Nikon D600 (affordable full-frame camera) leaked | Hacker News Reader

Nikon D600 (affordable full-frame camera) leaked

nikonrumors.com

29 pointssalimmadjd32 comments

Very exciting to see the price of full frame cameras coming down toward more affordable levels. Of course, the camera body is only one half of the equation. DSLR Lenses that can properly cover a full-frame sensor are still going to be expensive.

For those who aren't familiar with camera terminology: 'full-frame' refers to the size of the image sensor. A full-frame sensor is a full 36mm x 24mm, equivalent to traditional 35mm film. Most DSLRs (as well as Sony's NEX series cameras) use smaller APS-C sensors which are 25mm x 17mm (varies depending on manufacturer).

Larger sensors allow for larger pixels, which in turn capture more light. This lowers the noise and improves low-light performance significantly. Furthermore, larger sensors have a more shallow depth of field for the same aperture size, making it easier to provide out-of-focus backgrounds for more artistic shots.

The thing you must understand about the SLR market is that it is long-term. Nikon in particular are obsessed with backwards compatibility. You can buy an F-mount lens from the '50s, you won't get autofocus on it obv, but you can still take a picture. I have a bunch of excellent lenses bought for film Nikons back in the day - they will all work perfectly on the D600, and on whatever camera Nikon releases in 10, 20, 50 years time.

What you call a "DSLR lens" is really just a temporary thing. The past and the future is just "SLR lens".

I've been using old Pentax lenses on my NEX-3. It's pretty cool, as you can get a very good, very bright F1.7 50mm Pentax lens from the 80s for well under 100 EUR. And it's fun to combine 30+ year old tech with very recent digital tech, I don't get to do that all that often. The lack of autofocus is annoying, though -- manually focusing on a NEX is much more annoying than on an old Pentax --, and a lens designed for the NEX could be quite a bit smaller.

Indeed, I have a bunch of nice Nikon lenses that I bought with an Nikon F100, when I got a Nikon digital camera with a DX sensor I was a bit sick that my wide angle zoom (18-35) becomes an roughly an oversized 28-50 equivalent. Although the boost in length of longer lenses is actually quite nice...

Never quite been able to justify a full-frame sensor camera for my pictures of cats, kids and soggy mountainsides - but if this new camera is a "reasonable" price I might go for it just to get the joy of 18mm back again.

> What you call a "DSLR lens" is really just a temporary thing. The past and the future is just "SLR lens".

Nope. Ever heard the term "pixel vignetting"? There are inherent differences between a sensor and film. "DSLR lens" should be built for better telecentricity than the classical ones.

You can actually match any analog or digital lense to any digital Nikon camera. The only impact you will ahve is on focus, on the smaller digital sensors it actually gets you more telle-lense than written on it. This doesn't work the other way round so. Digital lenses on analog cameras don't work.

Does anybody know if analog lenses work on the D600 as usual? As it was already mentioned all Nikons so far are back compatible so i asume they do. If so, the costs for lenses wouldn't be any higher than they are now. Mind that this doesn't mean they aren't high already!

DSLR Lenses that can properly cover a full-frame sensor are still going to be expensive.

Only if you want fast fixed aperture zooms, or super fast focusing lenses. You can buy yourself a new Nikkor 50mm/1.8 for about $200, an AF Nikkor 28mm for about $300 and an AF Nikkor 85 for about $500. And if you're willing to accept manual focus and second hand lenses, there is an almost limitless choice of lenses for less $200 out there.

Depth of field is exactly the same between full frame sensor and crop sensor with the same aperture and same focal length. The difference comes to play when you use the same aperture and same field of view - different focal lengths, ex. 50mm f/2.8 on crop and 75mm f/2.8 on FF-sensor. You can consider the crop sensor just as the name says - a crop from the full frame image.

> DSLR Lenses that can properly cover a full-frame sensor are still going to be expensive

Nikon anounced yesterday the "NIKKOR 24-85mm VR" Lens for FX (full frame) with a suggested retail price of $599.95. http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses...

Yeah...it seems like, Nikon released this zoom for that exact market, http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/06/14/Nikon-Nikkor-24-85mm...

Rumored spec list:

    24.7MP full frame sensor
    Weight: 760g (850g with battery and memory cards), the D800 weights 900g
    3.2" LCD with 921K dot with ambient sensor control
    HDMI output
    Video compression: H264/MPEG-4
    Full HD with 30p, 25p, 24p, HD with 60p, 50p, 30p, 25p
    Viewfinder coverage: 100% for FX , 97% for Dx
    The Nikon D600 will have built-in AF motor
    The body most probably will be weather sealed
    The D600 may not have built-in GPS as initially reported
    ISO range: 100-6400 (with Lo-1 ISO 50 and Hi-2 ISO 25,600)
    39 AF points (with an option of 11 AF points), 9 cross-type AF points
    AF face detection
    Exposure compensation: ±5 EV (same as the D800)
    The D600 will probably use the EN-EL15 rechargeable Li-ion battery

Affordable, of course, is relative; I've seen a price of $1500 quoted somewhere, which is certainly not something that I can afford right now.

If that is the price, it will be the lowest price for a FF 35mm camera by about $500.

This is a full frame camera. $1500 is cheap for a DX camera. It's more than affordable to prosumers.

It's exciting to know that full-frame cameras are finally coming down in price. If this were three years ago, I'd be interested. Nowadays, I'm more intrigued by smaller cameras that offer brilliant quality and usability, such as the new Olympus OM-D and other cameras with 4/3 sensors.

For those of you like me who had no idea what a full-frame camera was, apparently most DSLRs use image sensors that are smaller than a 35mm frame, so if you try to use a 35mm lens on one of these cameras part of the lens's image circle will be cropped off. Quality is also compromised. Full-frame cameras can also more effectively use wide-angle lenses.

If this camera will show as good as a Dynamic Range as the new D800 it will help recover the global recession :)

How would this compare to a D3? Would there be any reason to switch to D600?

Weight would be the only reason. The D3 is ruggedized literally for use in warzones and natural disasters.

Much like the old analog F4. I remeber a quote of a warzone / disaster photographer back than who said something like "you can even use it to hammer in nails, the only thing you can't use it for is shaving".

Curious question: Is anybody around here who prefers analog photography to digital? I still have the feeling that analog, my pictures are better because I pay more attention to them...

anybody around here who prefers analog photography to digital

Yes and no. I prefer the act of shooting with analog cameras (especially older, almost entirely mechanical cameras) over digital cameras, but at the end of the day the overall convenience of digital outweighs that.

That's a real issue. In terms of the act of shooting photos I prefer analog. I can't even tell why so, my best guess is the effort I put behind. But you're right, digital is why more convenient. And since less and less people are using analog, the harder it gets to develop your film properly. After the labs screwed one film too much you start to value digital. In this case at least original "file" remains.

But maybe I'm simply a late adopter in some cases. :-)

Yes, I still shoot on B&W film. I deal with storage, backups, etc in my day job and let's just say I have no confidence in digital media to survive the Decline & Fall.

And you are developing yourself? Used to do it with my dad back the day, it used to be real fun!

Yep, in my bathroom? B&W is much easier to develop than colour (C41 or E6)

Right. That's why we did only B/W. Unfortunately I don't have the time now...

For those interested, found this review of a D3: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm

Sounds pretty spectacular, thought I don't know that much about cameras

Please, don't take Ken's stuff too seriously. If you want serious Nikon reviews, go to Thom Hogan's [0] or Moose Peterson's [1], or just dpreview for the technical nitty-gritty stuff. Ken Rockwell is fun to read, but he also 'reviews' stuff he hasn't seen, and has some moronic stances on some issues (like RAW vs. JPEG)

[0] http://www.bythom.com/

[1] http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/

I agree, but overall Ken's opinion is definitely worth paying attention. He's often right, more often than not, in my opinion. Some will, ofcourse, dislike him. He's definitely not a "square" character. He's an entertaining oddball. It's kind of like the arguments against Top Gear as a car show. The truth is, Top Gear isn't only a car show.

Not a moment too soon: just as I round out my DX lens collection.

What is Canon doing in this market segment?

Nothing at the moment. Their affordable full frame camera used to be the 5D MkII, but the MkIII is much more expensive. A spiritual successor to the 5D MkII is rumored however. See www.canonrumours.com

Reply on news.ycombinator.com