Is the D600 overpriced?

Bruce wrote in
:

RichA wrote:

On Oct 2, 9:12*am, Bruce wrote:
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?

The D600 chassis is closely related to the D7000's but has a mirror
box and pentaprism derived from those of the D700.

I think the D600 is very well priced, particularly when you consider
that the Sony Alpha 99 SLT and DSC-RX1 both cost much more in spite
of each having a sensor identical to the one in the D600.

Honestly, who counts Sony when it comes to this kind of thing? No one
is going to buy a Sony over a Nikon if they are committing to spend a
few thousand dollars unless they are into experimenting. But if you
are going to, what is the feature set of the 99 SLT versus the D600?


I'm not sure because I haven't got my hands on one yet. I missed the
Sony stand at Photokina because I had to return early. But Sony is
marketing the A99 SLT as a "professional" camera whereas the Nikon
D600 is in the "prosumer" category, so I would expect faster frame
rates, better AF etc..


I have been able to spend some time testing an RX1. *It is a very
interesting camera but I was disappointed with the Carl Zeiss lens,
a 35mm f/2.

Wide open, it is very soft in the corners and disappointingly
unsharp in the centre. *The centre sharpens up by f/4 and is very
sharp at f/5.6. *The edges lag far behind, though. *They are
reasonably sharp at f/5.6 but the best performance across the frame
is at f/11.

Useless then. A $3000.00 paperweight with HUGE limitations.


Not useless, but I agree the lens is hugely limited at that price.


My favourite standard lens on full frame is the Leica 35mm f/2
Summicron, the last model before the ASPH. *It is a lovely lens,
giving excellent centre sharpness by f/2.8 and its best performance
across the frame at f/5.6. *I suppose it would be fair to describe
it as being diffraction limited at f/5.6. *It's basically about two
stops faster than the Sony's Carl Zeiss lens for equivalent
sharpness and is perfectly usable wide open which the RX1's is not.

I saw an old comparison of some high-end lenses and the Contax 35mm f/
2.0 was judged very good.


I used the Contax 35mm f/1.4 MM on my Canon EOS 5D bodies. Like most
35mm f/1.4 lenses, it was flawed, but nowhere near as flawed as the
AIS Nikkor. I don't think I ever used the f/2 version. I certainly
didn't own one. The best 35mm f/2 on full frame digital is the Pentax
FA, although it isn't ideally suited to manual focus operation on a
Canon body. It's a beautiful lens and I will be one of the first to
buy the Pentax full frame DSLR when it becomes available, simply so I
can get the best out of the several Pentax lenses I still own. It has
been a long wait.

Tne Nikon I tested was just a tad better.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/niko...versus_pentax_
35mm_f20

Bruce wrote in
:

Bruce wrote:

I used the Contax 35mm f/1.4 MM on my Canon EOS 5D bodies. Like most
35mm f/1.4 lenses, it was flawed, but nowhere near as flawed as the
AIS Nikkor. I don't think I ever used the f/2 version. I certainly
didn't own one.


That is, of course, because it did not exist. There were 35mm f/1.4
and f/2.8 versions for the Contax SLRs. There was a 35mm f/2 for the
Contax G1 and G2 P&S cameras, but it wasn't a stellar performer.


I think the test was for the G camera 35mm f/2.0.

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.

On 2012.10.03 08:04 , Bruce wrote:
Rich wrote:

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.


Well said, Rich!

Of course being unhinged is almost a prerequisite for the SI. I'm not
sure which is worse; the lamentable submissions or the toe-curling
sycophantic comments by people who don't have a clue what they are
talking about. The mutual admiration of images that are almost
totally without merit is ... well, please pass the sick bag. ;-)

Tony Polson (aka "Bruce") supporting anyone who says the slightest thing
against the SI. Pathetic supporting vacuous.

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

On 2012-10-03 16:34:32 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012.10.03 08:04 , Bruce wrote:
Rich wrote:

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.


Well said, Rich!

Of course being unhinged is almost a prerequisite for the SI. I'm not
sure which is worse; the lamentable submissions or the toe-curling
sycophantic comments by people who don't have a clue what they are
talking about. The mutual admiration of images that are almost
totally without merit is ... well, please pass the sick bag. ;-)

Tony Polson (aka "Bruce") supporting anyone who says the slightest thing
against the SI. Pathetic supporting vacuous.

....and the World wonders what a current Tony Polson (aka Bruce) image,
captured on the fine equipment available to him looks like.
We are well aware of Rich's capable eye and ability as he has taken
that step to share when the moment took him. For all we know
"Tony'Bruce" remains immersed in grain, and we have no evidence to
think anything else.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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?

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?

Not really, the 600 is smaller and lighter, feels quite nice to shoot. The 600
takes 2 SD cards as compared to 1 CF card in the 700. Bracketing has gone down
to 3 instead of 5 max, don't know why... but it has time lapse and other fancy
stuff built in, like an airplane horizon bank and climb indicator!

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 Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:



The D700 was about $2600 when it was discontinued. So, with the D600,
you get a newer sensor, quite different, and FF too. But obviously,
if it's cheaper than the D700, yet twice the price of the D7000, the
body has been a compromise.
Even the D300s has arguably, a better body. But, not knowing the cost
of the FF sensor, the bigger prism and mirror, the mechanism, etc.,
it's hard to just say, "The D600 should be in the $1600 range." The
left-over D700's are going for $2200-$3000.

I bought the D700 new in Canada for $2300, and it's price is holding, so far.

As far as I know the 600 is mostly metal except for a few pieces... and weather
proof. It's definitely a far better camera than the 700 in every way.

And yes, Nikon is totally weird how it comes up with different cameras! Must be
ran by a committee...

wrote in
:

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:44:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:



The D700 was about $2600 when it was discontinued. So, with the D600,
you get a newer sensor, quite different, and FF too. But obviously,
if it's cheaper than the D700, yet twice the price of the D7000, the
body has been a compromise.
Even the D300s has arguably, a better body. But, not knowing the cost
of the FF sensor, the bigger prism and mirror, the mechanism, etc.,
it's hard to just say, "The D600 should be in the $1600 range." The
left-over D700's are going for $2200-$3000.

I bought the D700 new in Canada for $2300, and it's price is holding,
so far.

As far as I know the 600 is mostly metal except for a few pieces...
and weather proof. It's definitely a far better camera than the 700 in
every way.

And yes, Nikon is totally weird how it comes up with different
cameras! Must be ran by a committee...



Weather resistant, not proof. The only weather proof camera was the
Olympus E-1.