D600

Nikon rumors now indicates there is a very high probability of a D600, low cost 24MP full frame camera, with all the video bells and whistles, and 5fps for approx $1500. Wow. That will be a serious entry level FX camera for underwater at $1500 less than the D800 and $2000 less than the 5DMKIII

http://nikonrumors.com/

But should FX every be entry level underwater?

Anyway, the main point I want to make is that at some point Nikon has to think about putting these new sensors in existing bodies. Maybe the D600 will use a derivative of the body of the D800? D300 or D7000? Which would be good news on the housing front.

Alex

With a low cost fx body there won't be any reason for a replacement d300s dx body.

But should FX every be entry level underwater?

 

Anyway, the main point I want to make is that at some point Nikon has to think about putting these new sensors in existing bodies. Maybe the D600 will use a derivative of the body of the D800? D300 or D7000? Which would be good news on the housing front.

 

Alex

Pity if they killed off the higher end dx, but I am starting to think you may be right. I agree FX would not be my choice for entry level underwater, or even overall best underwater format - but I guess Nikon's priorities are not on underwater. I think for reach with telephotos for birds etc DX also has a place.

Well there are still rumours of the 24MP DX sensor making its way into a D400 at some point (although I think Nikon might be better placed building the back ordered cameras they already make than introducing new models!

A D400 DX might share a body with the D800 (or the D600)? Oh what conjecture!

I've not tried the 24MP D3200 yet. But I can't help feeling that such pixel density would be hard to shoot? Although the who resolution situation reminds me Yes Minister irregular verbs (with apologies for the British only reference - google explains):

My camera is high resolution, your camera is hard to shoot, his is crippled by diffraction!

Alex

Well there are still rumours of the 24MP DX sensor making its way into a D400 at some point (although I think Nikon might be better placed building the back ordered cameras they already make than introducing new models!

A D400 DX might share a body with the D800 (or the D600)? Oh what conjecture!

 

I've not tried the 24MP D3200 yet. But I can't help feeling that such pixel density would be hard to shoot? Although the who resolution situation reminds me Yes Minister irregular verbs (with apologies for the British only reference - google explains):

My camera is high resolution, your camera is hard to shoot, his is crippled by diffraction!

 

Alex

Yeah, lots of conjecture. This D600 weighs quite a bit less supposedly then the D800; therefore probably smaller - hence probably won't fit D800

Then the FX sensor probably means larger than a D7000 or other DX - (:

Then the FX sensor probably means larger than a D7000 or other DX - (:

It doesn't have to be. Although viewfinder would probably drop to 96%.

Yeah, lots of conjecture. This D600 weighs quite a bit less supposedly then the D800; therefore probably smaller - hence probably won't fit D800

Then the FX sensor probably means larger than a D7000 or other DX - (:

And if it does fit the D800 housings, it's still not possible to use any Fisheye lens, as it is rumored to have no internal AF motor.... Unless Nikon decides to develop a cheap AF-S FX FE zoom that will be announced together with the D600!

The latest rumours say it does have internal AF motor, like the D7000.

The latest rumours say it does have internal AF motor, like the D7000.

Let's just hope whatever it is that Nikon do , it's better executed than the Canon 60D insert into their model range.

My camera is high resolution, your camera is hard to shoot, his is crippled by diffraction!

I have smiled for the first time in two weeks!

"His camera controls are broken, your camera controls are not ergonomic, mine are only of use to a ROV..."

Tim

It does appear that the D600 might be a solution for a D300 upgrade as it's viewfinder is 96% when in DX mode specifically for use with the Tokina 10-17 and Nikkor 60mm AF-S.

Alex or Jeff,

Could either of you confirm if while in DX mode the D800 has a significantly reduced viewfinder, nothing even close to 96%

Thanks,

Gary

To avoid any confusion, I am maliciously hot linking this image (the first that came up when I searched FX vs DX):

All FX Nikons when used in DX mode will reduce your viewfinder to just the red square. An FX camera in DX mode will give you a much smaller viewfinder images than a dedicated DX camera. If you imagine that the whole image above is as small as your view through your viewfinder then the red square is really small. This is why in my D4 review I questioned how useable DX mode on an FX camera would prove for shooting underwater (when we also must look through mask and housing).

The 96% I mentioned above was total speculation from me and a possible specification for a camera that does not exist yet. If the D600 is an FX camera in a body the same size as the D7000 then it will be a squeeze for the mirror and viewfinder. These could be reduced in size a bit to give only a 96% view of the image when shooting in FX mode. The D700 had a similar reduction in field of view.

Alex

To avoid any confusion, I am maliciously hot linking this image (the first that came up when I searched FX vs DX):

 

 

All FX Nikons when used in DX mode will reduce your viewfinder to just the red square. An FX camera in DX mode will give you a much smaller viewfinder images than a dedicated DX camera. If you imagine that the whole image above is as small as your view through your viewfinder then the red square is really small. This is why in my D4 review I questioned how useable DX mode on an FX camera would prove for shooting underwater (when we also must look through mask and housing).

 

The 96% I mentioned above was total speculation from me and a possible specification for a camera that does not exist yet. If the D600 is an FX camera in a body the same size as the D7000 then it will be a squeeze for the mirror and viewfinder. These could be reduced in size a bit to give only a 96% view of the image when shooting in FX mode. The D700 had a similar reduction in field of view.

 

Alex

Thats a great point you raise Alex

So help me out here guys. I am a D-300 shooter and the Af-105-VR is my favorite lens. If I upgrade to a d-800 and shoot at maximum magnification I get a 36MP picture. If I now crop that as the shots Alex posted above to 24mp, I get the same shot as if I had a 24mp D-600. Correct?

So, I i am willing to spend the extra money and heft a bigger, heavier camera what have I given up?

I can redially see what I gain. I can crop the 36mp shot in multiple ways and still get a 24mp shot.

Tom

So help me out here guys. I am a D-300 shooter and the Af-105-VR is my favorite lens. If I upgrade to a d-800 and shoot at maximum magnification I get a 36MP picture. If I now crop that as the shots Alex posted above to 24mp, I get the same shot as if I had a 24mp D-600. Correct?

 

So, I i am willing to spend the extra money and heft a bigger, heavier camera what have I given up?

 

I can redially see what I gain. I can crop the 36mp shot in multiple ways and still get a 24mp shot.

 

Tom

I think you got the D400/D600 wrong: D600 is, supposedly, fullframe so same sensor size as D800 therefore cropping the D800 will never deliver a D600 pic... It is the D400 the one expected to be 24mpx DX but: If you get a D800 and shoot a 36mpx pic, and then do a DX crop you get 15.3mpx not 24... which is not bad at all anyway.

Dave-

Right, I was confusing the D-600 with a D-400. However, i still dont understand the math. Isn't 24mp x 1.5 36mp? Tha's the way it looks in Alex's photos.

Thanks,

Tom

Dave-

 

Right, I was confusing the D-600 with a D-400. However, i still dont understand the math. Isn't 24mp x 1.5 36mp? Tha's the way it looks in Alex's photos.

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

It is not a linear relation because it is a surface:

D800 Max res 7360x4912= 36152320 / (35,9mm x 24mm) = 41960 px/mm2 which is the density of the sensor

41960 x (23,6mm x 15,6mm) = 15447994 px more or less 15,4 mpx... in a DX sized crop...

Thanks.

Hi Tom,

You have to think of the 1.5x crop factor as a linear measurement. Like feet. 1.5x is approximate and in the case of Nikon's sensors, DX and FX, the length of the FX sensor is approximately 36mm (on some FX sensor's it has been 35.9mm) and the DX sensor is approximately 24mm (23.6mm in some cameras). So when you divide 36mm by 24mm you get 1.5x which applies to how the focal length of a lens works with the sensors. A 150 mm lens on the FX (150÷36) sensor gives approximately the same field of view as a 100mm lens (100÷24) on the DX chip. Resolution is also a linear measurement.

MegaPixels are an area measurement, like square feet. If we continue the FX vs DX comparison, the FX chip is 1.5x the length of the DX chip. The width is also 1.5x. If you multiply 1.5 x 1.5 you get 2.25. Divide the 36.3 Mp of the D800 by 2.25 and you get 16.13. Nikon says 15.4, which is correct, because the 36 and 24 figures we used to simplify the math are only approximations of the actual numbers.

I hope this helps.

Fred