Is the D600 overpriced?

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Weather resistant, not proof. The only weather proof camera was the
Olympus E-1.

Nah that would be the Nikonos. Actually there are plenty of compact weather
proof camera's. Perhaps you meant DSLR?
The E-1 doesn't qualify IMO anyway, I'd call it weather resistant too. If
you can't wash off the mud in a bucket of water, it's not weather proof :-)

Trevor.

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:22:01 -0500, Rich wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote in
: :
:
: On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:48:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
: : On Oct 2, 9:12*am, Bruce wrote:
: : I would be very disappointed if I bought the Sony RX1 because the
: : Carl Zeiss lens is really quite average, being comparable with a
: : relatively inexpensive Canon or Nikon 35mm f/2. *Certainly not good
: : enough for a camera in that price bracket. *It makes the Fujifilm
: : X100 look like a very, very good buy.
: :
: : Remember the days of compact 35mm film cameras with fixed lenses that
: : cost $100?
: : Plastic though.
:
: Listen, Richard, you're starting to fall back into "All hat and no
: cattle" mode. Where are your SI pictures this month? A few months ago
: you outed yourself as a competent photographer, so we don't give you a
: Mulligan for the vacuous chatter anymore.
:
: Bob
:
: Amazing what will make some minds come unhinged. What are you even
: talking about? This was an equipment discussion.
: P.S. You want to drum up support for the SI contests? Don't attack
: people, it's not the way to do it.
: P.P.S. The only other contest or public photo forum I entered was a
: Nikon DSLR challenge on Dpreview and I won the challenge.

sigh! As someone else noted a few days ago, attempts at humor are fast
becoming unappreciated in these groups. :^| Jeez, Rich, I thought I was
complimenting you by implying that your photography may sometimes be more
memorable than your verbiage!

Bob

On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:22:31 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Savageduck wrote:
: For all we know
: "Tony'Bruce" remains immersed in grain, and we have no evidence to
: think anything else.
:
: May that continue until I pop my clogs.

Clogs? The allusion escapes me.

Grain comes out of a bottle, doesn't it?

Bob

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

On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:37:11 -0500, Rich wrote:
: wrote in
: :
:
: On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:02:08 -0500, 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 don't compare it to the 7000 because of the difference between FF
: and C sensors... I compare it to the 700 which it replaces.
:
: It's cheaper than the D700 was, and it's a much improved camera...
: don't forget the 24m sensor with noise levels the same as the D700,
: and the full HD movie mode vs the no movies in the D700...
:
: Also the software is much improved, everything is programmable, and
: various weird switch modes have been fixed.
:
: There are LOTS of improvements, I like it! (I sold my D700 to get the
: D600. Even the shutter sounds better!
:
: Do you think the D700 body is better?

Why would anybody care? How can you possibly elevate the quality of the body
to the same importance as the sound of the shutter?

Bob

On 2012-10-05 14:13:12 -0700, Robert Coe said:

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

I don't think you have seen any Apple displays lately, says I sitting
in front of my 1920x1080, 32-bit iMac display.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: 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?

it's standard and quite common, and from multiple manufacturers too.

In article 2012100514252743042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

: 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?

I don't think you have seen any Apple displays lately, says I sitting
in front of my 1920x1080, 32-bit iMac display.

it's not just apple.

dell has several models with that resolution, as do others.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:42:51 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : 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?
:
: it's standard and quite common, and from multiple manufacturers too.

That's sure news to me. I thought the common ratio these days was 8:5, i.e.
1920x1200.

Bob

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 23:46:49 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 07:22:31 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: ... until I pop my clogs.
:
: Clogs? The allusion escapes me.
:
:
: It is a phrase from 19th and early 20th century towns in northern
: England where the main employers were cotton or woollen mills. The
: poorly paid mill workers used to wear wooden clogs, being the cheapest
: available footwear.
:
: At the start and end of each shift at the mill, the mill town's
: streets would be filled with a cacophony of sound from hundreds or
: thousands of wooden clogs coming into contact with the granite blocks,
: or setts, that formed the surface of the streets.
:
: The term 'pop' was a more socially acceptable version of 'pawn', in
: other words taking your worldly goods to the pawn shop to raise money.
:
: So to pop your clogs was to take your last item of value to the pawn
: shop to raise some money, presumably for your funeral. Your clogs
: would be the last items to be pawned, otherwise walking would become
: rather difficult.
:
: Hence 'to pop your clogs" is a euphemism for death.
:
: Until I looked this up using Google I had thought the currency of 'pop
: your clogs' was much wider than it is. It was too obscure for an
: international forum such as this; for that I apologise.

Interesting. That one had sailed over my head entirely!

Bob