D600 - £2000!

Andrew_S said:
As many of you may remember from the other week, I posted a thread pondering whether to step up to the D700. Now I've been made aware of Panamoz and their astonishing deal on the D600 I'm thinking that's the way to go.... Under £1400 (incl the 5% discount) for a new D600 when I'd have to pay around £1200 for a D700 in fairly good condition that's probably done 20000-30000 actuations. I'm right in thinking there's probably only one way to go aren't I?
Click to expand...

Yes.......a used D700 ;)
 
Andrew_S said:
As many of you may remember from the other week, I posted a thread pondering whether to step up to the D700. Now I've been made aware of Panamoz and their astonishing deal on the D600 I'm thinking that's the way to go.... Under £1400 (incl the 5% discount) for a new D600 when I'd have to pay around £1200 for a D700 in fairly good condition that's probably done 20000-30000 actuations. I'm right in thinking there's probably only one way to go aren't I?
Click to expand...
Wow they have knocked off another £200 since yesterday. I'm getting really tempted myself! As anyone had any problems with the transfer and not having the credit card protection?
 
maninsuitcase said:
I think Nikon made the D700 too good. It was a D3, smaller. Not a lot else difference wise that would matter to many.

By focusing the new cameras more there's a more obvious camera for a certain job. Sadly this does mean you can't just drop £2000 on a D700 and be done any more.

That said I believe the D600 will be more camera than 90% of people will need. Also 24 MP is not much more than the 20MP ish, really, people are calling the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

I know the D3/D700 history but the problem there was that the D3 was essentially a d700 in a different body. The D3s put some distance between it and the d700 though and became a good seller.

I don't think a d800 with 20mp would've crippled the D4 sales though - the majority of those who were going to buy the D4 would continue to do so. The D4 could have been marked out by its exceptional build quality, low light prowess and high speed whereas a 20mp d800 would've been slower and not as good in low light but still an essential step up from the d700.

Canon has given their 5D users the exact upgrade that they'd hoped and asked for. Canon don't seem to think it'll eat their 1D sales either.
 
decigallen said:
Canon has given their 5D users the exact upgrade that they'd hoped and asked for. Canon don't seem to think it'll eat their 1D sales either.
Click to expand...

I think some Canon users wanted a few more pixels, especially after the D800 had been released, and not so high a price too, so not exactly what they were asking for. ;) :lol:

if they always released exactly what people expected there'd be no surprises and disappointments, and nothing to talk about. :lol:
 
Seeing the price drops at Panamoz on the 600 are tempting, but even if it came down even more, I dont think I could enjoy having a smaller body than the D300. Guess its either the 800 or wait for a D400!
 
I'm now SERIOUSLY tempted at £1400.

I currently use a D7000 and when I saw the D600 I drooled... But didn't quite want to spend £2000.

It has as near as damnit the size, weight, handling, functions, features, controls and battery life of a D7000... But with an FX sensor, and for someone like me, that's a dream come true.

I travel a lot and I like my DSLR's as small and light as possible with good battery life.

I would obviously need to sell my 18-200 VR lens and buy the equivalent FX superzoom which I believe is the 28-300 :)
 
I decided to get a D700 in the end.....something about the D600 leaves me uneasy and think its best to stay with a tried and tested camera (I think it will still perform on par, if not outperform the D600.....)
 
crazyp said:
I decided to get a D700 in the end.....something about the D600 leaves me uneasy and think its best to stay with a tried and tested camera (I think it will still perform on par, if not outperform the D600.....)
Click to expand...

Depends in what areas you mean, but yes it out performs the d600 in some areas like focus points and mag alloy body etc..
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Depends in what areas you mean, but yes it out performs the d600 in some areas like focus points and mag alloy body etc..
Click to expand...

I think high ISO and noise will be close - on resolution I think D600 will win. Video is also no contest ;)
 
crazyp said:
I think high ISO and noise will be close - on resolution I think D600 will win. Video is also no contest ;)
Click to expand...
I think you are right the comparisions i've seen they are very close, i do think the d600 has the edge but you would have hoped more given the d700 is 4yrs old. I think sensor development is slowing down quite dramatically.

I heard lots of hype about organic sensors last year but its all gone quiet?
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to notice more and more used D700 on the Irish classified sites. The prices are coming down too. Good time to be getting into FX, anyone moving from a D80/90/7000/300/s - I was lucky to have the funds for the 800E, but if I didn't, I'd have gone for a D700.

The D600 may have full HD video, but it's fail om one major point re; video - It doesn't allow aperture or ISO changes in Live view. The D800 does. Maybe they did this to make the D800 still more attractive? But seems a silly move. No aperture or ISO control when videoing was bad enough on the D90. That's almost 5 years old now.
 
Cagey75 said:
doesn't allow aperture or ISO changes in Live view. The D800 does. Maybe they did this to make the D800 still more attractive? But seems a silly move. No aperture or ISO control when videoing was bad enough on the D90. That's almost 5 years old now.
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous decision that makes little sense. Nikon can be infuriating sometimes. I don't shoot video so not something that will bother me.
 
That is pretty amazing. 1,2,3 to Nikon's newest babies. I see they don't have the 1Dx on their list yet though.
 
Cagey75 said:
That is pretty amazing. 1,2,3 to Nikon's newest babies. I see they don't have the 1Dx on their list yet though.
Click to expand...

It is to be expected though isn't it really?

It's a brand new camera with what seems to be the latest in sensor and processing tech.

This is why I'm confused by those saying "Not for me, I'll get a D700 instead thanks"

People seem to be slating the D600 because it's small, light, slightly more plastic, and 'consumer'.

If you are a press or sports photographer who stands in the pouring rain for hours pushing and shoving in a crowd with other photographers and needs 10 frames per second or whatever to get your shots then sure... Buy a larger, heavier, faster, weather sealed D700, but seriously, how many people on here fit that criteria??

I'm a keen amateur photographer and therefore I simply want the best sensor possible, in the smallest, lightest, cheapest body.

The 'street price' seems to be dropping nicely already and I do fancy one unless I'm missing something about the D700?
 
I picked up a D600 yesterday. It was the first new camera I've bought since the D3s three years ago.

I can't really comment on image quality because I can't shoot and upload any RAW files to LR3. But I can see that it feels ok in the hand (not as good as a D3 series but it's obviously smaller). The LCD screen is brilliant. I don't like two things so far:-

1) You can't add Auto ISO settings to the 'My Menu' screen. That's a real shame as I dip in and out of Auto ISO all the time and am constantly changing what I want the minimum shutter speed to be.

2) You can't make the little 'OK' button in the centre of the direction pad zoom in on the focus point when you're in image review. I found this a wonderful little trick for instantly checking sharpness on my D700/D3s.

That's all I can say for now. The fastest shutter speed is odd at 1/4000 sec but having a native ISO of 100 cancels that out in a way. Having a max sync speed of 1/200th is rather daft but again a lower ISO might help towards that. Of course putting a 1 stop ND filter over the lens will cure both issues in a flash.

It's lighter than a D700 but not terribly so - it stills feels like a well built camera.

It's smaller than a D700 but again not a great deal. The AE-L/AF-L button can be used as an AF-ON button (which is good) but it's a bit close to my right eye when I shoot (I shoot with my left eye).

No huge issues. I'm looking forward to seeing some big prints (in albums mainly) to see what difference the extra pixels makes.
 
TimB said:
It is to be expected though isn't it really?

It's a brand new camera with what seems to be the latest in sensor and processing tech.

This is why I'm confused by those saying "Not for me, I'll get a D700 instead thanks"

People seem to be slating the D600 because it's small, light, slightly more plastic, and 'consumer'.

If you are a press or sports photographer who stands in the pouring rain for hours pushing and shoving in a crowd with other photographers and needs 10 frames per second or whatever to get your shots then sure... Buy a larger, heavier, faster, weather sealed D700, but seriously, how many people on here fit that criteria??

I'm a keen amateur photographer and therefore I simply want the best sensor possible, in the smallest, lightest, cheapest body.

The 'street price' seems to be dropping nicely already and I do fancy one unless I'm missing something about the D700?
Click to expand...


But why then are Canon's latest not right up there too? The 5DIII is only level with the D3200. This has all the Canon users shunning DXO, saying the results don't matter, of course. If it was other way round they'd be all over it :D - You can't argue with numbers. Nikon are definitely doing something very right with their sensors.
 
ryanyboy said:
I picked up a D600 yesterday. It was the first new camera I've bought since the D3s three years ago.

I can't really comment on image quality because I can't shoot and upload any RAW files to LR3. But I can see that it feels ok in the hand (not as good as a D3 series but it's obviously smaller). The LCD screen is brilliant. I don't like two things so far:-

1) You can't add Auto ISO settings to the 'My Menu' screen. That's a real shame as I dip in and out of Auto ISO all the time and am constantly changing what I want the minimum shutter speed to be.
Click to expand...
This is bad new for me too as i too have auto iso in my menu, that i turn off and on regularly.
 
Yes you can turn it on and off. But not select minimum shutter speed/max Iso.
 
TimB said:
It is to be expected though isn't it really?

It's a brand new camera with what seems to be the latest in sensor and processing tech.

This is why I'm confused by those saying "Not for me, I'll get a D700 instead thanks"

People seem to be slating the D600 because it's small, light, slightly more plastic, and 'consumer'.

If you are a press or sports photographer who stands in the pouring rain for hours pushing and shoving in a crowd with other photographers and needs 10 frames per second or whatever to get your shots then sure... Buy a larger, heavier, faster, weather sealed D700, but seriously, how many people on here fit that criteria??

I'm a keen amateur photographer and therefore I simply want the best sensor possible, in the smallest, lightest, cheapest body.

The 'street price' seems to be dropping nicely already and I do fancy one unless I'm missing something about the D700?
Click to expand...

I love the size and feel of a D300. I dont like smaller bodies. A lot of people will be using a D600 as a work camera so would be nice for it to be more robust. Dropping the shutter to 1/4000 is strange, and I cannot work out why you would drop the flash speed from 1/320 to 1/200 - crazy!! The fps doesnt bother me.
 
cambsno said:
I love the size and feel of a D300. I dont like smaller bodies. A lot of people will be using a D600 as a work camera so would be nice for it to be more robust. Dropping the shutter to 1/4000 is strange, and I cannot work out why you would drop the flash speed from 1/320 to 1/200 - crazy!! The fps doesnt bother me.
Click to expand...

Because it's an entry-level model, you don't spec your cheapest model up to have the same features as your more expensive one....
 
Klopek said:
http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/nikon-d600-hands-on-review-part-1.html
Click to expand...

Not sure how many of you noticed in the above review there is one feature that makes the D600 score over the D800 and shares this only with the D4 in the whole Nikon family. It is the ability to choose if Exposure compensation works as global for both camera or flash or only for camera. This is a great feature the Canon cameras use to boast...but not any more the D600 has this.
 
Really?

I would rate my D90 as consumer.

A £1500 to £2000 body only camera I would say is very serious amateur/ semi pro. Someone who knows exactly the spec he wants, where he will compromise and where he will not.
 
People are rating this camera on the build? I would think end result matters most. It's not brittle or anything, when was the last time you saw a dslr crack open? even the cheapest plastic models? Unless you shoot out in the lashing rain a lot the weather sealing is only a bonus on higher end models too.
 
limpet9 said:
Really?

I would rate my D90 as consumer.

A £1500 to £2000 body only camera I would say is very serious amateur/ semi pro. Someone who knows exactly the spec he wants, where he will compromise and where he will not.
Click to expand...

Why? The D7000 replaced the D90, so by your definition is a "consumer" camera, the D600 is essentially just a D7000 "consumer" camera with a bigger sensor. It doesn't have any of the additional features that would move it up into the semi-pro/pro category, ergo it too is just a "consumer" camera, albeit one that costs a bit more than its APS-C brother.
 
Cagey75 said:
People are rating this camera on the build? I would think end result matters most.
Click to expand...

Nail on head. Just what I was driving at earlier.

The sensor, processing performance and outright image quality will be the essential deciding factor for 90% of people looking at this camera.

I would be buying it for the quality of the images and ease of use, not what material it's made of, or if it can withstand a monsoon...

Everyone seems to be getting upset of the compact size and lightweight build which is bizarre to me.

As I said earlier: Lighter, smaller, more compact is better for me and most people I would have thought? Only if you are a press photographer or something like that would you be even remotely concerned about the build quality, size and weather sealing.

I had a D40X for years and it got dropped out of the back of a lifted pickup truck onto concrete, survived several rain shower soakings, a snowmobile crash, many skiing accidents, drops onto snow and ice, sandy beaches and numerous other excursions and never missed a beat, and I can tell that 'consumer' build quality has come a long way since the D40X!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Why? The D7000 replaced the D90, so by your definition is a "consumer" camera, the D600 is essentially just a D7000 "consumer" camera with a bigger sensor. It doesn't have any of the additional features that would move it up into the semi-pro/pro category, ergo it too is just a "consumer" camera, albeit one that costs a bit more than its APS-C brother.
Click to expand...



I mean that a body that costs £1500 to £2000 should be enough to satisfy a serious amateur or semi pro who knows exactly what he wants.

The D7000 is available "body only" at Panamoz for £595 so yes consumer perhaps but at 3 times the price the D600 with essentially the same autofocus, the same half plastic body construction albeit with a larger sensor is either a vastly overpriced consumer model or noticibly underspecced semi pro jobby.
 
limpet9 said:
I mean that a body that costs £1500 to £2000 should be enough to satisfy a serious amateur or semi pro who knows exactly what he wants.

The D7000 is available "body only" at Panamoz for £595 so yes consumer perhaps but at 3 times the price the D600 with essentially the same autofocus, the same half plastic body construction albeit with a larger sensor is either a vastly overpriced consumer model or noticibly underspecced semi pro jobby.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's not a valid comparison. If you want to compare the D7000 and D600 prices you need to use the launch prices for both, not the tax-paid full retail for one against the discounted, pre-tax price from a grey market seller of a camera that's been on the market for some time now.

If you do use the launch prices of the two FX cameras and the DX models they are based on and allow a bit for currency fluctuations, inflation and changes in the VAT rate you'll see that the extra cost of the D600 over the D7000 is pretty much the same as that for the D700/300, so in effect you're just paying extra for the larger sensor, the fitting of which doesn't elevate the camera to "pro" status, it's still just a consumer camera, just a rather pricy one, as things stand.
 
Ok under £1400, now I'm getting tempted! I do have my reservations and that is the focus system, i have used a d7000 all day and I didn't really like it, I really noticed the difference between 39 and 51 focal points and i far prefered the feel of my d300. I need to have a serious think if its going to be this or a secondhand d700 or a push for the d800....... or i could remortgage and bull all 3 ;-)
 
Cagey75 said:
SO a tougher body = pro then?
Click to expand...

I'm betting Nikon would classify the D600 as consumer but definately not in their pro lineup and I doubt prosumer.

To me the D600 is the D7000’s update just with a larger sensor...and the D7000 is consumer. If there is a D7000 successor I reckon it will be very similar to the D600 just with a DX sensor instead...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top