a) can i live without a sync port (maybe?)
b) how are my taxes effected by the difference in price (not a helluva lot)
c) i could stand to update my mid-range zoom this year too (8 years old this fall)
lol
apart from my d300 just getting on in years...and hating the "not quite 135" view of the 85 on crop (just as i despise the "not quite 85" view of the 50 on crop)...i'm pretty sure i don't actually need to upgrade my gear. haha.
Not sure what decision you're trying to make. D800 or D800e vs. D600? D600 vs. new Canon 6D? Here are some thoughts about your specific issues:
a) you can buy a cheap gadget that fits into your hot shoe mount that gives you a sync port. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 … apter.html . You can find even cheaper Chinese knockoff on ebay and elsewhere.
b) if it's a sec. 179 expense, compare it to whatever else you were considering. Best to talk to your CPA if it's an important issue for you.
c) B&H is offering a package that includes a D600 and the 24-85 f/3l5-4.5G ED VR lens for $2596.95, a $100 savings.
I got word today that mine will be delivered next Tuesday. That's a far cry from the D800 I ordered and finally canceled in disgust three months later when no shipping date was in sight.
WCR3 wrote: I got word today that mine will be delivered next Tuesday. That's a far cry from the D800 I ordered and finally canceled in disgust three months later when no shipping date was in sight.
Valent Lau
Posts: 123
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
DXO scores are by print size, so it should be no surprise that the same generation of technology gives about the same score. It also shows the D600 doesn't skimp on secondary electronics.
What does surprise is D800 vs D800E Sports score. Why the big diff?
MKPhoto wrote: D800 vs D600, 12 extra MPx for $1000?
...Well...I was going to kinda slam this post, until I went and did a head to head comparison between the 2:
D800:
- slightly larger and heavier than D600
- 51 AF points vs 39 AF points with D600
- 4 fps vs 5.5 with D600
- 1/8000 sec top shutter speed vs 1/4000 sec with D600
- 91,000-pixel RGB sensor 3D Color Matrix Metering III vs 2016-pixel on D600
- USB 3.0 vs USB 2.0 on D600
- shutter rated at 200k vs 150k on D600
- 1 CF card slot and 1 SD card slot vs 2 SD card slots on D600
- 850 shots/battery charge vs 900 shots/battery charge on D600
- ....AND... (drum roll please...):
...the first test results back (from dxomark.com) has the D600 outperforming the D800 in the areas of dynamic range and high ISO performance
...so, yeah (in a lot of ways)...pretty much: "D800 vs D600, 12 extra MPx for $1000"
This thing is definitely going to bite into D800 sales more than I first thought...Nikon would be CRAZY to lower the price of the D600 anytime soon (though they may wind up lowering the price of the D800!)!
[For one thing - it's definitely becoming clearer that the D600 is quite a bit like the D800...after everyone had been predicting that it was going to be a lot like the D7000.]
Oh...and it sure is looking like Canon is DEFINITELY going to have to lower the price of the 6D if they want to compete with the D600 at all!!! So, in that sense, the D600 is likely actually going to be a good thing for Canon buyers!
I have to say that I haven't had the least interest in the D600 since the first rumors started appearing quite some time ago...but I'm definitely getting more interested in this thing by the hour!
WCR3 wrote: Not sure what decision you're trying to make. D800 or D800e vs. D600? D600 vs. new Canon 6D? Here are some thoughts about your specific issues:
a) you can buy a cheap gadget that fits into your hot shoe mount that gives you a sync port. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 … apter.html . You can find even cheaper Chinese knockoff on ebay and elsewhere.
b) if it's a sec. 179 expense, compare it to whatever else you were considering. Best to talk to your CPA if it's an important issue for you.
c) B&H is offering a package that includes a D600 and the 24-85 f/3l5-4.5G ED VR lens for $2596.95, a $100 savings.
I got word today that mine will be delivered next Tuesday. That's a far cry from the D800 I ordered and finally canceled in disgust three months later when no shipping date was in sight.
I had the same problem with B&H. I ordered the D800 and waited, waited and nothing happen. I then order the D800 else where and within 3 weeks, I got the D800. I have had my D800 since late May and I am loving it.
Valent Lau wrote: What does surprise is D800 vs D800E Sports score. Why the big diff?
PTFPhoto wrote: Same sensor size, same generation of technology, less pixels. This leads to lower noise and better ISO performance. No mystery there...
I had the same problem with B&H. I ordered the D800 and waited, waited and nothing happen. I then order the D800 else where and within 3 weeks, I got the D800. I have had my D800 since late May and I am loving it.
This is because a lot of people order from B&H. I don't need to have a new camera immediately. I wait and order the camera later.
Gary Melton wrote: ...Well...I was going to kinda slam this post, until I went and did a head to head comparison between the 2:
I wrote that after passing both head to head through DXO comparison/spec list
I think that the research and engineering were done for D800 specs, so designing (scaling down...) D600 was easy, but they are managing to spread the engineering cost over two models, thus helping D800 prices.
ei Total Productions wrote: All that I know is that Nikon has learned to design some incredible sensors.
And I think that is the real story in digital camera development today.
The D7000 was an absolutely revolutionary camera (not just a good, sound "tweak" like so many other newly released models had been for a few years prior to its release), mostly because of its sensor - which has a really incredible dynamic range and great color! Now it sounds like the D600 takes that kind of performance to a new level...
Gary Melton wrote: And I think that is the real story in digital camera development today.
The D7000 was an absolutely revolutionary camera (not just a good, sound "tweak" like so many other newly released models had been for a few years prior to its release), mostly because of its sensor - which has a really incredible dynamic range and great color! Now it sounds like the D600 takes that kind of performance to a new level...
True, concerning the dynamic range and great color on that sensor inside the D7000... but I wanted all that inside a smaller camera body with an adjustable LCD screen... so I sold my D7000 and picked up a D5100 (same sensor). And YES... after reading stats on the D600 over at DXOMark.com, it won't be long before one of those is sitting inside my camera case...
ei Total Productions wrote: All that I know is that Nikon has learned to design some incredible sensors.
Illuminate wrote: This!
Innovation out of fear...they were hungry and took the Dynamic Range crown from Canon.
Which is a good thing. I suspect that Canon's engineers are busily at work with their next innovation. It always flips back and forth and we are the winners.
ei Total Productions wrote: All that I know is that Nikon has learned to design some incredible sensors.
Which is a good thing. I suspect that Canon's engineers are busily at work with their next innovation. It always flips back and forth and we are the winners.
Yes, you are right! We get better products when there is competition.
Nikon took the lead on sensors with the release of the D3 in summer 2007, and has held that lead ever since. Given the recent performance of the D4, D800, D600, and D7000, I have to wonder if Canon will catch up in the next decade.
ei Total Productions wrote: Which is a good thing. I suspect that Canon's engineers are busily at work with their next innovation. It always flips back and forth and we are the winners.
Which is a good thing. I suspect that Canon's engineers are busily at work with their next innovation. It always flips back and forth and we are the winners.
Yes, that is a great thing. With the D800, I can see the images are closer to film like. But maybe I am just bias as I like the D800. I am sure the D600 will do the same as the DR is almost identical to the D800.
I am hoping Canon would come out with a better sensor that would reach 16 DR. That would put pressure on Sony and others.
Yes, that is a great thing. With the D800, I can see the images are closer to film like. But maybe I am just bias as I like the D800. I am sure the D600 will do the same as the DR is almost identical to the D800.
I am hoping Canon would come out with a better sensor that would reach 16 DR. That would put pressure on Sony and others.
You can be sure that they will come out with a better sensor. I'm sure that they are working on it right now.
ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: Yes, that is a great thing. With the D800, I can see the images are closer to film like. But maybe I am just bias as I like the D800. I am sure the D600 will do the same as the DR is almost identical to the D800.
I am hoping Canon would come out with a better sensor that would reach 16 DR. That would put pressure on Sony and others.
Jerry Nemeth wrote: You can be sure that they will come out with a better sensor. I'm sure that they are working on it right now.
I think sensors are now approaching their limits (ie: getting to the point where's there's virtually no room for improvement left).
High ISO performance could be better still...but really, that's not a function of the sensor so much as it is of the amplification circuits used to amplify the sensor's output (so hopefully we'll see signal amplifiers with less noise). I mean, it's hard to imagine that the laws of physics would allow the design of a sensor with a native ISO higher than around 400, maybe 800...
...'Wonder what the camera manufacturers will do when DSLR's become so nearly perfect that they can no longer produce a big enough improvement in models every couple of years to get us to pull the trigger on a new one?
You can be sure that they will come out with a better sensor. I'm sure that they are working on it right now.
I hope so. Otherwise we going to see another variation of the same Canon sensor technology with minor twist here and there. It is the core of the sensor design that Canon needs to put R&D in.
Gary Melton wrote: ...'Wonder what the camera manufacturers will do when DSLR's become so nearly perfect that they can no longer produce a big enough improvement in models every couple of years to get us to pull the trigger on a new one?
3D still image tech will start to become mainstream.... and then it starts all over! Which has more depth? Yadda Yadda. After 3D reaches it's max peak 10-15 years from now..... life-like hologram images move into our homes or anywhere we aim the HU-1B transmittter! Something better will always be around the corner.
I think sensors are now approaching their limits (ie: getting to the point where's there's virtually no room for improvement left).
High ISO performance could be better still...but really, that's not a function of the sensor so much as it is of the amplification circuits used to amplify the sensor's output (so hopefully we'll see signal amplifiers with less noise). I mean, it's hard to imagine that the laws of physics would allow the design of a sensor with a native ISO higher than around 400, maybe 800...
...'Wonder what the camera manufacturers will do when DSLR's become so nearly perfect that they can no longer produce a big enough improvement in models every couple of years to get us to pull the trigger on a new one?
There is always better sensor design out there. I am sure there are plenty of things sensor can improve on.
I am sure before long we will see 50MP DSLR FF sensor. There is also ftp improvement (60fps 2K video, or 60fps for 4K video etc). GPS/Wifi, built in on all camera. Touch screen etc.
ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: There is always better sensor design out there. I am sure there are plenty of things sensor can improve on...
I guess what I mean is that the latest digital sensors give an image that is maybe 97% true to the actual image that the camera "saw"...whereas 10 years ago, the best digital sensor could only give an image that was maybe 94 or 95% true to the actual image.
How much better is an image really going to look that is 98% or 98.5% true/accurate compared to 97%?
It just seems that while there's always room for improvement, we've gotten to the point where's there not much meaningful improvement left.
[and fyi: I didn't get those percentages from anywhere - just made them up to give some sort of "scale" to what I'm talking about...though I think the percentages are likely in the neighborhood, if not low/conservative/]
my 5d mk II is officially obsolete. sigh. nikon (or is it sony?) is making some good sensors these days. of course the most important thing is how the picture looks and each sensor seems to have its own unique signature.
i remember talking to a racing photographer in the mid-2000s and he felt like canon was significantly ahead. how things have changed. canon kind of seems way behind now except maybe for lenses.
ei Total Productions wrote: Which is a good thing. I suspect that Canon's engineers are busily at work with their next innovation. It always flips back and forth and we are the winners.
twoharts wrote: i remember talking to a racing photographer in the mid-2000s and he felt like canon was significantly ahead. how things have changed. canon kind of seems way behind now.
In some ways, I miss those days. While Canon was ahead in high iso performance, Nikon was still producing great cameras, just not up to snuff for the pixel peepers and the high end sports pros who needed every bit of hi iso performance.
With all the bad press (and word of mouth), Nikon shooters were converting to Canon in droves. I bought a LOT of used high end glass for a song...
Now that Nikon is back in the game, good used Nikon glass can be rather pricey.
twoharts wrote: my 5d mk II is officially obsolete. sigh. nikon (or is it sony?) is making some good sensors these days. of course the most important thing is how the picture looks and each sensor seems to have its own unique signature.
Considering what Canon's released since then, I'd say the 5Dii is still contemporary - when compared to other Canons!
ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: At what price you willing to pay a used D700?
Personally, I think 24MP is the norm for DSLR these days.
$1000-1100 max for a clean one. I know I am cheap, but if I were to pay $1500 for a D700, I'd scrape another $500 to get the D600, just for these 24MPx you mention.
Something better will always be around the corner.
| 
| 
| edu