Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Niko D600: Anyone have an opinion? Good camera ?  (Read 6312 times)
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1495


« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2012, 11:52:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Pentax glass was always good, and the MX & LX were excellent cameras. I had an ME Super - which was a heap of junk & I traded in for a second hand Nikon FM, which was (& is) superb.

A MX-like FF Pentax would be a great move by Pentax/Ricoh
Logged
David S
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2012, 01:14:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Totally agree that both the MX and LX were excellent cameras. Of course, those were the days of manual photography - no auto-focus, set the f stop and shutter speed. As a result, the camera and lens combinations weighed a lot less too.

I still miss both of those cameras and would love a digital equivalent. (weight too)

Dave S

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7877



WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2012, 05:11:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Image quality may not be that important anymore (?), but our friend Lloyd Chambers is calling the image quality of the D600 "sensational", adding that it is probably superior to that of the D3x.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2012, 03:34:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Pentax glass was always good, and the MX & LX were excellent cameras. I had an ME Super - which was a heap of junk & I traded in for a second hand Nikon FM, which was (& is) superb.A MX-like FF Pentax would be a great move by Pentax/Ricoh




Slipping slightly off-topic, but I bought a new FM and, later, replaced that with a new FM2n to complement my F and F2 workhorses. The only reason for buying the cheap cameras was the higher flash synch for those times when it mattered. Frankly, the two cheapos weren't even in the same stud as the F and F2: I could spot the lower tranny quality very easily - mostly because of a slight vibration and because I suspect the film wasn't held as flat by the plate. As for the feel of the cameras themselves - oh dear, give yourself a treat and feel the old top dogs! (Not much point now, I do appreciate!) I still own an almost unused F3 and it's locked away in a safe... To be fair, Nikon never touted the FM or FM2n as top graders.

Rob C
Logged

Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2012, 07:02:31 AM »
ReplyReply

5 ounces is not so insignificant.
Of course it is, outside of very specific circumstances and requirements.
Quote
For serious backpackers and trekkers who shave off excess weight from their gear by shortening shoelaces and removing labels from their clothing , this could be a lifesaver.
I really don't see the relevance of that situation to pottering around taking pictures. Astronauts aren't allowed to take much weight up to the ISS either, but that's hardly significant to the discussion.
Quote
By switching from D800 to D600, one can do also away with those bulky CF cards and achieve even greater weight savings.
"Bulky CF cards"? Seriously? If the heft of a CF card is a problem, I think knitting might be a better distraction - you can get carbon fibre knitting needles if the old-fashioned ones are just too much...

Just for a sense of perspective, I've just weighed my (empty of cash) wallet and it came in at just under 5 ounces - can't recall the last time I felt that the weight of my wallet was an unacceptable burden.

I'm a fifty two year old man, healthy but not remotely obsessive about keeping fit, and I have no problem with spending hours (and I mean hours) in the field with a gripped 7D, Siggy 120-300mm f/2.8 OS and (usually) 2x TC plus everything else I might need for the day (I don't spend my time within a few minutes of the car, I walk for miles - double figures are not unusual): the Siggy replaced a much (pounds) lighter 100-400mm at the beginning of the year, and I simply don't notice the extra weight. Using (as I do) a neoprene sling-type camera strap will easily and completely neutralise a 5 ounce weight difference between a D600 and a D800.

Sorry, but to suggest that such a difference will be a deal-breaker except in extremely specific circumstances (none of which we know to apply to the OP's situation), is just daft.

To use an apposite Americanism here, some of you need to man up!

 Cheesy

« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 07:06:25 AM by Keith Reeder » Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1495


« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2012, 07:35:34 AM »
ReplyReply

In a previous life (UK Commando Forces), I'd carry a 70 - 80lbs bergen, plus belt kit amounting to about 25lbs or so, plus a weapon & ammunition (a GPMG weighed in at 24lbs, plus a 50 round belt at another 12lbs - and I'd probably have been carrying 6 of them), maybe a radio battery (sort of brick sized & twice the weight) & a LAW stuffed in the top of my bergen. I was carrying more than my own body weight for maybe thirty miles at a time.

These days I carry a lot less weight into the hills & mountains, and I make every effort to reduce what I have to carry. I'll cut the handle off my tooth brush to save weight. If I can shave a few ounces here & there, & it all adds up to a few pounds overall, so much the better.

I really don't need someone telling me to man-up & get fit enough to carry that extra weight. Been there, done that, got a multitude of t-shirts. But right now, if I was three days into a week's trek in the Cairngorms, every ounce would count.
Logged
Keith Reeder
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2012, 08:27:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I really don't need someone telling me to man-up & get fit enough to carry that extra weight.
Yeah, you might wish to re-read what I wrote, Bill.

Quote
But right now, if I was three days into a week's trek in the Cairngorms, every ounce would count.
And unless that's what the OP is planning on doing too, that's utterly irrelevant.

I'll say it again: a 5 ounce difference in the weight of two camera bodies is trivial except in very specific circumstances - your past life experiences don't change that fact one little bit.
Logged

Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2012, 09:40:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"Bulky CF cards"? Seriously? If the heft of a CF card is a problem, I think knitting might be a better distraction - you can get carbon fibre knitting needles if the old-fashioned ones are just too much...

Yes, that's what they told me when I asked about best way to do some stitching. Bamboo needles are apparently not that heavy, and you can use them also to start the fire.

By switching from 32GB cards to 8GB variety, one can save also a good chunk of weight. Why to carry all those empty memory cells and old bits? Did you know that even deletion of badly composed images won't erase the actual image data on the card?

Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2012, 12:40:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Keith,

If you re-read LesPalenik's post, I think you might detect just the slightest twinkle in his eye? Check his latest post about the extra memory cells in the denser  CF cards? Huh?
Logged
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2012, 04:04:46 PM »
ReplyReply

John,

thank you for setting the things straight.
Actually, most of the time, I still carry too much gear on me. You just never know what you are going to run into.
See my recent post containing potentially useful neuroscience information for action and nature photographers:
http://advantica.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/neuroscience-for-photographers/

About the manning up part:
When I was 52, I used to carry on many trips a 90lbs heavy, fully equipped whitewater canoe over the portages, and a few cases and bags with large format film gear. Have to admit, that the carry was done in two trips. These days, the portages take me three trips, but being older and wiser, now I choose much shorter overland routes.    
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 05:15:20 PM by LesPalenik » Logged

Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1767



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2012, 08:41:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Sharing that link Les! Thanks!
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1495


« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2012, 04:31:23 AM »
ReplyReply


I think the moral of that account of bear attacks is simple - when photographing Grizzly Bears, always have a companion with you, preferably someone you're not emotionally close to. Make sure you have lighter footwear than them (suitable for running), and that you are fitter & faster than them. And hope you don't run into two bears.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7877



WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2012, 07:19:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of bears, and total out of topic... some remarkable images by Paul Nicklen.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/kermode-bear/nicklen-photography

There is a also a 40 minutes movie I just saw this weekend that tells the story of this unique shoot in the context of the fight currently taking place to protect this coastal area from an oil tanker project.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
LesPalenik
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2012, 07:33:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, it's an amazing picture. I happened to see also a portion of that movie, and I liked it.

here is a link to more pictures of white bears from Paul Nicklen. I think he uses Canon, but on his expedition he had 20 tons of miscellaneous equipment with him.
http://advantica.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/white-spirit-bear/
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad