"The Nikon D600, D800 and D4 are the same camera inside!"

[gramps]

So according to Ken Rockwell the Nikon D600, D800 and D4 are the same camera inside - is it conceivable that all you need is a D600?
It's an interesting read ...

Ken Rockwell

So what do you think?

 

[Pookeyhead]

This guy really is a k******d.

16, 24 or 36 MP is all the same. Nikon's simply varied them to segment the market. 10 MP is more than enough for anything.

Huh? 10mp MORE than enough for ANYTHING.. Just LOL. Right... Phase One are wasting their time with the IQ backs then huh Ken?

What a load of crap. So what if they share screens etc.. even image processing.. big fat so what? They're clearly not the same innards at all.

Metering? The same options. Maybe the Matrix has a few more pixels in the D4 and D800,

Then they're not the same then are they Ken.. (sigh).

If all you want are fantastic pictures, the D600 does the same thing as the D4 and D800 and D800E, for less money,

LOL.

Nikon's best DSLR ever because it's got better image quality that the D4, the same as the D800 and D800E (resolution is irrelevant),

Is it really.

Help me help you

I support my growing family through this website, as crazy as it might seem.

No... sod off.

 

[gramps]

Stop sitting on the fence David

 

[Graham00]

Well the D800 has 51 AF points, but the D600 has 39 AF points even though they use the same Expeed 3 sensor they're definately not the same.

 

[V8burble]

They are all black boxes with a hole to look through and a button to press... they are the same... its only in the details they are different

Good old Ken

 

[EspressoJunkie]

This guy really is a k******d.

This.

But the guys also bloody clever. He knows the more rubbish he talks, the more threads there are like this on various forums, which then drive people to his site, therefore making him money.

 

[redhed17]

This guy really is a k******d.

Yes, I think he is too. A very successful one though, especially when people on photo forums push traffic his way when he posts some obvious b*ll*x. :bang:

As soon as I saw his statement, many years ago, that RAW should only be used for Landscape images, it told me he was a d**k. There have been many deliberately controversial comments since then that haven't changed my mind about the man.

People say it's no problem, and you need to weed out the good stuff from the cr*p, which is fine, if you realise when he's talking cr*p. :shake: Most people new to the hobby may not know the difference and may take what he spouts out as fact. :bonk:

Good luck to him. I couldn't deliberately spout rubbish (I can do that by accident of course ) under the guise of 'humour', to make money. :nono:

 

[Martyn...]

But the guys also bloody clever. He knows the more rubbish he talks, the more threads there are like this on various forums, which then drive people to his site, therefore making him money.

Exactly

 

[simonblue]

Good old Ken

But maybe i think he saying for a lot a people thinking of buying full frame,maybe the D600 is all they need

 

[Phil Young]

Can't understand why everyone is on his back - it's been out there from day 1 that the D600 makes for better IQ than the D4.

Regarding the MP - I just blew up a 9.5mp image to A1 size and it looks great although I was skeptical and if I'd have thought about it before purchasing I might not have but nope, looks great.

KR rules He is very direct and controversial but nobody can say he doesn't know what he's talking about - in real life terms, I'm sure he's right about the metering, MP and everything else.

Perhaps I'm the only one in the forum that doesn't mind him but I wouldn't say he's wrong off the back of what I read and that all 3 camera's produce pretty much the same IQ or that the D600 is slightly better...

Having said all that...

The D4 doesn't have the same video capabilities - it's soft until CX crop.

The D600's AF is a problem for anyone that needs to frame to the edges.

From what I've seen from the D800's capabilities for macro....the D4 wouldn't really be able to compete cropping to the same level. I mistook a shot recently for 3:1 when it was actually 1:1 so if I were a serious macro shooter, that's where I'd be heading...

So they do have their differences and some of them are actually major...but IQ wise, I'm sure there's not much in them.

 

[Pookeyhead]

He is being deliberately contentious to get web site hits. Stop feeding him.

 

[Pookeyhead]

accidental double post.. sorry.

KR rules He is very direct and controversial but nobody can say he doesn't know what he's talking about - in real life terms, I'm sure he's right about the metering, MP and everything else.

No he's not. He says it's the same, then says it has 2000 pixels more in the D4... make your mind up Ken.

Clearly they are NOT the same cameras... he's just being a dick as usual. He doesn't know half as much as he thinks he does, and he's a troll. If that article was a post in these forums, the OP would be accused of trolling.

There are so many inconsistencies on his website, and so many instances where he posts erroneous data that conflicts with other stuff he's posted (and everyone else, including people who know a great deal more than he does).. I'm sorry, but I'm convinced he just quotes stuff he's read without fully understanding it. Nothing else makes sense.

So many beginners must be sooo misled by this idiot. He's fickle too... raving about something one months, slagging it off the next. He says what he needs to say to get the hits he needs. Clearly he depends on his website for a living.

 

[gramps]

So what do you make of his comparison in the progression of Nikon v Canon bodies?

 

[Phil Young]

accidental double post.. sorry.

No he's not. He says it's the same, then says it has 2000 pixels more in the D4... make your mind up Ken.

Clearly they are NOT the same cameras... he's just being a dick as usual. He doesn't know half as much as he thinks he does, and he's a troll. If that article was a post in these forums, the OP would be accused of trolling.

There are so many inconsistencies on his website, and so many instances where he posts erroneous data that conflicts with other stuff he's posted (and everyone else, including people who know a great deal more than he does).. I'm sorry, but I'm convinced he just quotes stuff he's read without fully understanding it. Nothing else makes sense.

So many beginners must be sooo misled by this idiot. He's fickle too... raving about something one months, slagging it off the next. He says what he needs to say to get the hits he needs. Clearly he depends on his website for a living.

.......so you don't like him then? Lol.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I was thinking about going for an FX camera. I mainly do landscapes and a D600 and 16-35 would cover most of my bases?

 

[Pookeyhead]

It would... but I'd work a little harder, and save a little longer for the 14-24 f2.8.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

It would... but I'd work a little harder, and save a little longer for the 14-24 f2.8.

The new 16-35 is an incredible lens if you don't need f2.8.

Personally, I prefer a slightly longer lens for landscapes mind.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I'd be inclined for the 14-24 but I need to be able to mount filters onto the lens, nor do I need F2.8. I tend to shoot at smaller aperatures

 

[rosiepep]

I don't think it's very conceivable that they are all the same but may prove to be an amusing read.

 

[Cagey75]

KR is a complete and utter waste of space, why oh why do people keep bringing him up on photo forums? as if his word meant a thing?

All of his 'reviews' are exactly the same pretentious, snobbish rubbish:

"I use this, you don't need anything else ever ... people who don't like what I like know nothing, they are not pro's, I know pro's, all my old buddies were pro's in the 60's before you were even born, you know nothing, send me money, i will help you - ignore anything I said last year, because that was last year and I didn't know there was something better on the way, scrap that, listen to me now! This, now this model here is the very best, throw all your other gear out, I use manual focus only, so should you! you're not a real photographer if you do not do this, or send me money!"


Ken, FO&D ... please.

 

[stuartm1]

All of his 'reviews' are exactly the same pretentious, snobbish rubbish:

"I use this, you don't need anything else ever ... people who don't like what I like know nothing, they are not pro's, I know pro's, all my old buddies were pro's in the 60's before you were even born, you know nothing, send me money, i will help you - ignore anything I said last year, because that was last year and I didn't know there was something better on the way, scrap that, listen to me now! This, now this model here is the very best, throw all your other gear out, I use manual focus only, so should you! you're not a real photographer if you do not do this, or send me money!"


Ken, FO&D ... please.

You couldn't have summed him up any better

 

[AshleyC]

he does seem to polarise people. I dont think it helps much in that people cant directly answer him back, which annoys the hell out of the section of people who dont like strongly opinionated bloggers who they cant answer back to and throw their own strong opinions in their face.

What you then end up with on forums where people can discuss things freely is that the loud fog horns who think its hip and trendy to knock him start blowing their horn and then get the sheep who dont know any better slipping into line because thats the hip thing to do. A few posters on here come out with far more BS under the name of knowledge than ken could ever dream to manage

Personally ive 2 lenses in my pile that he's raved over and they are indeed rave worthy so as far as i can see he was spot on the money with them and indeed a lot of his reviews for lenses i do know about are accurate if very forthright which seems to put certain people off. But , as ever where online things are concerned, you should take a range of opinions and use your own mind to make the final decision.

What i wont do is click on any link anywhere in his site, he's made enough money off of clickers for me to add to it

 

[Dale_tem]

It's amazing how bitter people appear to be on forums. He must know something to have access to so much kit, a large people on where know who he is, but everyone is knocking him.

Read between the lines with him, I've learnt a lot from his site, but I have also learnt everyone has their own way, their own methods.

I think Ken is talking about the law of diminishing returns and telling people the cameras are the same so get the most appropriate camera for you. If you are a pro, go FF, if you aren't stay with DX.

It seems people are bitter because they spent x amount on equipment and someone on the net says you don't need to.

 

[Phil Young]

he does seem to polarise people. I dont think it helps much in that people cant directly answer him back, which annoys the hell out of the section of people who dont like strongly opinionated bloggers who they cant answer back to and throw their own strong opinions in their face.

What you then end up with on forums where people can discuss things freely is that the loud fog horns who think its hip and trendy to knock him start blowing their horn and then get the sheep who dont know any better slipping into line because thats the hip thing to do. A few posters on here come out with far more BS under the name of knowledge than ken could ever dream to manage

Personally ive 2 lenses in my pile that he's raved over and they are indeed rave worthy so as far as i can see he was spot on the money with them and indeed a lot of his reviews for lenses i do know about are accurate if very forthright which seems to put certain people off. But , as ever where online things are concerned, you should take a range of opinions and use your own mind to make the final decision.

What i wont do is click on any link anywhere in his site, he's made enough money off of clickers for me to add to it

Here here. Nicely said.

I've had 6 lenses that have performed as he said they would.

 

[James J]

The only thing good about kens website is his information on legacy lenses from most manufacturers. Aside from that, everything else needs to be taken with a salt mine....

 

[Pookeyhead]

It's amazing how bitter people appear to be on forums. He must know something to have access to so much kit, a large people on where know who he is, but everyone is knocking him.

He's sweet talked someone at B&H.. how does that mean he knows what he's talking about? B&H are his main sponsors, so as long as the web referrals keep coming in, they'll keep loaning him gear. It's not rocket science.

It seems people are bitter because they spent x amount on equipment and someone on the net says you don't need to.

Don't be silly... I'm all grown up now.. I buy what I want because I need it. I just take offence when someone like this comes out with such utter rubbish like "10mp is more than enough for anything"... So why you raving about a 24mp camera then Ken?... and why do you use a D3x Ken? He does, because he knows full well that 10mp isn't MORE than enough for ANYTHING... that's why. Why do Phase One make a 80mp back Ken.. Huh? Huh?

I also read recently from him, that anyone who prints at home is an idiot, because you get better quality by spending a couple of bucks at Walmart.. LOL. Ok Ken... I'll stop using my 4880 and go to Asda then should I?

Seriously... he's a tit.

He makes comments like that to be controversial to get web hits, so his sponsors pay him. His only care, and his only loyalty is to his bank balance... good luck to anyone in that dept. but if it's at the expense of feeding horse **** to beginners who hang on his every word, I have major ethical issues with him. He talks crap, his site is riddled with inaccuracies, and he contradicts himself and his own "data" all the time. Some beginner somewhere now thinks that the very best quality in print can be had from a crappy un-profiled, automated machine print from Walmart.... all because Ken says so.

I get annoyed with him for the same reason I get annoyed with anyone who talks [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].. because someone, somewhere will be misguided by him.


All my comments are MINE and Talk Photography, or it's staff or stakeholders are in no way responsible or liable for anything I say... and with that covered... Ken Rockwell is moron.

 

[Neil B]

He's sweet talked someone at B&H.. how does that mean he knows what he's talking about? B&H are his main sponsors, so as long as the web referrals keep coming in, they'll keep loaning him gear. It's not rocket science.




Don't be silly... I'm all grown up now.. I buy what I want because I need it. I just take offence when someone like this comes out with such utter rubbish like "10mp is more than enough for anything"... So why you raving about a 24mp camera then Ken?... and why do you use a D3x Ken? He does, because he knows full well that 10mp isn't MORE than enough for ANYTHING... that's why. Why do Phase One make a 80mp back Ken.. Huh? Huh?

I also read recently from him, that anyone who prints at home is an idiot, because you get better quality by spending a couple of bucks at Walmart.. LOL. Ok Ken... I'll stop using my 4880 and go to Asda then should I?

Seriously... he's a tit.

He makes comments like that to be controversial to get web hits, so his sponsors pay him. His only care, and his only loyalty is to his bank balance... good luck to anyone in that dept. but if it's at the expense of feeding horse **** to beginners who hang on his every word, I have major ethical issues with him. He talks crap, his site is riddled with inaccuracies, and he contradicts himself and his own "data" all the time. Some beginner somewhere now thinks that the very best quality in print can be had from a crappy un-profiled, automated machine print from Walmart.... all because Ken says so.

I get annoyed with him for the same reason I get annoyed with anyone who talks [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].. because someone, somewhere will be misguided by him.


All my comments are MINE and Talk Photography, or it's staff or stakeholders are in no way responsible or liable for anything I say... and with that covered... Ken Rockwell is moron.

So did you vote option 2or3 David

 

[maninsuitcase]

KR says what ever will get him hit's and refferals. He says himself it's how he supports his family. And he seems to have a nice house and tit bits like nice watches from what I've seen so it clearly works.

My biggest beef, Nikon users get KR. Canon get the digital picture.

 

[Stevenuth]

I don't mind him and find his reviews quite fun. Whatever people think of what he says, calling him childish names just points a big finger back at the name caller. Don't like it? It's called the World wide web, go somewhere else. We are all trying to feed our families by what we do, get over it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't mind him and find his reviews quite fun. Whatever people think of what he says, calling him childish names just points a big finger back at the name caller.

At least I'm not misleading people to be controversial and score web hits.. whatever you think of me.

 

[Cagey75]

It's amazing how bitter people appear to be on forums. He must know something to have access to so much kit, a large people on where know who he is, but everyone is knocking him.

Read between the lines with him, I've learnt a lot from his site, but I have also learnt everyone has their own way, their own methods.

I think Ken is talking about the law of diminishing returns and telling people the cameras are the same so get the most appropriate camera for you. If you are a pro, go FF, if you aren't stay with DX.

It seems people are bitter because they spent x amount on equipment and someone on the net says you don't need to.

So you think anyone bashing him is simply doing so because they are bitter for no apparent reason?


Get a grip, and I don't mean for a camera body.

I was reading his site before I even had a dslr - His name seems to pop up when you search anything Nikon every time. I remember him praising the hell out of the D200, which I went and bought on the strength of his, and many other top reviews. Only after I bought it, i returned to his site and looked a little further - oh look, the D300 - at the very top of his 'review' on that, he pretty much dismisses the D200, washes his hands of it ... something newer has come along. Same with the D90 to D7000

If you KR lovers have any cop on, you'll admit simply that he changes his mind like the weather. Anything newer is better usually, and in almost ever lens review he'll tell you off that you should be manual focusing like his sports shooting mates in the 60's & 70's did, it was good enough for them, right? But then delve more into his 'lens reviews' and see him drool over the latest and greatest, read as he wets himself over VR, and any lens without is muck/lesser ...

Why people praise him because he big-upped one or two lenses they own is beyond me.

He's a joke if you really read into his site. It's nothing to do with bitternes! First off, I would never buy anything based on his recommendations alone again ... I usually skip over his page when it pops up, and only read his bile when I'm bored and have done with all the decent sites. Curiosity gets better of me is all. I never rate him enough to even mention him until others do, like in this thread ...

Go by KR all you desire, first off, stop shooting RAW, because it makes zero difference according to him, and sell all your fancy lenses because the 60's manual focus versions were just as good ... oh, but, unless they have VR, then they're better than anything ever made, especially the kit 18-55 VR, just dump all your primes within that region. [you can almost always tell a KR fan when they start harping on about the kit lens and hos amazing it is ...]

Sorted, then come back and tell me how great you think his advice really is.

I couldn't take anyone bar David seriously from the last 7 posters in here.

 

[Phil Young]

At least I'm not misleading people to be controversial and score web hits.. whatever you think of me.

I was called controversial the other day because I say this:

"Exercise is nothing to the goal of weight loss".

It's the truth but just because others won't say it or don't know it, that makes me controversial?

I just want to help people but from the outside looking in I can see how that can be seen as being controversial. My point is, you don't KNOW KR is "trying" to be controversial so why not just leave him be and accept that's just the way he is?

Does 99.9999999999% of photographers NEED any more than 10mp??? probably not. Just because he says it, doesn't make him controversial or mean that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

IMO he's mind isn't open enough for the things that he doesn't apply to his own photography...but it doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about...

 

[AshleyC]

i think a lot of the bashing is because it seems to be the in thing to do.

hes clearly right about a lot of his lens reviews but a bit barking in this instance although part of the point must be correct, a proportion of the guts of these cameras must be the same purely for ease of production. saying one thing is good one year then saying a newer model is now the best isnt idiocy, its progress. next years lenses will be better again but for now these are the best. thats common sense.

 

[Cagey75]

trust me, it's really not. I was bashing him soon after finding him, before I knew he was mentioned all over the place. Just doing my own searches, before even visiting 'tog forums, I would come across his site and just snigger half the time. I'm not the type to jump on any bandwagons.

 

[Dale_tem]

I was reading his site before I even had a dslr - His name seems to pop up when you search anything Nikon every time. I remember him praising the hell out of the D200, which I went and bought on the strength of his, and many other top reviews. Only after I bought it, i returned to his site and looked a little further - oh look, the D300 - at the very top of his 'review' on that, he pretty much dismisses the D200, washes his hands of it ... something newer has come along. Same with the D90 to D7000

Did you look at any dates? Did you look at when he wrote the different articles?

His reviews do not get updates, in the same way magazine reviews aren't. If I found a review of the D200 in an old Digital SLR magazine and then found a review of the D300, it wouldn't dismiss the d200? Is that all you are angry about, he doesn't go back and update his articles even though he clearly dates them?

You are ****ed off that a camera A comes out and it's good and then a newer better model camera B comes out and he prefers, but didn't warn you 2 years earlier when camera A was released it was going to happen?

Surely you did more research than 1 site? I read most of the reviews on his site and many other sites when deciding between the d3100 and d90 and personally decided on the d3100.

He writes his feelings down about a camera, he compares it to previous models, as magazines do. He doesn't do group tests or head to heads, just reviews single items on their own. You also have to think about his product ratings, if he is saying a £300 lens is great, would you or him expect it to beat a £1500 lens? No it is great for the price and the sort of people who will use it.

Some of his stuff is entertaining, some of it is good common sense and some has a hint of snobbery, but I have found there is lots of that around with photography.

 

[Cagey75]

Did you even read my posts?

I usually skip over his page when it pops up, and only read his bile when I'm bored and have done with all the decent sites. Curiosity gets better of me is all. I never rate him enough to even mention him until others do, like in this thread ...

I read many sites when I'm looking into gear. I don't see the need to poke at them for any reason, just his ... because he is a joke.

You keep defending him there, no skin off my nose

I hope you don't shoot RAW!

 

[Phil Young]

So you think anyone bashing him is simply doing so because they are bitter for no apparent reason?


Get a grip, and I don't mean for a camera body.

I was reading his site before I even had a dslr - His name seems to pop up when you search anything Nikon every time. I remember him praising the hell out of the D200, which I went and bought on the strength of his, and many other top reviews. Only after I bought it, i returned to his site and looked a little further - oh look, the D300 - at the very top of his 'review' on that, he pretty much dismisses the D200, washes his hands of it ... something newer has come along. Same with the D90 to D7000

If you KR lovers have any cop on, you'll admit simply that he changes his mind like the weather. Anything newer is better usually, and in almost ever lens review he'll tell you off that you should be manual focusing like his sports shooting mates in the 60's & 70's did, it was good enough for them, right? But then delve more into his 'lens reviews' and see him drool over the latest and greatest, read as he wets himself over VR, and any lens without is muck/lesser ...

Why people praise him because he big-upped one or two lenses they own is beyond me.

He's a joke if you really read into his site. It's nothing to do with bitternes! First off, I would never buy anything based on his recommendations alone again ... I usually skip over his page when it pops up, and only read his bile when I'm bored and have done with all the decent sites. Curiosity gets better of me is all. I never rate him enough to even mention him until others do, like in this thread ...

Go by KR all you desire, first off, stop shooting RAW, because it makes zero difference according to him, and sell all your fancy lenses because the 60's manual focus versions were just as good ... oh, but, unless they have VR, then they're better than anything ever made, especially the kit 18-55 VR, just dump all your primes within that region. [you can almost always tell a KR fan when they start harping on about the kit lens and hos amazing it is ...]

Sorted, then come back and tell me how great you think his advice really is.

I couldn't take anyone bar David seriously from the last 7 posters in here.

All fair points...

BUT...

I had a D2x, at the time I thought it was great.

Now I have a D7000 and do I think the D2x is rubbish? YEP - COMPARED to what is available today it is. I find it funny when people say things like "The D70 is still a great camera!!" ...no...it's not, not compared to what is available now and how technology has moved on.

Was old 56kbps dial up modems great in their day? Yes - but laughable now.

I just think it's a bit harsh to accuse him of something we are all guilty of in one shape or another from time to time.

 

[Cagey75]

He does it continuously though Phil. He actually advises people not to bother with RAW, just get it right in cam every time. May as well just use a compact going on a lot of his advice tbh.

 

[AshleyC]

years back reviewers were saying the 80-200 2.8 was the best lens, now the 70-200 2.8 vrII is the best. Does that make those reviewers back then idiots? It must do by your rules.

He's wrong here so he's wrong about everything? Its this villagers / pitchforks / torches mentality that bugs. As mentioned before, im sure he knows full well what he's typing and as he's driving round in his porche's im sure he's also laughing his head off.

 

[Phil Young]

He does it continuously though Phil. He actually advises people not to bother with RAW, just get it right in cam every time. May as well just use a compact going on a lot of his advice tbh.

I know that some of his advice is biased to his own preferences and that is wrong - he should indicate the pros and cons of everything.

If I step outside his equipment reviews I start laughing too.

I still maintain that his equipment reviews are spot on though.