|
|
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:49:46 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
It's biggest faults appear to be the cheap body and compromises due to cost-cutting. The rear view screen exhibits glare, because it likely isn't anti-reflection coated. The body lacks certain things the D300/700/800 bodies have. If you are looking to go cheap into FF (at least until you start buying lenses) this appears to be a good choice, but a second hand D700 (if you don't need the resolution) or spending $1000 more for the D800 looks like a better bet. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/23 You say that because you don't own them... The 600 is far superior to the 700, more pixels, more dynamic range, less noise, full HD video as compared to no video at all, easier to use, faster electronics. The DX lens cropped image is almost the same amount of pixels! There are a few small things that are different but not deal breakers... the 600 has 3 bracket shooting as opposed to 5, but the 600 uses the IR remote, the 700 doesn't, you need expensive gear for remote shooting a 700. The 600 has 2 card slots, not 1, can be set for x2 backup (like raid) or raw/jpg or still/movie. The 600 has simplified exposure switches compared to the 700. The 600 has locking dials... The 600 has a simplified 4 custom white balance's memory... the 600 has switchable "custom" and "last used" menus... the 600 has things from the D4 - that can't be bad! I could go on... but simply... I sold the 700 and am glad I did! I haven't discovered everything in the camera, but I haven't been disappointed yet. The pictures are better quality, and this thing can auto-focus in dark rooms! The files are huge so I had to buy a x600 card but they are getting cheaper... the 800 would be worse! (I can afford an 800, didn't think I could use it and don't want 200m raw files) Remember, the 600 has 5 years on the 700, that's a lifetime in dog/tech years! |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
"PeterN" wrote in message ... According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of pixels! You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600. Both would more than satisfy most people however. Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so as to make the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the fact the Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their price :-( Trevor. |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On 14/11/2012 5:05 PM, Trevor wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message ... According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of pixels! You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600. Both would more than satisfy most people however. Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so as to make the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the fact the Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their price :-( Trevor. What I have noticed is the street price has dro9pped for the 800E about $400 |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On 11/14/2012 1:05 AM, Trevor wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message ... According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of pixels! You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600. Both would more than satisfy most people however. Yep! For me that's the tipping point in favor of the 800, plus the fact that I can be pretty rough on my equipment. And I strongly prefer using the CF card. (Harder to loose.) Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so as to make the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the fact the Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their price :-( At PC Expo in NY they were selling the D800 for $2,600, really narrowing the gap. -- Peter |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On 15/11/2012 4:16 a.m., PeterN wrote:
On 11/14/2012 1:05 AM, Trevor wrote: "PeterN" wrote in message ... According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of pixels! You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600. Both would more than satisfy most people however. Yep! For me that's the tipping point in favor of the 800, plus the fact that I can be pretty rough on my equipment. And I strongly prefer using the CF card. (Harder to loose.) Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so as to make the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the fact the Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their price :-( At PC Expo in NY they were selling the D800 for $2,600, really narrowing the gap. http://www.adorama.com/INKD800R.html...ce=rflaid63773 |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On 11/14/2012 3:37 PM, Me wrote:
On 15/11/2012 4:16 a.m., PeterN wrote: On 11/14/2012 1:05 AM, Trevor wrote: "PeterN" wrote in message ... According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of pixels! You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600. Both would more than satisfy most people however. Yep! For me that's the tipping point in favor of the 800, plus the fact that I can be pretty rough on my equipment. And I strongly prefer using the CF card. (Harder to loose.) Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so as to make the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the fact the Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their price :-( At PC Expo in NY they were selling the D800 for $2,600, really narrowing the gap. http://www.adorama.com/INKD800R.html...ce=rflaid63773 Your link is to a refurbished one. The unit I purchased was not. -- Peter |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On 2012-11-14 12:37:38 -0800, Me said:
On 15/11/2012 4:16 a.m., PeterN wrote: On 11/14/2012 1:05 AM, Trevor wrote: "PeterN" wrote in message ... According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But not when the D800 image is averaged down to the same number of pixels! You simply get a choice with the D800 you don't have with the D600. Both would more than satisfy most people however. Yep! For me that's the tipping point in favor of the 800, plus the fact that I can be pretty rough on my equipment. And I strongly prefer using the CF card. (Harder to loose.) Pity the selling price of the D800 has increased here lately so as to make the D600 competitive (or it wouldn't be!) Aided of course by the fact the Canon 5D3 was more expensive, allowing Nikon to increase their price :-( At PC Expo in NY they were selling the D800 for $2,600, really narrowing the gap. http://www.adorama.com/INKD800R.html...ce=rflaid63773 Note the word, "refurbished". I suspect this means inventory which has had the focus fixing firmware update. -- Regards, Savageduck |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:29:39 -0500, PeterN wrote:
On 11/13/2012 10:30 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:49:46 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: It's biggest faults appear to be the cheap body and compromises due to cost-cutting. The rear view screen exhibits glare, because it likely isn't anti-reflection coated. The body lacks certain things the D300/700/800 bodies have. If you are looking to go cheap into FF (at least until you start buying lenses) this appears to be a good choice, but a second hand D700 (if you don't need the resolution) or spending $1000 more for the D800 looks like a better bet. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/23 You say that because you don't own them... The 600 is far superior to the 700, more pixels, more dynamic range, less noise, full HD video as compared to no video at all, easier to use, faster electronics. The DX lens cropped image is almost the same amount of pixels! There are a few small things that are different but not deal breakers... the 600 has 3 bracket shooting as opposed to 5, but the 600 uses the IR remote, the 700 doesn't, you need expensive gear for remote shooting a 700. The 600 has 2 card slots, not 1, can be set for x2 backup (like raid) or raw/jpg or still/movie. The 600 has simplified exposure switches compared to the 700. The 600 has locking dials... The 600 has a simplified 4 custom white balance's memory... the 600 has switchable "custom" and "last used" menus... the 600 has things from the D4 - that can't be bad! I could go on... but simply... I sold the 700 and am glad I did! I haven't discovered everything in the camera, but I haven't been disappointed yet. The pictures are better quality, and this thing can auto-focus in dark rooms! The files are huge so I had to buy a x600 card but they are getting cheaper... the 800 would be worse! (I can afford an 800, didn't think I could use it and don't want 200m raw files) Remember, the 600 has 5 years on the 700, that's a lifetime in dog/tech years! According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But, enjoy by a hair. the D600 is a fine camera. Enjoy using it. I would have bought the 800 but I really didn't need the 36m, of course the camera could be set to less but that would be silly... There are a few things in the 800 I wish I had but they aren't really that important to me. Other improvements such as in the video don't interest me, I have video cameras and don't need it. And since I have an IR remote and the 800 doesn't use it but the 600 does, that's a plus for me. I read the "cons" section in the review and almost none of them really apply to me... I do wish the price was lower but what the hell, if you look back to, say 1973 when I bought a Mamiya Sekor 35mm film camera for $400, that's almost $4000 in today's money! Of course, I did get an f/1.2, 55mm lens... |
D600 review isn't that great (some aspects)
On 11/14/2012 8:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:29:39 -0500, PeterN wrote: On 11/13/2012 10:30 PM, wrote: On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:49:46 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: It's biggest faults appear to be the cheap body and compromises due to cost-cutting. The rear view screen exhibits glare, because it likely isn't anti-reflection coated. The body lacks certain things the D300/700/800 bodies have. If you are looking to go cheap into FF (at least until you start buying lenses) this appears to be a good choice, but a second hand D700 (if you don't need the resolution) or spending $1000 more for the D800 looks like a better bet. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/23 You say that because you don't own them... The 600 is far superior to the 700, more pixels, more dynamic range, less noise, full HD video as compared to no video at all, easier to use, faster electronics. The DX lens cropped image is almost the same amount of pixels! There are a few small things that are different but not deal breakers... the 600 has 3 bracket shooting as opposed to 5, but the 600 uses the IR remote, the 700 doesn't, you need expensive gear for remote shooting a 700. The 600 has 2 card slots, not 1, can be set for x2 backup (like raid) or raw/jpg or still/movie. The 600 has simplified exposure switches compared to the 700. The 600 has locking dials... The 600 has a simplified 4 custom white balance's memory... the 600 has switchable "custom" and "last used" menus... the 600 has things from the D4 - that can't be bad! I could go on... but simply... I sold the 700 and am glad I did! I haven't discovered everything in the camera, but I haven't been disappointed yet. The pictures are better quality, and this thing can auto-focus in dark rooms! The files are huge so I had to buy a x600 card but they are getting cheaper... the 800 would be worse! (I can afford an 800, didn't think I could use it and don't want 200m raw files) Remember, the 600 has 5 years on the 700, that's a lifetime in dog/tech years! According to some comparisons I read, the differences between the 600 and the 800 are not that great. Indeed, because it has less pixels, the low light noise level of the 600 is less than the 800. But, enjoy by a hair. the D600 is a fine camera. Enjoy using it. I would have bought the 800 but I really didn't need the 36m, of course the camera could be set to less but that would be silly... There are a few things in the 800 I wish I had but they aren't really that important to me. Other improvements such as in the video don't interest me, I have video cameras and don't need it. And since I have an IR remote and the 800 doesn't use it but the 600 does, that's a plus for me. I read the "cons" section in the review and almost none of them really apply to me... I do wish the price was lower but what the hell, if you look back to, say 1973 when I bought a Mamiya Sekor 35mm film camera for $400, that's almost $4000 in today's money! Of course, I did get an f/1.2, 55mm lens... I was debating between the D4 and the D800. My final decision was based on the slightly better color depth of the D800, and for the price difference I can get some glass. I have my D300 for the times I need the faster frame rate. I had not really considered the D600, primarily because I did not want to deal with SD cards, and the 800 has more rugged construction. -- Peter |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com