic, ruggedness, autonomy, speed, AF).

Better way to spend money on glass, who are before all the most important.

Hooo :) I forgot to speak about the non event D600. Well, this is a body with a FX sensor, severely castrated at many level (1/4000...) unable to beat a simple DP2m at base ISO ...

The logic would have been to put the D4 16Mp FX sensor in a D800 body (thus more FPS for reportage, realist file size and better ISO).

Nikon did it bad and I think its time for PRO to realise it and start to say what need to be said, no ?


HOOO wait, we now have the D600, the D800, the D700 is discontinued ... Maybe there is something in the pipeline like the D700s ??? I keep dreaming and hoping. 16 MP is the way. No more.


Title: Re: D600
Post by: sean mills on September 13, 2012, 01:10:08 pm
Naw man, nobody has to do anything. Just an option, and looking over some of the desired specs out there...something between the D600 and D800, it's nearly ideal.
It fills the shoes of a D700 'successor' rather well actually.

To be honest I loved the Sony Zeiss glass, and the a900 was a wonderfully ergonomic body, and produced beautiful files, until I got into high ISO.... a99 seems to have caught it up in that department. But the AF spread EFV and a few other things make me happy to be currently invested with Nikon. I've used a lot of systems and a lot of cameras over the last 10 years, honestly Sony could be a solid 2nd to Nikon if they filled out their lens lineup with more pro lenses and stopped being so weird about certain things (proprietary formats, et al)

As far as not using all the res on the 800, well like you say, every camera has something, that you are paying for, that you will not use. Turning 36 down to 24 isn't nearly as much of a loss as say video for me. I never use it, I have no interest, but I have no choice but to pay for it. C'est la vive. And you have the added benefit of using all those 36 million pixels when and if you want.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 13, 2012, 01:14:50 pm
What I would consider to be a 'legitimate' upgrade to the D700 would be a retention of all of those features, addition of video with uncompressed HDMI out and a resolution of 18MP.  I would buy that camera.  I won't buy the D800.  I likely won't buy the D600.  

While I don't know that I would use the word 'legitimate', as it tends to include baggage, Nikon did not produce a D700 successor that maintained the same level of performance in all areas at a similar price. For someone interested in high-speed action the closest current model to a D700 with a grip is the D4. The current lineup is more diverse. The old lineup, while nice, was a bit weak at meeting more diverse needs at a particular price. I feel the current D600 + D800 + D4 lineup aligns with market segments at lower prices and improved functionality over the previous D700 + D3X + D3S lineup. What Nikon gave up was a high-speed FX body at the semi-pro price level for a high-resolution FX body (D800).

I do not believe Nikon intended to create a successor to the D700. Nikon wants to expand their market base and appeal to more segments.

In terms of matching up with the low-end FX user segment, the D600 provides what most people are looking to get out of FX at a lower price than the D700 was at introduction ~ 4 years ago. While the D800 may have been the successor to the D700 from a model number perspective the D600 is from a target market perspective (low-end FX). Nikon has a less expensive body to sell to people that want to move into FX with the D600. I think this will work well for them financially. The D800 has proven itself to be very successful financially.

Nikon will be missing out on semi-pro sports shooters that were using the D700+grip to get 8 fps. If you have a large investment in long, fast Nikon glass and shoot high-speed, the only financially reasonable path with Nikon is the D4. I am actually in this boat. While the D4 is quite an investment, so is the glass.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: kramer11x on September 13, 2012, 01:22:14 pm
No viewfinder shutter.  So still waiting for a higher resolution ( 18 -24 MP) D700 upgrade.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Hulyss on September 13, 2012, 01:29:32 pm
Hello lfeagan,

I understand what you say but there is something I can't understand in the situation.

There is no cheap FX way ... who dreamed that ? FX cost much more than DX to have the same range. It is why I don't understand the D600. People will buy it and why ? They will plug tamron lens on it ? C'mon.

I'm only 33 years old and I'm ones of the guy who think that photography is and need to be a serious activity. My grandma' always said : "If you do it, do it with style !".

Buying a D600 is somewhat a fault  ;D

So they force PRO photojournalists to go to D4 ...
Title: Re: D600
Post by: kers on September 13, 2012, 01:48:36 pm
The D700 stay one if not the best reflex for pro today because he is well balanced at ALL levels (File size, ergonomic, ruggedness, autonomy, speed, AF).
Better way to spend money on glass, who are before all the most important.

It is trivial to spend money on glass if you stay at 12MP; even my old nikkor 35mm d2 can fill the 36MP sensor i found out  ( d11 for the extreme corners)- it turns out to be a really good lens..
3000€ for the D800 is a bargain
the file sizes are handled with on my 2008 Mac pro with ease in 16 bit- but you can also shoot jpeg 10Mp if you like... a 2TB disk costs 100€ and can hold 40.000 images raw+ jpeg small
At this moment I am printing a 6400asa file shot with this 35mm nikkor- it looks gorgeous even 1 meter wide
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Chairman Bill on September 13, 2012, 02:09:58 pm
I don't understand this at all. 

What would be a "legitimate successor" to the D700?

The D700 with the D600's sensor? The rest of the D600 leaves me rather underwhelmed. And with companies like Wex Photographic selling the D800 at 2279, and the D600 at 1995, I'd prefer to spend the extra 275 and get the better camera.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: kers on September 13, 2012, 02:12:14 pm
the image mentioned

i never use noise reduction
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 02:18:32 pm
The D700 with the D600's sensor? The rest of the D600 leaves me rather underwhelmed. And with companies like Wex Photographic selling the D800 at 2279, and the D600 at 1995, I'd prefer to spend the extra 275 and get the better camera.

Interesting the pricing on the D800 in the UK.  Seems it's dropped a fair bit from when announced.  Here, still selling at the same $3000 so the price difference between the 800 and 600 is $900, or about double what it is there when converted to sterling.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 13, 2012, 03:47:41 pm
I understand what you say but there is something I can't understand in the situation.

There is no cheap FX way ... who dreamed that ? FX cost much more than DX to have the same range. It is why I don't understand the D600. People will buy it and why ? They will plug tamron lens on it ? C'mon.

Actually, that is precisely what I expect will happen. I hope you didn't infer that I thought buyers were going to make good decisions. :D
The majority of folks that buy the D600 will use only the kit or a Tamron lens. Also, they will probably buy a grand total of 1 lens other than the kit lens for their interchangeable lens body (and it will be some ghastly thing like an 18-300 mm f/3.5-5.6). I know quite a few people who own a digital SLR that have nothing other than the kit lens. They would have been just as well served buying a fixed-lens camera in most cases for a lower price.

I'm only 33 years old and I'm ones of the guy who think that photography is and need to be a serious activity. My grandma' always said : "If you do it, do it with style !".

Hunter S Thompson - "Anything worth doing, is worth doing right."

BTW, I am 32.

So they force PRO photojournalists to go to D4 ...

I don't think 'forcing' PJs to buy a more expensive camera was an accident. ::)
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 13, 2012, 03:53:23 pm
The D700 with the D600's sensor? The rest of the D600 leaves me rather underwhelmed. And with companies like Wex Photographic selling the D800 at 2279, and the D600 at 1995, I'd prefer to spend the extra 275 and get the better camera.

That pricing is unusual. In the US the D800 is around 30% more than the D600, which differentiates them clearly. Nikon may end up needing to adjust the UK prices on the D600.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 04:04:41 pm
The elitist lens talk is interesting.  The apparent thought for some is that if one isn't using Nikon lenses then one couldn't possibly be a professional and is choosing to accept lower image quality.  Complete bollocks on both counts.  Equally as ridiculous as the thought that if you don't own a 'pro' body you can't be a professional photographer. 

I discovered earlier today that the D800 in FX mode with a grip can get to 6fps.  That's workable.  I've shot hockey and auto racing at that frame rate and it's fine.  Hell, I've shot auto racing in single shot mode too.  And 16MP is more than enough.  Perhaps the D800 isn't quite as bad as I initially thought.  ;)
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 13, 2012, 04:25:36 pm
The elitist lens talk is interesting.  The apparent thought for some is that if one isn't using Nikon lenses then one couldn't possibly be a professional and is choosing to accept lower image quality.  Complete bollocks on both counts.  Equally as ridiculous as the thought that if you don't own a 'pro' body you can't be a professional photographer.  

If there is anything that is complete, it is your lack of understanding of what was being said. I can't see that anyone made those statements in this thread. Similar to the 35mm film days, the reason PJs buy professional bodies is largely durability. You can obviously be a professional photographer without a durable body. However, you may end up spending more fixing/replacing bodies than it would have cost to buy a more durable one in the first place. It should be viewed as simple economics. Secondly, the talk of "Tamron" lenses wasn't meant specifically to deride a particular brand as being incapable of creating acceptable lenses, rather it was meant to generally refer to the use of lenses which did not allow you to take full advantage of the capabilities an particular body provides. Once again, this is just about economics. If you do not intend to buy lenses capable of taking advantage of a particular body, then it would make sense to spend less money on the body. All too often I see people spend their entire wad on an expensive body and then attach a lens that cripples them in use. These days I rarely recommend buying a SLR to anyone unless they have specialized needs that it addresses well. Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are a much better route for most folks.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 05:53:02 pm
There are more kinds of professional photographers than just photojournalists.  I'm more than well aware of why some professionals buy the gear that they do. Let me assure you that my understanding is quite complete.  That you've taken such an affront to my remarks and resorted to ad hominem retorts serves to to little but confirm my previous statement.

It must be nice to have the funds, or the credit line, to be able to afford all the gear in your sig line.  I never have really understood that particular bit of narcissism.  Not all of us are so fortunate; however so must be more careful in how resources are allocated.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 06:18:34 pm
Thank you for suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about just because I don't happen to agree with you.  

That's absolutely not what I meant, nor is it what I wrote.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 06:29:21 pm
For the record, I wasn't suggesting Bernard doesn't know what he's talking about.  I was simply taking issue with his assertion that I don't because I disagree with his position.

Again, I never asserted that.

I am just looking at the D800 from a photographic performance standpoint (does it perform one generation better than the D700 along the relevant photographic metricss), you seem to be looking at it from a spec standpoint (does it use the same sensor as Nikon's sports camera or not).

The only thing I said is that, having used myself a D3, I can confidently write that the D800 performs one generation better than the D3/D700.

How you transform that into me commenting about you not knowing what you talk about is... puzzling.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: dreed on September 13, 2012, 06:49:33 pm
This D600 is for me a non event especially with this price. It is 50% plastic body
...

It isn't plastic, it is polycarbonate.

For more information about polycarbonate, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarbonate

The obsession with magnesium-alloy is bizarre. I've yet to see anyone complain about a camera breaking because it wasn't a magnesium alloy. Does anyone know of any specific evidence (pics, viddeos) of a camera failing because it was polycarbonate and not magnesium alloy?

The *only* time there was any real concern was during the 1990s when the very cheap SLRs had plastic lens mount rings and similarly really cheap lenses had a plastic mount on the back of them too.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: rogan on September 13, 2012, 07:02:47 pm
Actually if you downsample the d800 to 12 mp it is better and more accurate at focusing than the d700. 12 mp let's you get away with a lot
Title: Re: D600
Post by: craigwashburn on September 13, 2012, 07:11:18 pm
Actually if you downsample the d800 to 12 mp it is better and more accurate at focusing than the d700. 12 mp let's you get away with a lot

The D800 is also wonderfully clean when downsampled.  Much cleaner than the D3 at high ISO with better color, detail etc.

I've never tried downsampling on camera by adjusting the resolution, but I don't think it would be any different than doing it in post.  Perhaps the "18-24MP successor to the D700" is simply the D800 with the resolution set to a lower number.



Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 13, 2012, 08:20:06 pm
The obsession with magnesium-alloy is bizarre. I've yet to see anyone complain about a camera breaking because it wasn't a magnesium alloy. Does anyone know of any specific evidence (pics, viddeos) of a camera failing because it was polycarbonate and not magnesium alloy?

The *only* time there was any real concern was during the 1990s when the very cheap SLRs had plastic lens mount rings and similarly really cheap lenses had a plastic mount on the back of them too.

Good point! Polycarbonate is really strong and impact resistant. Many impact-resistant goods are made from it. One of the few disadvantages is exposure to ketones will degrade it. Also, UV can cause it to become brittle. And, not to ignore facts, but magnesium is very stiff stuff, like 20 times greater (Young's modulus), and really tough to deflect.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 13, 2012, 08:33:09 pm
Again, I never asserted that.

I am just looking at the D800 from a photographic performance standpoint (does it perform one generation better than the D700 along the relevant photographic metricss), you seem to be looking at it from a spec standpoint (does it use the same sensor as Nikon's sports camera or not).

The only thing I said is that, having used myself a D3, I can confidently write that the D800 performs one generation better than the D3/D700.

How you transform that into me commenting about you not knowing what you talk about is... puzzling.

Cheers,
Bernard


And I didn't suggest the D800 wasn't a good camera nor that it didn't perform better than its predecessors.  In point of fact I said exactly the opposite.  It is not; however, a D300/D300s type of advancement.  Nor is it a D90/D7000 type of advancement.  Nor a D3/D3s/D4 type of progression.  It's placed higher in the model line than the D700 and the D600 is placed lower.  It appears that the D700 has been orphaned.  Perhaps there'll be more announcements in the coming days.  But for now, that's what it appears. 

As I said previously, the D700 was and is a very fine camera that met the needs of a wide variety of photographers.  With these two new cameras, it seems as though Nikon may be moving away from offering such a wide ranging feature set in a single camera and being more, for lack of a better term, narrow in its approach.  And that may come at a significant cost. 

Nikon set a precedent with the D700.  In some ways a similar precedent as Canon set with the 5D.  Canon has, seemingly, been willing to continue on in that vein where Nikon perhaps has not.  At the rate that D800's appear to be flying off store shelves, maybe it was the right move.  For Nikon, not necessarily for the end user. 
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 13, 2012, 08:53:46 pm
It's placed higher in the model line than the D700 and the D600 is placed lower.  It appears that the D700 has been orphaned.  Perhaps there'll be more announcements in the coming days.  But for now, that's what it appears.  

The D800 was released at the same absolute price point as the D700 when it was released, so I am not sure why you consider it placed higher besides for the number, but that only indicates a change of generation?

Considering the inflation that happened in 5 years in most countries, the D800 is de facto cheaper than the d700 was. There are of course some exchange rate issues making this a bit more complex since the US$ lost 60% of its value relative to the Yen in the meantime.

As I said previously, the D700 was and is a very fine camera that met the needs of a wide variety of photographers.  With these two new cameras, it seems as though Nikon may be moving away from offering such a wide ranging feature set in a single camera and being more, for lack of a better term, narrow in its approach.  And that may come at a significant cost.  

What exactly can the D700 do that the D800 cannot?

I have been using it for landscape, street shooting, action, architecture and some portrait recently and just cannot find anything it doesn't do much better than the D3/D3x and by extension the D700.

The only thing coming to mind is framerate, that's it.

Nikon set a precedent with the D700.  In some ways a similar precedent as Canon set with the 5D.  Canon has, seemingly, been willing to continue on in that vein where Nikon perhaps has not.  At the rate that D800's appear to be flying off store shelves, maybe it was the right move.  For Nikon, not necessarily for the end user.  

Again, what is the actual downside of the D800 compared to the D700 for the end users?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: jeremypayne on September 13, 2012, 09:12:51 pm
Again, what is the actual downside of the D800 compared to the D700 for the end users?

Agreed ... all these posts and I still don't get it.

The D800 IS the D700 replacement.  The D600 is something new.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: chex on September 13, 2012, 09:41:50 pm
The D700 was an anomaly. A bonus. It makes no sense for a manufacturer to sell effectively the same camera for 4000 and 1800 simultaneously. Maybe the only reason it existed was because of Nikon's spat with Sony.

If you want a D4, save up. Quit whining.

Regarding the 5D precedent -  Canon had the expensive, lower res but faster large body and a slower hi-res smaller body. This is exactly what Nikon is doing now, and as far as we know maybe what it always wanted to do.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Hulyss on September 14, 2012, 03:16:24 am
Yes, I assume I'm maybe a little elitist with material, and I like it, seriously. Is it complete bollocks to be elitist ? I don't think so, and I'm not here to justify why I buy Nikon or Zeiss primes over Tamron or Sigma devices. It is kinda obvious (and I do not have that much money, I spend wisely and take my time). It is like going on stage with Peter Jackson and saying : "Hey dude !! you complete moron with your pricey RED Epics, you elitist crap !! ... why not using a simple camcoder, seriously ?? "

That said, I do not like the way taken by Nikon since the D7000, speaking about body. D800, D600, D4 with useless card slot ... look like Nikon is sold to Sony. I am for independent companies who can make the choices they want and I don't think Nikon is very free in this story.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW why on hearth Sony... sorry, Nikon, do not use the good 16MP sensor of the D4 in a D800 body !!
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Fips on September 14, 2012, 03:30:44 am
Quote
I am for independent companies who can make the choices they want and I don't think Nikon is very free in this story.

Yes, but this is simply not possible as technology advances. At some point, some devices, sensors in our case, become so sophisticated and design and production so expensive that there is just a market for a very small number of manufacturers.

I'd rather have a Nikon with a very good Sony sensor instead of a mediocre Nikon in-house chip.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Ligament on September 14, 2012, 04:22:03 am
I just want to quote the progressively demented and full of BS Ken Rockwell on the D600. I can't read his site anymore. Unfortunate thing is he has wide reader base and naive consumers make purchase decisions based on how easily his cameras photograph his children.

"The D600 also runs faster and has much better resolution than the D800"

"24 MP is more than twice as many as anyone needs for anything"

"24MP is the optimum resolution for FX."

"The biggest things I see compared to the Nikon D800 are smaller size, optimum resolution (D800 has too much!), a smaller sea of AF sensors, faster frame rate, less weight, and a much lower price.

Unless I discover something seriously missing when my own D600 arrives, I will no longer be recommending the D800 and D800E for anything other than testing lenses. The D800 and D800E are a pain to use in the field for their lack of programmable presets, and cost too much."

Title: Re: D600
Post by: Hulyss on September 14, 2012, 04:44:53 am
I do not want to start polemic but ... this is all about business, not facts. Ken seems to survive with his site, and it is his business. I do not think he had that much click on his D800 / D800E links but he know that the D600 tend to be a best seller. So he drive customer base to click in mass on his links to buy the mainstream sony D600, thus making money for him. He is not that crazy after all ;)

(but yea... when you read it, the first batch of his review is like the speech of a starving hobo ;D )
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2012, 05:25:57 am
I JUST WANT TO KNOW why on hearth Sony... sorry, Nikon, do not use the good 16MP sensor of the D4 in a D800 body !!

Because:
- the D4 sensor is only 16mp and the market for the D600 needs 24mp,
- the sensor of the D600 is probably much cheaper,
- chances are that it is also one of the best for DR and higj ISO.

As far as Sony controlling Nikon, it is probably just the other way around. Nikon is be very far the largest customer of the imaging sensor division of Sony. We would probably not have Exmor if Nikon had not funded the development... Sony's own SLRs are far from representing enough volume.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Josh-H on September 14, 2012, 05:33:55 am
Quote
As far as Sony controlling Nikon, it is probably just the other way around. Nikon is be very far the largest customer of the imaging sensor division of Sony. We would probably not have Exmor if Nikon had not funded the development... Sony's own SLRs are far from representing enough volume.

Not to question you on this Bernard... but are you sure Nikon funded Sony on the Exmor?

Given the depth of Sony's pockets I find this very hard to believe. In fact it sounds like Nikon fan boy spin to me.

I think the reverse is true - I think its highly likely Nikon would be dead in the water today (or at best struggling to keep pace with the others) without Sony sensors. If Nikon had the capability to deliver a sensor like the exmore on its own it would have done long before it payed Sony. In fact, if the D800 did not have such an impressive sensor I think virtually no one would buy it as its ergonomics are in my opinion an absolute abortion (and thats being kind). Not to bash Nikon though - the D4 has wonderful ergonomics.

Personally, I think Sony is very cleverly getting a leg into the industry through Nikon and would not be surprised to see them punt Nikon down the road 'if' they can get their own DSLR sales up to a reasonable level. Wether this happens is questionable. Irrespective however, lets remember its Sony at the heart of the Nikon - not the other way around.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: dreed on September 14, 2012, 06:23:29 am
Good point! Polycarbonate is really strong and impact resistant. Many impact-resistant goods are made from it. One of the few disadvantages is exposure to ketones will degrade it.

I'm pretty sure that giving any camera a bath in a substance such as acetone will not be good for it, which is to say that this issue is not likely to be cause for concern for anyone and more to the point is if it is then you should probably have your camera sealed up inside something else because the environment is not very equipment friendly. The parts of your camera that are actually plastic, such as the buttons, wheels, LCD screens, etc, are all not going to be very happy if exposed to unfriendly material long before the body decides it no longer wants to play.

Quote
Also, UV can cause it to become brittle.

Unless you leave your camera in the middle of the Sahara Desert for some number of years, I doubt this is going to be cause for concern.

Quote
And, not to ignore facts, but magnesium is very stiff stuff,

May be, but I sure as hell wouldn't want a camera made from pure magnesium as it just wouldn't be a very good all-weather device due to magnesium's reactivity.

Quote
like 20 times greater (Young's modulus), and really tough to deflect.

Every magnesium-alloy camera body I own that has been painted black is nice and shiny silver along the bottom because it has been slung over my shoulder enough times for the paint to have worn off (in other places too!) If those cameras were pure magnesium, those bodies would have huge holes in them already due to paint wearing off and the metal oxidising when wet.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: mac_paolo on September 14, 2012, 06:57:22 am
I just noticed that D600 has no AF-ON button near the AE/AF-L.
I use the AF-ON on almost 95% of the shots. D600 may not be a chance for me anymore :(
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2012, 09:24:16 am
Not to question you on this Bernard... but are you sure Nikon funded Sony on the Exmor?

euh... Considering the fact that Nikon must have sold at least 10 times more APS-C/FF sensors that Sony did in their own cameras, it seems pretty obvious that Sony semi-Conductor made a return on their investment thanks to Nikon.

Do you disagree with this business analysis?

If you don't, and assuming that you have some knowledge of B2B buiness in Japan, you will agree with me that Nikon has a major influence on the strategic decisions of Sony sensor division.

Given the depth of Sony's pockets I find this very hard to believe. In fact it sounds like Nikon fan boy spin to me.

Please stop projecting your views of the world on me. I own 2 Sony cameras at the present time and like the company for reasons I will not make public here. I am not a Nikon stock holder and don't care the least bit about who controls who. It simply doesn't make any difference for me, I am just an observer here.

But since it seems you have you own insights, how about explaining us why Sony decided to release their new flagship with a 24mp sensor instead of their own 36mp marvel that would be the only selling point of the D800?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: dreed on September 14, 2012, 09:46:21 am
...
But since it seems you have you own insights, how about explaining us why Sony decided to release their new flagship with a 24mp sensor instead of their own 36mp marvel that would be the only selling point of the D800?

Since anyone that does know why won't comment and only those that don't know will, I figure that lets me have a word or two :)

The two main possibilities are:
(a) the sensor is fabricated by Sony but designed by Nikon. The contract Nikon has with Sony's fabrication business is such that the part of Sony responsible for sensor design never gets to see it;
(b) Nikon is paying a premium for the sensor as part of an exclusive use period for the design.

Others include:
(c) Sony needs to attract people to the platform and they don't see slow shooting cameras with lots of megapixels as the way to do that. They'd rather have a smaller number of megapixels that can shoot faster because this is what most of the photographers that you see on TV news have in their hands.
(d) The demands that 36MP puts on shooting style are not at one with those who Sony sees as being their target market and thus they were concerned about lots of people ending up with "soft photos".
(e) The sensor-based image stabilisation that Sony use is not yet ready for a 36MP sensor.
(f) Sony isn't convinced that the world+dog wants 36MP (bigger files need larger hard drives and faster computers) right now and is willing to sit back and watch..
(g) A variation on (c) is that the brief from marketing about what would help Sony get a bigger part of the DSLR pie did not include lots more megapixels at the time it was being designed.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Colorado David on September 14, 2012, 09:57:33 am
Perhaps Bernard gets this since he lives in Japan, but a lot other people don't.  Everyone tries to project a western business model of competition on Japanese business.  While they are free to compete and certainly do, there is a larger component of national pride in the way they do business.  There is room in the market for Canon and Nikon and Sony and they all want to do well for themselves, but they also want to perform well out of a sense of national pride.  I am not suggesting that their competing products are coordinated, just that there isn't the same priority placed on burying your competition.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 14, 2012, 10:08:50 am
Chex, Canon actually had 2 large bodies, the 1D and 1Ds lines.  They've now 'combined' the two large bodies into one but have continued on with incremental improvements to the 5D.  

Bernard, wrt inflation you're probably talking about headline inflation (e.g., CPI).  CPI isn't a good gauge because it includes highly volatile components such as food and energy.  The more relevant figure; and the one policy makers follow, is core inflation which removes that volatility.  Core inflation in the last, just over, 4 years (not 5 since the D700 was announced in July 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D700)) has been in the range of 2% per year in most of the G8 countries (not sure about the G20 but it has some less stable countries in it) and includes, for many countries, a deflationary period in late 2008 and much of 2009.  This is very, very low and would not lead, on that basis alone, to any significant increase in prices over that time.  It is; however, a fact that electronics and computer components exhibit disinflation in pricing.  That's why we get successive generations of equipment with better performance at the same or better prices.  As far as the JPY/USD exchange rate losing 60% of its value, on July 14, 2008 (I'm using that as a proxy for the announce date of the D700 since I don't know the exact date), the Yen was at 106.8.  It is now at 77.65.  That is a drop of about 27.3%.  Not near the 60% you tout.  Factoring in the two components of price disinflation and the exchange rate, without access to some modeling I'd suggest there's probably more profit in the D800 than there was in the D700 which would, on a relative basis, put it higher in the model line than the D700.

The target market of the D600 - if it's presumed to be people moving up from DX bodies, and to borrow a couple other people's thoughts that they'll use it with a Tamron all-in-one lens or the basic kit lens - "needs" 24MP?  Wants?  I'll grant wants.  Needs?  Not so much.

Josh, given the money that Sony has been bleeding for the past number of years, their pockets ain't all that deep.

David, I worked for a Japanese company for 6 years.  Believe me, they want to beat their fellow Japanese competitors just as badly as N.A. companies do.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2012, 10:15:55 am
Perhaps Bernard gets this since he lives in Japan, but a lot other people don't.  Everyone tries to project a western business model of competition on Japanese business.  While they are free to compete and certainly do, there is a larger component of national pride in the way they do business.  There is room in the market for Canon and Nikon and Sony and they all want to do well for themselves, but they also want to perform well out of a sense of national pride.  I am not suggesting that their competing products are coordinated, just that there isn't the same priority placed on burying your competition.

Yes, that is very true. Besides, Sony is a large corporation with a very serious business situation ahead of them. Their business units have fery stringent profitability objectives and Sony Semi Conductor's imaging sensor unit's CMOS sensor effort is profitable thanks to the business Nikon as been providing them for 8+ years.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Chairman Bill on September 14, 2012, 11:11:35 am
Looking over the D600 specs, the fewer focussing points is of note, though fewer, but more spaced out over the screen would suit me just fine (I tend to find a point at about hyperfocal distance & focus there, or do so manually). I could live with the less good AF. Weather sealing looks OK, & I could live with that. The ability to close off the view-finder when tripod mounting the camera is a big issue for me. The D600 doesn't seem to have this feature. The clip-in cover on the D200 worked, but only until I lost it. Is it a deal breaker? Maybe.

The D600 is smaller & lighter (definite advantage when yomping over the mountains) than the D700, which is in its favour, but not a deal-maker.

A 24mp sensor is a big deal, and what makes it a tempting proposition. But that D800/D600 price differential just makes me think a D800 makes more sense.

Actually, looking at the cost, just sticking with the perfectly good D700 makes most sense, but where's the fun in being sensible?
Title: Re: D600
Post by: FredBGG on September 14, 2012, 11:36:35 am
Unless you are invested in Canon lenses, there is simply zero reason to pick the 5DII.

Cheers,
Bernard


Having many Canon lenses should not make much difference. Canon lenses sell used at close enough to new prices to easily replace them with mint nikon equivalents. Been there.. done that... ;)
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Morris Taub on September 14, 2012, 12:51:19 pm
Looking over the D600 specs, the fewer focussing points is of note, though fewer, but more spaced out over the screen would suit me just fine (I tend to find a point at about hyperfocal distance & focus there, or do so manually). I could live with the less good AF. Weather sealing looks OK, & I could live with that. The ability to close off the view-finder when tripod mounting the camera is a big issue for me. The D600 doesn't seem to have this feature. The clip-in cover on the D200 worked, but only until I lost it. Is it a deal breaker? Maybe.

The D600 is smaller & lighter (definite advantage when yomping over the mountains) than the D700, which is in its favour, but not a deal-maker.

A 24mp sensor is a big deal, and what makes it a tempting proposition. But that D800/D600 price differential just makes me think a D800 makes more sense.

Actually, looking at the cost, just sticking with the perfectly good D700 makes most sense, but where's the fun in being sensible?

I'm going to take the sensible and maybe less fun path for the moment. Keep using my d700. It does all I need. I would like up to 24mp down the road a bit, but am willing to wait 12-18 months. See what else might come. See how prices shake out a bit. Right now, here in france, the d600 is listed for 2100 euros and the d800 for 2769. That's not a huge difference, so I think I'd go D800 if i needed a camera body today.

Like Bernard pointed out, the D700 was introduced at 2800. About nine months later I was able to pick one up via Grays in England for 1620 euros. They had gone down to around 2200 euros in france at the time. So, maybe within a year a minty new D800 would make a nice upgrade for me.

The D600 isn't that much smaller or lighter than my d700 so there's no draw there. I'd definitely want to hold and play with both bodies. See how they fit in my hand. I love the fit and feel of the d700. I'm curious to see image quality compared between the D600 and the D800 shot at around 24mp in size. I also keep hoping for something even smaller and lighter from nikon with an fx sensor. Maybe in 18 months?...

Right now my printing is no larger than 12 inches on the longest side. A while back I did a test print with a pro lab in Paris. I sent them a cropped nef, maybe a third cropped, for a test on a b&w print. It came back and looked great. Print size is 13x23 inches. This is why I'm hanging on to my d700. I've got what I need for today.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Chairman Bill on September 14, 2012, 01:36:44 pm
Morris

I'm keeping my D700 too. I've printed at 16"x24" & all looks just fine. I reckon I could go to 20"x30" without major difficulties. I don't expect to be printing any bigger than that just yet.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Rob C on September 14, 2012, 01:54:25 pm
I'm going to take the sensible and maybe less fun path for the moment. Keep using my d700. It does all I need. I would like up to 24mp down the road a bit, but am willing to wait 12-18 months. See what else might come. See how prices shake out a bit. Right now, here in france, the d600 is listed for 2100 euros and the d800 for 2769. That's not a huge difference, so I think I'd go D800 if i needed a camera body today.

Like Bernard pointed out, the D700 was introduced at 2800. About nine months later I was able to pick one up via Grays in England for 1620 euros. They had gone down to around 2200 euros in france at the time. So, maybe within a year a minty new D800 would make a nice upgrade for me.

The D600 isn't that much smaller or lighter than my d700 so there's no draw there. I'd definitely want to hold and play with both bodies. See how they fit in my hand. I love the fit and feel of the d700. I'm curious to see image quality compared between the D600 and the D800 shot at around 24mp in size. I also keep hoping for something even smaller and lighter from nikon with an fx sensor. Maybe in 18 months?...

Right now my printing is no larger than 12 inches on the longest side. A while back I did a test print with a pro lab in Paris. I sent them a cropped nef, maybe a third cropped, for a test on a b&w print. It came back and looked great. Print size is 13x23 inches. This is why I'm hanging on to my d700. I've got what I need for today.
[/b]


And so, I suspect, has everyone else. But that wouldn't be fun, would it?

Rob C
Title: Re: D600
Post by: mac_paolo on September 14, 2012, 02:18:58 pm
It's wise not to fall in the megapixel race. It's naive to think that a newer camera could be ignored because too many pixels are not needed.
Print size is above all related to sensor resolution, but you all know much better than me that there are tons of camera features which should be taken into account other than that.
D700 was and is a great camera, but it has been really exceeded with newer models.

I would upgrade for the greater DR, the video capabilities and a -lot- of other needless to mention small improvements. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 14, 2012, 06:54:42 pm
Bernard, wrt inflation you're probably talking about headline inflation (e.g., CPI).  CPI isn't a good gauge because it includes highly volatile components such as food and energy.  The more relevant figure; and the one policy makers follow, is core inflation which removes that volatility.  Core inflation in the last, just over, 4 years (not 5 since the D700 was announced in July 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D700)) has been in the range of 2% per year in most of the G8 countries (not sure about the G20 but it has some less stable countries in it) and includes, for many countries, a deflationary period in late 2008 and much of 2009.  This is very, very low and would not lead, on that basis alone, to any significant increase in prices over that time.  It is; however, a fact that electronics and computer components exhibit disinflation in pricing.  That's why we get successive generations of equipment with better performance at the same or better prices.  As far as the JPY/USD exchange rate losing 60% of its value, on July 14, 2008 (I'm using that as a proxy for the announce date of the D700 since I don't know the exact date), the Yen was at 106.8.  It is now at 77.65.  That is a drop of about 27.3%.  Not near the 60% you tout.  Factoring in the two components of price disinflation and the exchange rate, without access to some modeling I'd suggest there's probably more profit in the D800 than there was in the D700 which would, on a relative basis, put it higher in the model line than the D700.

Now maturity of the market segment should also be considered. The main domain influencing these consumer ekectronics stats is probably flat screen TVs that have been going down in price tremendously and are a high price high volume item. If you look at more mature segments like laptops forexample, the deflatory trend is a lot less obvious.

It can be argued that DSLRs are a very mature segment, and has been for a long time.

Besides, the 5DIII is more expensive than the 5DII although it occupies the exact same spot in the line up, so there may be specific factors that escape a general analysis of consumer electronics. But Canon may just be sharing the cost of the poor yen exchange rate to japanese customers...

Anyway, I don't see any obvious hint that Nikon intended to position the D800 higher relative to their own line up, nor to the rest of the DSLR market.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: deejjjaaaa on September 14, 2012, 08:47:06 pm
raw files posted by imaging resource = http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600THMB.HTM
Title: Re: D600
Post by: RFPhotography on September 14, 2012, 10:52:16 pm
Market maturity plays a part.  But in the field of economic statistics, markets can take decades and longer to reach 'maturity'.  Autos, for example, is a mature market segment.  Autos have been around for over 100 years.  By comparison, digital cameras have been popular for about 10 - about the same length of time as flat screen TV's have been popular.  I got my first computer when I was in university, about 27 years ago.  I can buy a much better laptop today than I could 4 years ago when I got the one I have now and do it for much less money.  I just bought a new desktop a few weeks ago.  Far and away a superior machine to what I had previously and for $400 less than I paid then.  Further, the numbers are calculated on a huge number of products so one single item, such as large screen TV's couldn't dominate.  Further still, something like electronics would have a pretty low proportion in the overall weighting of inflation so, again, it could not dominate.  As of around 6 years ago in the U.S., housing costs made up 29% of the CPI calculation, for example.  There's more to the calculation of inflation than just numbers; however.  Hedonics play a part.  I'm not sure what impact hedonics would have on the component of the CPI that digital cameras would be a part of.  Might be an increase or a decrease in price, but probably a decrease.  As of that same, about, 6 year ago time hedonics was only used in 7 of the 211 components of the CPI, and I don't know if electronics is one of those.  Each of those 211 components will be made up numerous sub-components.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: chex on September 16, 2012, 11:15:33 am
Seeing as you can get the D800 in the UK for not much more than 100 I'll probably end up getting that instead.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Chairman Bill on September 16, 2012, 12:14:20 pm
For 100? I'll have two  ;)
Title: Re: D600
Post by: mac_paolo on September 19, 2012, 06:41:12 pm
D600 on DxO Mark: 94 pts

LINK (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D600-sets-high-bar-for-sensor-image-quality/Measurement)
Title: Re: D600 arrived
Post by: aboudd on September 21, 2012, 07:25:44 am
I got my D600 yesterday. Aside from the fact that Lightroom and ACR do not yet support it, there is little to complain about. For $2100 I got a spectacular 24 mgpx sensor with a familiar ergonomic layout. The body feels good in hand, actually a hair small for me (big hands) the balance is good, the viewfinder 100% and quite bright. The camera is also quiet without using the quiet setting. I cannot find any features that I would use missing. The first shots were quite satisfying. When I finish them I will post a few.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: MatthewCromer on September 21, 2012, 09:54:45 am
euh... Considering the fact that Nikon must have sold at least 10 times more APS-C/FF sensors that Sony did in their own cameras, it seems pretty obvious that Sony semi-Conductor made a return on their investment thanks to Nikon.


Actually, Nikon is selling about 2 - 2.5x as many interchangeable lens APS-C bodies as Sony, not 10x.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 21, 2012, 12:24:58 pm
Actually, Nikon is selling about 2 - 2.5x as many interchangeable lens APS-C bodies as Sony, not 10x.

Indeed, the NEX-effect is quite strong. Without NEX the gap would be much larger for APS-C SLR bodies.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: MatthewCromer on September 21, 2012, 01:33:31 pm
Indeed, the NEX-effect is quite strong. Without NEX the gap would be much larger for APS-C SLR bodies.

The 2.5x was from 2010 before NEX started showing up in the sales charts, now it's about 2 Nikon APS cameras for 1 Sony.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 21, 2012, 05:12:18 pm
Actually, Nikon is selling about 2 - 2.5x as many interchangeable lens APS-C bodies as Sony, not 10x.

Care to share your data? The market share of Nikon in DSLR has been in the high 30% for years while Sony was well below 10% until the NEX range was released.

So all in all, it may not be 10 times, but I cannot be that far off.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: aboudd on September 21, 2012, 08:20:47 pm
First outing with the D600 I got yesterday. The attached shot is one of many busts at the George Washington Masonic temple. I shot this one handheld with the 17-35, at 35MM, ISO 1600 (NR turned off), 1/60s @f8. I used fill flash dialed back 1.3 f stops. I applied a curve adjustment and minor perspective correction. Noise corrected in Nik dfine. Finally, I used smart sharpen. I'm going to try the camera in a low light situation again, this time with NR turned on and see if that makes any difference. Exposures at 3200 and 6400 ISO were ugly. I think the maximum usable ISO with NR off is 1600, the same it was with the D3x I had.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 21, 2012, 09:40:50 pm
I found the DSLR Global Marketshare percentages for 2010:

Source: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/canon-destroys-nikon-in-dslr-marketshare/
Also Useful: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-15/sony-nikon-narrow-gap-to-canon-with-new-digital-camera-models.html
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 21, 2012, 09:57:08 pm
I found a chart with additional interesting data.
(http://i1266.photobucket.com/albums/jj524/picrumors/olympus_omd_presentation_3_to_YouDidntDidYou.jpg)
Source: http://www.43rumors.com/impressive-in-japan-mirrorless-suprasses-dslr-amrket-share-olympus-to-catch-up-with-nikoncanon/

As of July 2011, by mount-type it looks like:

Title: Re: D600
Post by: Ellis Vener on September 22, 2012, 01:15:58 pm
I find it hard to believe that in a set of forums devoted to photography, intelligent people are arguing about market share between brands and formats. I mean who really the f_ck cares about how many cameras are being sold by brand a,b, or c or what size format masses of people are buying except for the people inside the companies and their marketing firms?

Are you just bored? Are you trying to see if your computer and internet connection still work?

Now if you want to talk about "is this camera and system I am thinking about buying really appropriate to my real and perceived needs?" that is a valid subject of conversation. But arguing about market share? Pffft.

Do yourself a favor and get off your ass go make some photos.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Codger on September 22, 2012, 02:58:21 pm
Agreed.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: MatthewCromer on September 22, 2012, 03:34:50 pm
I mean who really the f_ck cares about how many cameras are being sold by brand a,b, or c or what size format masses of people are buying except for the people inside the companies and their marketing firms?


I certainly care.  I want my lens mount to be viable and that requires a certain volume of sales to keep it that way.

Bernard made a completely off base comment about Sony versus Nikon market share, and I corrected it (lfeagan posted the relevant stats for 2010, I have not found a total market share analysis for 2011 but some partial data sets suggest my 2:1 estimate are in line with the reality).  A 10:1 estimate is simply out in left field and unnecessarily discourages people from even considering Alpha mount gear.

Title: Re: D600
Post by: LesPalenik on September 22, 2012, 09:52:26 pm
I found those sales figures useful (not for my compositions, but nevertheless).
Thank you for taking time finding and posting it.

Title: Re: D600
Post by: BernardLanguillier on September 22, 2012, 10:48:42 pm
Sorry for the delay in replying, I was out shooting and stand corrected.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8172/8014777605_c57510a433.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: D600
Post by: MatthewCromer on September 25, 2012, 09:30:37 am
Sorry for the delay in replying, I was out shooting and stand corrected.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8172/8014777605_c57510a433.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard


Lovely picture!
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Ellis Vener on September 25, 2012, 09:33:35 am
I certainly care.  I want my lens mount to be viable and that requires a certain volume of sales to keep it that way.
That is a very valid point and one I had not considered.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: mac_paolo on September 25, 2012, 12:45:36 pm
If still haven't seen this, it's a remarkable short movie shot with D600's alone.

CHASING THE LIGHT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7mHelhIwxE)
Title: Re: D600
Post by: lfeagan on September 25, 2012, 01:50:55 pm
I find it hard to believe that in a set of forums devoted to photography, intelligent people are arguing about market share between brands and formats. I mean who really the f_ck cares about how many cameras are being sold by brand a,b, or c or what size format masses of people are buying except for the people inside the companies and their marketing firms?

Are you just bored? Are you trying to see if your computer and internet connection still work?

Now if you want to talk about "is this camera and system I am thinking about buying really appropriate to my real and perceived needs?" that is a valid subject of conversation. But arguing about market share? Pffft.

Do yourself a favor and get off your ass go make some photos.

I don't know if these comments were directed at me or not; I certainly hope they were not.

I had never given much (any) thought as to what the market share numbers were prior to this thread. I had some guesses about what the market share might look like, which I found were off.

I haven't directly considered market share as part of my decision when purchasing, camera or otherwise. I own many neanderthal woodworking tools--hardly a market share leader. I don't imagine I will change my habits ever.

Purchase decisions can be indirectly influenced by market share as larger players generally have a more diverse selection of lenses and more third party lenses and accessories. These factors can result in a lower cost and an increased range of capabilities. It seems like mFTS is starting to benefit from this, but it has taken quite a while for third parties to come out with niche lenses. Please note, I said "generally" not "always". There are specialty companies in the market that create niche products, though generally at a premium price.
Title: Re: D600
Post by: Ellis Vener on September 25, 2012, 02:49:25 pm
lfeagan: My  comment wasn't directed at you