Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Tell us more! (please)
Little to tell just yet, I only charged the battery and did some minor set-up things. First shots were of my colleagues at the coffee machine.
I am going to drag it to a concert soon, with my trusted old primes on it. In this area my poor old D200 has fallen far behind.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I got my D600 a few days ago. Prior to that I had a brief stint with a 5D and D700.
It's a very nice camera. Build quality is first rate. It feels juuust a notch under the pro models, but it's far from flimsy. The body is weather sealed and feels good in hand.
It's the smallest full frame DSLR on the market. Finally. I would say it's comparable to a Leica R8 or Nikon F100. Not tiny, but much smaller than the D800 or similar cameras. It comes in at around 800g with the battery, so we are looking at about 2lbs with a small prime lens. Not bad for fast handling. One thing that struck me is how quiet the shutter and mirror slap was. Not Leica quiet, but very nice. It's even quieter in the "Quiet" mode.
The camera is very fast and responsive. AF is very fast and seems to lock on in low light without any problems.
The ergonomics are first rate, regardless of there being about a million buttons and dials. Nikon really gets this right. The camera works just as good in full manual, as in everything -auto mode.
You will need something like a split focus katzeye screen, if you plan on shooting with manual focus lenses.
The sensor seems very impressive. I mean really impressive. There is noticeably more exposure range than with the D700. High iso is also noticeably better. The one thing that strikes me is how silky smooth the tonality is. That may have to do with the very large exposure range of the sensor, but there has also been talk of 16bit internal processing, before the data is written out as a 14bit NEF.
Anyhow, I have no plans to stop shooting film, but there simply was no way around digital anymore. Nobody wants to wait for you to develop and sort through 25 rolls of film on a shoot. Many places have banned flash. It's close to impossible to shoot film in a venue that is as dark as a coal mine without one. On the other hand the D600 will practically see in the dark. It also makes shooting color economically feasible...
IMO the D600 is a real winner. In terms of bang for your buck I really can't think of a better deal. Seriously, the sensor in this camera appears to be something special.
It's a very nice camera. Build quality is first rate. It feels juuust a notch under the pro models, but it's far from flimsy. The body is weather sealed and feels good in hand.
It's the smallest full frame DSLR on the market. Finally. I would say it's comparable to a Leica R8 or Nikon F100. Not tiny, but much smaller than the D800 or similar cameras. It comes in at around 800g with the battery, so we are looking at about 2lbs with a small prime lens. Not bad for fast handling. One thing that struck me is how quiet the shutter and mirror slap was. Not Leica quiet, but very nice. It's even quieter in the "Quiet" mode.
The camera is very fast and responsive. AF is very fast and seems to lock on in low light without any problems.
The ergonomics are first rate, regardless of there being about a million buttons and dials. Nikon really gets this right. The camera works just as good in full manual, as in everything -auto mode.
You will need something like a split focus katzeye screen, if you plan on shooting with manual focus lenses.
The sensor seems very impressive. I mean really impressive. There is noticeably more exposure range than with the D700. High iso is also noticeably better. The one thing that strikes me is how silky smooth the tonality is. That may have to do with the very large exposure range of the sensor, but there has also been talk of 16bit internal processing, before the data is written out as a 14bit NEF.
Anyhow, I have no plans to stop shooting film, but there simply was no way around digital anymore. Nobody wants to wait for you to develop and sort through 25 rolls of film on a shoot. Many places have banned flash. It's close to impossible to shoot film in a venue that is as dark as a coal mine without one. On the other hand the D600 will practically see in the dark. It also makes shooting color economically feasible...
IMO the D600 is a real winner. In terms of bang for your buck I really can't think of a better deal. Seriously, the sensor in this camera appears to be something special.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Full frame aside, the biggest reason for me to buy the D600 is hi-ISO performance. It is light years ahead of the D200 in this regard.
Here is one from last weekend. ISO 25.600, Nikkor 85mm 1.8 AF. A few years back this was simply impossible to do. B/W conversion in NX2, minor curves tweak in PS. NO noise reduction applied. To me it looks very much like a clean ISO 400 film image, only six (6) stops faster. Booyah.
Dani, The Jacks by Ronald_H, on Flickr
Here is one from last weekend. ISO 25.600, Nikkor 85mm 1.8 AF. A few years back this was simply impossible to do. B/W conversion in NX2, minor curves tweak in PS. NO noise reduction applied. To me it looks very much like a clean ISO 400 film image, only six (6) stops faster. Booyah.
Dani, The Jacks by Ronald_H, on Flickr