4 ms·

How would this compare to a D3? Would there be any reason to switch to D600?

by BadassFractal 14y ago

gaius 14y ago
Weight would be the only reason. The D3 is ruggedized literally for use in warzones and natural disasters.
- hef19898 14y ago
  Much like the old analog F4. I remeber a quote of a warzone / disaster photographer back than who said something like "you can even use it to hammer in nails, the only thing you can't use it for is shaving". Curious question: Is anybody around here who prefers analog photography to digital? I still have the feeling that analog, my pictures are better because I pay more attention to them...
  - dagw 14y ago
    anybody around here who prefers analog photography to digital Yes and no. I prefer the act of shooting with analog cameras (especially older, almost entirely mechanical cameras) over digital cameras, but at the end of the day the overall convenience of digital outweighs that.
    - hef19898 14y ago
      That's a real issue. In terms of the act of shooting photos I prefer analog. I can't even tell why so, my best guess is the effort I put behind. But you're right, digital is why more convenient. And since less and less people are using analog, the harder it gets to develop your film properly. After the labs screwed one film too much you start to value digital. In this case at least original "file" remains. But maybe I'm simply a late adopter in some cases. :-)
  - gaius 14y ago
    Yes, I still shoot on B&W film. I deal with storage, backups, etc in my day job and let's just say I have no confidence in digital media to survive the Decline & Fall.
    - hef19898 14y ago
      And you are developing yourself? Used to do it with my dad back the day, it used to be real fun!
      - gaius 14y ago
        Yep, in my bathroom? B&W is much easier to develop than colour (C41 or E6)
        hef19898 14y ago
        Right. That's why we did only B/W. Unfortunately I don't have the time now...
bobbles 14y ago
For those interested, found this review of a D3: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm Sounds pretty spectacular, thought I don't know that much about cameras
- tincholio 14y ago
  Please, don't take Ken's stuff too seriously. If you want serious Nikon reviews, go to Thom Hogan's [0] or Moose Peterson's [1], or just dpreview for the technical nitty-gritty stuff. Ken Rockwell is fun to read, but he also 'reviews' stuff he hasn't seen, and has some moronic stances on some issues (like RAW vs. JPEG) [0] http://www.bythom.com/ http://www.bythom.com/ [1] http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/ http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/
  - sgt 14y ago
    I agree, but overall Ken's opinion is definitely worth paying attention. He's often right, more often than not, in my opinion. Some will, ofcourse, dislike him. He's definitely not a "square" character. He's an entertaining oddball. It's kind of like the arguments against Top Gear as a car show. The truth is, Top Gear isn't only a car show.

How would this compare to a D3? Would there be any reason to switch to D600?

gaius 14y ago

Weight would be the only reason. The D3 is ruggedized literally for use in warzones and natural disasters.

hef19898 14y ago
Much like the old analog F4. I remeber a quote of a warzone / disaster photographer back than who said something like "you can even use it to hammer in nails, the only thing you can't use it for is shaving". Curious question: Is anybody around here who prefers analog photography to digital? I still have the feeling that analog, my pictures are better because I pay more attention to them...
- dagw 14y ago
  anybody around here who prefers analog photography to digital Yes and no. I prefer the act of shooting with analog cameras (especially older, almost entirely mechanical cameras) over digital cameras, but at the end of the day the overall convenience of digital outweighs that.
  - hef19898 14y ago
    That's a real issue. In terms of the act of shooting photos I prefer analog. I can't even tell why so, my best guess is the effort I put behind. But you're right, digital is why more convenient. And since less and less people are using analog, the harder it gets to develop your film properly. After the labs screwed one film too much you start to value digital. In this case at least original "file" remains. But maybe I'm simply a late adopter in some cases. :-)
- gaius 14y ago
  Yes, I still shoot on B&W film. I deal with storage, backups, etc in my day job and let's just say I have no confidence in digital media to survive the Decline & Fall.
  - hef19898 14y ago
    And you are developing yourself? Used to do it with my dad back the day, it used to be real fun!
    - gaius 14y ago
      Yep, in my bathroom? B&W is much easier to develop than colour (C41 or E6)
      - hef19898 14y ago
        Right. That's why we did only B/W. Unfortunately I don't have the time now...

bobbles 14y ago

For those interested, found this review of a D3: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm Sounds pretty spectacular, thought I don't know that much about cameras

tincholio 14y ago
Please, don't take Ken's stuff too seriously. If you want serious Nikon reviews, go to Thom Hogan's [0] or Moose Peterson's [1], or just dpreview for the technical nitty-gritty stuff. Ken Rockwell is fun to read, but he also 'reviews' stuff he hasn't seen, and has some moronic stances on some issues (like RAW vs. JPEG) [0] http://www.bythom.com/ http://www.bythom.com/ [1] http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/ http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/
- sgt 14y ago
  I agree, but overall Ken's opinion is definitely worth paying attention. He's often right, more often than not, in my opinion. Some will, ofcourse, dislike him. He's definitely not a "square" character. He's an entertaining oddball. It's kind of like the arguments against Top Gear as a car show. The truth is, Top Gear isn't only a car show.