Nikon D600

You would think they'd focus on getting the D800 and D4 to waiting customers first.
 
But no af motor? ..
I know that most new lenses have motor built-in but still...do all ' cheaper lenses have motor built-in ?

Still can be good to get new FF body for cheap money...can be good backup body
 
I'd be amazed if it's that cheap. I'd love to get into full frame but I'll have to pass if there's no built-in af motor. It pushes the price of the camera too high if I've got to start replacing my screwdrive lenses.
 
I have to be honest...there's nothing about full frame that temps me into it...I would definitely miss the range of DX and i'm sure the D400 will push the ISO even better than D7k.

I'm not convinced a cheap full frame will do too well, especially without a motor.
 
I can wholeheartedly say I'm now lost with Nikon line-up, and the rumoured D600 only confuses me more.
 
Phil Young said:
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/26/more-nikon-d600-rumors.aspx/

Hmmm...could be interesting?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, personally I can't see Nikon producing a FF camera without an af motor, as that suggests using the smaller Dxx00 body and if that were the case it would have a four digit model number.

Speaking of model numbers it would completely screw up the already messy Nikon numbering system, as logic would seem to suggest the D500 and D600 would be the next two generations of APS-C bodies and the D800 and D900 the last two FF prosumer models under the current scheme....
 
I like the idea of an D600...but not without an AF motor...
 
80% of my lenses wouldn't AF, so it would never be a camera for me. Not that I believe the rumour anyway.
 
Phil Young said:
I have to be honest...there's nothing about full frame that temps me into it...I would definitely miss the range of DX and i'm sure the D400 will push the ISO even better than D7k.

I'm not convinced a cheap full frame will do too well, especially without a motor.
Click to expand...

D400 is very likely to have 24MP sensor from NEX-7. That one is not any less noisy.

no AF motor is not a big issue for many, particularly new buyers. I can't think of a single recent Nikon lens without a motor. You have your 24-70, 70-200, even 50mm, so what's the problem? I bet it may have older sensor (D700?), weaker AF, no seals, and other crippling, and perhaps 1.5k price point (to go against 5D mark ii which already sucks under all those points)
 
Nikon have 1 month to get my D4 to me and then I seriously start thinking of moving. I'm starting to get fed up of this farce.
 
I have been going the other way around trying to get the best quality out of the smallest possible body. It looks to me the K-5 + a prime is is less than 2/3s the weight of a similar Nikon/Canon FF combo while delivering 9/10 the IQ and features. Now the EM-5 is 1/3 the size/weight while getting 70% on IQ... I think another couple generations of m4/3s sensors and they will be where a D7K is now which is scarily good.

Of course DOF is a whole different story where a smaller cheaper less 'PRO' ff body might find its niche.
 
vrapan said:
I have been going the other way around trying to get the best quality out of the smallest possible body. It looks to me the K-5 + a prime is is less than 2/3s the weight of a similar Nikon/Canon FF combo while delivering 9/10 the IQ and features. Now the EM-5 is 1/3 the size/weight while getting 70% on IQ... I think another couple generations of m4/3s sensors and they will be where a D7K is now which is scarily good.

Of course DOF is a whole different story where a smaller cheaper less 'PRO' ff body might find its niche.
Click to expand...

To be honest, m4/3 have not really gone much further than the old 4/3 offerings... And they are extremely uncomfortable to hold and operate due to their tiny size. Sorry
 
daugirdas said:
To be honest, m4/3 have not really gone much further than the old 4/3 offerings... And they are extremely uncomfortable to hold and operate due to their tiny size. Sorry
Click to expand...

You need to try the EM-5 with a grip :D Nice to hold and the IQ/Noise up to and including 2000 is pretty amazing.

Shame for the lack of fast zooms but hopefully some are on the way
 
To be honest a D600 makes sense, Nikon need a lower price FF camera to maintain position against Canon and their now reduced price 5D2.
 
If Nikon produced a high end body that did not included an AF motor I doubt many people would consider it.
People hold on to their glass for years and swap bodies when its time to upgrade. I can see that Nikon would like to sell a larger volume of their newer lenses so would perhaps test the water with a rumour, but really ?
 
Farno said:
If Nikon produced a high end body that did not included an AF motor I doubt many people would consider it.
People hold on to their glass for years and swap bodies when its time to upgrade. I can see that Nikon would like to sell a larger volume of their newer lenses so would perhaps test the water with a rumour, but really ?
Click to expand...

having a full frame sensor doesn't make it high end. It will be like the D3200 of the full frame range most likely. Obviously in a bigger body but they can't make it pro spec, that won't make financial sense.
 
Farno said:
If Nikon produced a high end body that did not included an AF motor I doubt many people would consider it.
People hold on to their glass for years and swap bodies when its time to upgrade. I can see that Nikon would like to sell a larger volume of their newer lenses so would perhaps test the water with a rumour, but really ?
Click to expand...

People used to buy crippled 5D 1/2s just because they were FF.

Let's play a little game - let's presume you are new to Nikon (like I would be), and obviously you can afford some decent glass if you can afford this. So what glass would you get?
My answers would be 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S to start with, then adding on 70-200 f/2.8 AFS VRII, 16-35 AF-S, 105 AFS micro, 50 AFS, 85 AFS... I am struggling to think of non AFS glass I'd want, let alone available from new. I don't see the problem.
If you are a long term user with old glass, you should have had D700 by now... that's what Nikon thinks.
 
Farno said:
If Nikon produced a high end body that did not included an AF motor I doubt many people would consider it.
People hold on to their glass for years and swap bodies when its time to upgrade. I can see that Nikon would like to sell a larger volume of their newer lenses so would perhaps test the water with a rumour, but really ?
Click to expand...

The motor is a non issue for me. Of all the autofocus lenses I have, only 2 are screw driven and they both have better AF-S versions available. A cheap FF in a D7000 style body with D800/D4 AF I'd buy with or without AF motor, which is rapidly becoming dead weight. And there are still bodies with the motor for those so inclined.
 
Phil Young said:
having a full frame sensor doesn't make it high end. It will be like the D3200 of the full frame range most likely. Obviously in a bigger body but they can't make it pro spec, that won't make financial sense.
Click to expand...

The who point of doing away with the motor was to allow for a smaller body, simply removing it from a larger one is what makes no sense...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The who point of doing away with the motor was to allow for a smaller body, simply removing it from a larger one is what makes no sense...
Click to expand...

It does make some sense if Nikon fancy flogging a few lenses as well... Not that I'm cynical you understand.
 
I struggle to believe this rumour. Assuming Nikon want a cheaper ff body why not just keep the d700 in production? Ff sensors are tricky to make and cost alot more then crop so it's hard to see how this fits ( other then in a wishful thinking way).

Nikon are too small a company to produce three new ff bodies in a year
 
boyfalldown said:
I struggle to believe this rumour. Assuming Nikon want a cheaper ff body why not just keep the d700 in production? Ff sensors are tricky to make and cost alot more then crop so it's hard to see how this fits ( other then in a wishful thinking way).

Nikon are too small a company to produce three new ff bodies in a year
Click to expand...

Apparently they are keeping the D700 in production (for now).......
 
simonblue said:
I heard the same,they keep making the point (Nikon),that the D800 is not a direct replacment to the D700.

Still hoping for a mini me D4 here :)
Click to expand...

The cheapest option for Nikon would be to stick the, now defunct, D3s sensor into the D700 body - instant new £2000 FF body.....
 
boyfalldown said:
but why would they bother, they're just going to canniblise sales from the d800 if they do
Click to expand...

I never really understand this argument. Yes they may pinch a few sales from the D800 but that shouldn't matter seeing as they're both made by the same company. Nikon get the customer's money one way or the other. More importantly, they might pinch a few sales from their competitors.
 
boyfalldown said:
but why would they bother, they're just going to canniblise sales from the d800 if they do
Click to expand...

In that case why continue producing the D700? Surely in that case the same applies to it?
 
gad-westy said:
I never really understand this argument. Yes they may pinch a few sales from the D800 but that shouldn't matter seeing as they're both made by the same company. Nikon get the customer's money one way or the other. More importantly, they might pinch a few sales from their competitors.
Click to expand...

But even a 'D700s' for the sake of argument would involve quite alot of R & D costs (not as much as a new camera but even so......) so you're saving that money.

Additionally not all products creat equal profitability for a company, would Nikon rather you bought a D800 that makes them lots (and returns the R & D investment as well) or a d700s that makes them less per sale?. Its exactly the same reason we won't see a mini d4 (in the same way as the d700 was a mini d3)

Flash In The Pan said:
In that case why continue producing the D700? Surely in that case the same applies to it?
Click to expand...

'cause at the moment its a free option and I'm prepared to bet, Nikon won't be making it that much longer
 
Flash In The Pan said:
In that case why continue producing the D700? Surely in that case the same applies to it?
Click to expand...

Good question...

The D700 is outdated now.

With the ISO of the D3s, D4 and now even the D800, I should think customers will want more.

Yes it was good when it came out...but would any of us really "want" a D700 now? No, we's want something more like the D4...I should think this will be the future.

I can only revert to DX. Once the D400 is introduced I expect the D90 will be discontinued and the D7K will actually fit as the 90's rightful replacement.

Perhaps once the D600 is produced it wool take the 700's, place on the shelf...?
 
boyfalldown said:
But even a 'D700s' for the sake of argument would involve quite alot of R & D costs (not as much as a new camera but even so......) so you're saving that money.

Additionally not all products creat equal profitability for a company, would Nikon rather you bought a D800 that makes them lots (and returns the R & D investment as well) or a d700s that makes them less per sale?. Its exactly the same reason we won't see a mini d4 (in the same way as the d700 was a mini d3)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong (and lets face it Nikon probably know what they're doing) but all of this is a little speculative. I don't see why a D800 would make any more money than a D700s. All I do know is that if somebody went out and bought a Canon 5D instead, then Nikon won't make a penny.
 
gad-westy said:
I'm not saying you're wrong (and lets face it Nikon probably know what they're doing) but all of this is a little speculative. I don't see why a D800 would make any more money than a D700s. All I do know is that if somebody went out and bought a Canon 5D instead, then Nikon won't make a penny.
Click to expand...

I don't either. It's a totally different market. Not ALL pro sports photographers will want to splash out on a D4 but would mossy likely happily pay half for a D700s....
 
I wouldnt say the D700 is that outdated,still one hell of a camera,i have no plans to rush out and replace mine just yet.

The D800 is not greatest camera,say as a sport or press camera,and the D4 is a hell of a lot of money.

I still think their is a place for a more addfordble FF,press, sport,camera :)
 
gad-westy said:
I'm not saying you're wrong (and lets face it Nikon probably know what they're doing) but all of this is a little speculative. I don't see why a D800 would make any more money than a D700s. All I do know is that if somebody went out and bought a Canon 5D instead, then Nikon won't make a penny.
Click to expand...

all true, but I guess Nikon made less on each d700 sold then each d3, some people would never have bought a d3 true enough , but alot of people bought d700's who would otherwise of bought d3's
 
boyfalldown said:
all true, but I guess Nikon made less on each d700 sold then each d3, some people would never have bought a d3 true enough , but alot of people bought d700's who would otherwise of bought d3's
Click to expand...

Yep, it's all a bit of a balancing act. The important thing is to get those customers in the first place. And of course, the body is only one part of equation. If each of those customers buys a couple of pro lenses as well...
 
boyfalldown said:
But even a 'D700s' for the sake of argument would involve quite alot of R & D costs (not as much as a new camera but even so......) so you're saving that money.
Click to expand...

I can't see how it would involve anything more than minimal R&D costs, it's a straight parts swap. Any major R&D required was done when the same sensor went into the D3 to produce the D3s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top