Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 13, 2012, 9:50 AM   #1
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default Impact of the Nikon D600 $2100 full frame?

So, what is the impact of this new announcement?
Look at the specs.
What does this mean for APS-C?
What does this mean for 4/3?
Is this interesting to other DSLR users or is it a *Yawn*?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 13, 2012, 10:08 AM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

It looks pretty slick to my eyes, without skimping on features either (weather sealing, 39 Point AF sensor with 9 cross type points, 100% coverage viewfinder, 5.5fps for up to 100 photos, 1080p video at various frame rates, dual SDXC/SDHC card slots with UHS-1 support, optional wireless adapter allowing uploading of images (or remote control via android or ios apps), all for a price point of around $2K.

From outward appearances, I'm guessing that Nikon is using the same 24.3MP Sensor design that Sony is using in their new full frame models just announced yesterday (A99, VG900, RX1), with tweaks specific to Nikon's requirements (probably a different AA filter, etc.)
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 10:18 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

I agree with all your points Jim. I'm excited about the A99 putting pressure on the 5dIII and this D600 putting pressure on the prosumer level. Frame rates are taking a hit in this switch to full-frame but I think most people can live with that.

It will be very interesting to see if Nikon does anything with the D300s. This is a d7000 replacement camera to me. I think there's still a crowd that used the d300/d700 that aren't getting addressed YET.

I'll be excited to see how Nikon's approach to image rendering compares to Sony's if these do end up being the same sensor. I think Sony got the message and expect good things from the new A99 images.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 10:26 AM   #4
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

P.S.

We have an article about it up now:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/...mp_sensor.html
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 12:58 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Well in the UK the impact at the MRP will be close to zero. The D800 goes for 2250, at 1950 for the D600 I simply cannot see anyone buying one.

We saw something similar with the Sony A900 & A850, they didn't sell any 850s because their retail price was only 200 less.

UK pricing is sometimes impossible to understand.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 1:37 PM   #6
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
Well in the UK the impact at the MRP will be close to zero. The D800 goes for 2250, at 1950 for the D600 I simply cannot see anyone buying one.
It just might have better low light/high ISO performance compared to the 36MP sensor in the D800, as 24MP is probably a good "sweet spot" for use in a full frame sensor, and given the latest sensor advancements, I suspect it's going to be a "winner" for lower noise and higher dynamic range.

We'll just have to wait and see how the IQ pans out (and the D600 has probably been in production for a while now, as Nikon says it will be available next week on September 18th, which is a pleasant surprise).

As for UK Pricing... I don't know what to say, as perhaps environmental and safety regulations that manufactures need to meet, import tariffs, cost of doing business due to longer required warranties, VAT and more are coming into the equation and impacting pricing in the U.K. (as U.S. Price quotes do not include Sales Tax, which varies by region here, and most warranties are 1 year versus 2 years).

There's got to be a good reason (or reasons) manufacturers usually tend to charge more for product there, as I'm sure they want to stay competitive.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 2:09 PM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post

It just might have better low light/high ISO performance compared to the 36MP sensor in the D800, as 24MP is probably a good "sweet spot" for use in a full frame sensor, and given the latest sensor advancements, I suspect it's going to be a "winner" for lower noise and higher dynamic range.

...

There's got to be a good reason (or reasons) manufacturers usually tend to charge more for product there, as I'm sure they want to stay competitive.
It's just that the price gap is so small I can't see anyone buying the D600. Of course the retailers may make a real price much lower than 1950.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 6:18 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

I think the D600 is just the latest step in the evolution of the dSLR. The revolution came with the D3200. That's a 24MP sensor in a $600 body ($700 with the kit lens)! The replacements for the D7000 and D5100 can't not use the 24MP sensor. This will put the entry level and prosumer markets securely in the hands of Nikon, because, despite all arguments to the contrary, the megapixel race still sells cameras.

And, contrary to the allusions made earlier, APS-C cameras will still outsell 'Full Frame' cameras, because they have more lenses, they're smaller, lighter and cheaper, and they get better performance out of the few lenses that 'Full Frame' cameras are limited to.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 6:32 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
...nd they get better performance out of the few lenses that 'Full Frame' cameras are limited to...
I disagree.

In my experience, you get much better Image Quality from a full frame sensor from most lenses, because the larger pixels don't put as much demand on the lens quality needed for best results. IOW, you need a *very* good lens capable of resolving more line pairs/mm with something like a 24MP APS-C Size Sensor, versus a lens needed for 24MP full frame (35mm film size) sensor with larger photosites for each pixel.

I've been very impressed with how much better the IQ is from mediocre lenses on models with full frame sensors versus how well the same lenses perform on higher resolution APS-C size sensors.

Sure, the corners may not be as good on some lenses. But, overall, image quality is typically much better, with noticeably improved per pixel sharpness when using a full frame sensor with larger photosites for each pixel.

Here's an old post on the subject made during a previous discussion, with links to tests showing how much better the same lenses are on full frame sensors with equivalent resolution (and my experience using full frame models has been the same -- lenses that are borderline or"so so" on APS-C size sensors can really "shine" on full frame sensors with larger photosites for each pixel, because the full frame sensors with larger photosties do not require a lens capable of resolving as many line pairs/mm to get the best out of them compared to higher resolution APS-C sensors with the pixels packed closer together)

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/wh...ml#post1161469
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 6:39 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post
In my experience, you get much better Image Quality from a full frame sensor from most lenses, because the larger pixels don't put as much demand on the lens quality needed for best results.
But what good is the extra resolution if it includes the vignetting, rectilinear distortion, and lateral chromatic aberration that many will crop out anyway. What do you really get when you crop a 24MP image down to 20MP or even 18MP, that you won't get from a 24MP APS-C image? Resolution certainly counts, but if it's just a better image of all the other optical flaws, what's the point?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:14 AM.