So for us who would be using this purely in the studio what are the PC-sync port issues? I might even have the old Nikon hot shoe adapter but IIRC the manual warned something about the level of power you can run through it (I might be completely mistaken since this was over 6 years ago). Would that solution work pretty much with all monolights or am I going to have to look into the specs of mine?
Again I might be mistaken especially since I can't seem to google one but aren't there tiny strobes which go on the hot shoe and put out enough light to trigger the monolights but not enough to really be picked up by the sensor?
The lack of a PC sync port is a non-issue if you're just putting your radio transmitter directly on your hotshoe, which is probably what almost 100% of studio shooters are doing. The issue only arises in wedding reception type situations, where you need BOTH an on-camera flash and off-camera flash. The only way to do this on a D600 would be with the expensive radio solutions such as Radio Poppers or PW Flex TTL etc... I'm sure more affordable solutions are coming, though. But at present I simply cannot operate without a PC sync port. Again, though, this is probably a non-issue for studio shooters. The exact shutter sync limit is probably also a non-issue in the studio; plenty of high-end studio cameras have even slower flash sync speeds!
The lack of a PC sync port is a non-issue if you're just putting your radio transmitter directly on your hotshoe, which is probably what almost 100% of studio shooters are doing. The issue only arises in wedding reception type situations, where you need BOTH an on-camera flash and off-camera flash. The only way to do this on a D600 would be with the expensive radio solutions such as Radio Poppers or PW Flex TTL etc... I'm sure more affordable solutions are coming, though. But at present I simply cannot operate without a PC sync port. Again, though, this is probably a non-issue for studio shooters. The exact shutter sync limit is probably also a non-issue in the studio; plenty of high-end studio cameras have even slower flash sync speeds!
=Matt=
Ideally I'd like to get a radio trigger but for me studio work is still more of a hobby than a major income stream so I'm after the most cost effective solution to get started. I'm still using the good ole cables with my D700.
I think with your skill and a little time... you could manage to be very fast with most of those things. You can program the Fn and other buttons as your separate AE/AF buttons. The WB,QUAL, and ISO are all fast as well. They do require two hands as you mentioned. I'm betting you could still get pretty fast with it all but I understand it would be tough for awhile when you know and can use a particular camera like an extension of the body. I understand the lack of one-click zooming in your environment as well. Nikon has to save that stuff for higher end bodies so they can still sell them. Crazy that the D600 is nearly matching the D4 in output though. An extra $4k is a lot for a faster handling body but it's probably what you would need if you wanted a more modern sensor. I know where you're coming from though and Weddings are about the only single thing that makes your needs as important as they are. I wish my D600 was identical to my D300S handling too... but with the killer output.
Agreed. If I need more resolution and "acceptable" ISO, I'll just wait for a D400 maybe? I do enjoy the DX crop for certain high-action situations. The AF points are all over the viewfinder! I'd probably use a D800 in DX crop mode A LOT. I wouldn't be happy about being limited to 3 FPS unless I add a vertical grip, however, since I prefer to shoot without one for all-day weddings.
Anyways, like I said, the D600 may be a handsome leap forward in image quality, but I simply haven't been hurting in that department. My ultimate kit would be an "affordable D4" for the bulk of my work, and a D800 for formals / portraits and other high-res work.
Ideally I'd like to get a radio trigger but for me studio work is still more of a hobby than a major income stream so I'm after the most cost effective solution to get started. I'm still using the good ole cables with my D700.
Well then, game over with the D600 unless your cable attaches to the hotshoe. Honestly though a cheap radio system costs just as much as a nice long sync cable. Pick up some Ebay triggers for $60 and you'll be good to go on a D600.
I just saw that the D600 will have the Wu-1b wireless adapter...
That is.. oh, so nice!!!
Heck yeah. It will be nice to use my Ipad for live viewing and triggering.
I may buy that Manfrotto 25ft tall stand now to shoot from(real estate and other unique angles) . The adapter means elimination of extra weight and wires(video feed or USB to PC) running up to the remote mounted camera. Only one wire needed now.... the pan and tilt controller.
Agreed. If I need more resolution and "acceptable" ISO, I'll just wait for a D400 maybe? I do enjoy the DX crop for certain high-action situations. The AF points are all over the viewfinder! I'd probably use a D800 in DX crop mode A LOT. I wouldn't be happy about being limited to 3 FPS unless I add a vertical grip, however, since I prefer to shoot without one for all-day weddings.
Anyways, like I said, the D600 may be a handsome leap forward in image quality, but I simply haven't been hurting in that department. My ultimate kit would be an "affordable D4" for the bulk of my work, and a D800 for formals / portraits and other high-res work.
=Matt=
Sit tight. Nikon is on a roll and I think you'll get a great new camera soon. I just made the leap to FX BUT I know I won't be able to refuse a D400! I don't need half the cameras I already have but....
That is my biggest gripe with the D600. 39 AF points.... all in the FX center. That makes proper framing very difficult and no way would it suffice in a professional setting. That's another biggie for a wedding shooter. Good thing 90% of my photography income is real estate!
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
Sit tight. Nikon is on a roll and I think you'll get a great new camera soon. I just made the leap to FX BUT I know I won't be able to refuse a D400! I don't need half the cameras I already have but....
That is my biggest gripe with the D600. 39 AF points.... all in the FX center. That makes proper framing very difficult and no way would it suffice in a professional setting. That's another biggie for a wedding shooter. Good thing 90% of my photography income is real estate!
Actually, it is a HUGE deal for me when shooting weddings. The absolute best viewfinder I've ever had was my D300, and I'd just die and go to heaven if Nikon could come up with a focus point spread like Canon's new 61 point system. Actually, I don't care about the NUMBER of points, I'd be fine with 39! 51 is already a bit cumbersome to navigate. It's the spread and the cross-type locations that bums me out.
Wow, I don't know how anyone ever managed to focus on a D3. With it being the absolute flagship of the line and only 45 points in the DX center. Yea, no way that would ever suffice for a pro...
Dude get real. The entire fleet of FX cameras have the focus points centered in the middle of the frame, and I can bet you $100 if you ask any pro sports shooter, they will tell you they are only using 1, 9, or 21 of those points. Period. If you can't get locked with 39 focus points, you need to turn the AF off. I am tracking Olympic sprinters just fine with ONE focus point.
That is my biggest gripe with the D600. 39 AF points.... all in the FX center. That makes proper framing very difficult and no way would it suffice in a professional setting. That's another biggie for a wedding shooter. Good thing 90% of my photography income is real estate!
Wow, I don't know how anyone ever managed to focus on a D3. With it being the absolute flagship of the line and only 45 points in the DX center. Yea, no way that would ever suffice for a pro...
Dude get real. The entire fleet of FX cameras have the focus points centered in the middle of the frame, and I can bet you $100 if you ask any pro sports shooter, they will tell you they are only using 1, 9, or 21 of those points. Period. If you can't get locked with 39 focus points, you need to turn the AF off. I am tracking Olympic sprinters just fine with ONE focus point.
It has nothing to do with the NUMBER of focus points. It has everything to do with the implication that it is a lower powered system in general, and WHERE the focus points / cross type points are located.
Ask any sports shooter who shot with the 1.3X crop canon such as the 1D mk3 or mk4. Those 45 AF points are PERFECTLY arranged, both in position and in the arrangement of the the cross-type points. That makes a difference.
I'm sure the D600's AF points are decent / awesome. I frequently turn my camera down to 11-point control as well. The problem is, the spread and the cross-type location.
Ask any sports shooter who shot with the 1.3X crop canon such as the 1D mk3 or mk4. Those 45 AF points are PERFECTLY arranged, both in position and in the arrangement of the the cross-type points. That makes a difference.
Yes, the Canon system covers more of the area with their crop sensor. Nikon's does too. And yes, Canon spreads their cross type sensors around the frame more.
I'm sure the D600's AF points are decent / awesome. I frequently turn my camera down to 11-point control as well. The problem is, the spread and the cross-type location.
=Matt=
The D600 positioning of the sensors does not seem appreciably different than those in my D3s or my D800. And both of those cameras are widely praised for their AF ability. If you often need to focus near the edges of your frame, then either going to live view, or selecting a more suitable brand of camera seems the best option.
Wow, I don't know how anyone ever managed to focus on a D3. With it being the absolute flagship of the line and only 45 points in the DX center. Yea, no way that would ever suffice for a pro...
Dude get real. The entire fleet of FX cameras have the focus points centered in the middle of the frame, and I can bet you $100 if you ask any pro sports shooter, they will tell you they are only using 1, 9, or 21 of those points. Period. If you can't get locked with 39 focus points, you need to turn the AF off. I am tracking Olympic sprinters just fine with ONE focus point.
It has nothing to do with the NUMBER of focus points. It has everything to do with the implication that it is a lower powered system in general, and WHERE the focus points / cross type points are located.
Ask any sports shooter who shot with the 1.3X crop canon such as the 1D mk3 or mk4. Those 45 AF points are PERFECTLY arranged, both in position and in the arrangement of the the cross-type points. That makes a difference.
I'm sure the D600's AF points are decent / awesome. I frequently turn my camera down to 11-point control as well. The problem is, the spread and the cross-type location.
=Matt=
Thanks for clarifying that for the dude, Matt. Apparently, I should easily be able to "track" a model's eye on the edge of the frame. Nevermind that she isn't moving or that I can't get an AF point on it unless I focus and recompose. Or worse yet.... use live view while hand holding. What great advice.
It has nothing to do with the NUMBER of focus points. It has everything to do with ... // ... WHERE the focus points / cross type points are located.
Ask any sports shooter who shot with the 1.3X crop canon such as the 1D mk3 or mk4. Those 45 AF points are PERFECTLY arranged, both in position and in the arrangement of the the cross-type points. That makes a difference.
=Matt=
Yep.
Not a pro / sports shooter, but spread / location is v.important for my type of scratching around.
I'd love to also have a single AF point that could be located 'anywhere' in frame.
Dealing with subjects where there's a very visible link between AF point height and horizon, the option to easily shift AF point along the horizontal axis is crucial.
This was brought home to me (yet again) when I was forced to use my 40D rather than the 1Dm3 - only 3 of the 9 points on the 40D allow for hoizontal shifting / composition.
Yes, the Canon system covers more of the area with their crop sensor. Nikon's does too. And yes, Canon spreads their cross type sensors around the frame more.
The D600 positioning of the sensors does not seem appreciably different than those in my D3s or my D800. And both of those cameras are widely praised for their AF ability. If you often need to focus near the edges of your frame, then either going to live view, or selecting a more suitable brand of camera seems the best option.
I can't speak to the D3s or D800 but compared to the D7K, the AF coverage in the D600 is remarkably small.
For this n00b who likes to compose with off-centre focus rather than crop after the fact, it's a big deal.
@Perroneford, you miss the point. Every time I use my D300 instead of the D3s or D700, my initial reaction is "WOW! Focus points!" Sure, I manage quite well with the 3s and the 700, but WHY, NIKON??
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
@Perroneford, you miss the point. Every time I use my D300 instead of the D3s or D700, my initial reaction is "WOW! Focus points!" Sure, I manage quite well with the 3s and the 700, but WHY, NIKON??
No, I get your point. And I go back and forth between my DX and FX cameras all the time. And often on the same shoot.
My issue is that people seem to be lambasting the D600 for this "failure" without taking into account that all the other Nikon FX cameras are exactly the same way. This is not a D600 issue.
Apparently, I should easily be able to "track" a model's eye on the edge of the frame. Nevermind that she isn't moving or that I can't get an AF point on it unless I focus and recompose. Or worse yet.... use live view while hand holding. What great advice.
Think out of the box a bit. I shoot with models all the time. And yes, I understand it would be nice to be able to track to the edge of the frame. But it's not. So you have some choices
1. Use a different cameras. (I use my D7000 in the studio pretty regularly)
2. Shoot loose enough to get a focus point where you have to have it (Just did this with the D800 last week)
3. Use Live View (which I prefer anyway since I use an LCDVF). Done this way, it's REMARKABLY effective.
There's a million excuses to find for something not working for you. Or you can just get the job done and get paid. I prefer to shoot and get paid, rather than complain about how a camera is inconvenient for me.
No, I get your point. And I go back and forth between my DX and FX cameras all the time. And often on the same shoot.
My issue is that people seem to be lambasting the D600 for this "failure" without taking into account that all the other Nikon FX cameras are exactly the same way. This is not a D600 issue.
I'm not calling the D600 a failure. I am calling what it is- zero leaps forward in the areas that I would like to see, and major setbacks in areas that I prefer not to live without.
The D600's 39 AF points could be really dang good for all I know, my point is that, for where the focus points are currently located, and how the cross-type points are arranged, ...I feel no need to upgrade to a camera that continues to offer those limitations. I'd rather get a D800 and shoot in DX crop mode, or even get a D400 if it exists the way I'm hoping it will.
Totally understand this, and you are right. But I think we both know the D600 is NOT aimed at pro shooters like us. It would not present many downsides for my shooting, but I simply have no need for the camera. For you, it's clear the camera would not be suitable.
What I think is sad, is this headlong rush to FX by people who don't know any better, and this camera may not solve any problems they are having.
I've never shot my D800 in DX mode. I'll have to try that some time.
I'm not calling the D600 a failure. I am calling what it is- zero leaps
forward in the areas that I would like to see, and major setbacks in areas that I prefer not to live without.
The D600's 39 AF points could be really dang good for all I know, my point is that, for where the focus points are currently located, and how the cross-type points are arranged, ...I feel no need to upgrade to a camera that continues to offer those limitations. I'd rather get a D800 and shoot in DX crop mode, or even get a D400 if it exists the way I'm hoping it will.
Too funny. These D600 threads seem to mirror the Canon 6D in many ways.
D600 looks like a very capable FF camera and it lacks in a few areas only a pro would really miss. I wish the 6D had 39 AF points and pop-up flash.
RE: FF hype: Despite sevearal posts to the contrary; I do see / experience a FF advantage. Just like medium-format beats 35mm FF. FF vs. Crop difference may be subtle but its real.
As a photographer; the importance of frame size pales next to knowing the art of photography. In that sense FF is hype.
RE: FF hype: Despite sevearal posts to the contrary; I do see / experience a FF advantage. Just like medium-format beats 35mm FF. FF vs. Crop difference may be subtle but its real.
As a photographer; the importance of frame size pales next to knowing the art of photography. In that sense FF is hype.
Here is what it means to me...
FF makes all my lenses appear shorter. And when I have a $7k lens sitting on a $6k body, shooting a man sized target 120 years away, that matters to me.
FF gives me 1.5-2 F-stops ISO advantage. So when I am shooting indoor volleyball I can get usable results at ISO 6400 instead of grossly underexposing at ISO 1600 and hoping to clean up the mess in Lightroom.
In the studio, it's mostly a wash. I shoot DX or FX nearly interchangeably.
No, I get your point. And I go back and forth between my DX and FX cameras all the time. And often on the same shoot.
My issue is that people seem to be lambasting the D600 for this "failure" without taking into account that all the other Nikon FX cameras are exactly the same way. This is not a D600 issue.
It may not be a Nikon issue.... but as a photographer who wants/needs a good spread of AF points..... it's an ISSUE for ME. Focusing on a models eyes at the edge of the frame is not going to be easy. Will have to see auto AF works and see were it choose I guess or go manual focus in a fast pace environment. lol That or it will be focus/recompose and/or some cropping. Nikon needs to work on the AF spread since a LARGE LARGE numbers of us don't focus anywhere near the current 39 AF points. How hard can it be? They are setting up marketing for the D400 now.
"The new D400 has 84 AF points and 1 AF point of your choice can be freely moved to anywhere in the frame!" D400 Coming Soon!" -Nikon
Yards. But this gear costs enough to make me wish it had a feature to alter time!
Time machine, NOW we're talking!
FF high ISO advantage. 1.5 - 2 stops, wow! No kidding? Double wow! If true; that doesn't qualify as hype in just about any candid indoor situation.
On my pro-sumer Canons (7D and 5Dii) I've noticed a slight ISO performance difference; arguably just my imagination. I can use ISO 3200 comfortably on both (for casual use) but 6400 has obvious degradation on both that anti-noise software just can't fully correct without messing up the tones.
To me; FF advantage is in improved DOF control, Wider lenses (my 70-200 makes sense now; 16 -35mm is now a super high quality UWA), ... and just more realistic rendition (color, texture, cropability, etc).
Point being; even with sacraficing some more capability most of us can live without (PC interface, 1/8000 speed, even more AF points); it is OK to yean for FF and we (amateurs) are not just bending to hype by doing so.
. . . frantically searching owner's manuals and custom settings menus for the "time machine" function!!
Funny, funny, funny...I caught that too......
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Comments
The lack of a PC sync port is a non-issue if you're just putting your radio transmitter directly on your hotshoe, which is probably what almost 100% of studio shooters are doing. The issue only arises in wedding reception type situations, where you need BOTH an on-camera flash and off-camera flash. The only way to do this on a D600 would be with the expensive radio solutions such as Radio Poppers or PW Flex TTL etc... I'm sure more affordable solutions are coming, though. But at present I simply cannot operate without a PC sync port. Again, though, this is probably a non-issue for studio shooters. The exact shutter sync limit is probably also a non-issue in the studio; plenty of high-end studio cameras have even slower flash sync speeds!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Ideally I'd like to get a radio trigger but for me studio work is still more of a hobby than a major income stream so I'm after the most cost effective solution to get started. I'm still using the good ole cables with my D700.
Agreed. If I need more resolution and "acceptable" ISO, I'll just wait for a D400 maybe? I do enjoy the DX crop for certain high-action situations. The AF points are all over the viewfinder! I'd probably use a D800 in DX crop mode A LOT. I wouldn't be happy about being limited to 3 FPS unless I add a vertical grip, however, since I prefer to shoot without one for all-day weddings.
Anyways, like I said, the D600 may be a handsome leap forward in image quality, but I simply haven't been hurting in that department. My ultimate kit would be an "affordable D4" for the bulk of my work, and a D800 for formals / portraits and other high-res work.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Well then, game over with the D600 unless your cable attaches to the hotshoe. Honestly though a cheap radio system costs just as much as a nice long sync cable. Pick up some Ebay triggers for $60 and you'll be good to go on a D600.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Heck yeah. It will be nice to use my Ipad for live viewing and triggering.
I may buy that Manfrotto 25ft tall stand now to shoot from(real estate and other unique angles) . The adapter means elimination of extra weight and wires(video feed or USB to PC) running up to the remote mounted camera. Only one wire needed now.... the pan and tilt controller.
Sit tight. Nikon is on a roll and I think you'll get a great new camera soon. I just made the leap to FX BUT I know I won't be able to refuse a D400! I don't need half the cameras I already have but....
That is my biggest gripe with the D600. 39 AF points.... all in the FX center.
Actually, it is a HUGE deal for me when shooting weddings. The absolute best viewfinder I've ever had was my D300, and I'd just die and go to heaven if Nikon could come up with a focus point spread like Canon's new 61 point system. Actually, I don't care about the NUMBER of points, I'd be fine with 39! 51 is already a bit cumbersome to navigate. It's the spread and the cross-type locations that bums me out.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Dude get real. The entire fleet of FX cameras have the focus points centered in the middle of the frame, and I can bet you $100 if you ask any pro sports shooter, they will tell you they are only using 1, 9, or 21 of those points. Period. If you can't get locked with 39 focus points, you need to turn the AF off. I am tracking Olympic sprinters just fine with ONE focus point.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
It has nothing to do with the NUMBER of focus points. It has everything to do with the implication that it is a lower powered system in general, and WHERE the focus points / cross type points are located.
Ask any sports shooter who shot with the 1.3X crop canon such as the 1D mk3 or mk4. Those 45 AF points are PERFECTLY arranged, both in position and in the arrangement of the the cross-type points. That makes a difference.
I'm sure the D600's AF points are decent / awesome. I frequently turn my camera down to 11-point control as well. The problem is, the spread and the cross-type location.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yes, the Canon system covers more of the area with their crop sensor. Nikon's does too. And yes, Canon spreads their cross type sensors around the frame more.
The D600 positioning of the sensors does not seem appreciably different than those in my D3s or my D800. And both of those cameras are widely praised for their AF ability. If you often need to focus near the edges of your frame, then either going to live view, or selecting a more suitable brand of camera seems the best option.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Thanks for clarifying that for the dude, Matt. Apparently, I should easily be able to "track" a model's eye on the edge of the frame. Nevermind that she isn't moving or that I can't get an AF point on it unless I focus and recompose. Or worse yet.... use live view while hand holding. What great advice.
Yep.
Not a pro / sports shooter, but spread / location is v.important for my type of scratching around.
I'd love to also have a single AF point that could be located 'anywhere' in frame.
Dealing with subjects where there's a very visible link between AF point height and horizon, the option to easily shift AF point along the horizontal axis is crucial.
This was brought home to me (yet again) when I was forced to use my 40D rather than the 1Dm3 - only 3 of the 9 points on the 40D allow for hoizontal shifting / composition.
pp
Flickr
For this n00b who likes to compose with off-centre focus rather than crop after the fact, it's a big deal.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
No, I get your point. And I go back and forth between my DX and FX cameras all the time. And often on the same shoot.
My issue is that people seem to be lambasting the D600 for this "failure" without taking into account that all the other Nikon FX cameras are exactly the same way. This is not a D600 issue.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Think out of the box a bit. I shoot with models all the time. And yes, I understand it would be nice to be able to track to the edge of the frame. But it's not. So you have some choices
1. Use a different cameras. (I use my D7000 in the studio pretty regularly)
2. Shoot loose enough to get a focus point where you have to have it (Just did this with the D800 last week)
3. Use Live View (which I prefer anyway since I use an LCDVF). Done this way, it's REMARKABLY effective.
There's a million excuses to find for something not working for you. Or you can just get the job done and get paid. I prefer to shoot and get paid, rather than complain about how a camera is inconvenient for me.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
The AF coverage is the same as all the other FX cameras.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
I'm not calling the D600 a failure. I am calling what it is- zero leaps forward in the areas that I would like to see, and major setbacks in areas that I prefer not to live without.
The D600's 39 AF points could be really dang good for all I know, my point is that, for where the focus points are currently located, and how the cross-type points are arranged, ...I feel no need to upgrade to a camera that continues to offer those limitations. I'd rather get a D800 and shoot in DX crop mode, or even get a D400 if it exists the way I'm hoping it will.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
What I think is sad, is this headlong rush to FX by people who don't know any better, and this camera may not solve any problems they are having.
I've never shot my D800 in DX mode. I'll have to try that some time.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
You said a mouthfull.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
D600 looks like a very capable FF camera and it lacks in a few areas only a pro would really miss. I wish the 6D had 39 AF points and pop-up flash.
RE: FF hype: Despite sevearal posts to the contrary; I do see / experience a FF advantage. Just like medium-format beats 35mm FF. FF vs. Crop difference may be subtle but its real.
As a photographer; the importance of frame size pales next to knowing the art of photography. In that sense FF is hype.
Here is what it means to me...
FF makes all my lenses appear shorter. And when I have a $7k lens sitting on a $6k body, shooting a man sized target 120 years away, that matters to me.
FF gives me 1.5-2 F-stops ISO advantage. So when I am shooting indoor volleyball I can get usable results at ISO 6400 instead of grossly underexposing at ISO 1600 and hoping to clean up the mess in Lightroom.
In the studio, it's mostly a wash. I shoot DX or FX nearly interchangeably.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
. . . frantically searching owner's manuals and custom settings menus for the "time machine" function!!
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
It may not be a Nikon issue.... but as a photographer who wants/needs a good spread of AF points..... it's an ISSUE for ME. Focusing on a models eyes at the edge of the frame is not going to be easy. Will have to see auto AF works and see were it choose I guess or go manual focus in a fast pace environment. lol That or it will be focus/recompose and/or some cropping. Nikon needs to work on the AF spread since a LARGE LARGE numbers of us don't focus anywhere near the current 39 AF points. How hard can it be? They are setting up marketing for the D400 now.
"The new D400 has 84 AF points and 1 AF point of your choice can be freely moved to anywhere in the frame!" D400 Coming Soon!" -Nikon
FF high ISO advantage. 1.5 - 2 stops, wow! No kidding? Double wow! If true; that doesn't qualify as hype in just about any candid indoor situation.
On my pro-sumer Canons (7D and 5Dii) I've noticed a slight ISO performance difference; arguably just my imagination. I can use ISO 3200 comfortably on both (for casual use) but 6400 has obvious degradation on both that anti-noise software just can't fully correct without messing up the tones.
To me; FF advantage is in improved DOF control, Wider lenses (my 70-200 makes sense now; 16 -35mm is now a super high quality UWA), ... and just more realistic rendition (color, texture, cropability, etc).
Point being; even with sacraficing some more capability most of us can live without (PC interface, 1/8000 speed, even more AF points); it is OK to yean for FF and we (amateurs) are not just bending to hype by doing so.
Add a Cyber Space Commander, enter some coordinates, and travel at the speed of light! .... Or just snap a pic and alter time by freezing it.
Funny, funny, funny...I caught that too...
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed