ChrisRL

Graham

I started in the 70s with a Rollei 2.8, a Zenit, then a Nikon F, then a Hasselblad and then turned pro and had a slew of cameras. Then moved to film and Arris and Aatons.

Then moved to editing and thus to digital movie making. But still kept a Nikon F3HP, a Leica SL2 MOT, R3, plus MF and LF cameras.

Moved again to digital on the stills side, eventually had a lot of business, and ran twin D800Es.

Business died out, and I'd learned from the many times I'd been around the digital block not to hold on to digital camera bodies too long, because their value declined too sharply over time.

So I sold an M9, a digital Hasselblad, the D800Es, everything digital.

And I oversold.

Because even after this many times around the block, and these many decades, I'd still go on a video or film assignment, look around wherever it was I happened to be -- and feel that yen for a real camera because what was in front of my eyes was so compelling that I was reaching for a camera that... wasn't there anymore.

Yes, I have an iPhone. Yes, it's always with me and I use it all the time for happy snaps - but.. no, for me, that's not a real camera. Sorry if you disagree.

And I realized that, all the money and business and calculation and estimation aside, after all of that, I still wanted and needed a personal camera, just for me and my own shots.

So around October last year I bit the bullet and bought me a real, personal digital camera.
Probably the first personal camera I have bought, just for me, not for money, business, whatever, since the very first camera I bought, just for myself, before any thought of being a professional even touched my horizons.

Sure, I told myself that it was to use all the Nikon and Leica glass I have still lying around (and won't sell, because I use that glass on my 4.6k BlackMagic digital cinema cameras), and many more justifications I'm sure we're all well familiar with.

But to be totally honest? Nah. It was to have that particular mass, body shape, whatever, within easy reach at all times.

That personal digital camera?

D600.

Love it, won't sell it, even if I go broke and need the cash. Can afford to shoot it into the ground, don't care if I do, because it's at near as low as it will go, resale wise, and that's where I bought it at. And will buy another one to replace it, if I need to.

If business takes off again? Maybe I'll just rent, then buy D850's or whatever the flavor of the month is.

But personally?

In stills cameras, have only really loved the M2/M4, M9, SL from Leica, the Hasselblad 500CM/NC2/150mm combo, the Rolleiflex 2.8 and 3,5Fs, the Sinar P, the Canon F1n, the Nikon F1, F3HP...

and now the D600, which has been my daily driver since I saw it, used, cheep cheep in a pawn shop.

That's my own personal story.

Naturally, YMMV.

BlackRipleyDog

Yeah, you and I kind of share the same origins. I started out with older refurbished DX equipment and did quite well. I found however, the biggest potential expense was in lenses. So I concentrated on legacy AF-D models which worked quite nicely with my bodies and my stable of glass started getting built in $300 to $400 increments. And that set the stage for my eventual move into FX. Something to consider since you are moving into FX from DX.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

I don't think it was a shutter problem as much as a sensor problem with grease/oil deposits. As far buying. That's like asking should I marry the blonde or the redhead. That has to be your decision.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I came across a low shutter count D600 and was toying with the idea of buying it but didn't like the idea of not being able to use my existing DX lens on it. If the seller has proof Nikon has fixed the problem, I'd buy it in a second, that's a low shutter count.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

The "oil" was lube from the shutter. The Nikon fix was to replace the shutter with a redesigned one.

BlackRipleyDog

Then that negates the reason for buying an FX. Stay DX and then your lens are used properly. Moving to FX is a committment to a different system of lenses.
Contact Nikon with the serial number and see if it was changed out. I don't think there is this vast underground of rogue D600s out there. Nikon put out a recall for this problem. Find out.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Buy with confidence is the price is right.

ChrisRL

Ched..
Um... well... I have a D600 and when I put one of my DX lenses on it, a smaller frame line immediately shows in the center of the FX frame indicating the DX crop area. i.e. the D600 will shoot DX glass all day long, just at 10MP, not at 24MP.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Thanks for setting me straight.

siamesecatmanuk Loc: Leicestershire UK

Care to elaborate?
Graham

RV Loc: Chicago

Bought the D600 when it first came out. Was extremely satisfied. Yes, I had dust issues on the sensor. Sent it to Nikon and got back a new D610. I love this camera. Except perhaps for the pixel count on the D800, which I consider a negligible benefit, 24 vs 36, for my use. I see no reason for upgrading at this point. If I did upgrade I would probably move to the Z6 or something mirrorless. But currently very happy with the D610.

BlackRipleyDog

About the Crop Area on the sensor? I will do my best.
A crop sensor is 16mm x 24mm
A FX sensor is 24mm x 36mm
A DX lens is designed to throw an image circle matching the crop sensor. When you mount a DX lens on a FX body, the camera throws a switch internally and essentially deactiviates the outer portion of the FX sensor to show only the area that normally would be receiving the data that a crop sensor camera would.
The math is this - A crop sensor is 384 square mm
A full frame sensor is 864 square mm
The crop sensor has 45% of the total area of an FX sensor.
So a 24mpx D600 would only being capturing data of about 10.8mpx or that of a D200 or D80.
If you carry this further to comparing different cameras and their performance, you have to be aware that
a 24mpx DX body is not the same as a 24mpx FX body.
The cleanest collolary to this is that between a DX D500 and FX D850.
They share the same pixel density with the D500 at 20mpx and the D850 at 46mpx. Square millimeter for square millimeter, the D500 is the exact little brother to the D850. Mounting a DX lens on the 850 will give the same image the D500 would of captured.
There are many other implications of comparing the two formats and that kind of starts Holy Wars.

BlackRipleyDog

I started with the D600 and eventually moved up the D800. For my purposes, the 50% increase in pixels was well worth the effort. But it all boils down to what you are doing with your images.

ChrisRL

Bought my D600 for $380.
Look at its imagery above.
For me, that's enough said.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Dog, this is the clearest explanation of the difference between FX and DX I've ever read - thanks so much!