The Canon 5DmarkIII is the one camera to beat for the A99. But the D600 will set a new low price for FF cameras.
A source just told us that indeed Nikon will announce the Nikon D600 FF camera by end of this month. And the price will be around 1.500 Euro for the Body Only and it will use the same 24 Megapixel Sony sensor that will be used for the A99. The A99 is rumored to be priced somewhere between 2.500 and 2.800 Euro. From what I know from the source the A99 has strong advantages compared to the D600 like weather sealed body, better video quality (and Phase detection AF while video recording), much faster frame rate (10/12 fps versus 3fps), more advanced control layout and so on. So it’s more appropriate to compare the A99 with the [shoplink 13204 ebay]Canon 5DmarkIII (price over 3000 Euro/Dollars)[/shoplink]…. But the question is…will the Nikon D600 be a problem for Sony? At what price would you buy the A99 instead of the D600 or Canon 5DmarkIII or Nikon D800? Be honest! 🙂
[poll id=”109″]
158 Responses
“Nikon will announce the Nikon D600 FF camera by end of this month”
Before Photokina?
yes
If Nikon releases D600 with in-body motor, prosumer body and same 24mpx sensor as SONY A99 but priced at $1,500 while Sony A99 is priced at $2,500 then you can kiss SONY full frame market share goodbye. Pronto!
A capable Nikon full frame DSLR at $1,000! less than SONY’s only current fullframe (A99) would spell the end of SONY full frame dreams because SONY targets amateurs mostly and many of these will prefer to save $1,000 and get access to full range of Nikkor lenses than get a SONY label on the camera and slightly better features.
If this turns out as above, then I will be completely flabbergasted as it would really raise questions about how the SONY product development and marketing group is being run. I mean, how could they completely be blindsided by Nikon when they themselves where the first to pioneer low cost full frame cameras with the Sony A850.
It will be like the colossal Canon overpricing of the Canon 5D MKIII compared to D800 but 10x worse!
This site cited Ken Rockwell’s a99 article the other day. SAR’s rumor was $2700US for a99. Rockwell was $2400US for a600. Given Sony’s more-advanced AF-system and video capability, it will appeal to crossover buyers, even with the price difference.
The Nikon sounds like a hold-the-fort device to help Nikon decide if they can ‘stay SLR’ or need to adapt to Sony’s strategy…
Given the history of Sony pricing on bodies, the right price will be “enough to cover the cost of the technology to make them + the cost to develop and market them + profit for the company and distributors = < cost of comparable competitors' models."
To clarify, either Rockwell is TOO HIGH or SAR is TOO LOW. They are $1000 apart on the D600 cost. Nikon would also be putting a tomahawk in the back of their D800 customers (and freeze the new-purchase market until December).
The SAR price of $1500US for D600 seems silly. It just pisses off too many people (most of them Nikon D800 customers).
The proof is in the eating…
If you’re listening to Ken Rockwell, then… WTF is wrong with you!?
SAR cited Rockwell. You don’t address what Nikon would be doing in pissing off the D800 buyers. They WOULD feel cheated by this.
Well, sure its cheap. But not everyone wants Nikon. Sony has quite a bit to offer too. 🙂 Ppl bought A900 and A850 cause 1) was reasonably cheap (well somewhere) 2) it was Sony and sorta special.
You forget that when the A900 came out it was special because it was the highest resolution 35mm digital camera available, had a very nice viewfinder and had in-body stabilization. The A850 was notable for being the cheapest 35mm full frame body available although it and the A900 lacked live-view and video (as did the D700). Also the Nikon D700/D3 had a “low” 12mpx resolution: Half of the SONY A900/A850.
Now move forward five years and SONY is re-releasing a full frame 35mm camera with the same 24mpx resolution — less than the Nikon D700 replacement (D800) and $1,000! more expensive than the low-end Nikon D600 full frame solution with the same sensor.
Does that make any sense to you?
Why would SONY knowing that Nikon was going to be putting out a low-cost DSLR with 24mpx SONY sensor decide to release instead a high cost DSLT with the same 24mpx sensor for $1,000 more? By that logic SONY would then release a 36mpx DSLT for $1,000 more than the D800 right?
How do you convince the hordes of photographers to pay $1,000 more for a camera with the same sensor, much less lenses, less accessories, no professional support, no store renting available and very little advertising and support by the parent company?
I don’t think the availability of a couple of expensive Zeiss auto-focus lenses is going to do the trick.
I don’t know why, but I get personally disgusted of how SONY does business and relates to its customers. Maybe because I’ve seen the inside of dysfunctional companies before and know how much contempt and lack of empathy they can have for their paying customers.
I think a CZ 50mm and CZ 35mm will. 🙂
Nice Sony hatepost.
Sorta funny to be disgusted by them, considering what is Nikon lately doing with numerous flaws in D800/E. Not mentioning their service in general, which at least here is “lacking” and thats mild word for it.
Sony isnt worse then others, its just as bad as others. Canon/Nikon dont give sh*t about their customers either. If you think they are you are quite naive..
Sony doesnt lack lenses. Well if I dont count TS-E lens, but thats only what Canon has (I mean fully usable lens, Nikon isnt competition in this area, maybe really expensive Schneider-Kreuznach is .. well and that can be used on Sony aswell).
Quite a lot of those who bought A900/A850 already had Sony before or Minolta and were just waiting for it. Same goes with potential customers for A99. Same ppl again, maybe few from different camps.
Only thing that Sony should improve is AF and especially C-AF in their dSLTs. And thats pretty much it, everything else is as good as competition (ok maybe auto-ISO..).
A99 and d600 are at technologically different levels. Sony’s is going for a top-of-the-line camera, where Nikon is going for an entry-level full-framer. You can be certain the Sony will have more pizazz going for it — however, when it comes to image quality, it will be interesting to see the difference.
Too many assumptions when no actual product has been announced. And to address some of your points. Toyota and Lexus share many of the same parts but there is a price premium associated with Lexus. Now, I am not saying that whatever price difference between the two hypothetical cameras is worth it (we don’t really know the cost, the features, etc.). Maybe they are worth it, maybe they are not. But you seem to have a lot of vitriol against Sony.
I will say this. Why would a company decimate its current product line (introducing the D600 at such a low price point) and alianate users (D800/D800E adopters) by pricing something so low? If they sell the D600 for $2000 or so, they will still sell a lot cameras. From a business standpoint, do you really think that Nikon wants to go on an all out war against Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc., when they don’t have to? Who knows? Maybe they do, but at this point everything is a conjecture.
Besides, do you see many of the people who buy a $1500 full frame buying $4000 or $5000 lenses? No, they will buy lenses that cost below $1000, in all probablility. Manufacturing full frame lenses at lower price points doesn’t sound like a high profit margin exercise. But who knows?
It is about story a77 vs D3200. If you compare camera functionality, then a77 is at least 2 levels higher. IQ is overall the same. It depends on customer, what is important and necessary for particular shooting style.
I agree, that manly FF cameras buying people with some brand lenses in pocket, but the main question about Sony is how to attract new customers to their brand.
Nikon cameras always are rumored at lower price, than they finally were announced. I think 2000+ is more plausible than 1500.
I extensively compared image samples from A900 and D800. I would say that difference is not so dramatic, some 25%.
EVERYONE wants Nikon.
Because D600 may be a more stills focused cam and a99 will be the professional Video/Stills hybrid. Have you not read anything in the last week or so? It’s aboout competing with the D800 and 5D3….which, by the way, has ‘only’ 22mp. So why would anyone want to buy it compared to the D800 if does nothing much different than it and it costs more?
Bell-end
Hello, for all of the nikon d7000 owners Nikon should offers an option to upgrade to the new nikon d600.
1500€ is right if a 25-100mm lens is bundled!
Thank you.
I really wouldn’t expect a lens in with the D600 for the rumoured price.
It’ll probably come with the Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR for a bit more.
a lot of cheapos on this poll.
if the features are as good as rumored, about 2500 should be the right price.
+1 hahaha true
they only know the price of something and the value of nothing
Sony is still trying to take the pro market from the leaders that have a better lens lineup, and professional support. They still haven’t proven they are going to support the professionals reliably enough to charge that much more than the competition. If they want to convert the pro’s over they need to be competitively priced in my opinion.
Sony never said they were planning to “take the pro market”. In fact, they often stated the opposite. Their semi pro offerings were mostly targeted at amateurs wanting to trade up.
Yes, they did say so, when they released a $12,000 full-frame lens.
No they didn’t. Their exact wording in the press release:
“Serious enthusiasts” / “Serious photographers”.
And of the 6 or 7 people that I’ve come across owning that lens, none were full time pros (read: pretty much the target group).
You said “not full-time”, meaning they do *some* professional work. Many “enthusiasts” buy expensive lenses.
Not the point – It is a lens a Pro could use. Sony IS lining up the ducks for a complete Pro range.
It’s not being a cheapo that will make me switch, it will be the fact that I want an OVF, and I have NO need for 12 FPS. Some people want to machine gun, but I want to take well composed photos. Granted, I’m not a sports event photog, I can see their need for it.
I’ve also never bought a weather sealed camera. I have an umbrella, and if the weather gets too bad, I don’t go out, camera or not!
The D600 will give me everything I need, as a great price, and has a great lens stable to back it up. Since Sony will be messing with the flash shoe, I’ll have to buy new flashes anyway, so hopefully selling my old ones will recover a lot of that.
Goodbye to over 30 years of Minolta/Sony. (SR and Alpha mount)
Dusty
Agreed… many people here want all the ‘bells and whistles’… but then they want FIRE SALE prices on the bodies… give me a break!
An entry level Nikon full frame camera very likely won’t be in the same class as the A99. Film camera SLR users must just shake their heads in wonder when they see DSLR users whine and grumble about this and that feature… but then they ponder having useable ISO 3200 and 6400… very sharp OLED viewers with real-time image adjustment on the OLED when you make aperture/shutter changes… but in levels… diopeters… video capability in full HD at 60 frames a second.
But you still have people whining that it doesn’t have this and that. The Gary Fong video recently uploaded to YouTube on the A77 is must viewing. He’s a die-hard fan of optical view finders and such… but admits and acknowledges all the superior benefits of an EVF in the longterm… of the level and real-time changes in the EVF for changes he makes to the manual settings!
EVF is the future… and I really think people will look back one day and give credit to Sony for being a ‘trailblazer’ in that regard.
There is a mistake in the title: Canon EOS 5D Mark III and not Mark II
Corrected! Thanks 😉
Nikon is making a kind of Alpha 850 … 😀
Exactly and it took them 3 years to do it.
No revolution here and the A850 would still be a better camera build wise.
A99 should be competing with 5D Mark III & D800. Pity there will be nothing from Sony FF pitched against D600.
+1. D600 is gonna get people who want to upgrade from aps-c to ff, and they’ll invest or have already invested in Nikkor glass. It could be a very smart move by Nikon so I think we can expect Canon to follow soon. Sony A88 anytime soon ?
well, but with megapixel obsession, people will say that the D800 is better because of higher MP count. Also, Sony needs to be lower priced vs comparable models from other manufacturers if they want to have any chance of gaining some market share.
In my opinion, they should try to get this 24MP one out just above $2000, maybe $2200, and they can have a 36MP version around $3000
Think the D600 will be just below 2000$ rather than 1500$. Think the A99 must cost significantly less than the D800. The Sony brand is not worth as much as CaNikon….
agree, i don’t see a D600 costing less than a D300s, it will go arount €2000
i would like to see the A99 price at the same level of the A900, it does have a lot more features, but it doesnt have the super expensive prism of the A900
Sony may want to price high in order to recover R&D.
Personally, I don’t believe Sony should be attempting to win over the Canikons——that’s a losing proposition.
Sony still has no lens park like Nikon or Canon to compete with both of them – it should influence A99 price also.
a99 should be $2300
Someone which is famous for rumos leak said that the Selling price is similar to the initial selling price of A900…… assume it is true first , it must be varies between different country ….. I don’t know the initial selling price of A900 at Europe , but the exchange rate is around 2400Euro….?
I highly doubt the 1500 EUR price tag. Old Nikon 300s is going for 1439 body only.
http://www.hej.sk/digitalne-foto/obchod/956648/digitalne-zrkadlovky/fotoaparat-zrcad-nikon-d300s-telo/
The source was quite sure about the price 🙂
was or is? 😉
Well… maybe he’s not sure anymore!
These prices only affect first adopters.
I’m pretty sure street prices a year after release will make the discussion rendundant for the rest of us, and prices will be much closer between the two.
Not looking to replace my A77 any time soon in any case. Differences between it and a FF camera at ISO 100-200 are certainly not worth the price hike in body and glass.
wanted to reply to post above, edited, sorry!
There is also a budget FF camera coming from Canon
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_6d.html
If Sony overprices the A99 it will hit sales, even if it has better specs, but I would expect the IQ from the 3 new FF cameras to be very similar.
There is a place for A88
If it really costs 1500, I will probably sell a lot of my legacy stuff, maybe one NEX body, most probably also the 25/0.95 nokton and buy the D600. Will get that new nikon bundled with some cheaper FF nikon lenses and I can say F.U. stupid sony! I won’t have to be waiting for something FF and cheap from you!
Or you could pick up a used a850 when the a99 hits the street…
Then, perhaps Sony should launch an A88 – drop all advanced video features but keep all still camera features with 5fps at similar price point as D600.
For those who do not shoot video with their DSLRs, why pay for more?!
but , as per the source I know, sony is going to issue a camera after a99 which is concentrated in Still picture taking with high MP… (Similar to D800…) , and it will be more more expensive……
How much difference do you think there will be in the production price of an a99 version without video and an a99 version with video?
Answer: Almost none.
If there is a difference in sales price, it will only be caused by sales strategy, not production price.
an SLT will never have 5fps, even the low end bodies do 10fps
slow frame rate is an SLR problem
I wonder if A99 will break the 14 FPS mark though.
i doubt, 14fps are only achieved by the 1Dx, that costs near €6000, such a high frame rate would implie very high quality shutter curtins, probably made of carbon, and that’s not cheap… but who knows!
Or fully electronic second curtain aswell. Altough I expect that technology to be seen on APS-C format first (CX already has it), before it trickles up to FF.
And it’s not without downsides still.
Wrong. Stronger shutters are not required for 15fps. A shutter with a sync speed of a mere 1/160 seconds is still 10x faster than 1/15 sec. In other words, the shutter is done working in 1/160 of a second and resting for 9/160 of a second. Plenty of margin for error, curtain reset, etc.
Faster stronger shutters are required for 1/300 sync speed, not for 15fps.
The cost on that Canon is for the mirror mechanism, not the shutter.
Yep. If the price will be too steep I’d go Nikon, too. If I need to buy a new flash for the a99 (although I think it’s positive for Sony to move to the iso shoe) I can as well get the d600 and 2-3 used Nikon lenses and a flash and I am good to go, too.
I invested in the a-mount because it was cheaper than Canikon a few years ago. I can decide in favor of Nikon for the same reasons nowadays.
First check the iso-performance after the a77 debacle before spending any more money at the Sony system.
If the DxO Low-Light ISO is not over 4000, I am of to Nikon.
So you want the low light ISO of the Sony to be 1.4x better than Nikon D800’s ISO 2853?
Why are you even waiting? Go to Nikon now! The DxO ISO score of a99 is easy to predict. You just take the Nikon’s ISO score of 2853 and subtract ½ stop due to Sony’s SLT loss. Result: Approximately ISO 2000.
You are assuming the 24MP sensor will only perform as good in low light as the 36MP sensor.
It’s a fair assumption based on how poorly Sony perform at high ISO.
You, sir, do not know that Nikon 36mp is made by Sony, which in turns give Sony the advantage with a newer product with a lesser pixel density. So Sony is actually doing great in low light…
Strumpet
Yes, I am assuming that the 24 MP sensor will perform equally to the 36 MP sensor in DxO’s test. Just as the current 16 MP and 24 MP APS-C Sony sensors perform equally in DxO’s test.
It is a fair assumption since we are more or less at the end of the road regarding noise in low light photo. The current Sony sensors are quite close to what is theoretically possible. There is only approx. 1 stop of improvement left before they hit the theoretical limit where the camera doesn’t make any noise at all, and all noise will be caused by the randomness in incoming photons. When you are that close to a theoretical limit, you will not see huge leaps between two generations of sensors.
Well said.
What really bothers me is the fact that their best technology is available to third parties and foist their own loyal customers with junk.
Based in a single sensor? Heh.
You’re asking for the impossible (no DSLR is capable of that, let alone one with a small SLT handicap).
And half a stop, is hardly a “debacle” to begin with.
All these people wanting to take pictures in the dark never cease to amaze me. The forums appear to be full of night time shooters demanding 10 bazillion ISO, but empty of people who shoot at 100 ISO.
Maybe the low ISO shooters are out taking photographs rather than sat in forums wanking over how high they can push the ISO on their latest camera…
yep, you’ll never see someone saying: “i want the best ISO 50 and 100 possible”, or “i want low noise in shadows for long exposures at ISO 100”, that’s because high ISO noise its the easiest thing for the inexperienced photographer to see.
I’m very happy to see sub-100 ISO on the a77, and I just have to live with the fact that my HS5600 just reaches over 100m @ ISO1600 … 😉
/E
No Frank, it is not about shooting at night but sport and nature where you want higher shutter speeds to get a decent image.
Don’t get me wrong, the a77 is a perfect camera till 200 iso.
By that logic, a D3S or D4 is “a perfect camera” up until about ISO 800. What is everyone smoking going beyond that with any camera? 😉
Which FF sensor with a DxO low light score of ISO 4000 do Sony sell to their competitors?
Come on Allan, are you blind?
A question you should be asking yourself.
If I am blind because I can’t find a Sony FF sensor with a DxO low light score of ISO 4000, then yes: I am blind.
Please enlighten me. Show me a link. It doesn’t even have to be Braille.
The price is also attractive for people wanting to switch brands. Sony, be aware.
It is plain funny that SLT, which was introduced to bring the cost down of Sony cameras, is now pitched as something that increases the price more than its compatitors.
SLT was introduced for fast video AF.
Actually, according to Sony it was introduced to get fast fps with follow focus (at a more reasonable price I guess), fast LV (without the need for a secondary sensor as seen in the A3xx and A5xx if you wish) and in third place, fast video AF.
sony always had fast video, the first Sony SLR (not SLT) with video already had Phase detection AF on video back in 2008 (the A300 if i’m not mistaken), SLT was broght to allow full time Phase Detection AF (no mirror slap balckout) and higher frame rate
None of the A3xx and A5xx allow phase detection (fast) AF with video. Only with live view. Not surprising either since to allow phase detection AF in those SLR’s, the (“regular”) mirror has to be in place. In which case the main sensor doesn’t get any feed to allow good quality video.
In fact, no A mount camera allows AF during video at all, except for the SLT’s. Even CDAF wasn’t available on the A560 and A580 during video.
The D600’s gonna be a problem for everybody, Canon included. A big brand like Nikon will attract so many customers to its system at that price point if Canon doesn’t answer with a cheap FF of its own. I’m curious to see whether this will make Sony go big with a FF Mirrorless
I totally agree!
Brand name + FF + low price for a new, modern camera will hurt the competition…Problem is that Sony is not in the position to only release a high end FF model, how many people will sway for the extra features?
A FF low-spec model at around 1300 is what would make people look at Sony…next to the high end model!
We need both high and low end FF, high for the people knowing what they buy, the other just to sell in bigger numbers and to make Sony widely accepted amongst other photographers of other brand. A state-of-the-art camera succes and a sell well, elevate your marketshare-succes.
No doubt the A99 will be a fine camera, but so was the A900…
1,500 euro = 1,841.4 $USD
1.500 $USD = 1.2222 euro
Not in the corporate world.
You can’t blindly use currency exchange rates.
Sony prices in EUR and USD are more or less the same. Examples from sony.com and sony.de, not counting in any rebates (there are actually more of those at sony.com):
a77VQ: 1999.99 USD / 1899.00 EUR
a65VK: 999.99 USD / 999.01 EUR
a57K: 799.99 USD / 849.01 EUR
Correction:
Not in a world where EU countries have a 20% VAT Tax (like Germany)
VAT taxes are sales taxes that are hidden in the price tag of the product itself, so….
1.500 $USD = 1.2222 euro
1.2222 euro +20% VAT = 1.2222*1.2 = 1.45 euro
That makes them almost 1:1, and hence the reason why the prices are the same number.
Isn’t it to where the price including VAT a WYSIWYG price? So if something were 2000 EUR, you would be charged 2000 EUR without additional taxes? If you were charged $2000 USD at a camera store, you would still be subject to anywhere between 6-10% sales tax, so $2000 would really be $2120-$2200 USD (of course if you buy it on the internet, the tax be avoided).
A cheap FF is nice but a FF NEX would be excellent!
If also 3 small primes released with the FF NEX.
E.g. a 24mm, 35mm and 50mm pancake primes or collapsible design.
Later they could add a 85mm macro prime.
Maybe someday in the future.
Video types will probably not mind as it’ll offer a lot of pluses for them, but for stills I still haven’t heard what the extra money brings to the table. They aren’t going to win over a lot of stills shooting converts if it has much the same image quality as Nikon and Canon cameras costing a thousand less. Sports and wildlife shooters might like the frame rate, but probably not enough to overcome the limited amount of Big Glass and lack of optical stabilisation.
SLT + 102 cross type AF sensor should promise great tracking AF.
I say “should”, dont know if A99 will provide this in reality.
If it does work it will be a solid argument for sports shooters.
edit: Apologies for derailing the thread away from D600.
“lack of optical stabilization” That’s absolutely irrelevant in SLT world because 1) Supersteady Shot works on the sensor, 2) the EVF and LCD views come from the sensor’s data.
A deciding factor for some will always be the glass choices.
Nikon wins
Cheaper still FF camera price
Nikon wins
Sony sensor inside
Sony wins
Assuming the reported pricing is correct, I think the D600 will have an impact like an asteroid hitting the earth. And I fear the A99 will be marginalized once again.
Like a couple of years ago when consumers started to buy DSLRs, we are now nearing the times when consumers will switch from APS-C to FF. And the company that has an inexpensive entry-level FF camera obviously wins.
There are negatives to switching to full frame, such as more expensive glass to keep the image sharp across the frame and losing the 1.5 crop. As for the wide end, with a Sigma 8-16mm you can get plenty wide enough on APS-C.
I’ll keep APS-C thanks.
There’s a tonne of film camera era lenses out there that can be picked up cheaply.
There are also negatives to using quad-core processors in mobile phones, driving large pickup trucks in a city, or using a DSLR instead of a mirrorless in the first place.
Yet people are doing it. I think FF will become the trend in DSLRs because the large body is no longer necessary just to house an APS-C sensor.
It is going to impact everyone’s FF cameras, including Nikon. But at the same time, does the Canon 1100D affect sales of the A77 or D7000? Hard to say. I think buyers of the D600 will be swayed away from the D7000’s, 7D’s, K5’s and A77 more so than high end buyers. It isn’t going to be attracting too many ‘pros’ just those whom previously couldn’t justify FF camera prices (not afford but justify) but would like the FF look and quality. Me, I will get the A99.
if the price will be over 2000€ i’m out. I love SLT and Sonys EVF but I’m not willing to pay overpriced bodys with features I don’t realy need. In this case, Nikon will be the better bang for the bug.
+1
Oh and the D600 is aimed at kit lens shooters, unlike just about every other FF released. Nikon know this, why else would they release an el-cheapo slow FF kit lens?
You can buy a nice lens for the 1000 Euro price difference.
It’s not a matter of price, it’s a matter of quality. It can cost double D600 price if it’s that better. I would still buy it.
I only shoot stills and it’s all about image quality to me so a cheap FF with a few killer lenses is all I really need.
How it feels in the hand through a long session and how easy it is to use come next in importance and the price is last as long as the body is under 4k USD. 😉
As someone who has been with the A-mount from the very first lens in the mid 1980’s I do have an investment in glass and flash but not enough to stay if my final image I produce fails to live-up to my expectations.
It’s wait and see time for me as I never planned to replace my current full-frame alpha’s with the a99. I’m hoping the cameras is GREAT but I’m also looking to see if Sony gets serious with a lens technology refresh as would like to continue replacing my old Minolta glass and even many of my Zeiss lenses are now 4 to 6 years old and showing wear.
Guys, just because you want it to be cheap, it does not have to be so!
How many lame excuses why some products should fit the price that you can justify to pay.
Come on, go back to work….
Look. We “cheapos” are the ones who give our hard earned dollars and euros to these camera companies in exchange for photography gear.
By pricing the D600 at such a very low price, Nikon is basically trying to turn the economies of full frame cameras on its head by planning to sell so many of the D600 cameras that the APS-C type economies of scale work in its favor.
In other words, by mass producing full frame cameras in this way, the average price for each camera comes down a lot. It will cost roughly the same amount of money to setup manufacturing for selling 10,000 full frame cameras or 10 million of them. But if you only sell 10,000 of them, you have to spread the fixed costs over just those few units resulting in very expensive pricing for these cameras. However if you sell 10 million of them the share of fixed cost for each camera will be much lower allowing you to sell the cameras for much less. Therefore I conclude that the low price of D600 is linked very strongly to new large scale / cost-effective manufacturing of full frame sensors.
Sony is the company preferring to do small production run to sell few units at high price and Nikon is trying to change the game by mass production and low price which gives it more revenue and more importantly much more market share. If the rumored prices are true, the D600 will fit the slot normally belonging to high end APS-C like D300s, 7D and A77. More importantly it will push sales of new full frame Nikkor lenses which is where a lot of the profit is for most Camera makers.
So to summarize:
SONY -> High price, limited production run – unable to amortize fixed costs, Niche FF product
Nikon -> Low price, low production cost, make it up with volume and FF market share gains
The D600 is going to be announced before the a99? It sucks to arrive late to the party twice in a row.
It’s all about the results. Everyone seems focused on the price here. These are completely different tools though. I fully expect the D600 will DESTROY the A99 at anything > 200 ISO. Who knows, Sony may surprise and the A99 might perform decent in low light, but I sure don’t expect that. I want to take action and indoor shots without dealing with the Sony iso noise pain. I’m very much looking forward to the D600.
If Nikon drops the D600 first along with the still red hot D800 and Canon releases a lower priced FF, the A99 will be like the Xpro1 – buried by other high profile releases (in this case the EM5 and Nex7 finally becoming available) and not making any sort of a splash at all. If Sony has it close to production, it should issue a press release ASAP with basic info and more to come at Photokina to start the pre-order frenzy.
Depends… Will Nikon include an ISO to iISO adapter?
I want a simple camera for FF – So Nikon!
D600 is reported to have weather sealed body (so no advantage for A99 there) as well as built in flash (+ for the Nikon). Feels like hard to beat even with 12 fps but probably lower IQ. Esp if price of A99 is higher.
Read the rumor text. D600 is not rumored to have a sealed body. For the low price some compromises have to be made, regular body – i.e. not sealed, lower fps, less AF points, less buffer, etc…
Aalpha100- actually, Nikon is repeatedly producing much higher IQ than Sony using the exact same sensors (D3200 vs A65, D5100 vs A57, etc.). The difference it blatantly obvious from iso 800+. Assuming they haven’t changed the formula dramatically, that would mean the D600 will beat the A99. Now, that’s not to say there aren’t redeeming features for that SLT trade-off. On the contrary, they’re wicked nice cameras. They just don’t like high iso settings.
they just don’t like pixel peepers.
JW- We agree on the IQ: I did not write “probably lower IQ” for nothing..
Wifi module could increase price by five bucks. You lost more time (which is moeny) complaining about it…
Suggesting the D600 might be a problem for the A99 is almost like saying the D3200 might be a problem for the A77.
Even worse, I heard all D300S owners were flocking to the D3200, since it blows the former out of the water. uhuh. 😉
Yeah, I know, comparing two camera’s with the same sensor is crazy. I have no idea why current Sony owners who just need high IQ would look at the D600 instead of sticking with the A99. I mean, every shooter needs video and high FPS, especially when it only costs like a grand extra.
Exactly, that’s why all Canon users compare the T2i/550D and 7D too, which after release of the former resulted in a massive exodus of existing and potential 7D users. 😀
Heck, if Canon indeed brings out a cheaper FF camera with the 22MP sensor, they might aswell stop producing the 5DMKIII, since the logical comparison between the two will mean there’s little point buying the latter. 😉
@JesperMP: read the text where?:
http://snapsort.com/cameras/Nikon-D600-specs and
http://jacobjamesphotography.co.uk/gear-review/nikon-d600/
http://www.gizbot.com/camera/nikon-launches-d600-camera-with-video-compression-and-weather-sealed-body
and etc etc
mention weather sealing..
if D600 is replacement for D700, then that’s all I need. I don’t shoot video, just want simple FF camera. Old lenses are out there in the wild for few quids. For travelling I have X100
would be great if D600 is 1500€. just read that it is possible to preorder it in slovenia – for 1800€ (http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/06/nikon-d800-nikon-d7000-nikon-d600.aspx/comment-page-2/#comments somewhere in the end)
i don’t think that D600 is a problem for the A99 because i believe A99 could be an alternative to the nikon D4.
If the A99 is around 2000-2100, I can see myself buying it right away.
If the A99 is 2500-3000, then I will definitely first wait for ~6 months, until reviews have confirmed its quality and the price has come down. My A900 is still serving me well.
The D600, at the rumored price point, will be a seismic shock. It will impact the sales of all higher end FF dslrs, including Nikon.
Consider:
1) vs Sony A99: people will see the same sensor but in a Nikon body vs Sony. Sure the Sony will have more fps, but at nearly double the price that will be a harder sell to the consumer market.
2) vs Canon 5d3: Canon needs to worry. People will see a 24 megapixel FF from Nikon at 1500 vs a 22 megapixel FF from Canon at 3500. You can talk all you want about weather sealing, etc…but that won’t make a difference to most consumers. And let’s face it: even lower end Canon and Nikon dslrs hold up well for most users.
3) vs Nikon D800: here people will get the price difference with the higher megapixel sensor…but even then, many consumers will not want to pay double for more megapixels. It’s easy to rationalize that 24 mp is enough when you are saving half the price.
Also, the fact that the D600 will be smaller and lighter than the competition will matter in a positive way to many. Sure, you sacrifice some weather sealing and toughness, but again, that won’t matter to most.
One final note: are you sure that the D600 will have the same Sony sensor? I thought I read somewhere that it will have an Aptina sensor in it. To me that makes a big diff, as Sony sensors are the best right now.
Weather sealing – most useless feature ever for the intended target audience. If that’s the justification for 3500 vs 1500 euros: I can buy insurance for my camera and even have enough money left to buy a 2nd camera in the unlikely event that the camera gets damaged by water.
Yes, but then you will miss that shot and every shot after it until you get your camera fixed/replaced–and possibly every shot you’ve taken if your memory card get ruined as well.
Weather sealing is not a form of insurance, it is a extra boost of confidence to take pictures when and where you normally wouldn’t.
Awesome EVF, smart direct dials, quick RAW writing, short flange to use with Canon and Nikon lenses (beside Alpha) with clever adapters: 3000 USD.
Lame EVF, menu-based controls: slow RAW writing: 200 USD.
So what will be the next SUPER Sony after A99, A100? Nice…
I just keep a small plastic bag in my camera bag, if it looks like rain I slip it over the camera and poke a hole for the lens, instant weather sealing.
A99-1/2?
A99 MarkII, very original…
According to a very trusted source, a ‘Sony ambassador’, the price of the a99 body will be 1995 euro / dollar.
Here’s hoping, Jeroon. I bet our admin has/will contact you directly. Best to send all “special knowledge” through him so he can vet the veracity.
Hope the A99 is 2K too, just for the sake of competition. Even my local Sony stores’ manager said months ago the A99 will come in around $2800., he laughed at me when I said $2K and shook his head. The expensive pentaprism isn’t in there, so why pay MORE than a camera with a real optical viewfinder? Don’t get me wrong, I love Sony’s EVF, but the chunk of glass in the D600 cost more. And the Nikon d600 will have a pop-up flash that the A99 will poo-poo. As if the A99 isn’t heavy enough, we need to add an unwieldy 2 pound external flash, too. Without the A99 camera competitively priced, Sony’s re-born Professional ambitions will be dashed. And the A88 is just wishful thinking, no-one has confirmed an A88 is even in the works- although it would follow Sony’s past actions.
“Hope the A99 is 2K too, just for the sake of competition”.
Please note that I am talking about the a99 body.
If this rumor is true, i.e. D600 for $1500 and A99 for $2500, I would consider selling my Sony/Minolta Alpha system and just keep NEX system. I wouldn’t pay extra $1000 for the “advanced” features, D600 would be enough for taking good photos when travelling.
Wow you guys are incredibly cheap. I think its wrong to even compare the D600 to the A99. The A99 should be instead compared to the D800 and 5DMarkIII, which are both more expensive. Apart from a Nikon or Canon badge, there is very little superiority of the canon/nikon models over the proposed A99 specs.
The A99 has higher resolution than the Mark III
The A99 shoots 12fps (as much as the $6000 D4 and 1D series bodies)- which is very useful for sports and event photogs- in my case (events) I will not shoot at 12fps, but that lets me know that the buffer can comfortably handle 5fps.
The A99 will be the ONLY Full-frame camera with a stabilized sensor- the ONLY system with a stabilized 24-70, 16-35, 135 prime, 85 prime, 50 prime, I can go on… people who fail to see this advantage are idiots.
The A99 will have superior color to Nikon (in my personal opinion, Nikon color is just absolutely terrible particularly with skin tones. I retouch thousands of pictures shot by my Sony, partners’ Nikon D3, D3x, D4, Canon 5DmarkIII, MarkII, MarkI, first generation 1D body so I have a good look at all these files shot at the same events)- the color alone is keeping me with Sony and why I switched from Canon and refuse to jump to Nikon
The A99 will be the ONLY full-frame camera with high-res EVF that gives you live feedback of your manual adjustments, focus peaking, tele-zoom, live histogram, image review, etc- all the advantages offered by EVF that if you value, are worth it.
The A99 will apparently hold 3 batteries- sweet
The A99 is lighter.
The A99 is silent.
The A99 will have muthafuckin 102AF points- which I’m hoping will make for great lowlight af performance.
I can go on and on- there are many things the A99 can do that both the D800 and Mark III cannot. Image quality of the 24mp sensor may not be as good as the D800, maybe it will, it will certainly be better than the D3, D700, D3X, A900, A850, Mark II- which is enough for me.
All of you wanting this camera to cost $1500 are waiting for the A88. You are just greedy and short-sighted to expect this camera to sell for less than $2500IMO – you want a good tool you gotta pay for it.
Fine…but what are they going to take out of that camera to actually make it $1500?
The cheaper OVF and frame rate of the A850 saved them a lot of money, but I can’t see them saving $1000 on a cheaper EVF and smaller buffer.
Withers, you have a great point about IBIS advantage on the A99, I just don’t know how Sony will get an extra $1000. for that in this economy. If the Sony A99 has an ultra-transparent AA filter like the Nikon 800E, there might be a value proposition from additional acuity.
Sony cameras have many great strengths, but image color is not a strength, IMHO. I am shocked that you say you love Sony because of it’s color. The color is what I hate most about Sony imaging. I just got rid of the SEL 50mm F/1.8 because it had that old, sick brown-green color cast that made me ditch my A-mount camera. Why do you think other’s refer to Sony skin tones as “Sony chicken-skin?” Thank goodness I have a Contax 50mm F/2. Every Sony raw file I have, I change in DxO to mimic other manufacturer’s color spaces and, positive/negative films. But, I agree with you that Nikon and Canon’s colors are not great. Personally, the best body-color would be #1) Fuji, then 2) Olympus, and then 3) Pentax. Just my opinion.
Interesting development and interesting discussion. If all else were equal, I would pay a premium for SLT technology over DSLR. The EVF and fully integrated live view are better suited to the kind of work I do – mostly portrait and figure, with a bit of still life and landscape on the side.
However, all else is rarely equal. Nikon has their huge lens lineup and a very well developed (though pricey) speedlight line. Sony, IMO, has the better grasp on the future of photography, but for the moment has some gaps in the system.
While both cameras are tempting I don’t expect to buy either. I would like to move to FF from some of my work, but when that happens I’m also looking for an increase in pixel count. At 24MP I don’t see enough advantage to justify the cost. Give me 32MP and I’m interested. Give me 40MP and I’m sold.
Nikon wants to make FX the standard for prosumer, hence D600 will be $1500, and Sony needs to be competitive on that. Besides, Sony can’t charge $2500-3000 for the A99 because then…how will they justify the price for the 36mp FF SLT? How, when 36mp D800 is already cheaper than A99?
I’ve been eagerly awaiting the NEX-6, now with the FF D600 the decision is getting tough. Nikon D600 for about $500 more or the smaller lighter APS-C NEX-6? Decision, Decision…
Also Sony needs to address three big problems:
-SLT light loss penalty + Sony’s inability to get the most out of their own sensors
-EVF lag and limited dynamic range and slideshow in burst mode
-Tiny buffer size
They better fix these problems AND price the A99 at $2000 MAXIMUM, or SLT is dead. Period.
Its hard not to laugh at the enthusiasm being shown for a camera thats looking to be gazumped by Nikon at the same time as its being launched, I’m gobsmacked! Nikon is totally kicking Sonys ass with its own 24mpxl sensor and you all are applauding it!!!!. Its pathetic! I have no interest in video, its nice but not a big deal so all the excitement is of passing interest, lcd light yes but.. to me its just interesting bling. What I am interested in is resolution and functionality. The D800 has monstered the pro end, buying a new camera? what do you think top end buyers really want? not same resolution as A900 again (better iso is great but the D800 has it, and hi iso is sport specialist territory – good for video? i dont know) Sony needs a showstopper – pull a 36mpxl+ killer out of the hat and nail Nikons ass – or simply admit that the allround prosumer market is what its all about and let the Pro companys do what they do best. Most D800E users I know buy the CZ lenses to get the best out of the Nikon / Sony sensor which again erodes Sonys hold on its CZ presteige lens image as the public is realising that CZ service all brands.
My camera by the way is now a very nice Hasselblad D3 + 35 – 90 zoom + 210mm, bigger, simpler, better, best at 50iso, had to hock my mothers false leg to get it. I waited and got tired of waiting for Sony to get with it and bailed. Still have the A900 as a backup but wont be investing any more $$ in it – its a dead end.
“its a dead end”…? Are you talking about the camera or your “mothers false leg”?
Sony talking so much on a99 to deliver ‘powerful’ video mode for PRO filmaker. What I can tell you is that, end of the day a99 will behind to a two years old Gh2 hacked. Dont believe? put down your chips, hand removed!
D600, D800, 5dMK3, 7D2, a99, Gh3 – who will be the kick ass in 2013?
I bet on Gh3 since VK is at there waiting ^^
How bout posting in US dollars instead of Euros since the rest of the world really does use the US dollar as a general pricing standard…
@admin: do you know if 1500€ is with or without tax?
1500€ + 20%VAT = 1800€ and this would make the rumour more likely.
1500 with vat included
Thanks! Then she is really cheap..
I guess then then the only limit to sales will be how fast they can make them.
The research designers chose a number of herbs, not simply thyme, that experienced antibacterial characteristics. The antibacterial high quality of various herbs is a thing that some researchers and herbalists have noted for quite a while. A variety of herbal formulas can be obtained for managing zits as well as other bacterial infections. Prior to antibiotics, herbs ended up routinely used to take care of bacterial infections. Appropriate natural formulations support the body to fight the infection. This really is diverse as opposed to ‘immune boosting’ herbs which are promoted by different kinds of natural advertising.