My next story is "Connect the Dots." Keep it in mind when reading the following.
A lot of you have been asking for my opinion on the D600. In due time. But it seems that I also get a dozen or so requests a day to comment about the "dust and oil" problem with the D600. I'm tempted to say, in due time. But that would need explanation, so let me give an explanation for my silence on this issue.
I have no "instant" ability to recognize and report quality issues as some of you seem to think. I collect data. I analyze data. I interpret the data, devise tests, collect new data from the tests, interpret the results of those tests, and then report. With the D800 I was lucky enough to get a fair number of D800 bodies to test in a very short period early in the camera's shipping, and the problem was either recognizably there or not. Unfortunately, it was there in a high percentage of cases, and the tests showed repeatable and verifiable data, so it made the tests easy to interpret.
I'm currently dealing with data on two additional quality issues in the Nikon camp. First up is the 16-35mm f/4 lens. As some have discovered, on really long exposures (say two seconds or more) you may get red streaks in the image data. At the moment all I can say is that thanks to a reader and dealer, I've identified copies of the lens that don't produce red streaks, and copies that do.
If you own the 16-35mm, do me a favor. With the lens cap on and long exposure noise reduction off, take an 8 second exposure with the lens set to VR on and then another with VR off. Do the test at base ISO and ISO 3200. Let me know what you see.
Meanwhile, D600 "dust and oil" is a different kind of problem, and so far all the discussions I've seen of it are a little short-sighted and naive. At this point, it seems clear from examination of new bodies that some D600 bodies are coming from the factory with significant dust showing on the left side of the finished image. In examining that "dust," I actually think it's debris, not dust. It has a different size and pattern to what I associate with common dust.
A lot of people immediately have jumped to the conclusion that the D600 is a "dusty" camera, as the number of people reporting that their D600 came with dust is high enough to be clearly visible on almost any Nikon-oriented forum.
These people are concluding it will always have this dust problem. The data so far don't warrant that conclusion. If, for example, there was excessive debris that was present (perhaps from a drill or other tool in assembly that threw off small particles that weren't caught by cleaning procedures), you'd expect that the initial camera inspection would show debris, you'd clean it, then after use you probably would see some debris reappear. That's because if there is debris inside the camera, it wouldn't all just be on the sensor on delivery. Air movement in the mirrorbox area would eventually move debris from other places to the sensor. Over time, if you kept cleaning, the problem would slowly go away as the debris is either removed from the mirrorbox or ends up on the glue strip of the sensor cleaner. If, on the other hand, the D600 was just a camera that was prone to dust adhesion, the camera would just as dirty after the 100th cleaning wears off as the first.
At the moment there's no way to know which of those two cases is correct. I suspect the former (camera assembled with loose debris inside), which means that those that are diligent in cleaning should see it go away over time. But there's not enough data yet to conclude anything, so I can't rule out the thing that everyone is claiming, that the D600 is just a camera prone to dust. This is one reason why I've remained quiet on this issue: I'm in data collection mode.
I can say that my own camera seemed "normal" out of the box and I haven't seen the sorts of terrible problems some have demonstrated on the Web. But I also haven't used it a lot yet, and have only dragged it on one trip through my usual dirt-prone hikes. Not enough data.
As for the "oil" part: we've been dealing with this issue pretty much since the D3 appeared. Something changed in shutters and mirrors for high end cameras around that time. I note that it corresponds with when both Canon and Nikon started upping the "tested cycle" numbers for their cameras, but I have no way of knowing if that's just a correlation, or causal.
What you're seeing is not oil, per se, but a synthetic lubricant that, if applied even slightly excessively, tends to get thrown by the mirror. When some of this gets on your AA filter over the sensor, it looks a bit like a ring-shaped water droplet in images as opposed to just a blurry black dot. Unfortunately, it requires a wet cleaning to remove, and it usually requires a more detergent-based cleaner than alcohol-based to remove it easily. But this is one of those "over time" things like the D600 dust might be: I've rarely had to do oil cleanings on my high end gear more than two or three times. The tendency to throw oil comes because of excess liquid left over during manufacturing. Thus, as you remove it, it is less likely to recur (though it can recur for awhile).
When Canon users complained about oil on the sensor, Canon's response was to offer a free inspection and cleaning to anyone who had the problem. That's probably the right response, since the issue is caused by sloppy manufacturing. Nikon will usually clean an oil-stained sensor for free (after you ship it to them at your expense), but they have made no acknowledgment that such a thing can happen, let alone an apology and specific course of action a user should take, as has their competitor.
I keep getting hammered by a few Nikon fans for writing so many negative things about Nikon. The fact of the matter is that we're seeing more and more indicators that quality control really has slipped a bit at the factories, while at the same time the ability of a customer to even engage in a discussion about said problems with NikonUSA has gone down. I happen to really like most Nikon high end cameras and lenses, but it's hard to say something truly positive about Nikon overall when it's clear there have been some real, significant problems with new gear, especially when the company refuses to talk to its customers about them.