Nikon D600

tester777 said:
Just use FF camera and crop what you want :) You're using D7000 which has 16MP. A full frame sensor with 24MP will resolve your problem. It would give you exactly what you've got with your D7000.
Click to expand...

Except your maths is wrong, you need 36MP to get the same pixel density on full frame as you would on a d7000.
 
More specs are coming:

  • 39 AF points (with an option of 11 AF points)
  • 5 fps (same as the D700, the D800 has 4fps)
  • 2 SD card slots with Eye-fi support
  • Build-in retouching images functionality
  • Built-in flash with sync speed of 1/250s
  • Two user settings: U1 and U2
  • Fn button
  • GPS
  • HD video
  • The sensor inside the D600 will probably be 24MP (made by Sony, modified by Nikon)
  • The new camera will be marketed as an entry level full frame camera
  • Auto DX crop mode
  • In-camera RAW editor
  • Built in time-lapse functionality
  • Possibly with build-in HDR
  • Possibly with integrated GPS
  • New external battery grip
  • To be released this summer
  • The D600 will probably not have an internal AF motor, which means it will work only with AF-S lenses (just like the D3200 and D5100)
  • The price of the D600 is rumored to be very low - maybe as low as $1500
  • Announcement before Photokina (September 2012)
  • One or more low-priced f/4 lenses will be announced with the D600. For example, Nikon recently filed a patent for a 24-70mm f/3.5-4.5 full frame lens which seems to be designed for a cheaper FX DSLR body

  • Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/05/09/more-nikon-d600-specs.aspx/#ixzz1uTygehgL
Click to expand...
 
At the end of the day if it has a decent resolution, decent ISO and the ability to control the shutter speed and aperture it could be a winner.
 
kevshore said:
Nikon have 1 month to get my D4 to me and then I seriously start thinking of moving. I'm starting to get fed up of this farce.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a damned bad show. I was aiming to get a D800, but simply cannot be annoyed with the failure of Nikon to make adequate supplies available. Very poor customer care no matter how you look at it.
 
I think with cameras nowadays, its no longer about pure image quality - a DX can produce quite outstanding pictures. Its now all about other features.

For me FF will allow me to use the quality glass at the intended focal length. I want to use the 85mm 1.8 at that length and aperture!

The other benefit also seems quality at high ISO. Being 1-1.5 stops better than DX would be great.

At around $1500, FF would be a no brainer for me....if you need crop get a Nikon 1 with adapter ;)
 
crazyp said:
I think with cameras nowadays, its no longer about pure image quality
Click to expand...

Definitely agree, I love the images my classic 5D takes but the average AF it has does restrict me in some situations. I'm very much in favour of Nikon and although the 5D MkIII does temp me the price tag is a little high for what looks like primarily an AF upgrade from the MkII.
 
arclight said:
Yes, it is a damned bad show. I was aiming to get a D800, but simply cannot be annoyed with the failure of Nikon to make adequate supplies available. Very poor customer care no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

It could be like the Canon 1DX where they just seem to delay it without any stock reaching customers.
 
arclight said:
Yes, it is a damned bad show. I was aiming to get a D800, but simply cannot be annoyed with the failure of Nikon to make adequate supplies available. Very poor customer care no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

re D800 :
I posted in D800 thread yesterday saying that Jacobs had stock...no one replied so it looked that no one bothered to call them ...
 
raj_kemp said:
New/updated Nikon D600 specifications...

It will have AF motor but no GPS, bring it on..:D
Click to expand...

Now that does sound interesting. I had completely discounted it due to the lack of AF motor.
If it has one, then I might be tempted.
If it does video as well as the D4, then I will definately be interested!

The only downer I see is the SD card, I prefer compact Flash, but no biggy.
 
Well I couldn't take it seriously if it didn't have an AF motor! There isn't much of a range of inexpensive FX/film AF-S lenses at present (especially zooms) but there's still plenty of AF lenses around and many of them still in current production. It'd be silly of Nikon to ignore this if they want to make FX more affordable. Also, Nikon Rumours allege that Nikon have been filing a number of patents for slower FX AF-S zoom lenses. If true, what for? Those buying a D4 or a D800 are more than likely going to be in the market for those 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes, not a 24-70 f/3.5-4.5.

My view: if this product exists (and regardless of whether it's called a D600, D400, or a D523.8/k) it seems likely and makes sense to me that it's designed to replace both the D300s and the D700 in one fell swoop.
 
Last edited:
mike todd said:
Well I couldn't take it seriously if it didn't have an AF motor! There isn't much of a range of inexpensive FX/film AF-S lenses at present (especially zooms) but there's still plenty of AF lenses around and many of them still in current production. It'd be silly of Nikon to ignore this if they want to make FX more affordable. Also, Nikon Rumours allege that Nikon have been filing a number of patents for slower FX AF-S zoom lenses. If true, what for? Those buying a D4 or a D800 are more than likely going to be in the market for those 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes, not a 24-70 f/3.5-4.5.

My view: if this product exists (and regardless of whether it's called a D600, D400, or a D523.8/k) it seems likely and makes sense to me that it's designed to replace both the D300s and the D700 in one fell swoop.
Click to expand...

If thats the case, Nikon might delay release of this model otherwise it might eat into D800 sales:p
 
I dunno, that's like saying the D3100/D3200 is pinching sales from the D5100. Ultimately, Nikon still get the money in.

Those who have £1200 to spend on a camera body might look at a D7000 or D300s or a second hand D700... (or a Canon or Pentax etc) and they could be tempted to stretch a bit further to £1500 if it gets them to an FX body that has a newer processing engine, AF and metering tech and bigger sensor, and a warranty. As you know, Nikon wont make any money from sales to rival manufacturers or to the second hand market.

More likely, those who can afford a D800 will get a D800 anyway :)


Even more importantly, this is all 100% make-believe until it's officially announced!
 
Last edited:
mike todd said:
I dunno, that's like saying the D3100/D3200 is pinching sales from the D5100. Ultimately, Nikon still get the money in.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on whats more profitable for Nikon. The d700 for example stripped alot of sales from the d3. There were alot of people bought the d700 who els would of bought the D3 Resulting in less turnover and profit for Nikon. I guess they're keen to avoid that situation
 
I think some of the specs quoted simply offer too much camera for the money, surely it won't be a full frame sensor...
 
boyfalldown said:
I guess that depends on whats more profitable for Nikon. The d700 for example stripped alot of sales from the d3. There were alot of people bought the d700 who els would of bought the D3 Resulting in less turnover and profit for Nikon. I guess they're keen to avoid that situation
Click to expand...

The D3 was squarely aimed at those customers for whom only the D3 will do. I doubt Nikon failed their sales targets for it :)

Yes, some will have gone for the D700 instead but the majority of those customers are likely outside of Nikon's intended audience for the D3.
 
mike todd said:
The D3 was squarely aimed at those customers for whom only the D3 will do. I doubt Nikon failed their sales targets for it :)

Yes, some will have gone for the D700 instead but the majority of those customers are likely outside of Nikon's intended audience for the D3.
Click to expand...


Look at this way.. People Like myself bought the D700 because they couldnt afford the D3 but wanted a FX sensor. If the D700 wasnt there to fill that gap, it would have been the D300 which would have been the next choice, which would = even less money for Nikon.
 
mike todd said:
The D3 was squarely aimed at those customers for whom only the D3 will do. I doubt Nikon failed their sales targets for it :)

Yes, some will have gone for the D700 instead but the majority of those customers are likely outside of Nikon's intended audience for the D3.
Click to expand...

TCR4x4 said:
Look at this way.. People Like myself bought the D700 because they couldnt afford the D3 but wanted a FX sensor. If the D700 wasnt there to fill that gap, it would have been the D300 which would have been the next choice, which would = even less money for Nikon.
Click to expand...

or the other way to look at it, people like me would of bought the d3 but bought the d700 cause it was cheaper. I would of bought the D3 if the d700 wasn't around.

I thought it was fairly well known (even NR accept it) the d700 hurt d3 sales
 
boyfalldown said:
or the other way to look at it, people like me would of bought the d3 but bought the d700 cause it was cheaper. I would of bought the D3 if the d700 wasn't around.

I thought it was fairly well known (even NR accept it) the d700 hurt d3 sales
Click to expand...

But wouldn't some people have gone to a Canon 5d Mk 2 if Nikon didnt have the D700?

Just a thought.
 
Rapscallion said:
But wouldn't some people have gone to a Canon 5d Mk 2 if Nikon didnt have the D700?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some people would. Depends how heavily invested they were in Nikon. Regardless of the other choices (d300/5d) etc etc.... I'd always understood that was seen as an issue from Nikon's (and others) viewpoint
 
boyfalldown said:
I'm sure some people would. Depends how heavily invested they were in Nikon. Regardless of the other choices (d300/5d) etc etc.... I'd always understood that was seen as an issue from Nikon's (and others) viewpoint
Click to expand...

I'm sure that it's any manufacturers dilemma how many models to offer and how big the gaps in their line-up should be.
I agree it is a given that the D700 took some sales from the D3; but surely Nikon would have a lost a lot more sales if they didn't have a D700, or if the D700 wasn't as good as it was. There was nearly a years gap between launch of the 2 cameras, reducing the cannibalisation (?) of the D3 sales.
Lets hope we don't have to wait a year from the launch of the d4 / d800, for the much anticipated lower end Nikon FX.
 
boyfalldown said:
or the other way to look at it, people like me would of bought the d3 but bought the d700 cause it was cheaper. I would of bought the D3 if the d700 wasn't around.

I thought it was fairly well known (even NR accept it) the d700 hurt d3 sales
Click to expand...

I'm not being arsey in my short reply, just that I'm on my lunchbreak and want to reinforce a couple of quick points:

No disrespect - and I might be completely wrong here - but my guess is that it's likely you're not the sort of full-time professional photojournalist that the D3 was mainly aimed at, and those people would've got a D3 regardless of the D700 or any other Nikon camera.

The D700 would only have "hurt" sales of the D3 if those sales fell below Nikon's self-imposed targets in their business model... I don't know what those were. But we do know that the D3 was a massive success for Nikon, regardless of the financial aspect and regardless of how many people bought a D700.

The fact that there's been major natural disasters in Japan and yet Nikon (which is quite a specialised company in comparison to other camera manufacturers who have diversified and/or owned by larger consumer electronics groups) have released a D4, D800 and a D3200 with fairly believable rumours of another camera with plenty of announcement opportunity available in the rest 2012... not the actions of a struggling company! :)
 
Last edited:
mike todd said:
I'm not being arsey in my short reply, just that I'm on my lunchbreak and want to reinforce a couple of quick points:

No disrespect - and I might be completely wrong here - but my guess is that it's likely you're not the sort of full-time professional photojournalist that the D3 was mainly aimed at, and those people would've got a D3 regardless of the D700 or any other Nikon camera.

The D700 would only have "hurt" sales of the D3 if those sales fell below Nikon's self-imposed targets in their business model... I don't know what those were. But we do know that the D3 was a massive success for Nikon, regardless of the financial aspect and regardless of how many people bought a D700.

The fact that there's been major natural disasters in Japan and yet Nikon (which is quite a specialised company in comparison to other camera manufacturers who have diversified and/or owned by larger consumer electronics groups) have released a D4, D800 and a D3200 with fairly believable rumours of another camera with plenty of announcement opportunity available in the rest 2012... not the actions of a struggling company! :)
Click to expand...

Not read that way at all ;). I didn't imply (or mean to imply) Nikon's actions were those of a struggling company.

I'm not arguing the D3 was a massive success for Nikon both financially and in other terms.

Simply that many of the sales that would of gone to the D3 went to the d700 instead. Just because there are many photographers, like me who don't need some of the extra features of the D3, but did need its image quality and would of paid extra for that had the D700 not been around. In itself that would of hurt turnover and profitability(for the D3). For that reason only we won't see another Dx and mini Dx camera.

No, I'm not a photo journalist. Doesn't make my point any less valid though I am a full time photographer though
 
Last edited:
With Nikon D90 & the D300s due for replacement soon.

I can see the D90,not being replaced and also the D300s.

So you would have DX 3200 5200 & 7200 ?

FX D600 D800 D4

:)

I might be wrong
 
simonblue said:
With Nikon D90 & the D300s due for replacement soon.
Click to expand...

I think the D7000 replaced the D90 in the Nikon hierarchy, but the D90 hung around, like the Canon 5DII and 5DIII. The D90 hit a sweet spot of features for many people, and while was selling, and I think it sold loads, they kept on pumping them out.

simonblue said:
I can see the D90,not being replaced and also the D300s.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think the D90 has been replaced, (in the range) but the D300S is way behind the schedule to be replaced, and the D7000 replacement would have to be beefed a lot up to match what the majority of D300S user would want to replace their cameras.

The prevailing thought is that it may not be replaced, and the D300/S users will go to this rumoured D600. I don't think the D600 is what most enthusiast Nikon DX users want. :shake: If the Canon 7DII (should it appear) is so much better that the D7000 replacement, and the D300S, then I can see a lot of D300/S, who are not heavily invested in lenses, making the change to Canon.

Of course Canon could abandon their top of the range APS-C cameras too. ;) :LOL:

simonblue said:
So you would have DX 3200 5200 & 7200 ?

FX D600 D800 D4
Click to expand...

The D700 is still supposedly for sale. And surely the D800E should be in there too. ;)


simonblue said:
I might be wrong
Click to expand...

Only Nikon knows for sure, and they are not being very talkative. ;)
 
Sorry forgot the 800E. :eek:

The thing is thinking about it, is their a market for an D300s replacement,a semi pro crop camera ?
 
simonblue said:
The thing is thinking about it, is their a market for an D300s replacement,a semi pro crop camera ?
Click to expand...

Not everyone wants a full frame camera believe it or not. :shrug:

But they may want a DX camera with a high frame rate, the best Auto Focus, very good high ISO performance, and a professional build quality. :thinking:

That was the D300S, and is the Canon 7D. If Nikon and Canon are not careful, it could be a Sony A77, or it's successor. :shrug: If they leave the market open, there will be someone to fill the the gap.
 
Then again if they can do a FX model for the price of a was was previously a DX, with the same sort of DX modes as the others do...Why wouldn't the previous D300(s) buyers want one, a few of my friends have the D300(S) and they would love a D600 (or whatever it will be called) based on current spec.
 
dejongj said:
Then again if they can do a FX model for the price of a was was previously a DX, with the same sort of DX modes as the others do...Why wouldn't the previous D300(s) buyers want one, a few of my friends have the D300(S) and they would love a D600 (or whatever it will be called) based on current spec.
Click to expand...

I do wonder how feasible making an fx for the price of a dx is. Up till now there's always been a price premium of ca £800-£1k. Just making the sensors is much harder and as well as the obvious 2.5 size increase you lose a far higher % due to defects in the wafer while making. I'm not sure how you'd get over that in such away as you could produce a profitable camera for the money rumored
 
Yes fair point, perhaps the way to look at it is how cheaper it is to make the DX sensors. especially the quantities the Sony sensors are made in ;)
 
simonblue said:
.....is their a market for an D300s replacement,a semi pro crop camera ?
Click to expand...

redhed17 said:
Not everyone wants a full frame camera believe it or not. :shrug:
But they may want a DX camera with a high frame rate, the best Auto Focus, very good high ISO performance, and a professional build quality. :thinking:
...
Click to expand...

Agreed, FX is all nice and what not with extreme details and premium high ISO noise handling, but I still regard DX as being the 'do everything for everyone' format.... there are excellent wide lenses available that don't cost the earth and you get more value (so to speak) from long lenses because of the crop factor and I think that is where a lot of keen amateurs want to focus their attentions, getting the best bang for their buck when it comes to lenses.

I don't know why Canon dumped the 1D APS-H (1.3x) sensor, as it seemed like a good options for pros and those who weren't going to go and buy uber-expensive lenses. The decision for Nikon to stop progressing a pro-spec DX body when the D2 series ended is for me, one of the major flaws of the Nikon system. Obviously, the full frame market was new ground for Nikon but it was on the assumption that everyone who owned a body with a built-in grip wanted to go full frame.
 
specialman said:
Agreed, FX is all nice and what not with extreme details and premium high ISO noise handling, but I still regard DX as being the 'do everything for everyone' format.... there are excellent wide lenses available that don't cost the earth and you get more value (so to speak) from long lenses because of the crop factor and I think that is where a lot of keen amateurs want to focus their attentions, getting the best bang for their buck when it comes to lenses.

I don't know why Canon dumped the 1D APS-H (1.3x) sensor, as it seemed like a good options for pros and those who weren't going to go and buy uber-expensive lenses. The decision for Nikon to stop progressing a pro-spec DX body when the D2 series ended is for me, one of the major flaws of the Nikon system. Obviously, the full frame market was new ground for Nikon but it was on the assumption that everyone who owned a body with a built-in grip wanted to go full frame.
Click to expand...

100% couldn't agree more or put it better myself!
 
simonblue said:
With Nikon D90 & the D300s due for replacement soon.

I can see the D90,not being replaced and also the D300s.

So you would have DX 3200 5200 & 7200 ?

FX D600 D800 D4

:)

I might be wrong
Click to expand...

Agreed, that lineup makes a lot more sense to me.

Consumer models: DX
semi-pro and pro models: FX

Those wanting a direct D300 series replacement would probably disagree in the short term though ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top