Full-frame digital photography for the masses

[35mm]

Yep, looks like the Nikon D600 is for real:

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/06/14/first-leaked-nikon-d600-images.aspx/

I think it's a nice move by Nikon. And contrary to what everyone is saying, I think it's a natural one, too, since we had similar bodies on the film days (the F80, for example).

Also, there's a new, cheap zoom to go with it (24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR) and the f/1.8 primes Nikon already released (28mm, 50mm and 85mm).


Any more opinions?

 

[Ibonibo]

What's the price asked?

I find it great to bring full frame a bit more infront in the camera business. Or generally stopping with the tiny sensors.

Sorry but I have to do it: Canon may also release a entry full frame, true successor of the 5dMkII.


In an ideal world, all lenses would work on all DLSR, that way you could jump between manufactors, sadly once heavy invested it seems not so reasonable (though I've been reading that the loss margin is not that big as some might think)

 

[ShortAznGuy]

I'd honestly rather get a D7000. If you're going to get a cheap full-frame camera, you're going to find it hard to get FX lenses. You'd be screwed. Get something like a D5100 or a D7000 so you can invest in cheaper DX lenses at first. Going full-frame is cool but you have to take into consideration that many FX lenses are expensive.

I just recently upgraded from a Nikon D7000 to a Canon 5D Mark II a month or so ago and I sold three of my Nikon DX lenses to get two Canon EF lenses.

I'd only find this useful as a backup camera for pros with their Nikon D4's and D800's

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Azuremen]

I'd honestly rather get a D7000. If you're going to get a cheap full-frame camera, you're going to find it hard to get FX lenses. You'd be screwed. Get something like a D5100 or a D7000 so you can invest in cheaper DX lenses at first. Going full-frame is cool but you have to take into consideration that many FX lenses are expensive.

In my experience, from the Canon line up at least, is that most of the higher end full frame lenses are expensive because they are vastly superior. I see little reason to buy crop-sensor only lenses if you plan to make an upgrade to a full frame sensor later on.

That aside, with Canon again, there are enough cheap EF lenses that it doesn't matter very much anyhow. Assuming you want slightly soft images with fringing in the edges and slow apertures.

And the color and noise handling on full frame is always superior.

 

[Ibonibo]

^And when comparing EF vs EF-s in prices, Ef-s lenses can come expensive too. There are two at 900€ + 2 at 700€.

But there are also several EF lenses with a price point below 500€.

And the cheapest lense in the line up is still an EF lense (the 100€ 50mm).

And then the most important. EF-s camera's support EF lenses, but EF cameras don't support EF-s lenses.

Does it work the same way at Nikon?

 

[Boffin]

I'd honestly rather get a D7000. If you're going to get a cheap full-frame camera, you're going to find it hard to get FX lenses. You'd be screwed. Get something like a D5100 or a D7000 so you can invest in cheaper DX lenses at first. Going full-frame is cool but you have to take into consideration that many FX lenses are expensive.

I just recently upgraded from a Nikon D7000 to a Canon 5D Mark II a month or so ago and I sold three of my Nikon DX lenses to get two Canon EF lenses.

I'd only find this useful as a backup camera for pros with their Nikon D4's and D800's

That's just my opinion though.

The camera is not going to cost 5 cents - its boasting around abouts the same specs as the 5DMkII and will be priced as such. If one is willing to fork out for a D600 over a D7000 or even a D300 I would imagine they know what they are getting themselves in to in terms of expenses.

This camera looks awesome actually. I was eyeing up the D800 for when I get out of uni but it all seems a little excessive. This is much more 'the go' for me, but changing over to the FX lenses (not all, I still have a few 35mm film lenses) makes me question if I should go down the Canon route.

Brilliant move by Nikon, I say.

 

[boiltheocean]

Rumours have it the 7DII will become the entry level full frame offering from Canon.

 

[ShortAznGuy]

I just don't want small enthusiasts and high school/college students to be getting this camera without doing some research. Money is tight and it's cheaper to go crop sensor while in school. Since this is an entry level full frame camera, I'm expecting it to cost around the price of a D7000 and a D300s, which is still quite a lot of money ($1200 to $1500 is my guess).

I knew a guy in my photo class a few semesters ago who bought a D700, not knowing the difference between DX and FX. He knew full frame was better because it wasn't cropped but he didn't know that is also limited the amount of lenses he could use. Now he's stuck with a kit lens because he forked out all his money on the body and can't afford any good lenses. There are people out there that don't do their research or don't do enough research so having an entry level full frame camera might trick some people into buying it. Then when the people find out that they're only limited to FX lenses, stuff happens.

As for the cheap full frame lenses that are decent, most of them have variable apertures like the 70-300($500) and the 28-105($200ish). The only two cheap full frame lenses that I would buy(because I have before) are the 50 1.4 and a used 20-35 2.8. As a kid growing up, my dad told me to never buy lenses with variable apertures, unless they were macro lenses. 👍

 

[35mm]

By the way, rumours are talking about $1500 for this camera ($2000 with a kit lens).

Since the release price of the D7000 was $1500 with a kit lens, I think it makes sense.

 

[Azuremen]

As for the cheap full frame lenses that are decent, most of them have variable apertures like the 70-300($500) and the 28-105($200ish). The only two cheap full frame lenses that I would buy(because I have before) are the 50 1.4 and a used 20-35 2.8. As a kid growing up, my dad told me to never buy lenses with variable apertures, unless they were macro lenses. 👍

Most any prime on the EF line-up from Canon is a solid lens. It is the zooms that suffer massively. And in some cases, a non-L prime can be better for certain tasks, such as the 85mm F/1.8 versus the 85mm F/1.2L because of the focus speeds.

Most people don't research much at all, but it is their fault and I'd never recommend a crop sensor camera with the intent to buy full frame later, especially if you are arguing crop sensor lenses are cheaper because they'll be useless later on.

On a different note, I really feel you shouldn't push your whites and blacks so much in your photos, as you are losing quite a bit of detail and gaining nothing but a cheap lo-fi look.

 

[ShortAznGuy]

Most people don't research much at all, but it is their fault and I'd never recommend a crop sensor camera with the intent to buy full frame later, especially if you are arguing crop sensor lenses are cheaper because they'll be useless later on.

On a different note, I really feel you shouldn't push your whites and blacks so much in your photos, as you are losing quite a bit of detail and gaining nothing but a cheap lo-fi look.

Most people have to start somewhere and getting something like a $600 crop sensor DSLR is the first step, even if going full frame is in the future, unless the people have the money to burn away by purchasing a full-frame right off the bat.

I've talked to some professional photographers and they recommend people to start with crop sensors and crop lenses when they first start.

*Thanks for the constructive criticism too, by the way. I really hate not knowing what other people have to say about my work so, thanks!

 

[Azuremen]

I've talked to some professional photographers and they recommend people to start with crop sensors and crop lenses when they first start.

Most people starting off into photography have no clue what they are doing, and thus aren't even sure if they are going to commit to it. Which is why crop sensors are fine recommended by pros, because the initial investment is much smaller. There is also the fact that most super-zooms are cheap for crop sensors. They are also complete trash to actually shoot with, but a novice isn't going to understand that, let alone understand damn near any of the features of a nicer body.

What I was saying is there is little reason to buy a crop sensor if you intend to upgrade to a full-frame later on. At least in the Nikon series (it seems), as with the Canon series EF lenses work on crop sensors and full frames while EF-S are restricted to crops only. Any high quality lens is EF mount anyhow, with only a lens or two that is of similar quality in the EF-S lineup. Even then, I can only think of the 17-55mm F/2.8, which is still a $1000 lens.

The excuse that you can get cheap crop lenses is quite limited, and mostly restricted to lenses on par with kit lenses. The nicer crop lenses run as much as nice full frame lenses, and in some cases, more. I find you get what you pay for, and there is no magically awesome cheap lens for crop sensors exclusively.

Honestly, when novices ask me about buying their first dSLR, I have a great deal of trouble talking to them about it because they get so hung up on the prices. The prices of entry level dSLRs and their kit lenses, and they are generally at a loss for words if I bring up any decent lens, as they all start at $600 generally. For the cheap ones. What I end up doing is telling them to get an older body (Canon 40D), 2nd hand, for cheap and to pick up a prime lens such as the 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4) and learn on that. Sure, doesn't have any fancy features compared to the new Rebels even, but better handling and it will force them to learn what they are doing if they want decent shots. Hell, if they can learn on film, even better. Far too often I see someone with a 7D or 5D and shooting in full auto, failing to understand the most basic of concepts.

Really, the price of this full-frame Nikon will still be too bitter of a pill for the uninformed to purchase, because they simply don't understand how a camera can even cost that much.

 

[ShortAznGuy]

What I was saying is there is little reason to buy a crop sensor if you intend to upgrade to a full-frame later on. At least in the Nikon series (it seems), as with the Canon series EF lenses work on crop sensors and full frames while EF-S are restricted to crops only. Any high quality lens is EF mount anyhow, with only a lens or two that is of similar quality in the EF-S lineup. Even then, I can only think of the 17-55mm F/2.8, which is still a $1000 lens.

What I end up doing is telling them to get an older body (Canon 40D), 2nd hand, for cheap and to pick up a prime lens such as the 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4) and learn on that.

Really, the price of this full-frame Nikon will still be too bitter of a pill for the uninformed to purchase, because they simply don't understand how a camera can even cost that much.

What I tell people who want to go full frame in the future is to buy a used crop sensor camera but buy FX/EF lenses [unless it's a good DX/EF-S lens like the 17-55 2.8(which I've owned)]. Spend less on the camera and more on the glass because the bodies will go obsolete but the glass won't.

I also have this feeling that once full frame cameras drop in price, companies will start to either get rid of or replace most of the crop sensor cameras with full sensor "successors". It's kind of already happening with the rumors or the 70D which would replace both the 60D and 7D.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

There are very few people buying entry level dSLRs who are seeing them as such. For most people, a Canon 1100d represents a massive upgrade from whatever pocket p&s they're using right now. So for serious amateurs/professionals to advise them is very hard.

When someone asks me what camera they should buy for £300, I really struggle because they're looking at me holding a £5k camera/lens/flash combo. The only advice I give these days is to go make a choice between Canon/Nikon/Sony. That's the only thing the beginner needs to get right, and right for them.

Also, I usually decline requests to have a go with my camera. Not because I'm precious about it, but because I don't want to consign people to having to save for £20k's worth of gear like I have.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I'm really excited about the D600 myself, and hoping it's comfortably under $2000. I sold all of my DX glass when I bought my D3S and I've been missing the ability to have a "small" setup ever since. Being able to use the smaller bag a non-gripped body allows makes a huge difference.

 

[35mm]

Well, so much for the $1500 price rumours talked about...

"Nikon announces D600 24MP enthusiast full-frame DSLR

Body: $2099/ £1955.99 ; With 24-85mm F3.5-5.6: $2699/£2443.99"


Personally, I find €2000 for a D7000 with a full-frame sensor a ridiculous price.
(For comparison, when launched, a D7000 + 18-105mm VR cost 1399&#8364

Now that Nikon discontinued the D700, I honestly hope everyone who looks at this D600 ends up getting a 5D Mark II instead.

 

[Ibonibo]

^The 6D seems to come out too soonish.
And Sony has 2 new full frames announced (one with a fix lens? wtf??)

Tough I gonna have a tough choice next year in choosing a full frame

 

[35mm]

The full-frame Sony compact camera, right now is very expensive and only with a fixed lens, but it's a great step by Sony in the right direction, in my opinion. Full frame should just became standard with all types of digital cameras.


About which one to choose, it's quite simple: if you have $3000, buy a D800; if you have $2000, go for a new 5D Mk II or a D700 (if you can find one); if you have less than that, well, you'll have to go with on of these last two, but used.

Personally, I wouldn't buy a D7000 with a full-frame sensor for $2000... That's insane. (Or this 6D, for that matter.)

Also, I'm sceptical about Sony's EVF right now, so I'll leave that one out.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

$2100 really isn't that bad. It's a consumer body so it'll come down over time, too. It's still much cheaper than the D800 or the 5DIII. It's also not that much more than a D300 cost at launch. Realistically, there was no way the camera was going to cost $1500, with what the FX sensor costs Nikon, the margins would've been lower than the D7000.

It's still cheaper than a D700 or 5DII. The D7000 is also a pretty nice body, with buttons for almost everything you need on a regular basis, dual wheels, and nice build quality. It's small but that's not the worst thing in the world.

Also, the D700 was a D300 with $1000 tacked onto the price for the sensor. Don't see why a D7000 with the same is that big of a deal.

 

[Azuremen]

It's still cheaper than a D700 or 5DII.

The 5D Mark II is under $2000 new, for the body.

 

[35mm]

I'd really like to know what's the cost difference between a APS-C sensor and a full-frame one. And nowadays, because this isn't 2008 anymore.

Everybody thinks that this D600 should be more expensive than a hypothetical D400 and I just don't get it. The full metal body, the better AF system, weather sealed, all the dedicated hard buttons, etc - is all this really less expensive than the sensor?

Or putting thinks on a different perspective: does the D600 really need to cost $1200 more than the D7000, for Nikon to cover their production costs?


EDIT:

Also, the D700 was a D300 with $1000 tacked onto the price for the sensor. Don't see why a D7000 with the same is that big of a deal.

Let me just add that that was 4 years ago.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

The 5D Mark II is under $2000 new, for the body.

Now that it's an obsolete camera, yeah. When it was new it was $2,700.

I'd really like to know what's the cost difference between a APS-C sensor and a full-frame one. And nowadays, because this isn't 2008 anymore.

Everybody thinks that this D600 should be more expensive than a hypothetical D400 and I just don't get it. The full metal body, the better AF system, weather sealed, all the dedicated hard buttons, etc - is all this really less expensive than the sensor?

Or putting thinks on a different perspective: does the D600 really need to cost $1200 more than the D7000, for Nikon to cover their production costs?

The general consensus is that a DX sensor costs about $50, an FX costs about $500. Then add all the extra expense for processing hardware, bigger mirror and mechanism to drive it, prism, viewfinder LCD, etc, and it starts to make more sense. There's probably $200-300 more profit at most, and that's split up between Nikon and the retailer who sells the camera, plus there has to be room for discounts.

It's only $1000 more that the D7000's MSRP. What's to say that the D600 won't be $1900 or $1800 in a year or two?

 

[Azuremen]

Now that it's an obsolete camera, yeah. When it was new it was $2,700.

I'd hardly call it obsolete at this point, given the performance it yields even compared to the top end crop sensor cameras.

Realistically, Nikon is charging about what I expected for a full-frame sensor. They just cost a lot regardless for all the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

I'd hardly call it obsolete at this point, given the performance it yields even compared to the top end crop sensor cameras.

Realistically, Nikon is charging about what I expected for a full-frame sensor. They just cost a lot regardless for all the reasons you mentioned.

Obsolete in terms of performance of usefulness, no, but it's been directly superseded by a newer model. It's not part of Canon's flagship lineup anymore, and is on the way out. I suspect the 6D will probably kill it off.

 

[35mm]

To be honest, I did not know the difference was so huge, for the respective gain of sensor area.

Still, and since in 2008 we had a D700 for $1100 more than the D300, it's being hard for me to accept the $1200 difference between D7000 and D600 in 2012.

But maybe that's just me being cheap.

 

[phillgt2002]

I'm still using a Nikon D40 and i'm still putting out decent photos. I've had it since it came out.

I can deal with this camera until I fully go into Professional Photography. Once I get back on my feet I'm purchasing a camera in the thousands.

 

[Bye Ya]

I knew a guy in my photo class a few semesters ago who bought a D700, not knowing the difference between DX and FX. He knew full frame was better because it wasn't cropped but he didn't know that is also limited the amount of lenses he could use. Now he's stuck with a kit lens because he forked out all his money on the body and can't afford any good lenses.

I thought the FX were the good ones? Doesn't the D700 use FX lenses?

Edit: maybe you're just saying he's out of money...?

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

No such thing as an FX lens, really. Any Nikon lens that's not DX will work on an FX camera (unless it's super, super old or from one of the weird formats like APS). There are tons of crappy lenses from the film era that will work on an FX body. There are actually some pretty good deals to be had on older lenses too, but those are rapidly going away now that so many people are getting FX bodies.

 

[niky]

^The 6D seems to come out too soonish.
And Sony has 2 new full frames announced (one with a fix lens? wtf??)

Apparently so shooters can have a sidearm in the same caliber as their assault rifle.

But yes,the idea seems incredibly silly to me, too.

 

[Centura]

So, it's a D7000 with a full frame sensor for double the price. I expected it to be cheaper, but it's nice to see FX is getting cheaper.

However, to be fair, if they upgraded the D7000 or release an equivalent model, I'm sure it would cost at least $200 more than the D7000 currently is.

The only DX lens I have bought is the 35 1.8G and I won't buy anymore because I hope to upgrade to FX in the future when they get even cheaper or when I have more disposable income.