Is the D600 overpriced?

Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a 7000
body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?

On 2012.10.01 21:02 , Single Variable Rich wrote:
Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a 7000
body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?

"Single Variable Rich" is your new moniker. Wear it well.


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a
7000
body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?

Or the profit margin very high. Of course even adding a few cheap features
on an APS body with the same sensor can add 50% or more to the selling
price.
It's called marketing. Automobile companies are even worse.

Trevor.

On 2/10/2012 2:02 p.m., Rich wrote:
Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a 7000
body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?


I think it is a little bit overpriced relative to the D800.
The lowest price D800 here is now about US$750 (equiv - incl local
taxes) more than the lowest D600 price I can see listed.
The US MSRP for the D7000 was about $1200 (or more?), I see B&H listing
it at about $1000 now, but the comparison of a more than one year old
model with something that's only been in stock for a week isn't telling
the whole story.
OTOH. possibly both the D800 and D600 are underpriced - what else is there?

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:55:25 +1300, Me wrote:
: On 2/10/2012 2:02 p.m., Rich wrote:
: Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a 7000
: body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
: the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?
:
:
: I think it is a little bit overpriced relative to the D800.
: The lowest price D800 here is now about US$750 (equiv - incl local
: taxes) more than the lowest D600 price I can see listed.
: The US MSRP for the D7000 was about $1200 (or more?), I see B&H listing
: it at about $1000 now, but the comparison of a more than one year old
: model with something that's only been in stock for a week isn't telling
: the whole story.
: OTOH. possibly both the D800 and D600 are underpriced - what else is there?

$750 for a (new) D800?? Either you're joking or there's a digit missing
somewhere in that number.

Bob

On 3/10/2012 11:08 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:55:25 +1300, Me wrote:
: On 2/10/2012 2:02 p.m., Rich wrote:
: Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a 7000
: body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
: the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?
:
:
: I think it is a little bit overpriced relative to the D800.
: The lowest price D800 here is now about US$750 (equiv - incl local
: taxes) more than the lowest D600 price I can see listed.
: The US MSRP for the D7000 was about $1200 (or more?), I see B&H listing
: it at about $1000 now, but the comparison of a more than one year old
: model with something that's only been in stock for a week isn't telling
: the whole story.
: OTOH. possibly both the D800 and D600 are underpriced - what else is there?

$750 for a (new) D800?? Either you're joking or there's a digit missing
somewhere in that number.

Bob



that I would say was the price difference between the D600 and the D800.

BH listing d800 $2999 D600 $2096 To me that would be $900.

Another site http://www.topbuy.com.au/

D800 $Aus2779 D600 $Aus2530 thats $aus 249

Includes tax

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 12:50:21 +1000, Rob wrote:
: On 3/10/2012 11:08 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:55:25 +1300, Me wrote:
: : On 2/10/2012 2:02 p.m., Rich wrote:
: : Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a 7000
: : body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
: : the FF "option." I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?
: :
: :
: : I think it is a little bit overpriced relative to the D800.
: : The lowest price D800 here is now about US$750 (equiv - incl local
: : taxes) more than the lowest D600 price I can see listed.
: : The US MSRP for the D7000 was about $1200 (or more?), I see B&H listing
: : it at about $1000 now, but the comparison of a more than one year old
: : model with something that's only been in stock for a week isn't telling
: : the whole story.
: : OTOH. possibly both the D800 and D600 are underpriced - what else is there?
:
: $750 for a (new) D800?? Either you're joking or there's a digit missing
: somewhere in that number.
:
: Bob
:
:
:
: that I would say was the price difference between the D600 and the D800.
:
: BH listing d800 $2999 D600 $2096 To me that would be $900.
:
: Another site http://www.topbuy.com.au/
:
: D800 $Aus2779 D600 $Aus2530 thats $aus 249
:
: Includes tax

Yeah, I guess you're right. I interposed a comma that (intentionally) isn't
there.

Bob

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a
7000
body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
the FF "option."

Yes - Sony are far worse.

I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?

Well that is their excuse, but funnily enough you can get a 40Mp sensor in
phone for ~$500.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message

Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a
7000
body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
the FF "option."

Yes - Sony are far worse.

I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?

Well that is their excuse, but funnily enough you can get a 40Mp sensor in
phone for ~$500.

Sure.

Well, I can get a 189 EUR 27" monitor, too ... and the most
expensive ones are 3440, 2024, 1783 and 1599 EUR.

Or, by megapixels, a 1920x1080 can be had for 85 EUR and for
more than 5000 EUR (many stores at that price, that's not just
one store entering one '0' extra --- and no, that's "just" a
23" monitor, not some huge screen) ...

I guess the cheap ones in each case are not that suitable to
evaluating and editing photos. An extra-tiny low dynamic range
sensor that needs to be downsampled to be acceptable to the mobile
phone camera crowd (and these are masochists when it comes to
image quality) isn't my idea of an DSLR replacement.

-Wolfgang

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 01:26:37 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: R. Mark Clayton wrote:
: "Rich" wrote in message
:
: Yes, it's the cheapest FF on the market, but it's in what amounts to a
: 7000
: body, which in APS form is about $1000. So, it's over twice as much for
: the FF "option."
:
: Yes - Sony are far worse.
:
: I guess the yields of FF sensors are still pretty low?
:
: Well that is their excuse, but funnily enough you can get a 40Mp sensor in
: phone for ~$500.
:
: Sure.
:
: Well, I can get a 189 EUR 27" monitor, too ... and the most
: expensive ones are 3440, 2024, 1783 and 1599 EUR.
:
: Or, by megapixels, a 1920x1080 can be had for 85 EUR and for
: more than 5000 EUR (many stores at that price, that's not just
: one store entering one '0' extra --- and no, that's "just" a
: 23" monitor, not some huge screen) ...

1920x1080 is a rather odd aspect ratio, at least on this side of the metric
system. Are you sure you've got that right?

Bob