[boriscleto]

These companies that release model after model with sensors and image processors that are less than their best... you almost have to agree to be mark to buy their product.

But there will always be more marks than smarts.

[Verglace]

The issue I have with cameras like the D600, is you have a lot of the bells and whistles, but you can't achieve the same results. That to me is inexcusable. It's like buying a film camera, that will only use cheap film.

These companies that release model after model with sensors and image processors that are less than their best... you almost have to agree to be mark to buy their product.

Have you actually seen the sample images? What makes you think that the sensors are less than their best or that you can't achieve the same results? From what I can see, the D600 suffers in having a slow max shutter speed (given this is a very bad thing) and max flash sync (however the max flash sync is still higher than Pentax's).

[Rondec]

Definitely continues Nikon's strategy of deliberately crippling cheaper cameras. They definitely are trying to protect D800 and D4 from this camera, by keeping maximum shutter speed at 1/4000 second. Lack of buttons isn't that big a deal as long as it has decent menu system.

[Verglace]

The body is the same as the D7000 which is comparable to the K-5 in terms of buttons and switches (which is similar to the D90 I used to own), in fact my only gripe is that the ISO button is in the wrong place. But yes 1/4000 is killer, I am glad I didn't wait for it.

---

Last edited by Verglace; 09-17-2012 at 07:00 AM.

[normhead]

Have you actually seen the sample images? What makes you think that the sensors are less than their best or that you can't achieve the same results? From what I can see, the D600 suffers in having a slow max shutter speed (given this is a very bad thing) and max flash sync (however the max flash sync is still higher than Pentax's).

I have never defined the possibility of maximum IQ in terms of Max shutter speed or flash sync, to the point where I find the comment odd. I was talking about the time I took comparing the first images I saw on the net to images taken with a D800. ANd I was also commenting on the fact that it's 2 years newer than a K-5, but that if you crop those images to k-5 size, my guess is for the that portion of the D600's frame, the K-5 images are as good or better. For a model that's double the price and 2 years newer technology.. that's just inexcusable, in my mind anyway. I like to see progress. There is nothing about a D600 at this point that makes me want to purchase one. Honestly, when I saw what Nikon got out of the D800 I was impressed. But I didn't want to go 36 Mp, which I feel si a waste of resources and isn't necessary. So when I saw D600, I saw, D800 IQ more reasonable image size. And from everything the tech guys have said, the D600 with it's larger pixels should have had crisper images, better low light performance and better colour renditions than than the D800. I'm not seeing it, are you?

[JinDesu]

Have you actually seen the sample images? What makes you think that the sensors are less than their best or that you can't achieve the same results? From what I can see, the D600 suffers in having a slow max shutter speed (given this is a very bad thing) and max flash sync (however the max flash sync is still higher than Pentax's).

I have seen the sample images from the Imaging Resources site.

Noise:
Noise is better than the D7000 - possibly by a stop. However, as the D7000 has quite a bit of chroma noise ISO 6400 and up, and the D600 also has chroma noise, it's harder to compare with the k-5 (which lacks chroma noise).

Detail:
Does not surpass the k-5/D7000/D800 - as those sensors have higher pixel density than the D600, and since sensors don't outresolve lenses, the same lens on the D600 will resolve more detail, technically.

It's not a bad sensor - definitely better at noise than the D7000, and actually relatively comparable to the D800. Only thing is that it does have quite a bit of chroma noise at high ISOs - and my understanding is that chroma noise = bad, while luminance noise = ok.

@Norm - I don't think larger pixels = crisper image. Better noise performance, yes, but the higher the pixel density, the more it'll resolve.

[farhagh]

I have never defined the possibility of maximum IQ in terms of Max shutter speed or flash sync, to the point where I find the comment odd. I was talking about the time I took comparing the first images I saw on the net to images taken with a D800. ANd I was also commenting on the fact that it's 2 years newer than a K-5, but that if you crop those images to k-5 size, my guess is for the that portion of the D600's frame, the K-5 images are as good or better. For a model that's double the price and 2 years newer technology.. that's just inexcusable, in my mind anyway. I like to see progress. There is nothing about a D600 at this point that makes me want to purchase one. Honestly, when I saw what Nikon got out of the D800 I was impressed. But I didn't want to go 36 Mp, which I feel si a waste of resources and isn't necessary. So when I saw D600, I saw, D800 IQ more reasonable image size. And from everything the tech guys have said, the D600 with it's larger pixels should have had crisper images, better low light performance and better colour renditions than than the D800. I'm not seeing it, are you?

Well, lets say it in this way; in film years if you used the better film all the time you would spend (for example) $500 more each year. Now you have to pay $1000 for a better body. However, and unlike film time, now you have to make your mind and stick with either one, you can not switch between films anymore. (on the other hand you can switch between ISOs easily)

I am guessing if you can afford it, D800 is a better choice. However, some people may be spending their last dollars and Nikon wants to take it from them. Others may just want to put a toe in the water or may have other priorities like weight and size, etc.

About your desired camera, unfortunately, we can not assemble the cameras in the way we like (like desktop computers) they're more like laptops, still not as bad as an iPad (you still chose the lens)!