Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600?? Locked

Started Jun 2, 2013 | Questions
This thread is locked.
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Jessadele, Jun 3, 2013

For static subject, D600 is fine. But for challenging environments in real world, 5DIII wins easily in versatility and chances of capturing fast moving subjects. 5D3 AF speed and buffer depth are much better than D600. In sport fields, airshows, motorsport and wildlife safari, 5D3 can capture lots more precise and critical moments that D600 will miss.  D600 comparable camera is EOS 6D not 5D III.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot7aMeUmojY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqpqOoeBQM

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
dresner
Regular MemberPosts: 291Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to The Davinator, Jun 3, 2013

I will clarify by saying that most reviewers online say the 5DM3 outperforms all other DSLRs and is their favorite to use... It's not my opinion but if you do a fair amount of reading that's the general consensus ... Not mine - I'm just a shopper trying to wade thru all the BS to find the right system for myself

 dresner's gear list:dresner's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
VictorTrasvina
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Jessadele, Jun 3, 2013

Perhaps you might wanna consider ergonomics into the equation too ? It would seem that for your specific needs (portraits) your top 3 choices: Mark III/6D/D600 are gonna be so evenly match that you might wanna either try to rent your top 2 choices for a few days or before you choose one them at the very least go to the biggest Camera Store you can find near you and play with them as long as you can, just so can find the one that feels “BETTER” in your hands and “SPEAKS” to your needs in particular as we are all very different, and “Specs” don’t tell the whole story, you also might wanna consider a refurbished D800 if you wanna save a little money for lenses as they seem to go for around 2400 USD (see link) http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/list/categoryID.43896500/size.100/startIndex.0/sort.listPrice%20descending/;After  And after the latest firmware updates it just seems much more responsive and the AF was vastly improved and while AF system on it might not be as advance as the one on the Mark III it seems just as reliable and accurate but i might be a bad judge of it since I’m a fine art and boudoir photographer so i never really needed blazing fast focus speeds to begin with, either way its impossible to go wrong so in thats sense we are all pretty lucky nowadays we all the options available on the market

 VictorTrasvina's gear list:VictorTrasvina's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 5D Mark III
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to dresner, Jun 3, 2013

dresner wrote:

I will clarify by saying that most reviewers online say the 5DM3 outperforms all other DSLRs and is their favorite to use...

Yes 5D III is overall best performance camera (from all factors from IQ to speed overall) of all DSLRs under $5000 except Canon 1DX and Nikon D4.

It's not my opinion but if you do a fair amount of reading that's the general consensus ... Not mine - I'm just a shopper trying to wade thru all the BS to find the right system for myself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqpqOoeBQM

This video pretty demos why 5DIII outstands for all cameras under $5000.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
riknash
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,608Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to dresner, Jun 3, 2013

dresner wrote:

I will clarify by saying that most reviewers online say the 5DM3 outperforms all other DSLRs and is their favorite to use... It's not my opinion but if you do a fair amount of reading that's the general consensus ... Not mine - I'm just a shopper trying to wade thru all the BS to find the right system for myself

This forum is unlikely to clean the BS outta the barn as we all have our biases. Yesterday I observed some exceptional nice and tack-sharp (LOL) wildlife photos taken with the D600 and 70-200. In capable hands,  the D600 appears to be more than able to shoot portrait photography. The best rubber boots to wade through it all is to try it out yourself. Who knows, you might despise the ergonomics regardless of all else.

 riknash's gear list:riknash's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha NEX-7 Canon EOS 5D Mark III HTC One
VictorTrasvina
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to dresner, Jun 3, 2013

Yeah but those are the “FANBOYS” head to the Fuji forum and you'll see ppl swearing the X100s its the best camera ever made ! How about the die hard Leica fans justifying the purchase ? Same think for Nikon or even the Micro 4/3 crowd ! In the grand scheme of things the body matters so little that i can’t understand why ppl obsess with it so much !

1) YOU (composition, technique, vision, etc, etc)

2) Lens

3) Light

4) Sensor (body)

And yes you could argue that quality of Light matters much more than the lens itself if you can’t use flash and you would probably be right but that still proves that you don’t need the best AF system or the biggest 36MP RAW files to take the best pictures, now days it really doesn’t matter all that much

 VictorTrasvina's gear list:VictorTrasvina's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X100S Canon EOS 5D Mark III
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to riknash, Jun 3, 2013

riknash wrote:

dresner wrote:

I will clarify by saying that most reviewers online say the 5DM3 outperforms all other DSLRs and is their favorite to use... It's not my opinion but if you do a fair amount of reading that's the general consensus ... Not mine - I'm just a shopper trying to wade thru all the BS to find the right system for myself

This forum is unlikely to clean the BS outta the barn as we all have our biases. Yesterday I observed some exceptional nice and tack-sharp (LOL) wildlife photos taken with the D600 and 70-200. In capable hands,  the D600 appears to be more than able to shoot portrait photography. The best rubber boots to wade through it all is to try it out yourself. Who knows, you might despise the ergonomics regardless of all else.

The point is not some individual shots. Even a Rebel is capable of snatching some action photos. The point is consistency. 5DIII is the best such camera for people don't have to invest in 1Dx or Nikon Dx lines. I'd have no doubt if person A with 5DIII shooting side by side with another person B with D600 at similar shooting skills with similar comparable lenses in airshows, in motorsports, in wildlife safari, in sport fields, person A will absolutely capture more precise and critical moments while person B will miss many opportunity, similar as difference between 1DX and 5DIII, that ultimately matters. The speed of CF, buffer depth, overall faster responses in all components such as mirror and shutter lags, in addition slightly faster burst rate make 5DIII noticeably faster than D600. When I shoot the airshow in the Memorial Day weekend, 5DIII with 1000x CF card is so fast that I ended with around 5200 photos in just a few hours. Although my 1DIII shoots 10fps with 30-raw buffer but it only can use CF card upto 266x speed. It seems 5DIII at 6fps with 1000x CF card actually is not much lagging behind it overall capturing speed as it cleans buffer much faster with 1000x CF card.  The difference of buffer depth and speed difference between CF and SD cards are pretty significant between 5DIII and D600.  D800 depsite generates much bigger files actually is faster than D600 because of faster CF card and deeper buffer.  But 5DIII is faster than both of them.

So for that part, I'd pay $1K more on 5DIII over D600 as someone would pay $4K more on 1DX over 5DIII.  A better part is that sometime you can get better deal to pay much less such as I only paid $2500 on a brand new 5DIII.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
bgbs
Senior MemberPosts: 1,990
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Jessadele, Jun 3, 2013

I don't know about the older or second hand lenses, but the new Nikkors are cheaper than the new Canons. And as far as the lens quality both Canon and Nikkors are top notch, and looking for IQ differences is splitting hair, really.

I would also recommend looking at some third party lenses, Sigma and Tamron have stepped up a game a recently.

qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to bgbs, Jun 3, 2013

bgbs wrote:

I don't know about the older or second hand lenses, but the new Nikkors are cheaper than the new Canons. And as far as the lens quality both Canon and Nikkors are top notch, and looking for IQ differences is splitting hair, really.

Hard to say as they are not at the same generation such as between 24-70L II vs 24-70G.  I am sure the future Nikon 24-70G II will not be cheaper by then provided its optical performance can match to Canon one.  The new Nikon 80-400G is almost double than current (old) Canon 100-400L.  Nikon 800mm G VR is also lots more expensive than current Canon 800L IS.

I would also recommend looking at some third party lenses, Sigma and Tamron have stepped up a game a recently.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
bgbs
Senior MemberPosts: 1,990
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to ktownbill, Jun 3, 2013

I've actually heard that the shutter lag on D600 is less than 5DIII. At least according to Imaging Resource.

It was true that 3-4 years ago the skin-tones required more adjustment on the Nikon lineup, but today the RAW converters finally caught up.  Lightroom 4 and Capture One 7 do an amazing job.

bgbs
Senior MemberPosts: 1,990
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to qianp2k, Jun 3, 2013

Camera comparisons also depend on the subject you're shooting.  If you are comparing a camera's overall capabilities to another camera, then certainly you have a point, but if the OP is looking to shoot only portraits, than D600 can certainly be discussed in the same sentence with the 5DIII, because portraitures usually are not shot while the model is flying through the air, but rather when the model stands or sits in one place. So, AF is more than capable on the D600 for 99% of all portair work.

qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to bgbs, Jun 3, 2013

bgbs wrote:

I've actually heard that the shutter lag on D600 is less than 5DIII. At least according to Imaging Resource.

That is what I read in IR reviews of 5D III vs D600 that 5DIII is noticeably faster in either single center AF point or all AF points (lots more points than D600).

5D III

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA6.HTM

The Canon 5D Mark III's full autofocus shutter response was excellent at 0.120 second using our standard single-point AF test. Full 61-point auto selection AF only slowed to 0.142 second, which is still very fast. Continuous AF lag was also fast, at 0.122 second. Shutter lag in manual focus mode was a swift 0.095 second, and "Prefocusing" the camera by half-pressing and holding down the shutter button before the final exposure resulted in a lag time of only 0.061 second, also quite fast.

D600

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/nikon-d600A6.HTM

The first set of numbers above using the optical viewfinder measure shutter lag with the lens already set to the correct focal distance. This largely removes the issue of differences in lens focusing speed, and measures how fast the camera can measure and act on focus information. In this metric, the Nikon D600 is slightly slower than average for a prosumer SLR. The D600 required 0.260 second for full AF when using Single-point (center) AF mode (our default full AF lag test). Enabling the flash increased lag a bit to 0.295 second. The D600 required 0.335 second when using the 39-point Auto-area AF mode, also slower than average. Continuous AF, manual focus, and prefocused shutter lag times were all 0.054 second, though, quite fast for a prosumer SLR.

It was true that 3-4 years ago the skin-tones required more adjustment on the Nikon lineup, but today the RAW converters finally caught up.  Lightroom 4 and Capture One 7 do an amazing job.

Many said that but still we heard many complain in Nikon forums regarding yellor/orange skin tone.   Adjusting skin tone is not as simple as just moving temperature bar as it's the balance of many color channels.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to bgbs, Jun 3, 2013

bgbs wrote:

Camera comparisons also depend on the subject you're shooting.  If you are comparing a camera's overall capabilities to another camera, then certainly you have a point, but if the OP is looking to shoot only portraits, than D600 can certainly be discussed in the same sentence with the 5DIII, because portraitures usually are not shot while the model is flying through the air, but rather when the model stands or sits in one place. So, AF is more than capable on the D600 for 99% of all portair work.

Then OP should consider EOS 6D vs D600 not 5DIII that will be wasted somewhat in portrait only purpose.  You will say the shortage of 6D single center cross AF point that I agreed.  But in studio or portrait, you will have time to carefully precise focus and many times you'd stop down as in studio case.  So lacking of cross outer AF points may not sound a much bigger deal as we have seen many stunning 5DII portrait and studio photos.

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
Jessadele
New MemberPosts: 11
Re: Hmm, a 'Mark iii'
In reply to DotCom Editor, Jun 3, 2013

Yes, 5d Mark III, I appreciate everyone connecting the dots on my oversight.

Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,588Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Jessadele, Jun 3, 2013

Jessadele wrote:

Hello, I have my eyes on the Mark iii, It is a big purchase and am starting to question a few things maybe someone can help me with. I'm noticing that Nikon d600 got better reviews than the Mark iii. I don't know how they could even compare given the price difference but they do. I am thinking about making the switch to Nikon although I have shot Canon for 10 years. Can anyone tell me why Canon Mark iii is worth the bigger investment than the Nikon d600? I shoot mostly portrait work. Since this will be my first full frame, my canon lenses won't work anyway so I am not invested with canon in that respect. Thanks for your input, Jess

Portraits do not need high MPs, they do not need the best in the world DR, etc.  It really comes down to availability of portrait primes for which Canon has plenty of options.  I prefer that the Canon portrait primes have less LoCA as well and Canon handling.

This is a recent post in the MFT forum...it should be re-titled to why DR is misused and misunderstood (ok I always prefer more DR but I have a firm grasp on why it is useful and what the implications are for the better end result or not).

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51574563

I think both the D600 dust/oil issue is both overblown and swept under the rug by Nikon apologists.  I'm really in the middle for which I have a clear understanding that its not the end of the world, but it certainly is *not* a non-issue.  It has the potential to cost time/availability for which you do not have a FF camera at your disposal.  This is the #1 setback.  It has the potential to add up in time user-servicing the camera...and my time I consider to be valuable enough to not want to deal with wet-cleaning (yes we live in an instant gratification no time for anything world, but I'm not retired with grown up kids, and I have a lot of things to do besides wet-clean my sensor).  To say that you should just shoot wider apertures is silly and it can easily affect landscape or macro shots.

I prefer the camera that keeps its internal chamber *clean*, because that is where my rear element of a lens is exposed to, my PDAF sensor sits on the bottom of the camera, and my focus screen that already has a tendency to catch spots due to its micro-etched surfaces.

I think Canon telephotos still are better, but the wide zooms are a bit lacking *but cheap in costs*.  Also availability of tilt-shift lenses, etc.  The Samyang TSE are a very cheap alternative but have been tested to be not in the same class in both optics or build quality (love the optics on the Samyang 14mm however, and the 16mm f2 seem interesting as well).

I think the 5DMKII dynamic range or shadow performance is definitely needs improvement.  I find my 6D gets me almost there.  The truth is it won't play the over expose everything + 100 shadow game better, but IMO that is a pointless exercise.  When you apply exposure adjustments *locally* it is just as good in real-world usage!  There is *no* point to apply shadow lift towards the absolute darkest areas of your picture unless you *intentionally* want to destroy the blacks of your image.  And it is only the very darkest tones of the 6D's 13 stops of DR that are effected...tones for which if you *want* a higher dynamic range image you actually *leave* alone.

This is what people do not understand about DR...there is DR on the image capture side...and there is also DR on the print/publish side.  And to have the image of higher DR you actually do *not* lift shadows.  People with an eye for picture quality tend to like plasma screens for blacker blacks.  Dynamic range is defined as the max signal - min signal.  So the image with blacker blacks actually has higher dynamic range in *display* and at that point the fact that one sensor may have captured worse black tones is *moot*.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
qianp2k
Forum ProPosts: 10,350Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Timbukto, Jun 3, 2013

Timbukto wrote:

This is what people do not understand about DR...there is DR on the image capture side...and there is also DR on the print/publish side.  And to have the image of higher DR you actually do *not* lift shadows.  People with an eye for picture quality tend to like plasma screens for blacker blacks.  Dynamic range is defined as the max signal - min signal.  So the image with blacker blacks actually has higher dynamic range in *display* and at that point the fact that one sensor may have captured worse black tones is *moot*.

We all hope Canon future sensors/cameras will improve DR. But I agreed there is vast exaggeration of Nikon/Sony DR advantage by someone. If you expose photos normally on mid-tone as the way should be in most scenarios, there is really no much difference between Canon and Nikon/Sony cameras. So far all those boasting of Nikon 14-stop DR are all those games of extreme shadow pulling by severely underexposing photos on highlights then pull deep dark shadows 4-6 stops. I am sure in such scenarios, Nikon cameras win hands down and we have seen many such game demo. But they are just lesser of evil as entire photos after extreme shadow pulling from a severe underexposure look pretty crappy, very noisy in original deep shadow areas, surreal color tonality and damage of the most critical mid-tone. The difference in such scenario is crappy photo from Nikon vs unusable one from Canon. Sure Nikon wins but wins badly

-- hide signature --
 qianp2k's gear list:qianp2k's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7R +20 more
grammieb14
Senior MemberPosts: 2,136Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Jimmy K., Jun 3, 2013

I can't make comparisons to other brands, but the 5Dlll is the best all around camera I have ever owned& I wouldn't trade it under any circumstances.  I like all types of photography, so maybe   if I only liked landscape or portrait, I might find something I would like as well.  As far as a well rounded camera made for all types of photography, I don't see anything that I would like as well.  Bab

 grammieb14's gear list:grammieb14's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 100D Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +17 more
Timbukto
Senior MemberPosts: 3,588Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to qianp2k, Jun 3, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

Timbukto wrote:

This is what people do not understand about DR...there is DR on the image capture side...and there is also DR on the print/publish side.  And to have the image of higher DR you actually do *not* lift shadows.  People with an eye for picture quality tend to like plasma screens for blacker blacks.  Dynamic range is defined as the max signal - min signal.  So the image with blacker blacks actually has higher dynamic range in *display* and at that point the fact that one sensor may have captured worse black tones is *moot*.

We all hope Canon future sensors/cameras will improve DR. But I agreed there is vast exaggeration of Nikon/Sony DR advantage by someone. If you expose photos normally on mid-tone as the way should be in most scenarios, there is really on much difference between Canon and Nikon/Sony cameras. So far all those boasting of Nikon 14-stop DR are all those games of extreme shadow pulling by severely underexposing photos on highlights then pull deep dark shadows 4-6 stops. I am sure in such scenarios, Nikon cameras win hands down and we have seen many such game demo. But they are just lesser of evil as entire photos after extreme shadow pulling from a severe underexposure look pretty crappy, very noisy in original deep shadow areas, surreal color tonality and damage of the most critical mid-tone. The difference in such scenario is crappy photo from Nikon vs unusable one from Canon. Sure Nikon wins but wins badly

-- hide signature --

Yes many samples I've seen so far have been contrived.  The 'oh look I saved the highlights on this specular highlight and so now these 20 pixels in the image are no longer 255, 255, 255!'.  To me it is absolutely no different from me saying I dislike the LoCA or CA fringing on certain Nikon lenses.  Yes you can see issues, but how much of an issue it causes is really up for debate.

In other words people go on and on and on about DxOMark scores, but the real-world significance is no greater than the higher LoCA or CA of Nikon lenses, but no one goes on and on about that with a new post every day about how much some Nikon G glass has LoCA fringing, or how much CA the Nikon 24-70G has, etc.  Sometimes I see a few posts from a Nikon owner that do think they get a lot of LoCA from their new G primes.  Lenstips makes the same observation as well.  The problem is DxOMark doesn't care at all about LoCA and barely care about CA for that matter.  DR and shadow performance reigns over anything to them.  It somehow negatively even effects the 6D's low-light performance even though its low-light performance is *better* when analyzing DxOMark's *own* data.

http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_6D.html

So yes I like having the 6D which has great low-light performance, does not have dust issues, and has GPS/wifi as well as super quiet shutter and availability of lenses I like (including the 40mm f2.8 pancake).  Speaking of DR, the DR of the 6D's ISO 12800 is almost the same as the D600's ISO 6400, and its the 6D's manufacturer ISO that is closer to 'true' ISO rating (i.e. less inflated and thus higher sensitivity to light at a given ISO).

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Sony a6000 Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM +2 more
riknash
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,608Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to qianp2k, Jun 4, 2013

qianp2k wrote:

riknash wrote:

dresner wrote:

I will clarify by saying that most reviewers online say the 5DM3 outperforms all other DSLRs and is their favorite to use... It's not my opinion but if you do a fair amount of reading that's the general consensus ... Not mine - I'm just a shopper trying to wade thru all the BS to find the right system for myself

This forum is unlikely to clean the BS outta the barn as we all have our biases. Yesterday I observed some exceptional nice and tack-sharp (LOL) wildlife photos taken with the D600 and 70-200. In capable hands,  the D600 appears to be more than able to shoot portrait photography. The best rubber boots to wade through it all is to try it out yourself. Who knows, you might despise the ergonomics regardless of all else.

The point is not some individual shots. Even a Rebel is capable of snatching some action photos. The point is consistency. 5DIII is the best such camera for people don't have to invest in 1Dx or Nikon Dx lines. I'd have no doubt if person A with 5DIII shooting side by side with another person B with D600 at similar shooting skills with similar comparable lenses in airshows, in motorsports, in wildlife safari, in sport fields, person A will absolutely capture more precise and critical moments while person B will miss many opportunity, similar as difference between 1DX and 5DIII, that ultimately matters. The speed of CF, buffer depth, overall faster responses in all components such as mirror and shutter lags, in addition slightly faster burst rate make 5DIII noticeably faster than D600. When I shoot the airshow in the Memorial Day weekend, 5DIII with 1000x CF card is so fast that I ended with around 5200 photos in just a few hours. Although my 1DIII shoots 10fps with 30-raw buffer but it only can use CF card upto 266x speed. It seems 5DIII at 6fps with 1000x CF card actually is not much lagging behind it overall capturing speed as it cleans buffer much faster with 1000x CF card.  The difference of buffer depth and speed difference between CF and SD cards are pretty significant between 5DIII and D600.  D800 depsite generates much bigger files actually is faster than D600 because of faster CF card and deeper buffer.  But 5DIII is faster than both of them.

So for that part, I'd pay $1K more on 5DIII over D600 as someone would pay $4K more on 1DX over 5DIII.  A better part is that sometime you can get better deal to pay much less such as I only paid $2500 on a brand new 5DIII.

I agree about the 5DIII with 1000x CF card but really a non issue for portrait photography. A D600, D6, 5DIII will all do a great job for portraits. They are all current and relevant for someone wanting a new model that will take great photos, assuming the user knows how to use it and all the other much more important elements for success.

 riknash's gear list:riknash's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Sony Alpha NEX-7 Canon EOS 5D Mark III HTC One
ArchiDeos
Junior MemberPosts: 38Gear list
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??
In reply to Timbukto, Jun 4, 2013

Hey Pal, as everybody mentioned already, you might consider Magic Lanternfor 5D mark III. Well not for portraiture purposes but I'll bet you will try something new whatever camera you will buy.. Good Luck..

 ArchiDeos's gear list:ArchiDeos's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads