D600 RAW is not much better than A900

Started Sep 27, 2012 | Discussions thread
Dave Oddie
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,784
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to thubleau7, Sep 28, 2012

thubleau7 wrote:

Instead of ratting on about something you have never looked at go into the comparison charts and see for your self.

That is just the point. I did look at the comparison charts before I spotted this thread out of my own curiosity and I knew what to expect at high ISO before I got there. That the FF camera would be way better than the aps-c ones.

I was curious to see how they compared at lower ISO's and as I suspected they compare very well.

You would have to be blind and inept not to see the massive noise in those samples.

Of course I can see the noise; where did I say I could not? What you are doing is using this comparison to say the A77 is rubbish at ISO 6400 when in fact all aps-c based cameras are very noisy at ISO 6400 and all require plenty of noise reduction on shots at that ISO never mind compared to FF cameras. This is clearly true and you would have to be blind or inept not to recognize all aps-c cameras are noisy at ISO 6400.

So basically your comparison is pointless. FF cameras being better at high ISO is not news. How the A65/77 compares to other aps-c cameras at high ISO is not news either and they suddenly didn't become worse in this regard because Nikon brought out a new FF camera. It is like saying the Canon 7D is now rubbish because Canon brought out a 5D MkIII.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow