Feeds

back to article Nikon launches D600 lightweight full-frame DSLR

Nikon has unveiled the D600, its most compact and inexpensive full-frame DSLR yet. The Nikon D600 features a 24Mp image sensor and the same Expeed 3 processor found in its bigger brother, the D800. Nikon D600 As with its pricier sibling, the camera's magnesium alloy body provides weatherproof protection, but its weight of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Gimp

Full Frame

I still do not understand why Full Frame has not become the defacto standard for DSLRs.

I sold my 5D MkII in order to finance another project hoping that in the mean time the price of Full Frames would drop when I was ready to return. Wrong , the MKIII was released even more expensive than the MKII.

I can understand that Nikon and Canon kill us with the price of good glass but as for the Electronic side of things it's pushing things just a little too far.

Nikon are making an attempt here but what I would like to see is a Full Frame around the 1200 Euros mark in the 15Mb to 20Mp pixel range. It doesn't need video capability either but a little bit of waterproofing would be a plus.

C'mon guys, Full Frame is nice but it needs to come down to a price range that doesn't require professional usage for justifying the price tag.

0
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Full Frame

The wildelife snappers with their huge Telephoto lenses would beg to differ. For them DX (or the Canon equivalent) is what it is all about.

I can put my 200-400F4 on my D700 and get a range of 200-400mm. If I mount it on my D7000 then I get 300-600mm without using a teleconverter.

Naturally the more well heeled snapper will have a D800 in their bag with 36Mp it has huge cropability so using FX lenses does not matter a jot.

0
1
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Full Frame

Steve, I am sorry about being pedantic but when you put your 200-400 on the D7000 you only get 200-400mm. No camera in the world, as far as I know, is capable of changing the focal length of a lens. The focal length is a physical fixed attribute.

What you really mean is that your D7000 captures a "cropped" image of what would have been captured on a FF. ( You basically get a percentage of the center of a FF image). This in turn makes people falsely believe that Cropped Frame cameras have a longer focal length.

Think about it, the glass within any given lens, as long as the zoom is not changed during the exposure , are only capable of producing one single image. A FF captures a large part of the image, a Crop captures only part of the image.

2
0
Pirate

Re: Full Frame

Presumably because Nikon, Canon, Sony, et al know that they can sell APS-C sensor cameras to the consumer market and make a killing on APS-C lenses that still cost the same or more than the equivalent AF 35mm lenses from old film camera systems: much less of that expensive glass == much bigger profits.

It's called monopoly capitalism apparently.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Full Frame

A few reasons:

1. All the rabid Nikon fanboys were talking it down for years saying how it was unnecessary etc, just because Canon had full frame and they didn't.

2. If you have invested in lenses made for crop sensors then your lenses are useless on FF.

3. It requires better lenses and more skill to avoid vignetting. A crop sensor misses all of that vignetting as it usually falls in the area which the crop sensor misses.

4. You get a little less zoom.

1
0
Thumb Up

Re: Khaptain

Thank you, I couldn't bare to say it.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Full Frame

While you are right in saying that the lens is still only a 200-400 zoom, no one really should care what the focal length is. If you were using a medium frame camera then 200mm would show you a much wider field than a 35mm full frame camera would, likewise a APS-C sized sensor will give you a field of view equivalent to ~1.5X that you'd get with the full 35mm frame. If you like, this works by cropping, but then so does a "full frame" camera. A 200mm lens could produce a wide angle view, if you let it project onto a large enough area.

Many photographers are used to thinking in terms of field of view in terms of the focal length they need to achieve it based on a 35mm camera. Hence the tendency to refer to "effective" focal lengths based on their 35mm equivalence.

In terms of your original questions about why aren't there more full frame DSLRs, well I guess for most customers the APS-C sized format is just easier to live with. It allows for smaller lighter cameras, small lighter lens and greater depth of field. For most people the image you can capture on these smaller sensors is good enough. For most people the advantages that full frame gives, such as lower noise, higher sensitivity, or higher resolutions aren't worth the cost in terms of money and size/weight. Few people need to take action shots in the dark, or have lenses good enough to really justify 30+M pixels, even with image stabilization most people would just get camera shake if they looked closely at shots from a D800.

I'd love to have a D800, I really don't need what a D4 is designed to do. I'd like the improved control of depth of field on prime lens. But it would probably only be a few times a year I wanted to take a picture I couldn't just as well take on my D300. But then I'm an occasionally keen amateur and I can easily understand why a real professional might need all the capabilities that a full frame camera gives.

Perhaps there is a hole in the market for a lower cost full frame camera. I guess this is Nikon's go at filling that hole. From my point of view, I'd love to see someone fill the huge hole between amateur zoom lens (typically F5.6 or 6.3) and the professional F2.8 ones. I guess each to their own.

0
0

Re: Full Frame

"What you really mean is that your D7000 captures a "cropped" image of what would have been captured on a FF. ( You basically get a percentage of the center of a FF image). This in turn makes people falsely believe that Cropped Frame cameras have a longer focal length."

Technically true, but Khaptain the D7000 gives you a 16+ megapixel "cropped" shot - the D600 only gives you 10 MP cropped to the same extent.

So to get a similar size shot from a FF I have to be MUCH closer to the animal.

If you are shooting wild carnivores that's a really bad idea. If you are shooting herbivores or birds they'll spook so that's a bad idea too.

For true wildlife (ie anything *outside* a cage) DX is a much better (and safer!) bet.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Exchange rate?

$2000 in the US, £2000 in the UK.

I thought retailers had stopped this level of shenanigans...

0
0
Big Brother

Re: Exchange rate?

VAT + a smaller market do add up. Not that I'm in favour of such shenanigans, mind.

1
0
Thumb Down

Re: Exchange rate?

$2000 is roughly £1250 at current exchange rates. 20% VAT pushes that to £1500, so there's a 33% markup on UK..

0
0

Re: Exchange rate?

But the US prices are generally quoted before the Sales Tax that gets applied differently in each state, and UK prices are stated including tax.

So, you will need to add approx another 10% to that figure to get a retail price as I understand it, making it $2200 in the USA. Admittedly still less than in the UK, but not quite as much.

0
0
Meh

Re: Exchange rate?

Another thing you need to understand is that while there is a Nikon USA, there is first of all Nikon Europe, then there is Nikon UK. Nikon Europe places an order with Nikon Japan, and if it's not as large as Nikon USA, they won't get the same kind of rebate as Nikon USA. Then, Nikon UK places an order with Nikon Europe, which again adds a bit of markup, and as their order isn't on the nearly same scale as Nikon USA, they again get a smaller rebate, and so on.

Perfectly logical, in a convoluted corporate sort of way, but very annoying for the customer.

0
0

Re: Exchange rate?

"But the US prices are generally quoted before the Sales Tax that gets applied differently in each state, and UK prices are stated including tax.

So, you will need to add approx another 10% to that figure to get a retail price as I understand it, making it $2200 in the USA"

Err - not really.

Sales tax is state based in the US, the rates vary, and some states don't charge sales tax at all (hence a pre-tax price is always quoted in the States).

0
0
Silver badge

Not so heavy on the wallet either

Does not mean a few quid shy of £2000 in my book!

4
0

Re: Not so heavy on the wallet either

Then you've not been looking at the prices of the nearest competition.

0
0

Re: Not so heavy on the wallet either

Agreed, especially in comparison to the D800 can be had for £2250.

1
0

Why would you ?!

Maybe if it had come up around the £1750 it might have been a better prospect, but I'd just save up the extra and get the D800, or if you want an entry level FX Camera go for the D700 when the price gets pushed down a little by the D600

1
0

Re: Why would you ?!

"if you want an entry level FX Camera go for the D700 when the price gets pushed down a little by the D600"

D700 is out of production so you'd have to buy it second hand.

If you go second hand you could get a D800 for the price of a D600. I'd take a D800 over a D700 anyday...

Remember too these are RRP - in 6 months you'd expect the street price of a D600 to be significantly lower than 2K

0
0

Still saving for an a99. At this price, a few hundred quid more for a much more versatile tool is a bargain in my book. If this Nikon had been as cheap as it was rumored it was going to be (it's nowhere near) then I might've changed my mind.

0
0

How is the Alpha more versatile than the Nikon? Granted, I am a bit of a Nikon fanboi, but the Alpha doesn't seem to offer anything particularly compelling, whereas Nikon, on the other hand, offers access to a ton of really decent Nikkors, especially the recent series of reasonably affordable f/1.8 primes, which are really bloody good and quite light, too.

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

0
0
Unhappy

It appears to be essentially a D7000 with a full-frame sensor. For almost 3 times the price of a D7000. I think that I'll be sticking with DX for the forseeable future.

0
0
Silver badge
Pint

"$2000 in the US, £2000 in the UK."

Prices are higher in the UK because everything is more expensive in the UK.

Take for example, the Nikon D600. It's more expensive in the UK. See?

And that's why things are more expensive in the UK.

3
0
This topic is closed for new posts.