Which lineup do you prefer?

Which Nikon FX lineup do you prefer?

  • Current Lineup

    Votes: 15 55.6%
  • Alternative Lineup

    Votes: 11 40.7%
  • I am a Canon user. I wish Nikon did not exist.

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • Total voters
    27
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
544
Location
US
I think pretty much everyone agrees that Nikon crippled the Nikon D600 so that it would not cannibalize into Nikon D800/800E sales.

Currently their FX lineup is:

D600 ($2000): 24MP sensor in a lighter but relatively inferior body with inferior AF module and sensor point spread, flash sync, max shutter speed, and no dedicated AF-on button.

D800 ($3000): 36MP sensor in a pro body.

D800E ($3300): 36MP sensor in a pro body without the AA filter.

D4 ($6000)


Alterntive FX lineup:

D600 (~$2500): 24MP sensor with the D800/D800E AF module, 1/250 flash sync, 1/8000 max shutter speed, deicated AF-on button. Pro build or current build, Nikon could chose one.

D800E: As it is.

D4: As it is.


Had Nikon gone with the alternative lineup, IMO, they still would have made great sales numbers. The D600 would be considered the true successor to the D700. And those who would want the max resolution would gladly opt for the D800E.

Personally, the non-crippled D600 would have been the perfect camera for my use. My D800E feels like an overkill, and the D600's AF frustrates me at times.
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
I might be sarcastic and say: 'I have a D700. Why should I care? I wait for the D900 or higher. '
But as you stated give me alternative line up. The D600 looks good like this.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
967
Location
Netherlands
I'm fine with it as it is... Although one thing bothers me: a FX pro body (except the D4) has atleast 36mp. For various sorts of photographers it's overkill. The D600 sensor in the D800 body would make me buy that in a second, as long as the price is right.

The D600 is €1550.00 right now and a D800 around €2300.00. The camera I'd be talking about should be in-between at around €1900.00. But since that won't come in the near future I'm fine ;).
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
it depends on what you are shooting

D4 for sports
D800 for landscapes and everything but wildlife
D7100 for wildlife

Many of us thought DX was dead and then came the D7100.....
I just sold my 2nd D800 because I prefer my D7100 for wildlife

I shoot 40% wildlife, 30% sports, 30% landscapes, people and everything else

p.s. early on I was maybe the biggest anti high mp body shooter anywhere but after shooting the d800 and now d7100 that has changed 100%. Setting aside cropability, image detail is amazing and storage and processing can be easily fixed and are relatively inexpensive
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
427
Location
Japan
IMO the tiny raw buffer on the D7100 will limit it's appeal for action shooters (some wildlife shooters I know with 7d's also say it's not up to par)
I got 7 shots at max fps on a D7100 with fast 95mb/s card the buffer clears quickly but slows the fps somewhat after that.

I'm not sure why Nikon skimped on buffer, 70d has a 16 shot raw buffer evidently and I'd imagine the 7dMkII will be as good if not better. Unless Nikon does hit the mark with a D400 with a much larger buffer I can see Nikon struggling with fast fps shooters.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
IMO the tiny raw buffer on the D7100 will limit it's appeal for action shooters (some wildlife shooters I know with 7d's also say it's not up to par)
I got 7 shots at max fps on a D7100 with fast 95mb/s card the buffer clears quickly but slows the fps somewhat after that.

I'm not sure why Nikon skimped on buffer, 70d has a 16 shot raw buffer evidently and I'd imagine the 7dMkII will be as good if not better. Unless Nikon does hit the mark with a D400 with a much larger buffer I can see Nikon struggling with fast fps shooters.

no doubt many wildlife shooters have passed on the D7100.
It's not even close to being suitable for a pro sports shooter, I tried it for one soccer game and it did a good job IQ wise but I wouldn't use it again.
The bottom line though (for me anyway) is IQ and it delivers big time.
I could rationalize the fps and buffer by saying it is actually good for a shooter as far as knowing when to shoot vs bursting and that's not completely ratioinalization, but the buffer, even more than the fps, has lately started to bug me some, but the d7100 still gets used over my d4 and d800 for wildlife

Why did Nikon skimp, my bet is so they could sell D400s
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
1,547
Location
Famington Hills, MI
IMO the tiny raw buffer on the D7100 will limit it's appeal for action shooters (some wildlife shooters I know with 7d's also say it's not up to par)
I got 7 shots at max fps on a D7100 with fast 95mb/s card the buffer clears quickly but slows the fps somewhat after that.

I'm not sure why Nikon skimped on buffer, 70d has a 16 shot raw buffer evidently and I'd imagine the 7dMkII will be as good if not better. Unless Nikon does hit the mark with a D400 with a much larger buffer I can see Nikon struggling with fast fps shooters.

Hopeful wish....that Nikon did that so as not to tread on a D400:eek:
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,932
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
While I agree that the alternative lineup might have made sense I think they may have been hedging their bets with the D800/D800E. I wonder if they only removed the filter on the D7100 after the D800E was well received.

But yes a 24mp D600 with the goodies of the D800/D7100 would be great. Build is fine with me, as is dual SD. I just want the AF system. I'll trade my D800 and D600 for a pair of those, where can I find them?
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,507
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I like the alternative lineup a lot. I shot the D700 for 4 years and I always thought that it was THE perfect body. When Nikon introduced the next models, I was hoping for a D700-style body with D600 sensor. Instead, they created a 36MP behemoth and a 24MP toy. There was nothing in between. I've owned both the D600 and the D800 now and I'd say I'm not really happy with both like I was with the D700. I guess Nikon can't make everyone happy and that's fine. At least they created the D4 - of which I am extremely happy with.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
3,901
Location
New Zealand
If there's no D400 and I was wanting to upgrade to FF, and I shoot mainly sport, then I wouldn't want the D600 as it's a bit ill-equipped, ditto the D800 isn't aimed at sport, and the D4 is sooooo expensive. I know you could get by with the 600 or 800, but I don't really want to just get by. So none of them are for me.

The 7100's limitations also mean getting by with that cam. :(
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
no doubt many wildlife shooters have passed on the D7100.
It's not even close to being suitable for a pro sports shooter, I tried it for one soccer game and it did a good job IQ wise but I wouldn't use it again.
The bottom line though (for me anyway) is IQ and it delivers big time.
I could rationalize the fps and buffer by saying it is actually good for a shooter as far as knowing when to shoot vs bursting and that's not completely ratioinalization, but the buffer, even more than the fps, has lately started to bug me some, but the d7100 still gets used over my d4 and d800 for wildlife

Why did Nikon skimp, my bet is so they could sell D400s

Uh oh, I said I wouldn't use it again and then I got a 120-300 and used the d7100 again for a fb game and guess what, I'm gonna use it again
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
If there's no D400 and I was wanting to upgrade to FF, and I shoot mainly sport, then I wouldn't want the D600 as it's a bit ill-equipped, ditto the D800 isn't aimed at sport, and the D4 is sooooo expensive. I know you could get by with the 600 or 800, but I don't really want to just get by. So none of them are for me.

The 7100's limitations also mean getting by with that cam. :(

The d7100 has surprised me yet again and for the time being it will be my <= iso3200 sports body with the 120-300......after 3200 I will go d4/400vr or d4/120-300.....
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
2,296
Location
Maryland USA
I prefer the D700 and D3 lineup. Great cameras. :tongue:





I think pretty much everyone agrees that Nikon crippled the Nikon D600 so that it would not cannibalize into Nikon D800/800E sales.

Currently their FX lineup is:

D600 ($2000): 24MP sensor in a lighter but relatively inferior body with inferior AF module and sensor point spread, flash sync, max shutter speed, and no dedicated AF-on button.

D800 ($3000): 36MP sensor in a pro body.

D800E ($3300): 36MP sensor in a pro body without the AA filter.

D4 ($6000)


Alterntive FX lineup:

D600 (~$2500): 24MP sensor with the D800/D800E AF module, 1/250 flash sync, 1/8000 max shutter speed, deicated AF-on button. Pro build or current build, Nikon could chose one.

D800E: As it is.

D4: As it is.


Had Nikon gone with the alternative lineup, IMO, they still would have made great sales numbers. The D600 would be considered the true successor to the D700. And those who would want the max resolution would gladly opt for the D800E.

Personally, the non-crippled D600 would have been the perfect camera for my use. My D800E feels like an overkill, and the D600's AF frustrates me at times.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom