Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,193
705
Holocene Epoch
I would check out http://www.kenrockwell.com and look at his recommendations, esp. The Nikon dream team and the Nikon cheapskate list. There is a ton of info on that site but be sure to bookmark something that you find interesting because it's not very well organized and can be next to impossible to find it again.

I would never advise anyone to pay attention to anything Ken Rockwell has to say, unless I wanted to demonstrate examples of self promotion and invented controversy. There are far too many great photography resources out there to recommend a hack like that to anyone.
 

Prodo123

macrumors 68020
Nov 18, 2010
2,326
10
Your move, Canon.
(seriously, I want a cheap Canon full-frame to fill the gap between the 7D and the 5D...)
 

plumosa

macrumors regular
Mar 17, 2007
178
9
Australia
I would never advise anyone to pay attention to anything Ken Rockwell has to say, unless I wanted to demonstrate examples of self promotion and invented controversy. There are far too many great photography resources out there to recommend a hack like that to anyone.


Oh yeah, all that "help out Ken Rockwell" stuff is super annoying, and I've never been impressed with his actual photography. On the other hand, if you've got another comprehensive resource on Nikon lenses I'm all ears. I'm not looking for just specs, and I don't just want a few lenses either.

Suggestions?
 
Last edited:

Cheese&Apple

macrumors 68010
Jun 5, 2012
2,004
6,606
Toronto
As expected...differing opinions and each quite valuable.

Think I'm going to hold off on the D7000 for bit and wait for comprehensive reviews on the D600. It will also give me some time to save-up some hard earned cash and maybe a Christmas gift certificate or two or three.

Thank you!
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
It limits your options to balance flash against ambient light. At best that forces you fire you speedlight at greater power, and that limits cycle times. At such a crucial point, too, right where you need it. And, lets face it, there is action you can stop at 1/250 that will be more fluid at 1/200.
I understand that on a technical level, I'm just saying that in my experience (at least for the types of flash photography I do), I'm using slower shutter speeds anyway.
Strange, too, since every other current Nikon above the D5100 and D3200 will do 1/250 or better.
It's not strange at all: the shutter has to cover a larger area and thus, if the speed of the metal shutter blades stays constant (compared to the APS-C version of the same shutter), it takes longer to travel the whole distance, and thus the max flash sync shutter speed is slower.
 

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,193
705
Holocene Epoch
I understand that on a technical level, I'm just saying that in my experience (at least for the types of flash photography I do), I'm using slower shutter speeds anyway.

This is really a tool for shooters who are balancing flash against ambient light.

OTOH, if flash is just used as a tool for indoor lighting then, sure, sync speeds probably don't matter. In that case, really any dSLR that supports 1/160 or even 1/125 will do.

It's not strange at all: the shutter has to cover a larger area and thus, if the speed of the metal shutter blades stays constant (compared to the APS-C version of the same shutter), it takes longer to travel the whole distance, and thus the max flash sync shutter speed is slower.

But Nikon is the dSLR company with a proven track record at supporting 1/250 sync speeds (and better). The D700 supported 1/250 for years. The D800/D800E both support it. The D7000 supports it. That's why these Nikons are so popular with the Strobist community. I see no reason that same shutter couldn't have gone into the full frame D600 except as a way to neuter that model, especially with the D700 discontinued.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
This is really a tool for shooters who are balancing flash against ambient light.

OTOH, if flash is just used as a tool for indoor lighting then, sure, sync speeds probably don't matter. In that case, really any dSLR that supports 1/160 or even 1/125 will do.
I think you've misread my post: I do understand what balancing flash light and ambient light is, I do that quite a bit. I'm just saying for my applications, that is typically at night or in the late evening, the typical shutter speeds at typical ISOs (1600~3200) are 1/80 s~1/40 s (depending on the lens, the subject and the effect I'm going for). So what I am trying to say is whether the limit is at 1/200 s or 1/250 s doesn't matter much to me, because I rarely get close to 1/200 s when using my SB-600.
But Nikon is the dSLR company with a proven track record at supporting 1/250 sync speeds (and better). The D700 supported 1/250 for years. The D800/D800E both support it. The D7000 supports it. That's why these Nikons are so popular with the Strobist community. I see no reason that same shutter couldn't have gone into the full frame D600 except as a way to neuter that model, especially with the D700 discontinued.
The D600's shutter shares many of the same specs as the D7000's shutter, and when you take into account that the shutter needs to traverse longer distances due to the difference in format, you arrive exactly at the max flash sync shutter speed: APS-C has a crop factor of 1.5x on Nikons which means that the sides are ~22 % longer (the square root of 1.5 is approximately 1.22). If you multiply 1/250 s by 1.22, you get roughly 1/204 s which is close enough to 1/200 s. That indicates that the D600 wasn't »neutered«, at least not in that respect.

So just assuming that the D600's shutter is a derivative of the D7000's shutter and taking the geometry into account explains why the max flash sync shutter speed is slower by that exact amount. You're right that with a different shutter (which is more expensive), you could achieve faster sync speeds, yes, but IMHO it's a trade-off that is worth it for most.
 

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,193
705
Holocene Epoch
I think you've misread my post: I do understand what balancing flash light and ambient light is, I do that quite a bit. I'm just saying for my applications, that is typically at night or in the late evening, the typical shutter speeds at typical ISOs (1600~3200) are 1/80 s~1/40 s (depending on the lens, the subject and the effect I'm going for). So what I am trying to say is whether the limit is at 1/200 s or 1/250 s doesn't matter much to me, because I rarely get close to 1/200 s when using my SB-600.

The D600's shutter shares many of the same specs as the D7000's shutter, and when you take into account that the shutter needs to traverse longer distances due to the difference in format, you arrive exactly at the max flash sync shutter speed: APS-C has a crop factor of 1.5x on Nikons which means that the sides are ~22 % longer (the square root of 1.5 is approximately 1.22). If you multiply 1/250 s by 1.22, you get roughly 1/204 s which is close enough to 1/200 s. That indicates that the D600 wasn't »neutered«, at least not in that respect.

So just assuming that the D600's shutter is a derivative of the D7000's shutter and taking the geometry into account explains why the max flash sync shutter speed is slower by that exact amount. You're right that with a different shutter (which is more expensive), you could achieve faster sync speeds, yes, but IMHO it's a trade-off that is worth it for most.

Good points, Oreo.

Unfortunately, I guess as long as Canon keeps putting out lesser cameras (1/180 sync and 5DMkII-style autofocus, but, hey!, WiFi + GPS!) then Nikon can probably get away with the kind of specs we're seeing in the D600.

:(
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
Oh yeah, all that "help out Ken Rockwell" stuff is super annoying, and I've never been impressed with his actual photography. On the other hand, if you've got another comprehensive resource on Nikon lenses I'm all ears. I'm not looking for just specs, and I don't just want a few lenses either.

Suggestions?

http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/index.htm
http://www.photodo.com/
http://www.photozone.de/

Paul
 

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,570
852
NY
Reading up more the D600 uses the same AF system as the D7000 and that the focus points are close together/towards the center. Any ideas on this? This has me a little concerned.
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
Reading up more the D600 uses the same AF system as the D7000 and that the focus points are close together/towards the center. Any ideas on this? This has me a little concerned.
No reason to be a worry wart: Nikon has adapted the AF module, and it has been upgraded compared to the D7000 (which has a very, very good AF, I know from first-hand experience), e. g. 7 of the 39 AF points work until an initial aperture of f/8 now.

Have a look at photos and judge for yourself: this is the Nikon D600's AF coverage (taken from photographyblog.com):
d600p12.jpg

And this is the D7000's coverage (taken from dpreview):
AFpoints-001.jpg

Both look very similar to me: to me, it seems like the D7000 covers a slightly larger area, but it's not as significant as in the 5D Mark I and II where the AF module was grafted from a crop sensor dslr (also from dpreview):
viewfinderdiag.jpg
 

mofunk

macrumors 68020
Aug 26, 2009
2,421
161
Americas
Ah the way that I see it is... Nikon did what they did to the D300 - made a full frame version (D700). The D600 is basically a full frame D7000. However it does share the same shutter speed as the D90. Which in hind sight, it really doesn't matter if the shutter is slower because (drum roll) its FULL FRAME lol

If you have more $$ get a D600 and 24-70mm. If you want to save money get a D7000 and 24-70mm. Either way you will be happy. Bundling these bodies with that lens you save $200. :eek:


I like that Gordon from cameralabs.com asked the Canon rep why didn't they put in stuff that the D600 has like dual cards, etc in a recent interview. I can't wait to see Gordon's reviews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xez3iLe_eko
 

dmax35

macrumors 6502
Jun 21, 2012
447
6
My local camera store got a shipment in today. Come on Nikon wake up and make a camera comfortable to hold. I thought my D800 was bad....The D600 is even worse.
 

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,570
852
NY
...

Have a look at photos and judge for yourself: this is the Nikon D600's AF coverage....
Both look very similar to me: to me, it seems like the D7000 covers a slightly larger area, but it's not as significant as in the 5D Mark I and II where the AF module was grafted from a crop sensor dslr (also from

Too me also the D7000 seems to cover more... The D600 seems like it needs another column of AF points :p The D800 seems similar to the D600 (taken from DP review) Maybe i'm just used to my 12 from my D90...
vfinfo.jpg
 

MagicWok

macrumors 6502a
Mar 2, 2006
820
82
London

carlgo

macrumors 68000
Dec 29, 2006
1,806
17
Monterey CA
There were always these phony excuses as to why full frame cameras cost so much. It was like people were soldering millions of pixels onto a chip by hand or something.

Knew it was just marketing all along.

Now the dam has broken and we can expect more and cheaper FF cameras.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
There were always these phony excuses as to why full frame cameras cost so much. It was like people were soldering millions of pixels onto a chip by hand or something.

Knew it was just marketing all along.

Now the dam has broken and we can expect more and cheaper FF cameras.

Um no, the cost has always been about the size of the sensor and the number of defects per wafer, leading to the number of sensors per wafer. Process defects have obviously come down- that makes it cheaper. APS-C sensors are denser, so it's not about pixels at all.

Paul
 

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
There were always these phony excuses as to why full frame cameras cost so much. It was like people were soldering millions of pixels onto a chip by hand or something.

Knew it was just marketing all along.

Now the dam has broken and we can expect more and cheaper FF cameras.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Thom Hogan (look for the August 27th post) explains that The D600's list price is exactly what you'd expect from scaling up a D7000, and his math suggests that the price for full frame sensors has come down ~20 % (from $500 to $400). They're still ~10 times more expensive than the sensor for APS-C-sensor cameras ($40~$50 per sensor). He predicted the price (+- $100) way before the camera was released.
 

MagicWok

macrumors 6502a
Mar 2, 2006
820
82
London
I bought the Nikon D600 this morning 5.00am from Amazon (UK) for £1610.00, plus 28-300 lens. I've noticed the price has since gone up.

Amazon prices tend to fluctuate. A bad, or good thing, depending when you buy.

Digital Rev is listed at £1559, similar to a couple other stores.
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/nikon-d600-dslr-body/MTAwMTM2Mg_A_A

£1,600+ isn't a price I'm going to be buying one at right now. I will be getting the D600 though, that's settled :p I'm going to wait, since I have time to, for the price to go down more and settle and make my decision as the pricing develops. I can sit it out till end November if I have to.

Enjoy your D600, let us know how long it takes to ship and your personal experience with it ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.