Nikon D600 a compromise but ok

On 18/09/2012 11:34 a.m., wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:15:14 +1200, Me wrote:

The high ISO "usability" based on what?
The only real advantage is smaller file size (hence also faster frame
rates possible). At a standard print size, noise performance is the
same. The larger pixels don't add anything - the sensor area is the
same, and the quantum efficiency and read noise are about the same, just
as many photons are being captured - the D800 just knows the location of
each of them a little better ;-)
Preliminary tests on the D600 seem to show it's about the same as the
D800 ("photographic" dynamic range throughout the ISO range).

I saw a test report yesterday that put the 600 above the 800 in a large part of
it's dynamic range chart.

I was at first wanting to get an 800 to replace my 700 but now I think the 600
is better suited to me. I'm not "good enough" to use an 800 but I want FF to get
wide angle! (I sold my 700... still sad about that!)

The preliminary raw data analysis I've seen doesn't show any significant
difference - OK, they're not exactly the same, but at ISO 6400, the new
FX cameras are all (including the Canon 5dII and 1Dx) within a tiny
band, about 0.2 stop difference, but they're all about 1.0 stop ahead of
D700. They all produce images at that ISO, that in my subjective
opinion, would produce very acceptable prints at 18x12 or perhaps
larger, so long as you nailed exposure.

I think some of the main "complaints" about the D600 in other forums are
misguided - or exaggerated.
"No AF-ON button":
Doesn't matter, because the AE/AF-L button can be reprogrammed to become
AF-ON for use with AFC focusing, and the AF-on for shutter button
half-press can be disabled, I've been assured by a D7000 user that these
settings can be saved in "U1" or "U2" user modes, easily accessible via
the top mode dial. (The AE/AF-L button is in an unfortunately dumb place
on the D7000, but looks to be in a perfect place on the D600) Actually a
very convenient, fast, and elegant solution.
"1/4000s" highest shutter speed:
Gives you the same as 1/8000s on a D700/300 etc, as base ISO is 100 vs
200 (with Lo -1.0 option as well) I never found 1/8000s limiting on the
D300, so shouldn't find 1/4000 limiting on the D600.
"D7000 AF system":
I'd wait and see on this, but it's not exactly the same AF system as the
D7000 anyway. This is the only real concern I have about the D600.
1/200th max sync speed:
It could be an issue for some users, but even then it's only 1/3 stop
"worse" than D700 etc.
No flash PC socket:
Easily solved with an adapter.
Polycarbonate front body plate:
If you can afford large 400mm+ lenses, then you can afford a D4, but it
will probably still break if you pick the lens up using the camera body
or it falls off your tripod.
VF eyepiece / shutter:
That's a legitimate little nuisance, the little black plastic shade
Nikon supplies is always hard to find in my camera bag. The VF
magnifiers designed for other FX cameras won't fit, and the magnifiers
which will fit probably won't work very well.

There's other stuff about the D600 I haven't been able to find out
about. I'm not rushing to order one yet, but I think the D600 is
probably going to be much less of a compromise than even Nikon would
like you to think.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:13:25 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote:
: Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not
: suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body
: ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone
: who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good
: as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though.
:
: Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600
: but built-in wireless and GPS.

I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about
which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is
useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D.

Bob

On 20/09/2012 1:45 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:13:25 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote:
: Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not
: suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body
: ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone
: who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good
: as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though.
:
: Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600
: but built-in wireless and GPS.

I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about
which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is
useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D.

Many posters in DPReview's Canon 5D forum seem to be mercilessly bashing
the 6D. The "beginner level" D600 is copping some flak in the Nikon
forums too. Jeesh
Neither wireless nor GPS should add much to the production cost these
days. Neither necessarily use much power either, if new smartphones are
an indicator. May as well have it, Nikon's accessory GPS thing is a
crazy price.

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:35:20 +1200, Me wrote:
: On 20/09/2012 1:45 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
: On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:13:25 +1200, Me wrote:
: : On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote:
: : Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not
: : suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body
: : ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone
: : who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good
: : as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though.
: :
: : Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600
: : but built-in wireless and GPS.
:
: I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about
: which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is
: useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D.
:
: Many posters in DPReview's Canon 5D forum seem to be mercilessly bashing
: the 6D. The "beginner level" D600 is copping some flak in the Nikon
: forums too. Jeesh
: Neither wireless nor GPS should add much to the production cost these
: days. Neither necessarily use much power either, if new smartphones are
: an indicator. May as well have it, Nikon's accessory GPS thing is a
: crazy price.

I'll bash it if it doesn't have autofocus microadjustment. And if it really is
just a FF 60D, maybe it doesn't

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600
: but built-in wireless and GPS.

I admit to being confused by this. Built-in GPS is a specialty feature about
which most users will care little (sorry, Alan!), and built-in wireless is
useful only to photojournalists, most of whom will NOT buy the 6D.

gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far
more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to
match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the
computer much easier too.

i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those.
neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry
level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they
should be standard.

nospam wrote:
gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far
more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to
match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the
computer much easier too.

All of that is indeed true.

i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those.
neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry
level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they
should be standard.

Yes, the actual cost is peanuts, as far as just the
parts added.

There are some problems which aren't at all obvious.
Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a
significant part of the camera's internal case be
non-metal. Fine for a consumer model, but not at all
easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera.
(And in Nikon's case, putting something in a low level
body that isn't in the high end models just does not
fit their marketing model.)

Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal
casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular.
For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side
of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong
enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back
side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front
of the camera! That just isn't worth implementing.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far
more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to
match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the
computer much easier too.

All of that is indeed true.

i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those.
neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry
level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they
should be standard.

Yes, the actual cost is peanuts, as far as just the
parts added.

There are some problems which aren't at all obvious.
Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a
significant part of the camera's internal case be
non-metal.

no it doesn't. it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the
antenna.

Fine for a consumer model, but not at all
easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera.

it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps
shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus.

(And in Nikon's case, putting something in a low level
body that isn't in the high end models just does not
fit their marketing model.)

they can skip it in the low end models, since the target market
probably doesn't care about those features.

plus, sometimes they do offer a feature on a low end body that's not on
a higher end body, such as non-ai lens compatibility on the motorless
bodies.

Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal
casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular.
For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side
of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong
enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back
side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front
of the camera!

that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong.

That just isn't worth implementing.

actually, it is.

there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work
just fine, in any direction.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

gps is not a specialty feature at all and most users will find it far
more convenient than having to deal with an external gps or trying to
match tracklogs to photos. having wifi makes getting photos to the
computer much easier too.

All of that is indeed true.

i don't know why camera makers have been slow to adopt either of those.
neither cost all that much. they could leave them off on the entry
level cameras, however, on a midrange and certainly high end, they
should be standard.

Yes, the actual cost is peanuts, as far as just the
parts added.

There are some problems which aren't at all obvious.
Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a
significant part of the camera's internal case be
non-metal.

no it doesn't.

Don't be making absolute assertions about something
you have no knowledge of...

it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the
antenna.

Which of course, also has to be large enough to not
cause it to be highly directional. For 2.4GHz Wifi
that's not small in relation to a camera body. For
example, a half inch wide by one inch long window at the
back of the camera simply will not radiate energy
towards the front.

It is also exacerbated by the fact that virtually all
Access Points use vertically oriented antennas. Hence
laying an antenna along the bottom or top of a camera
doesn't work well because that alone amounts to a
roughly 30 dB signal loss due to polarity. If internal
it pretty much will have to be located on one end of the
camera, where it needs to be at least about half an inch
removed from the metal case. (Look at the Nikon WT-4 unit
mounted on a D4.)

It can be done, and I do expect to see some models soon
enough. But it's not quite as simple as it appears.

Fine for a consumer model, but not at all
easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera.

it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps
shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus.

Well, since it isn't hard, just why is it that nobody
has yet to do it?

Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal
casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular.
For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side
of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong
enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back
side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front
of the camera!

that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong.

I presume, given that comment, that you don't have much
experience with antenna design. I'm not going to go
into it, but trust that a camera body made of metal is
multiple wavelengths across, and forms a very nice RF
shield through which 2.4Ghz RF from a Wifi transmitter
simply does not pass. The effect is a *very*
directional antenna.

That just isn't worth implementing.

actually, it is.

there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work
just fine, in any direction.

Name just one then! Mind you, inside a ruggedized metal
case, not another plastic consumer body.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

There are some problems which aren't at all obvious.
Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a
significant part of the camera's internal case be
non-metal.

no it doesn't.

Don't be making absolute assertions about something
you have no knowledge of...

you don't know what knowledge i have of it, and if only you would do
the same...

it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the
antenna.

Which of course, also has to be large enough to not
cause it to be highly directional. For 2.4GHz Wifi
that's not small in relation to a camera body. For
example, a half inch wide by one inch long window at the
back of the camera simply will not radiate energy
towards the front.

put one antenna on the front and one on the back. next?

It is also exacerbated by the fact that virtually all
Access Points use vertically oriented antennas.

actually, it varies. some of the newer base stations have internal
antennas and it's not easy to tell what the orientation is.

Hence
laying an antenna along the bottom or top of a camera
doesn't work well because that alone amounts to a
roughly 30 dB signal loss due to polarity. If internal
it pretty much will have to be located on one end of the
camera, where it needs to be at least about half an inch
removed from the metal case. (Look at the Nikon WT-4 unit
mounted on a D4.)

mounted where? the wt-4 looks like it clips on your belt, and is
ridiculously overpriced too. $1000??? what the hell are they smoking?
and it doesn't even support 802.11n!!
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/25365/WT-4A-
Wireless-Transmitter.html
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/...4-wireless-tra
nsmitter.jpg

you might be thinking of the wt-5:
http://www.dxomark.com/itext/hands-on_Nikon_D4/Nikon_D4_3.jpg
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/27046/WT-5A-
Wireless-Transmitter.html

anyway, take a look at an ipod touch, there's your horizontal 1" long,
1/2" high aperture, and on one side only:
http://km.support.apple.com/library/...OS/HT1353/HT13
53_ipodtouchlate2009.jpg
http://tidbits.com/resources/2012-09/iPod-touch-colors.png

the new ipod nano is similar, with the antenna at the bottom:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/64/2012-ipod-nano.jpg

It can be done, and I do expect to see some models soon
enough. But it's not quite as simple as it appears.

it's not as difficult as you make it out to be.

Fine for a consumer model, but not at all
easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera.

it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps
shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus.

Well, since it isn't hard, just why is it that nobody
has yet to do it?

because camera makers have the mistaken idea that they should charge
extra for external wifi and gps attachments, and charge ridiculous
amounts too. $1000 for a wt-4 is absurd.

Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal
casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular.
For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side
of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong
enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back
side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front
of the camera!

that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong.

I presume, given that comment, that you don't have much
experience with antenna design. I'm not going to go
into it, but trust that a camera body made of metal is
multiple wavelengths across, and forms a very nice RF
shield through which 2.4Ghz RF from a Wifi transmitter
simply does not pass. The effect is a *very*
directional antenna.

i presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with
existing products that are made of metal and have a small rf aperture,
and they work just fine. more on that below.

you can spout all the theory you want, but existing products prove that
there are quite a few people who know a lot more about antenna design
than you do.

That just isn't worth implementing.

actually, it is.

there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work
just fine, in any direction.

Name just one then! Mind you, inside a ruggedized metal
case, not another plastic consumer body.

why stop at just one? that would be too easy.

just about all apple products are made of metal, including:

powerbook g4 titanium (discontinued)
powerbook g4 aluminum (discontinued)
macbook pro
macbook pro with retina display (different design than macbook pro)
mac mini
mac pro
imac aluminum
iphone 2g (discontinued)
iphone 5
ipod touch
ipod nano (latest version)
ipad

the powerbook g4 titanium had the antenna in the bottom section, the
powerbook g4 aluminum moved the antenna to the lid and the macbooks
moved the antenna into the hinge. other products have the antenna
behind a plastic piece.

here are some photos of the products listed above:

powerbook g4 aluminum, with the wifi antenna on the lid:
http://www.menyhart.net/wp-content/u...PowerBook-G4-1
2-inch_2.jpg

imac aluminum, with the wifi/bluetooth antenna hidden behind the apple
logo:
http://images.apple.com/imac/images/design_hero1.jpg

both the wifi-only and wifi+3g ipads have the wifi/bluetooth antenna
hidden behind the apple logo, and the wifi+3g ipad on the right adds a
plastic piece at the top for the 3g cellular radio (4g in current
model, this photo is an older model):
http://assets.ilounge.com/images/uploads/ipad-pre-review-1.jpg

on the mac mini, the wifi/bluetooth antenna is in the bottom:
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mac.png?w=640
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpr...-shot-2010-06-
15-at-1-39-23-am.png?w=640

i'm sure you'll say none of this can work, yet it does.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

There are some problems which aren't at all obvious.
Implementing either GPS or Wifi internally requires a
significant part of the camera's internal case be
non-metal.

no it doesn't.

Don't be making absolute assertions about something
you have no knowledge of...

you don't know what knowledge i have of it, and if only you would do
the same...

When you make statements like that one, it is very clear
that you've never worked with antennas.

it just needs a radio-transparent aperture for the
antenna.

Which of course, also has to be large enough to not
cause it to be highly directional. For 2.4GHz Wifi
that's not small in relation to a camera body. For
example, a half inch wide by one inch long window at the
back of the camera simply will not radiate energy
towards the front.

put one antenna on the front and one on the back. next?

Yeah, now you've got not just one big hole in the metal
shield, you've got two!

You just don't understand what the problems with these
designs actually are.

It is also exacerbated by the fact that virtually all
Access Points use vertically oriented antennas.

actually, it varies. some of the newer base stations have internal
antennas and it's not easy to tell what the orientation is.

They're all vertical.

Hence
laying an antenna along the bottom or top of a camera
doesn't work well because that alone amounts to a
roughly 30 dB signal loss due to polarity. If internal
it pretty much will have to be located on one end of the
camera, where it needs to be at least about half an inch
removed from the metal case. (Look at the Nikon WT-4 unit
mounted on a D4.)

mounted where? the wt-4 looks like it clips on your belt, and is

Typo on my part, I meant the WT-5. The WT-4 won't even
work with a D4.

ridiculously overpriced too. $1000??? what the hell are they smoking?
and it doesn't even support 802.11n!!
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/25365/WT-4A-
Wireless-Transmitter.html
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/...4-wireless-tra
nsmitter.jpg

you might be thinking of the wt-5:
http://www.dxomark.com/itext/hands-on_Nikon_D4/Nikon_D4_3.jpg
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pro...s/27046/WT-5A-
Wireless-Transmitter.html

Of course, because that is the mating unit to the D4.

anyway, take a look at an ipod touch, there's your horizontal 1" long,
1/2" high aperture, and on one side only:
http://km.support.apple.com/library/...OS/HT1353/HT13
53_ipodtouchlate2009.jpg
http://tidbits.com/resources/2012-09/iPod-touch-colors.png

Well, that's what I said it takes! But you are not
showing something embedded in a ruggedized metal case
intended to keep RF out either. So I'm not sure what
your point is.

the new ipod nano is similar, with the antenna at the bottom:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/64/2012-ipod-nano.jpg

It can be done, and I do expect to see some models soon
enough. But it's not quite as simple as it appears.

it's not as difficult as you make it out to be.

Well apparently it is, since nobody is doing it!

Fine for a consumer model, but not at all
easy to engineer into a ruggedized professional camera.

it's not that hard, certainly a lot easier than designing an 11 fps
shutter mechanism or a 51 point autofocus.

Well, since it isn't hard, just why is it that nobody
has yet to do it?

because camera makers have the mistaken idea that they should charge
extra for external wifi and gps attachments, and charge ridiculous
amounts too. $1000 for a wt-4 is absurd.

The WT-4 of course has been around for a few years now.
But do take a look at various the WU-1 units that Nikon
is now making for a variety of DSLR models. They cost
$60.

Note that "modest" alternatives in terms of the metal
casing do not allow for very effective WIFI in particular.
For example, if a half inch groove or inset along any side
of the camera is used for an antenna, it will have a strong
enough signal only on that side. If it's located on the back
side, you can't connect to an Access Point located in front
of the camera!

that might sound good on paper, but it's totally wrong.

I presume, given that comment, that you don't have much
experience with antenna design. I'm not going to go
into it, but trust that a camera body made of metal is
multiple wavelengths across, and forms a very nice RF
shield through which 2.4Ghz RF from a Wifi transmitter
simply does not pass. The effect is a *very*
directional antenna.

i presume, given that comment, that you don't have much experience with
existing products that are made of metal and have a small rf aperture,
and they work just fine. more on that below.

You still aren't showing an intelligent discussion.
There is a huge difference between an iPhone and a Nikon
D4 camera body. You should have noticed...

you can spout all the theory you want, but existing products prove that
there are quite a few people who know a lot more about antenna design
than you do.

The *lack* of existing products similar to the designs
you say are easy proves they aren't easy.

There are in fact now more than a couple cameras that
have a GPS or WIFI built in, and not one of them has the
kind of metal case that a top of the line Canon or Nikon
DSLR has.


That just isn't worth implementing.

actually, it is.

there are a number of existing products that do exactly that and work
just fine, in any direction.

Name just one then! Mind you, inside a ruggedized metal
case, not another plastic consumer body.

why stop at just one? that would be too easy.

just about all apple products are made of metal, including:

powerbook g4 titanium (discontinued)
powerbook g4 aluminum (discontinued)
macbook pro
macbook pro with retina display (different design than macbook pro)
mac mini
mac pro
imac aluminum
iphone 2g (discontinued)
iphone 5
ipod touch
ipod nano (latest version)
ipad

Now you are just being silly.

the powerbook g4 titanium had the antenna in the bottom section, the
powerbook g4 aluminum moved the antenna to the lid and the macbooks
moved the antenna into the hinge. other products have the antenna
behind a plastic piece.

here are some photos of the products listed above:

powerbook g4 aluminum, with the wifi antenna on the lid:
http://www.menyhart.net/wp-content/u...PowerBook-G4-1
2-inch_2.jpg

imac aluminum, with the wifi/bluetooth antenna hidden behind the apple
logo:
http://images.apple.com/imac/images/design_hero1.jpg

both the wifi-only and wifi+3g ipads have the wifi/bluetooth antenna
hidden behind the apple logo, and the wifi+3g ipad on the right adds a
plastic piece at the top for the 3g cellular radio (4g in current
model, this photo is an older model):
http://assets.ilounge.com/images/uploads/ipad-pre-review-1.jpg

on the mac mini, the wifi/bluetooth antenna is in the bottom:
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/mac.png?w=640
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpr...-shot-2010-06-
15-at-1-39-23-am.png?w=640

i'm sure you'll say none of this can work, yet it does.

They work, but not one of them presents the same
engineering problems that putting WIFI into a Nikon D4
or a Canon 1DX does. And that is exactly why neither
Canon or Nikon managed to do it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)