If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
PeterN wrote:
On 9/14/2012 9:15 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: PeterN wrote: On 9/14/2012 8:05 PM, RichA wrote: On Sep 14, 3:47 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: RichA wrote: On Sep 13, 3:01 am, 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. The VF is 100% - VF magnification is 0.7. Just like all of Nikon's top of the line FX bodies, the D3, the D3s, the D3X, the D4. The D800 and now the D600 too. The D700 is different, it's 95% and 0.72x magnification. Other than that you don't know what that means, did you have a point? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Fanboy alert. Never mention anything even seemingly negative. Exactly when did you give anything a positive review? When did he give anything a *valid* review! I don't believe you actually agree with something I posted. G I didn't. Can't you read anything right? Your article is as non-responive as his. Non-sequiturs are not debating points! -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 15/09/2012 12:06 PM, Rich wrote:
PeterN wrote in : On 9/14/2012 8:05 PM, RichA wrote: On Sep 14, 3:47 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: RichA wrote: On Sep 13, 3:01 am, 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. The VF is 100% - VF magnification is 0.7. Just like all of Nikon's top of the line FX bodies, the D3, the D3s, the D3X, the D4. The D800 and now the D600 too. The D700 is different, it's 95% and 0.72x magnification. Other than that you don't know what that means, did you have a point? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Fanboy alert. Never mention anything even seemingly negative. Exactly when did you give anything a positive review? Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer for many a new Canon owner. These are the only things that really make a difference, not whether a D600 and D7000 have fractionally different high ISO capability. Where did you get the horrible focus problems from?? So you own a D800 then.? or just read about them? For a start its a not bad just a few rants and lots of BS you don't have to use the LHS for the focus, its not a sports action camera. Not all cameras came with the problem. There have been no cameras released since mid year with the problem and those which did have them, have had firmware updates. I have read some reviews and can't see why DOF can't pull the problem back into focus. The D800 makes you think more about how you take the shot, as its a lot more defining on ones own neglect. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
Rob wrote:
On 15/09/2012 12:06 PM, Rich wrote: Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer for many a new Canon owner. These are the only things that really make a difference, not whether a D600 and D7000 have fractionally different high ISO capability. Where did you get the horrible focus problems from?? So you own a D800 then.? or just read about them? I've read about the D800 too! It's very interesting to read about them, and to then compare a real camera to what clowns like Rich say. For a start its a not bad just a few rants and lots of BS you don't have to use the LHS for the focus, its not a sports action camera. Not all cameras came with the problem. There have been no cameras released since mid year with the problem and those which did have them, have had firmware updates. In fact though, very few people have ever been able to factually determine if their camera has the problem! It requires using a pretty special chart and technique to get everything just right to even see it. It flat is not something normal photography will bring about. I have read some reviews and can't see why DOF can't pull the problem back into focus. Exactly! In fact, I did check my cameras to see if I could see anything that made a difference. Now, that's not saying I went to the trouble to see if the left side is less accurate with an f/1.4 aperture than the right side. I only checked to see if it would affect my photography. I can't see any difference in the various high end Nikon models that I have access to. And one specific reason is that I am well aware that I will *never ever* take a shot using the far left side (or right for that matter) focus point when shooting wide open with an f/1.4 lens. If the issue was missing focus targets at f/2.8, or for that matter even at f/1.8, I might be upset. But that isn't what happens so I'm happy enough. The D800 makes you think more about how you take the shot, as its a lot more defining on ones own neglect. The photographer has to redefine where limits are for various parameters, simply because the D800 moves them significantly away from where we've generally thought our "rules of thumb" put them. But a lot of folks are misunderstanding that too! Not getting "best results" doesn't mean results not as good as any other camera, it just means that using the same technique will restrict the results to being no better than other cameras. To get *better* results, better techniques are required because the camera is indeed that much better. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 9/14/2012 10:06 PM, Rich wrote:
PeterN wrote in : On 9/14/2012 8:05 PM, RichA wrote: On Sep 14, 3:47 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: RichA wrote: On Sep 13, 3:01 am, 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. The VF is 100% - VF magnification is 0.7. Just like all of Nikon's top of the line FX bodies, the D3, the D3s, the D3X, the D4. The D800 and now the D600 too. The D700 is different, it's 95% and 0.72x magnification. Other than that you don't know what that means, did you have a point? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Fanboy alert. Never mention anything even seemingly negative. Exactly when did you give anything a positive review? Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer for many a new Canon owner. These are the only things that really make a difference, not whether a D600 and D7000 have fractionally different high ISO capability. Plastic is good. Weighs less, and more comfortable to hold. I am more interested in hearing about the focusing issues with the D800, as I am torn between that and a D4. -- Peter |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 9/14/2012 10:09 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 9/14/2012 9:15 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: PeterN wrote: On 9/14/2012 8:05 PM, RichA wrote: On Sep 14, 3:47 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: RichA wrote: On Sep 13, 3:01 am, 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. The VF is 100% - VF magnification is 0.7. Just like all of Nikon's top of the line FX bodies, the D3, the D3s, the D3X, the D4. The D800 and now the D600 too. The D700 is different, it's 95% and 0.72x magnification. Other than that you don't know what that means, did you have a point? -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) Fanboy alert. Never mention anything even seemingly negative. Exactly when did you give anything a positive review? When did he give anything a *valid* review! I don't believe you actually agree with something I posted. G I didn't. Can't you read anything right? Your article is as non-responive as his. Non-sequiturs are not debating points! I can relax now. You really didn't agree. -- Peter |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:56:23 +1000, Rob wrote:
: On 15/09/2012 12:06 PM, Rich wrote: : PeterN wrote in : : : : On 9/14/2012 8:05 PM, RichA wrote: : On Sep 14, 3:47 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: : RichA wrote: : On Sep 13, 3:01 am, 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. : : The VF is 100% - : : VF magnification is 0.7. : : Just like all of Nikon's top of the line FX bodies, the : D3, the D3s, the D3X, the D4. The D800 and now the : D600 too. : : The D700 is different, it's 95% and 0.72x magnification. : : Other than that you don't know what that means, did you : have a point? : : -- : Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ : Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) : : Fanboy alert. Never mention anything even seemingly negative. : : : Exactly when did you give anything a positive review? : : : Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can : take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in : most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems : and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was : $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a : $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer : for many a new Canon owner. These are the only things that really make a : difference, not whether a D600 and D7000 have fractionally different high : ISO capability. : : : Where did you get the horrible focus problems from?? So you own a D800 : then.? or just read about them? : : For a start its a not bad just a few rants and lots of BS you don't have : to use the LHS for the focus, its not a sports action camera. Not all : cameras came with the problem. There have been no cameras released since : mid year with the problem and those which did have them, have had : firmware updates. : : I have read some reviews and can't see why DOF can't pull the problem : back into focus. : : The D800 makes you think more about how you take the shot, as its a lot : more defining on ones own neglect. I'm having some difficulty parsing that last sentence. Is it a roundabout way of saying that the D800 is harder to use than the D600? Bob |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 15/09/2012 5:11 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Rob wrote: On 15/09/2012 12:06 PM, Rich wrote: Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer for many a new Canon owner. These are the only things that really make a difference, not whether a D600 and D7000 have fractionally different high ISO capability. Where did you get the horrible focus problems from?? So you own a D800 then.? or just read about them? I've read about the D800 too! It's very interesting to read about them, and to then compare a real camera to what clowns like Rich say. For a start its a not bad just a few rants and lots of BS you don't have to use the LHS for the focus, its not a sports action camera. Not all cameras came with the problem. There have been no cameras released since mid year with the problem and those which did have them, have had firmware updates. In fact though, very few people have ever been able to factually determine if their camera has the problem! It requires using a pretty special chart and technique to get everything just right to even see it. It flat is not something normal photography will bring about. I have read some reviews and can't see why DOF can't pull the problem back into focus. Exactly! In fact, I did check my cameras to see if I could see anything that made a difference. Now, that's not saying I went to the trouble to see if the left side is less accurate with an f/1.4 aperture than the right side. I only checked to see if it would affect my photography. I can't see any difference in the various high end Nikon models that I have access to. And one specific reason is that I am well aware that I will *never ever* take a shot using the far left side (or right for that matter) focus point when shooting wide open with an f/1.4 lens. If the issue was missing focus targets at f/2.8, or for that matter even at f/1.8, I might be upset. But that isn't what happens so I'm happy enough. The D800 makes you think more about how you take the shot, as its a lot more defining on ones own neglect. The photographer has to redefine where limits are for various parameters, simply because the D800 moves them significantly away from where we've generally thought our "rules of thumb" put them. But a lot of folks are misunderstanding that too! Not getting "best results" doesn't mean results not as good as any other camera, it just means that using the same technique will restrict the results to being no better than other cameras. To get *better* results, better techniques are required because the camera is indeed that much better. Oh BTW I have the 800E |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:06:50 -0500, Rich wrote:
: Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can : take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in : most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems : and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was : $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a : $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer : for many a new Canon owner. ... Why should a Canon owner, new or old, give a rip about the D800's alleged focusing problems? Bob |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Sep 13, 3:01*am, 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. : : The VF is 100% - and exactly the same spec as the D4/D800. : It doesn't have the round eyepiece that other FX slrs do, but probably : not much of an issue as there seem to be plenty of 3rd part accessories : on ebay etc which will slot in to the eyepiece frame if you feel the need. : : It is a bit larger than the D7000, perhaps the same size as a D300. : : There's no AF-ON button - that, the different AF module, and the "new : improved" (arguable) AF mode selector are the main differences from : D300/700. *Plastic-schmastic. *If it breaks, my insurance will pay for it. : : : Good for those carrying a back-up body, but cold comfort if you are in : the middle of doing something. : The two things I hope is doesn't have are the D7000/D800 focus : problems and hot pixels. The D7000 and D800 have hot pixels? Where? In the viewing screen? I can't remember the last time I heard of a serious camera having hot pixels in the sensor. Bob |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
PeterN wrote:
Plastic is good. Weighs less, and more comfortable to hold. True. I am more interested in hearing about the focusing issues with the D800, as I am torn between that and a D4. That should not really be too hard to decide (unless what you really want to have is both of them!). The D4 shines for event photography where higher ISO's are the norm and for sports photography or photo journalism where faster operation and frame rates are the norm. It is also a more rugged camera, hence for field work that may involve some abuse of the equipment (nature photography comes to mind), the D4 is better. The D800 has more pixels. It has better dynamic range too. Hence if large prints or cropping of images is important, or if producing the highest quality image with the least noise is significant, the D800 is better. Landscapes, fashion, glamour, and portrait work are examples of where the D800 shines over the D4. I use both models. If I could only have one it would have to be the D4, but the fact is that I shoot the D800 probably 2/3rds of the time. But when I need a D4 the D800 just won't do (event and sports), while if the D800 was not available the D4 will not be quite as good but will provide very usable results (people pictures, portraits, street photography, etc). One other point that I think is significant too... is that no matter what you have now, waiting to upgrade to either a D800 or a D4 is an unfortunate loss of time. A D3S is the only camera that comes close to comparing with them (specifically with the D4, not the D800), and either camera over everything else is a massive leap towards better photography (assuming you do have the time and talent to make use of such cameras). Ohh... Unless you typically mount f/1.4 lenses and shoot focus chart wide open, there isn't a focus problem. If you do shoot charts, there might be. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D600 | Me | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 22nd 12 10:43 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 63 | July 10th 12 02:07 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 07:27 PM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 01:35 AM |