|
emotive posted:One of my local camera shops has a D600 that they claim was just serviced at Nikon and upgraded to D610 specs. Does that sound "normal"? No. Word is around the NPS campfire that the Nikon Service will not put a D610 shutter into a D600 due to "technical reasons" which explained by Nikon UK is "Advanced Shutter Mechanism changes between D600 and D610". Rumor or fact? Either way, not worth a $1500 chance. TLDR: Buy refurbs directly from Nikon. 99bux more gets you: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25488B/D600.html Spend the extra 99bux 
Musket fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 27, 2013 |
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Yeah go direct. Though I'm sure the shop would be more than happy to provide the work order, eh? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
emotive posted:One of my local camera shops has a D600 that they claim was just serviced at Nikon and upgraded to D610 specs. Does that sound "normal"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Maybe I'll at least go look at it. I'd wager by "upgraded to D610 specs" they really mean "fixed the oil spotting issue".
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Funnily enough, on idly enquiring about which full frame was the best value right now, a friend of mine who is a photography store manager suggested I buy one of their old-stock D600s. You wait until the sensor oil problem manifested (there is even one function that exacerbates it, I can't remember which though), then send it to Nikon for refurbishing which completely fixes the issue and it's every bit as good as the 610 at a super price. He also wanted a gently caress load less than $1500 for a D600 body, like maybe half that if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
emotive posted:Maybe I'll at least go look at it. I'd wager by "upgraded to D610 specs" they really mean "fixed the oil spotting issue". All it takes is a wet sensor clean 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
1st AD posted:All it takes is a wet sensor clean
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:He also wanted a gently caress load less than $1500 for a D600 body, like maybe half that if I remember right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Yeah I doubt someone is selling a refurbed D600 for $750.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
I've been with Nikon since the film days, I had an F2 and when DSLR's came about I didn't have a whole lot of money and ended up going with the D3000 for a learning experience while I transitioned. Now my question is I'm looking to upgrade, I have two options in front of me and I'm really not sure what one is better, I'm looking at a 5200 or a 7100, on paper they seem to be roughly the same with the exception of 7100 being better for manual lovers (like myself, buttons ahoy) and having a few more bells and whistles, along with the fact that it is pentaprism vs pentamirror. The 5200 is $549 right now body only, which is a nice price for a quick upgrade, I had hoped on getting one with a 18-140 lens for $799 but that bundle sold out fast. A similar bundle with the 7100 is on for $1299, same lens with a bag and an extra battery. I'm stuck, I really need to know. Is the 7100 is worth it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Syfe posted:I've been with Nikon since the film days, I had an F2 and when DSLR's came about I didn't have a whole lot of money and ended up going with the D3000 for a learning experience while I transitioned. If your willing to go a generation old, the D7000 is a fantastic camera. The only differences between it and the 7100 is that the 7000 has an anti-alias filter and less megapixels. It should be a lot cheaper too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:If your willing to go a generation old, the D7000 is a fantastic camera. The only differences between it and the 7100 is that the 7000 has an anti-alias filter and less megapixels. It should be a lot cheaper too. The D7100 also has a different AF system, with moar points and possibly/probably better tracking autofocus. If you bird or sportshoot that might mean something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:If your willing to go a generation old, the D7000 is a fantastic camera. The only differences between it and the 7100 is that the 7000 has an anti-alias filter and less megapixels. It should be a lot cheaper too. I love my D7K. So far it's not been the limiting factor in my photography and I think I've gotten some pretty great shots with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Do I go for a new 35mm DX f1.8 or a second hand 35mm f2 D lens? I shoot film on Nikon as well (although my F100 needs to be replaced.) If the image quality of the f1.8 outperforms the D lens I would sacrifice the availability of a 35mm prime on the film camera. I'm also getting a D7000 so cash won't be available for the new Nikkor fx 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Wait for the FX 35G. Buy a used 1.8 in the mean time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Mrenda posted:Do I go for a new 35mm DX f1.8 or a second hand 35mm f2 D lens? I shoot film on Nikon as well (although my F100 needs to be replaced.) If the image quality of the f1.8 outperforms the D lens I would sacrifice the availability of a 35mm prime on the film camera. I'm also getting a D7000 so cash won't be available for the new Nikkor fx 35mm. I run an f/1.8D on my d7k. The 1.8G has better autofocus and the bokeh is less octagonal but you can get a 1.8D for $60 and if you're just buying a d7k you probably would rather put the extra money toward other glass like a telephoto/macro lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
I don't think there's a 35/1.8D
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Probably means the G because it's the only cheapo 35mm lens out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I run an f/1.8D on my d7k. The 1.8G has better autofocus and the bokeh is less octagonal but you can get a 1.8D for $60 and if you're just buying a d7k you probably would rather put the extra money toward other glass like a telephoto/macro lens. Sorry I'm retarded and somehow thought we were talking about the 50mm prime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Syfe posted:
I have both the d5200 and the d7100, of which I started with the d5200 and upgraded to a d7100. First off, the d5200 is a great camera. I took it on vacation with me this summer and it takes great photos and video. It takes some getting used to as it lacks the buttons of other higher-end bodies, but once you get used to it you can work the controls pretty quickly. I have some previous experience in photography but would consider myself a beginner, the d5200's visual display on the screen is amazing for beginners. The flippy screen is great for shooting videos. The body feels a little cheap but it's very small, mated to a small lens like the 35mm f/1.8 dx and it's practically small enough to fit under a jacket. My biggest gripe with the d5200 is it's view finder, it's tiny and not as clear as the d7100. If you have to shoot anything where you are moving around it can be tough to see everything through the view finder. Also the battery, it doesn't last long so you will need to keep a couple of extras on hand, especially if using VR lenses. After about 6 months I bought a d7100. I have big hands and the d7100 fits my hands nicely where as the d5200 feels very small and can be hard to hold onto with a heavy lens. I love having buttons for everything. The view finder is far and away better than the d5200, it's bigger and easier to see through. The high ISO performance of the d7100 is amazing, I am amazed at the clarity of my shots at 6400 ISO, with the right lens this thing practically takes photos in the dark. It takes big batteries and shoots a long time on one battery. Having dual SD card slots is great, it outputs raw to one card and jpeg to the other. My only gripe with the d7100 is the top dial, it has this weird locking mechanism that requires a bit of getting used to, otherwise I love the camera. I still have my d5200 for video work only since I do a fair amount of that, otherwise I would sell it and have only the d7100. I have no experience with the d7000, but if it were between the d5200 and d7100 considering the price difference, I would go with the d7100. The viewfinder alone is worth it to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 12:20
|
|
|
Thanks to all who replied to my post, I decided to go with the D7100, after a lot of thought and consideration I decided it didn't make much sense to go from a beginner camera straight to another beginner camera when I'm looking to up my game and hopefully merge into professional work, so going with a "semi-pro" model seems to be the right thing for me. I'm a tiny girl with tiny hands but I'm still confident that it's the right thing, afterall I didn't get into photography because it's delicate business, though I am greatly amused at how many people talk about the 7100 being great for big hands. I'm very much so looking forward to getting my hands on it regardless, just waiting to get back home from holiday with family, it's already waiting at the post office, I can barely contain my excitement to try it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 03:46
|
|
ReelBigLizard posted:He also wanted a gently caress load less than $1500 for a D600 body, like maybe half that if I remember right. If that's true, I want one as long as it doesn't have a zillion actuations or anything wrong with it. $750 would be an amazing price for a D600 body in good condition.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
So as a follow up, the camera shop with that "610 specced" D600 said: "This D600 went back to Nikon service and was upgraded to D610 level via its new shutter. That's why the price is firm. When D600's needing service come in they sell for 1300. But then you would have an oil & shutter nightmare." (after I asked what he meant by the upgrade)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
emotive posted:So as a follow up, the camera shop with that "610 specced" D600 said:
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
lmao the oil thing was annoying but you could either take it in for multiple cleanings, or just use it for like 2-5k actuations after which time most of the oil is gone and THEN clean it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
emotive posted:So as a follow up, the camera shop with that "610 specced" D600 said: NPS-UK has stated the 610 shutter does not fit in the 600 body. What hes saying is that he sent his back to nikon and it should function cleanly like the 610. It is however not nor will ever be a 610. Buy a Direct Refurb D600 with 24-80 AFS 3.5-4.5 that comes with 1 year factory warranty, and peace of mind. http://www.adorama.com/INKD600K1R.html?emailprice=t&utm_term=Other&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid63773 Its 1699 total for the kit and its not being sold by some lovely person lookin to scam someone out of something it isnt. Spend the extra money to avoid a "deal".
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I had a nightmare recently where I was back in school and showed up wearing only my underwear. There was a robot chasing me (Maximilian from Disney's Black Hole), but when I tried to run, my strides were slow and sluggish, like I was running through jello. I eventually made it to my car and sped off, but I hit a pedestrian and didn't stop to see how badly he was injured. I felt terrible guilt. Also, I snapped some pics with a D600 and noticed that there were spots in the pictures taken with a small aperture. I had to buy a sensor cleaning kit from my local camera shop, but the shop was like part of my dentist's waiting room. I don't know how to explain it, it was so weird. Thank God it was all just a dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Musket posted:NPS-UK has stated the 610 shutter does not fit in the 600 body. What hes saying is that he sent his back to nikon and it should function cleanly like the 610. It is however not nor will ever be a 610. Yeah, I'm definitely going to buy online. It's too bad, I can literally walk to the store and would like to support a local business, but the whole thing is shady. He did say it comes with a 6 month warranty, but still. That's through them, not Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
1st AD posted:lmao the oil thing was annoying but you could either take it in for multiple cleanings, or just use it for like 2-5k actuations after which time most of the oil is gone and THEN clean it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
The new Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX will retail at $599. Not a total surprise, but a disappointment. Seeing that the Sigma 35 1.5 Art has sold for as low as $699 (as an Amazon lightning deal) and is made of heavy material vs what looks to be Nikon plastic, it just seems too high a price. I know photography isn't a poor man's game, but holy moly. Question for D600 owners. Nikon released the list of recommended lenses for the D800 and DXOMark came up with the best lenses for the D600. Do any of you find old glass doesn't live up to your standards on the camera? For example, before I got my D600 I owned the 105mm F2 DC. That lens was insanely sharp, had beautiful bokeh, and wonderful color on my D90 and D7000. Would that be a disappointment on the D600? I'm not a pixel peeper, but I feel like too much is made of having the best and the newest all the time on high resolution FX cameras. edit: I should add that I use my 35 F2 on my D600 and find the results lovely for a walk around lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Jimmy Thief posted:The new Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX will retail at $599. Not a total surprise, but a disappointment. Seeing that the Sigma 35 1.5 Art has sold for as low as $699 (as an Amazon lightning deal) and is made of heavy material vs what looks to be Nikon plastic, it just seems too high a price. I know photography isn't a poor man's game, but holy moly. The 105 f2 DC is a fantastic lens and you'll be very happy with it. No matter what the body, even up to the insanely-rezed D800, even if the lens becomes the limiting factor in resolution (as opposed to the sensor) that doesn't damage the final image at all. It just means that you've 'topped out' on the resolution that lens can give you. You're not getting a worse picture, it just means that in THEORY your sensor might be capable of more. Besides, I think that your old D7000 actually has higher pixel density than your new D600, to it's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Besides, I think that your old D7000 actually has higher pixel density than your new D600, to it's a moot point. What do you mean by pixel density?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
thetzar posted:The 105 f2 DC is a fantastic lens and you'll be very happy with it. No matter what the body, even up to the insanely-rezed D800, even if the lens becomes the limiting factor in resolution (as opposed to the sensor) that doesn't damage the final image at all. It just means that you've 'topped out' on the resolution that lens can give you. You're not getting a worse picture, it just means that in THEORY your sensor might be capable of more. I agree the 105 is awesome. I only sold it because I wasn't using it enough. It's possibly Nikons best one trick pony. I should have clarified more, although your answer addresses this too for the most part, but what other "legacy" lenses do people use on their D600s and D800s that they've gotten great stuff with? Since all the new FX glass is pretty pricey, I'm wondering what I could consider that's older.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:What do you mean by pixel density? I think it means that the D600 as a 24mp camera has less pixels per inch than the 16mp D7000 because the pixels are spread out over a larger sensor. I once read somewhere that it was almost the same, but I can't remember where.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Jimmy Thief posted:The new Nikon 35mm 1.8 FX will retail at $599. Not a total surprise, but a disappointment. Seeing that the Sigma 35 1.5 Art has sold for as low as $699 (as an Amazon lightning deal) and is made of heavy material vs what looks to be Nikon plastic, it just seems too high a price. I know photography isn't a poor man's game, but holy moly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Jimmy Thief posted:I think it means that the D600 as a 24mp camera has less pixels per inch than the 16mp D7000 because the pixels are spread out over a larger sensor. I once read somewhere that it was almost the same, but I can't remember where. That's exactly right. The D7000's pixel density is roughly equal to, I think just shy of, the D800. Which makes it hilarious that everyone is pixel-peepingly mad over spotting lens errors and diffraction on the D800, when the D7000 series is subject to the same things (though at a lower price point)(and the full-frame nature of the D800 does mean that Weird Things At the Corners are more of an issue). Jimmy Thief posted:I agree the 105 is awesome. I only sold it because I wasn't using it enough. It's possibly Nikons best one trick pony. Well, speaking of one-trick ponies, I actually bought an 105mm ƒ2.8 AF Micro off of Keh for use on my D800. Looked amazing, but I returned it once I realized that I would use it five times and then let it molder. I'm rather lens-poor right now, but I own the 28mm ƒ2.8D (a little soft, but not as bad as you might think for the price point), the 50mm ƒ1.8D (great, esp stopped down), and the 85mm ƒ1.8G (crisp and awesome - lots of chromatic aberrations, and vignetting in the corners when open, but Lightroom makes short work of that). When I need more glass, I rent the new hotnesses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
I actually really like the cheapo 105mm 2.5 on my D800. You don't need a D800 to see that it's not a spectacular lens optically, but I keep the 35mm f2 on mine most of the time. The 50mm 1.8G is excellent and cheap in the newer lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Nothing like watching a D600 slip by for a grand because I'm still waiting on the guy to buy my Canon setup. >:[
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I just hope it's at least as good as the 50, and doesn't have the hilarious issues of the 28. What are the 28's issues? Given that they're close in price, I was thinking about going with the 28 over the new 35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:35 |
|
|
Chroma (this isnt the end of the world) and spherical aberrations, and horrendous coma (the 50 also has quite a bit).
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 15:40
|
|