Originally posted by normhead And I said that where? This is why you're on my ignore list.I said if you compare it to a K-3, it's not a good value.
Compared to a K-3
11 point AF compared to 27
20 Mp instead of 24 and less resolution.
Even in quiet mode, not as quiet.
Not Water Resistant
No TAV
4.5 frames per second instead of 8.5
No in body based shake reduction
1080p fps 30 fps compared to 60 fps on the K-3
I'm not sure how you're making this out to be a value when it's inferior on so many levels and costs more.
If it wasn't for you incredible bias that makes you so sure any FF is a good value compared to any APS-c you'd have seen that. In fact if you'd just looked over the spec sheets you would have seen that. What exactly do you do before you make these statements?
OK, now explain to me why you think I'm not serious? Or is just this your usual hatchet job.... "hey, if I insult norm head enough maybe someone will take me seriously, or at least be my friend". Is that your strategy?
I notice you didn't mention that the 6D system often costs less, especially for enthusiast systems, that the 6D IQ is better, that it has a bigger viewfinder. You'd have to spend a lot less time typing if you'd just give pluses and minuses rather than just minuses.
The D600 is better for me than the 6D because it has TAv and WR, keeps the big viewfinder, and the long lenses are thousands of dollars cheaper than either Pentax ones or Canon ones.
Keep the insults to yourself, please.
---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 04:19 PM ----------
Originally posted by Andi Lo If I have a superzoom I'd stick to shooting it at f/8, since I'm guessing that's where they'll perform well. Even at the widest aperture the background separation is very poor anyway. Is the nikon any good wide open? If it's not good, the wider effective aperture argument is pointless as both will be shot stopped down. Can you tell me why the K-3 needs to be 36mp and not 24mp like the D600, assuming we're not suddenly discussing D800 here?
Added: seems pretty typical performance for a superzoom. I can't find any detailed reviews of this lens other than photozone though, so maybe Klaus has a bad sample.
Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis The D600 with a superzoom is not as good as the D600 with primes, that's a given.
The D600+superzoom's performance wide open at 50mm (F/4.5) is better in the center than the D7000+35mm F/1.8 stopped down to F/2.8. The performance of the 35mm F/1.8 is a bit better on the edges and corners. I'm guessing the bokeh/rendering of the 35mm would be better... it better be? But I don't know. I also didn't look at the numbers at either end of the zoom range, instead of just the middle.
I certainly think the D7000+ a prime is good for more than just F/8.
Get a set of 5-8 primes and the D7000, or get a D600+28-300mm. Neither would be my option, but I can understand either decision.
Personally I feel a superzoom with resolution comparable to a quality prime is pretty impressive. It's amazing what that extra surface area on the sensor can get you.