Would like to see some nice D600 raw files and photos in general.
Would like to see some nice D600 raw files and photos in general.
Am seriously thinking about it - will play with one next week and then decide.
Could be a nice small compact hiking camera.
Then again, so could the Fuji XE-1....
The German DSLR-Forum has a subsection where some members already uploaded photos, but you have to be registered and logged in to see most of them:
Gehäuse D600 - DSLR-Forum
Forget about the image quality. It will be as good as any other 24MP 35mm camera or better. Nothing sensational, but what is nowadays? But when it comes to size and ergonomics, it's amazingly good. I tried it next to the F6, my favourite 35mm camera so far, and it's... almost as good
Also, it's quite easy to over look how good the D600 might actually with the D800 and its large shadow (MP size).
I think anyone looking to upgrade and doesn't have the D800 and doesn't want that size to post process, I actually think this is the real D700 upgrade. Sure the AF doesn't sound as great, but I hope it's close! It also won't be so demanding on the lenses, and 24MP is still very good!
>Forget about the image quality. It will be as good as any other 24MP 35mm camera or better.
I am not worried but just wanted to play with some real world raws (have test raws though).
Thats not to say the D600 isn't a welcomed addition and might very well be a very good camera for it's balanced approach to file size/compactness and higher ISO performance, but I think some are still waiting for the "real" D700 successor to show up. Whether it does or not, is anyone's guess.
While I agree with you if they made 24MP D800 body, with faster fps, and same D4 AF system, that'll be quite camera, although I'm not sure what D800 owners would feel!
For those that want a much smaller and lighter travel body and do not need faster frame rates and performance, the D600 fits the bill very nicely, all things considered.
I can see a need fro both a D600 and a real D700 successor. The D4 could still hold advantages such as the D3s had a fair amount of advantages over the D700...not a whole lot in many key areas but enough for many to choose the D3s (not D3) over the D700. Thats how I ould see a D4 vs. this D700 successor.
Again, I agree with about the D3s, that was a really good upgrade!
However, I could see a real successor still to have more MP than 16mp, something I feel quite strongly about! Now I'm not sure it will ever come, the market bridges way too many gaps, and will limit performance or buttons just to fit the grade!
With current sensor technology, find 24MP the perfect compromise for a 35mm sensor. Handling is and individual thing, but I find the D600 body far superior to either the D700 or the D800 body for anything except sports photography where a more advanced AF would be of interest. With large zoom lenses, the size doesn't matter so much, but with a set of primes, like 28/50/85, the D600 is just perfect.
I have the 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. Right now the 28mm f/1.8 is on my list. I may not end up buying because we have the D800 and the Canon 5D2 as our second DSLR body.
In the EU, the lowest price is ~1100 Euros lower than the yet unavailable SOny A99.
Mine arrives on Wednesday
Aboudd just started a fun with D600 image thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/40653-fun-d600.html
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
After having tried the D600 and seen a number of photos taken with it at an assortment of ISOs, it seems to be so perfect for my needs that it's almost boring. It fits perfectly between the D300/D2Xs duo that I use for sports and the F6 that I use for film. I've said it before and I might as well repeat it: Nikon is like Volvo. They don't make perfect cameras, but they are damn good, good enough to make a change of brands a rather pointless exercise.
So, I'm stacking pennies on top of each other, hoping that they'll reach the ceiling within a month or so
I don't care what gear I have.
Things I sell: http://www.shutterstock.com/sets/413...html?rid=611051 Member(s) liked this post
100% agree with Jorgen!
After spending a couple of days with my D600 I'm very impressed overall with the build and performance of the camera. The lack of 100% zoom on the right selector is very distracting for me and I'm beginning to curse Nikon's marketing dept every time I press it and bring up the retouch menu! (They obviously left this as a D800 upgrade option!).
Initially I purchased a 24-85 VR to go with the camera since it seemed like a nice convenient AF option (all my other glass is Zeiss ZF manual focus). However, it only took 24 hrs for me to swap that out for the FAR superior 24-120/4 VR. This lens sings on the D600 plus works well on my D800 IR without a noticeable hot spot or LCC with an IR filter or hot mirror UV/IR filter. I wasn't sure how well this would work with 24mp and 36mp but so far it seems very sharp.
Since the D600 is my colour/travel DSLR I also added the MB-D14 grip. This is well made and fits like a glove on the body in the same solid way that the D700 version did. (Or for comparison - the total opposite of how embarrassingly bad the Phase One grip fits on the DF body!! ). No speed improvement but it handles extremely well with the extra grip. For me it's an option that I may remove when I travel but having the 2x EN15 powering the camera batteries is nice for extended use without access to recharging.
I'll post some pics once I've found something not too boring & snap-shotish. So far though I LIKE it. Now I can dedicate my converted D800 fully to IR and use the D600 for everything else.
>However, it only took 24 hrs for me to swap that out for the FAR superior 24-120/4 VR.
Good info. The 24-120mm f/4 VR is also quite good with the D800 considering that range. So I hope it may work well on the D600.
I've been happy enough with the 24-85Vr on my D800 and think it will be equally good on the D600. Interestingly enough Ken Rockwell also favours the 24-85VR.
The reviews I have read seem to suggest that there is no advantage to the 24-120VR other than the constant f4 and the slightly longer focal length.
I think that if I was to "upgrade" from the 24-85, it would be to the 24-70/2.8 but not the 24-120, however, this is a personal view and not a criticism of other's lens choices.
I'm not trying to rain on your parade with the 24-85VR, just that for me it wasn't up to the abilities of the 24mp sensor and I wasn't impressed with the acuity or focus accuracy with my copy. I owned and shot both the 24-70/2.8 and 24-120/4VR for years and know them both very well. The 24-85VR looked to be a very convenient travel package and I'm sure that it fits that niche very well. It just wasn't for me. Fortunately, I bought the D600 and lens separately and so it was an easy process to simply swap it and so I did.
I went with the 24-120VR for convenience rather than ultimate image quality since I have Zeiss ZF.2 primes for that. That said, the 24-120VR is a very versatile package and the VR comes in very handy for handheld work. You might want to think carefully about the 24-70 vs 24-120 decision as it's not as simple as it might seem. The 24-70 is a great lens and it's real strength is in lack of distortion. However, it isn't without it's own foibles.
I think the way we disagree on the merits (or not) of the 24-85 VR or the 24-120 VR is simply a reflection of the requirements we have of the lens as well as the possible production quality variations that all manufacturers seem to have. I am certainly aware of people complaining that a particular lens is soft wide open whilst other do not seem to suffer from that issue, as an example.
Also it is noted that the various testers who publish their findings on line, such as Photozone, Thom Hogan or Ken Rockwell (amongst others) can have quite differing opinions of a lens. I tend to see what the consensus of opinion is and balance that with my user experience to get to some sort of working opinion.
My experience of the 24-120 has left me cold, it started off well enough and then became softer with use at the wide end for some reason. Maybe I had a lemon? My current experience of the 24-85 is favourable and whilst I don't pretend that it is to everyone's taste or capable of delivering the quality that any particular user may demand it seems acceptable for general purpose professional work with the advantage of being light and compact to boot. It works well enough on my D800 and that is enough for me to be content. Maybe yours wasn't up to the standard it should have been or perhaps I simply have lower standards (who knows?).
For a number of years I used the Minolta/Sony System (but have used Nikon since FM2 days as well) and found the little Minolta 24-105 to be a great general purpose lens even though many criticized it. It too wasn't perfect (perhaps far from it) but it met my needs well enough. My more expensive Zeiss 24-70/2.8 was much better in oh so many ways, but was a brute to carry around for a wedding or other long days work, hence the humble little 24-105. Horses for courses (as they say).
Certainly there seems to be a group of people on this site who like the 24-120 and I'm pleased that they have a favourable experience of that lens, others like me may prefer the 24-85. Both optics have their strengths and weaknesses.
It's a good thing that Nikon have provided us with a choice, perhaps I'll try another 24-120 some day or maybe there will be another alternative by then.
Here are some comparison shots at 120mm between D800 / D600 using 24-120VR at the same location. I typically shoot reference images at this place whenever I get new gear.
D800 is a full spectrum UV/IR camera so I have to use a hot-mirror filter which has some effect on white balance etc. It's why I bought the D600 actually.I could normalize the white balances I suppose but this was just a quick comparison for fun & giggles.
You're not really going to see the true differences here on a web jpg so I've cropped the same area for each image, although they are all down sampled to 1k pixels which kind of masks the resolution difference of the D800 - yes, it's there but not a HUGE difference. It's hardly definitive but it might be useful to someone.
Also included is an image taken with my D3x & Zeiss ZF 100/2. Btw, D600 images were handheld as I don't have a RRS plate for it yet. VR @ 1/320s. D800 and D3x were on a Cube/SGT5560 behemoth.
Conclusion? Err, I don't think that there is one other than I'm pretty pleased with the D600/24-120VR combo and that the Zeiss ZF 100/2 kicks butt and I need another one!
Btw, all processed in Capture NX2.
D600 24-120VR 120mm @ f/8
D3x Crop with Zeiss 100/2:
Last edited by GrahamWelland; 1st October 2012 at 10:09.
Graham I need two lenses right now, a 28mm and 80mm. So I have two questions for you.
The 24-120 VR at 28 and 80 how do they behave and corners??
You use Zeiss lenses and also have a wide range zoom lens. DO you use it on your personal work or just for Pr stuff?
To be honest, if you spend the majority of your time at those two focal lengths then I might be inclined to go with a 28/85 prime pair. The zoom is great but not distortion free and so it really depends on your needs. A pair of the 1.8 primes or the better 1.4 primes would be better overall.
I can send you a set of test NEF files for 24-120 that I shot at 24/45/77/120 via dropbox if it would be helpful.
What I might suggest is going to lensrentals.com and consider renting a couple of lenses to try out. I've been doing that recently for my new Zeiss glass since they have them in stock. By comparison my Zeiss primes really do perform noticably better than the 24-120 zoom but are purely MF glass. If you want AF then you might want to look at the Nikon primes or why not try the 24-85VR or 24-120VR for yourself with your subject matter. Cheap to rent vs making a mistake.
Yes your right, better to try it first before buying. I have a friend who's got the 24-85 VR. I'll ask him. Thanks for the files. I'll check them out.
I take no sides in the canon vs Nikon "war". I'd ask folks with more canon experience about that one. My 5dmkII friends lament the performance of the canon in the shadows vs the D800 but that's only one aspect of ownership of either system. Ultimately, they're all excellent.
Shadow Noise. That is one of the most important reasons I went from 5DMKII to Nikon D800. I don't know about the 5DMKIII but as seen from DP Review, the D600 would be better.
This guy is actually pretty small! D600 & MB-D14 plus Zeiss nifty fifty ZF.2 50/1.4 ( I confess that I DO have reasonably large hands but not HUGE hands)
Rosebud ...1 Member(s) liked this post
The only problem is that I have the original Canon 5D and it is a real pain in the arse - being a DUST MAGNET and only 12MP, although I love the beautiful macros I can capture with the 180mm Macro L.
compare with ams***
Ultimately I could make them all look identical in reality. The only real difference is the white balance. The d800 image is from my full spectrum camera and requires a hot mirror UV/IR filter which shifts WB slightly.
I agree about the problem of comparing jpgs - I can post some raw NEF if people want to look for themselves. To be honest it was more of a lens test with the 24-120VR.
Well, I'm about to get my D600 (it has finally come down to a reasonable price in the UK!) and I'm keen to try it out. It arrives on Tuesday, so Tuesday morning will be a bit of fun! Sorry couldn't resist posting, feel like a kid at Christmas even after 28 years in the profession!
You're right Graham, I am very pleased with it.
On my wish-list was a full-frame camera with high resolution, low weight and affordable price that would serve as a back-up camera and as one for those long day assignment where too much weight becomes an issue. Perfect for scaling a lighting tower to take progress shots on a building site for example.
One criticism: the remote control connection is absent, or perhaps not the same as the D800, so I'll have to get another remote release - which while a small thing is a bit annoying. Otherwise I'm delighted!
The controls are slightly different and that with my gripe about the remote release and the multi-selector zoom button functionality which Graham mentions causes me think that Nikon should consider designing their current range of cameras to work in the same way so that switching from one to another is more fluid. A small point, but perhaps worth mentioning.
I tried the camera out with my 35/2 and found it to be a very pleasing combination. The look and balance of the combination works well for me and whilst the 35/2 is out-performed by the D800, it works quite well with the D600.