If there was one thing that people are unanimously saying about Nikon's new D600 "budget" full frame camera, it's that the price is entirely too high. No matter which blog you read, it seems everyone cannot believe the MSRP of $2,099.95. But are these claims valid? Does Nikon's smallest full frame DSLR really lack the features that professionals desire? In the full post I'll tell you why I just bought two of these cameras and why the price seems just right.
Camera Size
Perhaps one of the most common arguments I'm reading is that the Nikon D600 must feel like a "toy camera" because it's the same size as the Nikon D7000. I'll be honest and say I've always loved the feel of Nikon's pro cameras with the added vertical grip. There is something that just feels good about having a substantial camera in your hands especially when you are shooting with something like the 70-200 2.8 lens (strangely enough I find the vertical grip on the D4 to feel really awkward with that big square piece protruding). I've also shot professionally with the D7000 camera which is significantly smaller, but with the MB-D11 added, I might actually prefer the slightly smaller sized camera.
That being said, if you look at the dimension specs, the new Nikon D600 is much more similar to the D300s, D700, and D800 than it is to the D7000. The D7000 measures 132 x 105 x 77mm while the Nikon D300s measures 147 x 114 x 74mm. The D600 is 141 x 114 x 82mm. The following image below shows just how close the D600 is in size to the D800. When you add the MB-D14 vertical grip to the D600, I'm betting a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised how the new Nikon D600 might feel more like a pro level camera than the "toy camera" they fear it might resemble.
Sync Speed
Another major complaint is that Nikon has decreased the max sync speed to 1/200 instead of the standard 1/250 featured on most other DSLR cameras. I can understand this complaint, and honestly it is probably my biggest disappointment with the new camera (when can we get rid of shutters altogether and just have a faux digital shutter with no shutter curtain at all?). When you really think about it, the different between a shutter at 1/200 and 1/250 is pretty small. The difference is maybe a 1/3 stop less in potential flash power compared with the ambient light. I am rarely trying to over power the sun and usually my flash is never close to full power (speed lights or monoblocks). In most situations, you can have your assistant simply move 1-2 feet closer and you've compensated for the lost in sync power.
If you are concerned about motion blur with flash then the difference is probably even more negligible. For high speed flash photography, your biggest concern will be minimizing your powerpack's flash duration since shutters at 1/250th will probably still lack the power to freeze motion on it's own. Of course no photographer wants their next camera to decrease the max sync speed, but the difference here is not going to be overly apparent in most cases....Canon users have been dealing with this for years!
ISO Range
Shutter Speed
Exposure Mode Dial
The two User Modes, U1 and U2, have been a HUGE time saver when I have to bounce between different environments like outdoor shoots with all natural light (and warmer WB) to indoor situations where I'm using bounce flash and a slower shutter speed (and maybe cooler WB). They are also great for switching between stills and video because those settings can be very different. I do miss having some of the WB and ISO buttons on the top left of the camera but I've gotten quite used to them along the side. As a wedding photographer, I always have a mix of cameras at my weddings (D300s, D7000, D800, D4), and every single one of them has a completely different layout (who needs a dedicate bracketing button on the D4 anyways?) My point is this: every photographer will have to relearn each new camera they buy. It's easy to think of one feature as being "consumer" and another being "professional" but at the end of the day, I believe it's all in your head and ultimately how you use each setting. If you look at it this way, the Scenic Button actually gives you MORE options than the standard ASMP modes found on the pro level cameras.
So Is The Nikon D600 Actually Way Overpriced?
Obviously, only time will tell how the images off Nikon's D600 camera will look compared to other models or other comparable cameras. I'm a firm believer that every camera released is slightly better than the previous one in some way. Usually the newest features come out in the pro level line and then trickle down into the consumer line, but those features (like video, or super high ISO, or battery life) usually improve with each subsequent release. At this point I think it's safe to say the Nikon D600 is the 3rd most powerful camera in Nikon's lineup behind the D4 and the D800. In my opinion, it's also priced at a pretty non offensive price point considering I've paid $1799 for a much less impressive D300 (and D300s) camera in the past. Even the D700 was closer to $2,700 when it was first released. Some may argue that the D800 is only $900 more for a much more professional body, and that is true. But I think it is easy to forget how groundbreaking the D800 was when it was announced at half the price of the Nikon D3x back in January.
Any professional photographer is aware that each camera is simply a tool for a job. If you have incorporated video into your business like I have, then the D700 is not an option. Also, because new cameras hold their value so well while they are still in production, the D700 is perhaps the worst possible camera you could buy right now because it will plummet in value very soon. At the moment the discontinued D700 is selling on ebay for about $2,200 body only. My approach is to buy a few D600s and use them over the next year until the next camera is released that better fits my needs. You can always sell a current camera like the D600 used for a few hundred dollars less than what you bought it for and then reinvest that money back into your next camera. That's the beauty of buying the newest and selling it after a year or two.
What do you think?
After reading so many dreadful threads about the "Nikon D600 Pricing Issue," I'm a little hesitant to ask "what does everyone else think?" I really am curious to hear if all the D600 bashing has been unwarranted, coming from those who hate Nikon or cough cough despise Scenic Mode Dials, or if Nikon really has released a black sheep camera that will fail to grab the attention of the full frame market. I should have a much clearer opinion in a few weeks after I put these cameras through a few weddings but I'm pretty excited to have the D600 coming my way.
no sir. the Sony A850 was the cheapest full frame since film at $1899.99
The A850 was a marketing stunt, nothing more. You will not see that kind of price on Sony DSLRs going forward. Sony was selling at a loss to try to gain market share. The A99 is an indication of that.
I think the issue with price is that this is really just a D7000 with a full-frame sensor. Since the D7000 can now be readily had for $999, the $1100 difference seems a little excessive.
Hey Patrick!
I love your enthusiasm and it is great with some positive thinking among all the complaints. But bellow follows a few shots of many many more at fstops up to 4.5. ISO on some of these pictures is event set to low on my D700.
http://stefanhellberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CAM_7359.jpg
http://stefanhellberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/DSC_8113.jpg
http://stefanhellberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CAM_7221.jpg
It would simply not be possible to capture these shots in the same way without 1/8000. puting on and off nd filters is not on option while shooting weddings. not for me at least...It would be too risky, maybe you drop it, maybe you miss that perfect moment. I loved the D600 until the 1/4000 news was released. Did you really go through all your shots without finding any keepers over 1/4000?
Now I am off to shoot an architectural assignment and for that the D800 is perfect. So I really dont find any use for the D600 as of now.
Looking forward to your reply.Cheers!
Stefan Hellberg
https://www.facebook.com/HellbergPhotography
http://stefanhellberg.com/
I can see how maybe the last shot makes sense but in the first two examples there does not seem to be any advantage to shooting at 1.4 vs f4 with backgrounds like the sky. The shallow dof doesn't really help in these cases. If the background was extremely busy and faded into a nice blur then I'd agree (much like example 3), but the first two, I'm not seeing it
On the contrary, Stefan. You actually have the equivalent shutter speed of 1/16,000 second compared to the D700 due to the fact that you can shoot at 100 ISO base, and can go to 50 ISO in Low-1 mode. Additionally, the dynamic range at ISO 50 is noticeably improved over the DR at ISO 200 on the D700, and monumentally improved over the D700's DR at ISO 100.
I realize it feels like you've lost something because you don't have that top shutter speed that you are accustomed to seeing — but the D600, technically speaking, offers MORE flexibility (not less) in this case.
That is a really helpful answer. Thanks!
I don't usually weigh in on discussions like this one, but I do have some thoughts I would like to share. Back in 2007 I purchased my first DSLR after years of film shooting and being away from photography in general for a stretch of time. After several months of reading reviews and making comparisons in features, price and overall systems, I chose a DX version Nikon. I've been extremely pleased with the choice, but one thing that stood out to me from the beginning is that the standard lowest ISO setting on my camera is 200. After growing up with film cameras and shooting Kodachrome at ISO 25, I was baffled at why a digital, technological marvel would only go down to 200. (Yes I know you can adjust it down to 100 if you choose.) It's the same question I've wondered about regarding a variety of features in various DSLR models.
With the new D600 the question comes up again. Is it suddenly too expensive, or more difficult to produce a DSLR with ISO settings that go down as low as 25 or at least 100 as a standard feature? (Again, I'm aware that the D600 has a native lowest setting of ISO 100) As technology continues to improve, change and evolve, is it too much trouble to produce a camera with a sync shutter speed of 250 over 200? There's the argument that the difference is only a third of a stop and I admit, that's not much of a difference, but still . . . . . every adjustment available to me provides one more element to the creative toolbox I rely on with whatever camera I'm using, however small that adjustment may be.
Is there a solid explanation of why a new camera model such as the D600 moves forward in some features and seems to take a step back in other features that have been well established for years?
I honestly think that because High ISO is used as a selling feature, they calibrate the sensors more for the High ISO range than the low.
I believe is overpriced. I have shot with a d3000, d3100, d90, d7000, d700 & D800. My current camera is the d7000 which is very much laid out like this camera. Why I feel is overpriced, the controls and some of the key features. 39 vs 51 like a pro, but more important the amount of cross focus points. They flash sync speed, the max shutter speed of 1/4000 and many more. Now had this camera had all the features of the D7000 with the AF of the d800 then I would of considered it a fair price. At the end of the day this is a matter of opinion and its all relative. People say the end product is the key, yes that true but the tool is needed and learning how to use the tool for the craft is the key. People will talk about all the likes and don't likes, whether is overpriced or not. To those who want an FX and don't have $3000 for a D800 this is great, for those who can afford a D800 or D4 then this camera is meaningless. I was waiting for this camera before buying a D800, well I guess now i will deal with the green tint of the d800..lol. But seriously at the end of the day have fun shooting whether its professional or not. Pick your tool and shoot it.
Nikon should maybe think about doing a little market research before releasing a new camera?
Perhaps if a D600s is released that will address the max shutter speed, and sync shutter speed issues, as well as adding a PC sync port and getting rid of the newbie dial and dedicated retouch button, then people might be more excited.
``the D700 is perhaps the worst possible camera you could buy right now because it will plummet in value``
Every camera is the worst possible camera you can buy right now. In 2005 you could buy D2H for what, $4000. Now you can buy it for $300. How can the most awesomest professional camera that was the desire of every photographer turn to digital junk.
Now look at that D600 or D800 and what wonder whether you will still feel the same way 7 years from now.
"right now" in terms of resale value. A d2h is probably a great deal now because it can't depreciate much more than it has already. All DSLRs will prob be worth some min value of say $300 but the D700 has not hit that point yet.
As a wedding shooter with a D700, I'd say this is a step down for me. Would have bought one if the feature set & price had been different. I'll wait for a D900 (or similar to appear) before I spend any more $$$ with Nikon.
Its targetted for me :)
a hobby photographer who wants a full frame.
for 2/3rd the cost of a d800 its a great deal.
and moreover I prefer having the P/A/M dial instead of having to press the mode button on d800.
but at the same time I don't want a d5200 or a d3200 full frame.
a d7000 full frame is perfect for growing out of d7000 and not buying the d800 which is an awesome camera.
I love my d7000 but always wished if only it was a full frame and this is the one.
I mostly shoot with CLS so the sync speed i'm hoping is not an issue. ( AutoFP FTW )
there are guys who shoot wedding and commercially, this camera is not designed for them
and it doesn't mean they shouldn't use it.
In Denmark the D600 body is $2,983.64 USD and the D800 body is $3,159.62 USD.
Totally and utterly ridiculous pricing.. Who in their right mind would even consider the D600 when they could pay $175,98 USD extra and get a D800 instead?!?
i was extremely happy when I read that Nikon was going to have an entry level FX camera.
2500$+ isn't entry level. Maybe for 40 years old lawyers, doctors and such but not for me.
I'll wait and buy a D700 or maybe even a D7000... comparable performance (beside de Mpx count) and MUCH cheaper...
This Nikon is way overpriced and should have been around $1500. Same size and layout as D7000, similar/close specs to the D7000. It's basically a D7000 with a full frame sensor. D7000 around $1200 add $300 for full frame and at $1500 you have the D600.
Whoa. Max flash sync speed of 1/200s? Strobists aren't going to be pleased.
Buying any camera is always a series of trade-offs. It's like wanting a car to be bigger on the inside, but smaller on the outside. Unless you have unlimited funds, you have to give up something. You have to decide if the camera meets your needs and is within your budget.
I shoot mostly landscapes with my D90, shooting several frames and stitching them in Photoshop. My problem is too many pixels. I also shoot grandkids playing in the backyard. I really don't need more camera for what I do.
I used to shooting weddings on film. I had two medium format camera bodies and carried a backup 35mm. If I had a problem, I didn't find out until I got the proofs back from the lab. Any digital camera would have been wonderful at any price.
I once saw an article in a photo magazine where the editors had given disposable film cameras to half-a-dozen pros and asked them to shoot whatever they wanted. As you can guess, the results were incredibly good. Who is behind the camera is far more important than the camera.
Don't get caught up in thinking you need the latest and greatest camera. It probably won't make the slightest difference to your photographs.
Sir,photo which i have attached is taken with D7000 at 1/8000.I do feel disappointed
over the price of D600 though I am a Nikon lover.
ISO?
I happen to like the body, bigger than a D7000 and smaller than a D800. Build quality seems fine (not like I chuck my gear around), don't mind the ISO range being limited (never taken a shot past 3200 anyway). I don't care for the 1/4000 and 1/200 issues, but that's not a deal breaker. I can get around it in the end. What I refuse to get around, is the price. Cheap! Are you friggin kidding me? Maybe in pounds or dollars yes (don't know). In South African rands however this thing is going to sell for R23 000. Canon's 6d is coming in at R19 500. Anyone who thinks this is cheap at R23 000 has obviously got too much bloody money. I won't be switching to FF because of this camera, that's for sure. And then there's the Nikon lens issue. FF=Expensive. Canon at least offer their customers a choice within the L range at reasonable prices. Look for a 70-200 F4 in the Nikon range? Oh right, there aren't any! No for Nikon's version of the 70-200 you have the 2.8 which sells for... that's right R23 000. I should have listened to a friend of mine when he told me to go Canon because of the lens range offered, but no I didn't listen.
I had my old Canon F1 film camera for a long time before it became obsolete but now days a camera will be obsolete in a year or two. The D600 is not even made in Japan so Nikon must be making big bucks off this plastic camera and it will be obsolete in a year or so. To bad that the greedy CEO's of these big companies will be dead before they can spend all that money they made off us.
Cal,
I'm still shooting with my Canon A-1 film camera, flash sync: 1/60, shutter speed: 30-1/1000, ISO: 6-12800.
I need to quit reading Canon Rumors or else I'll never buy a DSLR. 6D versus 7D? Now there's a rumor about a 7D II.
Considering that the Canon really dumbed down the EOS 6D from the 5D MkIII, and considering that Nikon left 8/10's of the Nikon D800's features intact on the D600, I'd say that the D600 is a real bargain. Consider the D600's closest, and as yet unarrived, competitor the EOS 6D. The 6D doesn't have an onboard flash, has only one SD card slot, has only an 11 point AF system, the flash sync speed is 1/180, it shoots just 4.5 fps and will be priced almost identically to the D600. The EOS 6D does have onboard wi-fi and GPS, but those are easily added options to the D600. Also, the 6D is missing the D600's almost unbeatable 2016 pixel color sensitive metering. I know from using this camera for a couple of weeks now that the metering system is almost unbeatable. When I went digital in 2002, I switched from Nikon to Canon. Considering D600 has more of the features that I want over the EOS 6D and the EOS 5D MkIII is $1500 more, it was an easy decision to go back to Nikon. I got my D600 at Costco - $2900 for the body and two really nice VR lenses and still saved $600 over body only price of the Canon 5D MkIII. Considered in these terms, the D600 is a real value.
I have quite a few older Nikkors (mostly primes). This beast utilizes them to the fullest extent. Been using Nikon since the late '60's and have loved em all, but this D600 exceeds all of my needs video and still. Now what to do with: 4 x F, F2, 2 x F3... maybe someday we'll get a film cartridge sized sensor to fit all these old antiques !