Nikon D600 official

rick_reno wrote in post #14989954
i'm thinking the 24-70 will be my next one.

Get it! You won't be able to take it off...unless the 85 1.4G shows up

HyperCams wrote in post #14987022
Not me, you can keep the +1 full stop of performance the "translucent mirror" takes away from your IQ...no thanks.
I understand them trying to break into markets that the 7D and D7000 have been dominating, but to do so at the cost of LESS light being able to reach the sensor??? really?

Maybe I missed something, somewhere, but I definitely do not get it..
just imo..

I've read the light loss was a lot less than 1 stop, and going from usable 6400 ISO to 3200 isnt a deal breaker if that's the case (worst case scenario). I'de rather gain stabilization on fast primes, which more than makes up for the supposed light loss.

h14nha wrote in post #14986797
I'm in this camp too at the moment, as my 7d is playing up and I'd need to sell some lens to
go to the 5diii anyway. I've been feeling that Canon are spoiling it for hobby shooters like me with the cost of their new gear. 5diii + 24-70ii is astronomical now for what Nikon/Sony are offering. Couple that with an inferior sensor and it looks like choppy water ahead..........

We should be careful to qualify "inferior" as high quality and perhaps not as high as other sensors but the fact is sensors these days are enjoying a coming of age and we the consumer benefit.

jetcode wrote in post #14995987
We should be careful to qualify "inferior" as high quality and perhaps not as high as other sensors but the fact is sensors these days are enjoying a coming of age and we the consumer benefit.

inferior

  Use Inferior in a sentence Origin
in·fe·ri·or

   [In-feer-ee-er] Show IPA
adjective 1. lower in station, rank, degree, or grade (often followed by to ): a rank inferior to colonel.

2. lower in place or position; closer to the bottom or base: descending into the inferior regions of the earth.

3. of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard: an inferior product.

4. less important, valuable, or worthy: B+ bonds are inferior to AAA bonds.

5. acting or performing in a way that is comparatively poor or mediocre: an inferior observer of human nature.

I would say that Canon's imaging sensors are clearly inferior to Sony's and Nikon's current designs. Maybe you consider Canon's as "high quality" but nevertheless, they are definitely inferior to what the competition is offering.

Yogi Bear wrote in post #14996095
I would say that Canon's imaging sensors are clearly inferior to Sony's and Nikon's current designs. Maybe you consider Canon's as "high quality" but nevertheless, they are definitely inferior to what the competition is offering.

High quality images can be made with a 5DII, 5DIII, d800, d800e, Sony latest, etc. The notion of inferior in my world is the difference between an iPhone and a modern top of the line DSLR. Less so between the various flavors of the top DSLR's. So technically you are correct however calling the 5DIII an inferior sensor is a bit harsh since the camera produces beautiful images. I went from a 5DII to a d800e and yes there is a difference but I don't consider the 5DIII inferior.

I agree with Jetcode, I have both Nikon and Canon here and I would call one sensor inferior to the other. They're different, both can produce amazing images without a lot of work.

jetcode wrote in post #14996237
High quality images can be made with a 5DII, 5DIII, d800, d800e, Sony latest, etc. The notion of inferior in my world is the difference between an iPhone and a modern top of the line DSLR. Less so between the various flavors of the top DSLR's. So technically you are correct however calling the 5DIII an inferior sensor is a bit harsh since the camera produces beautiful images. I went from a 5DII to a d800e and yes there is a difference but I don't consider the 5DIII inferior.

I think you're right in a sense, BUT,Canon are charging more money for a product which isn't as good as its competition. This is the cause of a lot of disgruntled Canon people on here at the moment. If Canon can't keep up with Nikon/Sony in the sensor department then fair enough, that happens, but charging more money seems a tad cheeky