We been shooting a lot of d600 and its a decent body, but I find that its short comings are very LOUD. Like when shooting in interior with C/FL lights with out flash, see a lot of red and see a lot of greens. Then another thing is at the most minimum, must use extreme class  (for sandisk) SDcards, else after 10-12 raw shots you will wait for it to buffer... buffer and buffer. Anything above 30mb/s is fine. So the slower cards we use for video.

That said, the dynamic range on the d600 is phenomenal (coming from  d300). The amount of detail is amazing. Metering (well lit) is AMAZiNG.

But I would not buy a d600. Sticking with my d300 until the shutter dies. or when Nikon comes up with something better than the d600. else I'm jumping ship to a mk3... ehem..

i understand where he's coming from because I had such problem before.

I use JPG but set to Adobe RGB. On the computer it looks fine but upon uploading to browser, the skin all look like corpse.

In the end have to find tune to add the red tones into the picture.

What I wonder is, since everyone is using different monitor, different browser...any processing standards(the common nice saturation, exposures etc) to be done when using lightroom? and the monitor settings too...normally I am using 50% brightness for my laptop screen. I heard there is some manufacturer introduce monitor pixels that is match with the Adobe colour....

Another panaroma........! Please comment....!

shoot during the rumour golden hours?

Okay guys, need some advise. I still have my D90 lying around, and I guess the value is kinda low at the moment, also getting bored with both my FX... thinking to do something new... which is IR!

How much is it to convert D90 to IR? And where/who can do it?

I am slow learner haha 
I had problems when I 1st got the 50mm f1.8 since I wasn't very good at controlling apertures 

I'm just curious, what happens when one actually hits the suggested shutter count and noticed the deterioration in terms of shutter performance?
Can just replace some parts and it'll be like new again?
Thanks in advance for the reply   

D600 probably caps out at ISO 6400 while the 6D is still amazing at 25k ish. Most reviewers agree that the 6D has better ISO performance about 2 stops more than the d600. Seeing the comparisons myself, I couldn't agree more.
Question is whether or not I will ever go above ISO 6400 if I have an option to use speedlites. As far as I can remember, the highest I've pushed a DSLR was to 4000-5000 without flash.
D600's AF isn't as good as the 6D's as well in low light. The centre AF point has been proven to be more sensitive in low light in the 6D vs d600. The D600 can handle sports a little better, but that's about it.
My retarded reason why I still am considering the d600 is due to the fact that their cheapo 35mm lens doesn't make loud buzzing noises like Canon's, and that for some really odd reason, the skin tones on asians look more natural on the D600 compared to Canon.

Choosing between the two is like choosing wife wei... dilemma kao kao

Rm 6k worth of equipment wor... flip coin means ):

Thanks anyway. Just trying to make a more informed decisions.
So...anyone know if the dust issue in the d600 persists after sending it back to Nikon?

why dont choose canon? what make you envy nikon shooters so much?

problem is, the focus indicator appear, but the picture is blur
i use single point AF-S all the time

Sharpness wise, FX using FX lenses - It utilizes the whole glass on the lens
DX using FX lenses - dx utilize only the central part of the lens. Some might think it is much better because there's no vignetting & should be much sharper, but it's not the case for most. It's not utilizing the whole glass, which means it will either lose sharpness, soft wide open, lose contrast, less colour contrast/gradation etc...

So true ! I just mount a FF N lens on FX and compare back the result with DX, the color and etc, looks so different.

long story short  DX body will be not As Sharp compared to a FX body ??