They posted a downloadable video, I still downloading

vimeo.com/49436646

I wonder what the problem is with these manufacturers not putting 1080p 60p? Is there some sort of hardware limitation or they are just lazy? Nikon doesn't even have to worry about a Pro Cinema division so they can go all out, but they don't.

@that1guyy

Is it limitation of sensor and ASIC used. It is much harder to make 60fps on full frame sensor.

Here's the word from DPReview on the D600:

The D600's UI is all but identical to the DX-format D7000, and It shares the same 39-point AF system. In terms of functionality though, the D600 also has a lot in common with its big brother the D800, particularly when it coms to video specification. Something that we didn't expect on the D600 was the ability to shoot uncompressed video footage via HDMI. This, plus a mic socket for an external microphone, and a headphone jack should make the D600 very appealing to videographers. The only real difference between the implementation of the D600's video mode compared to the D800 is that you can't adjust aperture during movie recording on the new model (unless you use an older manual focus lens with a mechanical aperture ring).

OK, that confirms that the D600 is essentially a full-frame upgrade of the D7000, sharing a similar pixel-pitch, the same inability to alter aperture in Live View, and lacking a real-time histogram. While the D600 does feature broader video functionality, those features are available on the D5100 as well (except for 50/60p video modes). One feature I find highly useful, a fold-out LCD screen, is available only on the D5100. On cameras without a fold-out LCD, you're forced to either mount the camera directly in front of your eyes, or attach a separate video monitor.

In terms of price, the D5100 is available for $550, while the D600 is listed at $2100. Both cameras feature 14-bit RAW stills and comparable dynamic range. What the D5100 lacks are an in-body focus motor, dual SD card slots, HDMI recording, audio monitor jack, auto-focus fine tuning, and custom gamma profiles. If you're looking for a still/video hybrid, can work without these pro features, and don't need a full-frame camera, the D5100 looks like a real bargain. What I'd really like, however, would be a D500 full-frame upgrade...

They don't d600/d7000 have the same pixel pitch at all. The D7000 is a 16 megapixel apsc camera, while the d600 has a 24 megapixel full frame sensor, so about 2.2 more surface area than apsc. The direct equivalent is the d800 sensor with 36 megapixel.

Now perhaps for photo quality those two camera d7000/d600 can be compared to a certain extent in raw (will have to see dxomark for DR). But I can tell you that Nikon has done big big advancement since the d800 compared to any earlier models. They cannot be compared at all in terms of DR, rolling shutter and details. Lets not forget the uncompressed hdmi out, with an Atomos ninja and perhaps a mosaic filter (Will have to see how it does with moire/aliasing in more urban scenery), it could become a beast in terms of full frame camera.

@ahbleza very encouraging for video users when he talks about the moire/aliasing. I think that as we have less pixel so less line skipping than in the d800 which result in better moire/aliasing. Perhaps if they had the same system in a 12 to 16 megapixel came we would get gh2 very low level of moire/aliasing.

Nikon D600 came in just under D800 for image quality on DxOMark test. In low light it looks like it even beats the D800, which I suppose is to be expected:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D600-sets-high-bar-for-sensor-image-quality

Argh. I really wanted to like the D600 and consider it as an alternative to the 5D/6D for video. But the no aperture adjustment in LIVE view and the pitiful stock bitrate just kills it for me. It isn't realistic for me to pack an external recorder just to bypass the codec.

Oh well...Nikon could have blown Canon out of the water in the video crowd with this. But they're getting closer!

I'm pretty confident that the aliasing is better on D600 - it's a much smaller MP sensor than the D800, so it's dealing with a lot less scaling in the first place.

Perhaps the aperture issue will be fixed in a firmware update, which would make it much more appealing to me. As for the bitrate, the extra cost of the Atomos + SSD basically puts it into Mk III territory, which has a vastly better codec built-in anyway. So it's a toss-up at this price point. 24mbps H264 is lousy, no matter which way you cut it.

Still, it's encouraging to see Nikon jab Canon where it hurts. As for the GH3, the full tests will reveal what we have in store. An exciting time to buying hunting for equipment, for sure.

@swester I can't understand your point about 24 mbit avchd bitrate. What the Gh2 has shown is that its implementation of the 24 mbits codec is far superior to anything higher that Canon dslr have on camera. More so that the 5dmark 3 image is very very soft and that you can have a D600 + $ 300 hyperdeck shuttle for literally $ 1000 less. I don't think there is any comparison here.

I think of all the cameras that just came out within my $1200 - $2300 budget, this nikon D600 is starting to look like the most appealing. Couple with the fact that I was in the market for a good still camera, this D600 with good video (hopefully great after more reviews) is slowly looking like a winner to me. Before the GH3 came out, I easily could have said the GH3 was my top camera but now I will I have to wait and play with the D600 and GH3 before I make a decision.

The early clips seem to suggest that although it gives higher detail, it also exhibits similar moire and aliasing of the D800. So I guess it's pick your poison: softness of the Mk III or jaggies on the D600.