D600 RAW is not much better than A900

Started Sep 27, 2012 | Discussions
Amateur Sony Shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 5,316Gear list
Like?
D600 RAW is not much better than A900
Sep 27, 2012

DPR has added D600 studio image to their database for us to compare different cameras. When I looked the RAW up to ISO3200, I don't really see meaningful difference between D600, 5D3, D800 and A900. These new generation sensors might be one stop better than A900 in therms of high ISO. Did I miss anything? http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/7

 Amateur Sony Shooter's gear list:Amateur Sony Shooter's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +11 more
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Nikon D600 Nikon D800
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
danny006
Contributing MemberPosts: 814Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 27, 2012

Noise in RAW is the same as 5DMarkIII.

But again a Nikon and the JPEG's look soft and lack detail/color/contrast. I noticed this from D3200 to D7000 to D800 and now again with the D600.

 danny006's gear list:danny006's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Tamron SP AF 200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shady1991
Regular MemberPosts: 212Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 27, 2012

that's cause a900 uses NR even in RAW files so you can't judge.
I think d600 would be almost 2 stop better than a900 if NR wasn't applied

 shady1991's gear list:shady1991's gear list
Sony SLT-A57
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thubleau7
Contributing MemberPosts: 516
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 27, 2012

The JPEG samples clearly show that the D600 is equal to the D800 beats the 5DMK2 lags behind the 5DMK3 and as for the A77 at 6400 ISO the A77 is a mess and it is the same at 6400 in RAW the A900 has way too much colour noise.
Blind freddy could see that the D600 is much more cleaner.

AS for A77 this comparison really show how bad the noise is from that camera it it seems to be the major concern of owners.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 27, 2012

The raw files off the a900 on the dpreview comparometer are useless, taken with nr on. With nr off in the camera they are much better (1 stop worse at high iso than 5DIII).

The D600 raw files looks soft (used lens?) and with muted colors.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
imarollingstone
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,614Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 27, 2012

Amateur Sony Shooter wrote:

DPR has added D600 studio image to their database for us to compare different cameras. When I looked the RAW up to ISO3200, I don't really see meaningful difference between D600, 5D3, D800 and A900. These new generation sensors might be one stop better than A900 in therms of high ISO. Did I miss anything? http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/7

I would agree, at 3200 there not as much difference as I would have expected. I think the A900's noise is a bit blotchy, which I don't like and the D600 does seem to have a bit more detail, but overall the A900 is still holding up pretty well.

-- hide signature --

Shawn

 imarollingstone's gear list:imarollingstone's gear list
Sony RX100 II Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony SLT-A55 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Oddie
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,769
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to thubleau7, Sep 27, 2012

thubleau7 wrote:

The JPEG samples clearly show that the D600 is equal to the D800 beats the 5DMK2 lags behind the 5DMK3 and as for the A77 at 6400 ISO the A77 is a mess and it is the same at 6400 in RAW the A900 has way too much colour noise.
Blind freddy could see that the D600 is much more cleaner.

AS for A77 this comparison really show how bad the noise is from that camera it it seems to be the major concern of owners.

I think you are being completely ridiculous here. Deliberately so is my guess.

Only someone blind to the actual results and comments seen published in this forum on a daily basis from this camera would post the above. No it's not a major concern to owners as most of them don't routinely shoot at ISO 6400. Most people who own any aps-c camera don't either. They are all very noisy at ISO 6400. This isn't news.

The A77 is competitive with its aps-c peers. It is pointless comparing any aps-c camera to FF at high ISO but even FF ones are not immune to noise at this ISO either. The D600 is blurring detail in jpegs at ISO 6400 due to noise reduction which I am sure blind Freddy spotted.

That said I think what is interesting you will probably have to use a Nikon D600 at above ISO 800 to see a practical advantage in resolution due to its lower noise performance over an A65/77. The A65/77 are, as DPR pointed out in its review, delivering 24mp of resolution up to that ISO. If you rarely go beyond that you would be wasting your money on a FF camera unless you wanted other FF characteristics.

You will see this phenomena occurring more often as sensor technology improves. The little Sony RX100 draws comparison with aps-c in the same way.

Still, I am sure there will be some people who will never shoot a real photo at ISO 6400 on their D600 as long as they own the camera (but will shoot plenty of test shots to show it off!) but will still buy one because it is better than a different camera at that ISO!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
evangelos k
Contributing MemberPosts: 504Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to shady1991, Sep 28, 2012

shady1991 wrote:

that's cause a900 uses NR even in RAW files so you can't judge.

How about no? You are completely wrong on the above.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thubleau7
Contributing MemberPosts: 516
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to Dave Oddie, Sep 28, 2012

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

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

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
The_Wicker_Man
Senior MemberPosts: 1,521
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.

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

why not deal with the particular points, eg this one:

Still, I am sure there will be some people who will never shoot a real photo at ISO 6400 on their D600 as long as they own the camera (but will shoot plenty of test shots to show it off!) but will still buy one because it is better than a different camera at that ISO!

-- hide signature --

i know what i know, which is a fraction of what i don't

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Amateur Sony Shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 5,316Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to shady1991, Sep 28, 2012

Any evidence to back up your claim?

shady1991 wrote:

that's cause a900 uses NR even in RAW files so you can't judge.

 Amateur Sony Shooter's gear list:Amateur Sony Shooter's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dave Oddie
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,769
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
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,207
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to thubleau7, Sep 28, 2012

thubleau7 wrote:

The JPEG samples clearly show that the D600 is equal to the D800 beats the 5DMK2 lags behind the 5DMK3 and as for the A77 at 6400 ISO the A77 is a mess

So you are seriously comparing the APS-C a77 to three FF cameras?

Do you even understand that at equal exposure, the noise in the full image from any modern camera depends mostly on sensor area?

And do you understand that a FF camera has more than twice the sensor area of an APS-C camera?

If an APS-C camera could compete with three modern FF cameras, those FF cameras would have to be very bad.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thubleau7
Contributing MemberPosts: 516
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to Allan Olesen, Sep 28, 2012

Excuse me .You should reply to the OP not me.

He is the one comparing cameras and yes its as obvious as the nose on my face that the APS-C sensor is not in the same ball park as a f/f sensor.

I only have to look at my 5DMK2 photos compared to the A57 to see the difference.

Go take a chill pill.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jabez02
Regular MemberPosts: 389
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to thubleau7, Sep 28, 2012

Care to discuss colour rendition or tonal separation ?

You can have good colour or good noise or you can compromise. Sony. Canon and Nikon all have made somewhat different choices.

Make your choice and pay your money.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Amateur Sony Shooter
Senior MemberPosts: 5,316Gear list
Like?
Correction: you need to change A77 to A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 28, 2012

I guess this caused some confusion: for some strange reason DPR uses A77 as default Sony camera to compare with D600. You need to replace A77 with A900 to have a meaningful comparison.

 Amateur Sony Shooter's gear list:Amateur Sony Shooter's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony SLT-A99 Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Sony 16-35mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* +11 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,207
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is way better
In reply to thubleau7, Sep 28, 2012

thubleau7 wrote:

Excuse me .You should reply to the OP not me.

No. The OP did not mention the a77 in his posting. You did in yours.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shady1991
Regular MemberPosts: 212Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 28, 2012

It's a known fact that a900 didn't have NR off setting in their raw files in its first firmware. you can read everywhere about that even in dpr.

And if you look closer to images it's obvious that a900 raw noise isn't like original raw noise

 shady1991's gear list:shady1991's gear list
Sony SLT-A57
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
shady1991
Regular MemberPosts: 212Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to GuyMcKie, Sep 28, 2012

The D600 raw files looks soft (used lens?) and with muted colors.

it's DPR's fault. it has nothing to do with original D600 colors. its color spaces incopatibility. I assume files are saved in adobe RGB and browser doesn't support ARGB, so if you download picture (click on jpeg) then you'll see original vivid colors.

 shady1991's gear list:shady1991's gear list
Sony SLT-A57
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tbcass
Forum ProPosts: 17,133Gear list
Like?
Re: D600 RAW is not much better than A900
In reply to Amateur Sony Shooter, Sep 28, 2012

Amateur Sony Shooter wrote:

DPR has added D600 studio image to their database for us to compare different cameras. When I looked the RAW up to ISO3200, I don't really see meaningful difference between D600, 5D3, D800 and A900. These new generation sensors might be one stop better than A900 in therms of high ISO. Did I miss anything? http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/7

I think 1 stop is a lot. It isn't as if the A900 RAW files were that bad.

-- hide signature --
 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony SLT-A77 Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads