I've written twice already about the D600, going so far as to speak of it along with another rumored Nikon camera, the D400 (the followup to the Nikon D300s). One of the key rumors was the D600's price of around $1,500, body only. I was somewhat annoyed when Nikon announced the official price of $2,100, body only.
I'm not going to go through all the D600 features, as that's already been done to death all over the net. The only feature that matters to me at the moment is the price. If a $2,100 camera is considered an "entry level" camera, then I'm in the wrong dimension, probably in the wrong time. How I miss the days when 35mm reigned supreme and bodies from all manufacturers were considerably less expensive...
Yes, I know that the D700, the camera it allegedly replaces, had a suggested MSRP at the time of its release of $3,000. That's what the Nikon D800 currently costs. The problem is the cost. If it had been released at the rumored $1,500, or even $1,800 (the price of the D300s) it would have been an instant no-brainer. It would have become everyone's nightmare in the camera marketplace (Canon and Sony in particular) and put incredible pressure on µ4/3rds. It would have made the lackluster Canon 6D look even more lackluster...
I'm still wading through all the announcements, adding up equipment prices to come up with ballpark system cost estimates. For example:
- The Nikon D600 + new 24-85 'kit' zoom is $2,700.
- An Olympus E-M5 + grips + Panasonic 12-35mm constant f/2.8 zoom is $2,500.
- The just-announced Panasonic GH3 + Panasonic 12-35mm constant f/2.8 zoom is $2,500.
- The Sony α77 + 12-50mm constant f/2.8 'kit' zoom + grip is $2,200.
- The Olympus E-5 + grip + 12-60mm zoom is $2,650 (I had this before it was stolen)
- The Sony α99, body only, is $2,800.
You may ask "how can you complain about the perceived high cost of the D600, yet talk about purchasing the α99?" If I'm considering spending two grand and up on any camera equipment then I might as well consider all my options.