• Important! If you attempt to register and do not get an email within 5 minutes please check your spam box. This is especially true for Microsoft owned domains like Hotmail, Outlook, and Live. If these do not work please consider Gmail. Yahoo, or even AOL email which works fine.

Made the plunge

synonymous

Better than you.
VIP
I actually want to trade my 600 in for a 610. I know, marginal increase in quality, but I think my particular 600 has issues with AF and certain settings on the camera itself.
 

themonk

ex-monk.
VIP
I actually want to trade my 600 in for a 610. I know, marginal increase in quality, but I think my particular 600 has issues with AF and certain settings on the camera itself.
Go for it.

I was playing with mine at the show Saturday night and though the stage was well lit, I couldn't get a decent picture without using a super slow frame rate. Of course I didn't have a tripod etc.
 

synonymous

Better than you.
VIP
That's a cool G to upgrade body before I sell my 600. I've only ever shot the thing in full manual mode, but the wife has shot it in aperture priority for example, and it usually under exposes, and the AF seems hit and miss for her and sometimes for me. Granted, I'm usually shooting wide open on my shots, so 1.4 and 2.8 have a VERY tight DOF, but still.
 

themonk

ex-monk.
VIP
You should get some money for your 600. Are there any firmware updates for it?

At least I now have 3 full frame lenses to use, all Nikkor and one was made in Japan. It weighs quite a bit more than the other two. :D
 

synonymous

Better than you.
VIP
You should get some money for your 600. Are there any firmware updates for it?

At least I now have 3 full frame lenses to use, all Nikkor and one was made in Japan. It weighs quite a bit more than the other two. :D
Good question on the firmware. I'll make a point to look.

Like I said, it doesn't bother me because I shoot full manual full time (and sometimes under/over expose). I'm up to four FF now, 24/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 24-70/2.8

My short list is now as follows: 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. (that's almost $4k in glass though). And to throw this sucker out there...The 400/2.8 would be uber sweet to wield.
 

BrandonM7

MaMway Platinum Member
Staff member
Moderator
VIP
Ultra-Premium
Not using it to its full potential here, but I got some great pics this morn.


Awww, you can even see the details of the snot.

For someone that pretends to be fiscally conservative you sure do buy a lot of high $$$ toys.
 

synonymous

Better than you.
VIP
For someone that pretends to be fiscally conservative you sure do buy a lot of high $$$ toys.
I've been into cameras for a long time. I moved up to a DSLR in 2008 I think and finally up to full frame back in 2013. A lens per year isn't all that much of a splurge.
 

themonk

ex-monk.
VIP
Not to mention so long as he sticks with Nikon, he'll be able to retain that good quality glass from body to body.

There's a reason I tried upgrading my glass first... buying full frame glass means I can move to a D610 and not be limited by the glass I already had. Now to sell my older stuff.
 

synonymous

Better than you.
VIP
I thought the 600 had fast AF, especially low light conditions.
It does. I haven't been able to determine if the AF is just picking an inopportune spot to AF on or its a combination of that and my ultra-thin DOF at the apertures I'm shooting. For example, this pic took the Disney photog a few times to get us in focus. I don't have the other shots handy, but the point of focus was not us. Maybe on the flags behind us..? I'd have to go and see. It could have simply been user error too. I'm under-impressed with most of the Disney photogs shots in both composition and settings.

 
It does. I haven't been able to determine if the AF is just picking an inopportune spot to AF on or its a combination of that and my ultra-thin DOF at the apertures I'm shooting. For example, this pic took the Disney photog a few times to get us in focus. I don't have the other shots handy, but the point of focus was not us. Maybe on the flags behind us..? I'd have to go and see. It could have simply been user error too. I'm under-impressed with most of the Disney photogs shots in both composition and settings.

meta data for this shot? If I would have wanted to get the the foreground (waz family) and castle to all be in focus, I would have started at F8, ISO 200 or so and worked up from there.
 
Top