2PK: ROFLMAO! 3 years ago Sony released the Alpha 850, full frame, 24mp sensor, less than $2000 and barely a word was said apart from a little known Barnaby Britton praising Sony for doing so.
Then Nikon announce the D600 and are heralded as the saviours of the photographic world despite being late to the affordable FF party.
As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better. So will all the Nikon fanboys put their toys back in the pram and quietly but quickly please leave the buidling, and if the Canon club could just join the tail of the line too please.....
Oops you're right. I meant the opposite. It's been a long day :)
Whether or not this actually matters to you depends on whether or not you shoot raw, shoot at high iso or shoot big prints etc. The OMD is an awesome camera and may well suit your needs perfectly irrelevant of the above.
Comparing RAW at ISO 6400 the nikon D600 enjoys around a 2 stop noise advantage over the OMD. In other words in RAW, the nikon d600 at ISO 1600, performs about the same in terms of noise as the OMD at ISO 6400. Look at the graph, the noise on the y axis, the ISO on the x axis and extrapolate the line across. This applies to all aspects of noise dpreview meaure: grey noise/black noise/chroma noiseThis is also backed up by the in studio photos posted a few days ago on this site. Particularly look in the shadow areas around the cotton reels as these areas reveal the most noise.
These graphs only look at noise at 100%. This doesnt take into account the loss in dynamic range the smaller sensor cameras will loose as well as the fact that the nikon has more megapixels so downsampled to lower resolutions it will look even better. The canon 5dmkiii will show a similar performance to the nikon vs other micro 4/3 cameras ie OMDI dont consder that a marginal difference but a very signifcant one
The fuji is a great camera no doubt. Its sensor performs brilliantly, its not cheap though especially considering its limitations. If you dont need DSLR and the advantages that a dslr system brings then its a wonderful camera.
I find your second comparison laughable. So your trying to say the omd and pentax k-01 and sony cybershot has lower noise than a full frame dslr. I can see youve carefull screwed the results ie JPEG only and only chroma noise.
lensberg: One thing is abundantly clear... Canon still is the king of JPEG's beyond a shadow of a doubt...
As always with Nikon's new iterations... RAW remains a muted affair... A fractionally cleaner image by the D600... but details are quite blatently smudged away... I guess thats the price one has to pay for having a cleaner RAW image at high iso's... Canon's 5D III slightly noisier, but visibly superior detail retention... especially at 12800 & 25600
The king of JPEGs? I thought that was Ken rockwell. I haven't used an out of camera JPEG for years. When you spend this much on a camera unless you are a pap you should really be focusing on RAW performance. In my opinion Nikon has the overall edge in image quality over canon at the moment. We are pixel peeping over minute differences in raw noise here. The most glaring difference noted by many respected observers is not the noise difference but the dynamic range advantage of the nikons. Of course there's more to a cameras overall performance than image quality alone but thats not what this thread is about. Considering the nikon d600 today is £900 cheaper than the canon I think this is a very good perfomance.
JoeR: My opinion based on these raw images, the D600 clearly beats the D800. D600 is marginaly better than 5DMKIII.
However throw in the D4 and it beats them all by a large margin. It makes me wonder about the DXO ratings.
Does any of this have relavence to real world photography?
Lensberg, I agree the noise level is not groundbreaking but as you says it effectively matches the 5dmIII in raw from a noise point of view. I expect its dynamic range to be similar to the D800s, in other words notably better than the 5dmIII. Considering today it costs £950 less than the 5dmIII I consider that a groundbreaking deal!
Lets be honest here, this is pixel peeping on a high level but credit where credit is due, Nikons current sensors have been top notch and are coming in at a lower price point than canon. Canon is taking a calculated risk in assuming the price difference still won't be enough to tempt current users to switch system. However, I know a few people who are 7D users who dont want to fork out the high price of the 5DmkIII who are very disappointed by the spec of the 6D and are considering switching to the d600.
jdh99: D600 looks great in RAW at high ISO. To my eyes equals if not betters 5dmiii which costs $1400 more. Combine that with amazing dynamic range and you have an amazing product.
The JPEG performance at high ISO isnt as good as the RAW. I get the impression Nikon purposely does that to ensure the D800 and d4 remain top of the pile. Most online comparisons only look at JPEG noise which is meaningless to most shooters who use RAW converters
Yep but it's nice to see the differences with ones own eyes. DXO sensor ratings are questionable.
your more than entitled to your own opinion but to me the high ISO performance of d600/d4/d800 is better than G1X and I believe most others would agree
In the Raw comparisons I cant see the difference between d4 d600. But in JPEG its clear win for the d4
Dave Oddie: It is interesting to compare the RAW images of the D600 to the D3200 using the dpr tool
Up to ISO 800 I doubt anyone could tell the difference in an actual photo and that is without having to spend ages using post processing to get the best out of the D3200 image. At ISO1600 there is clearly more noise in the D3200 shot but the detail is still there some with so post processing I think once again you would have a hard time telling the output apart in an actual photo.
I am sure there must be some people who shoot above ISO 1600 all the time but not many.
Therefore I think people should evaluate why they want a FF camera on more issues than high ISO noise. There are certainly valid reasons to go the FF route (e.g. DOF , gain at the wide angle end) but also valid reasons to stick with aps-c (e.g crop factor makes wildlife photography much cheaper lens-wise, often much faster frame rates).
Obsessing about noise if you rarely shoot above 1600 is nuts - and costly kit-wise.
Agreed but Id expect the D600 RAW files at low ISOs to have much more dynamic range and lower noise base so that lifting shadows etc would give superior results.
Just upgrading for resolution wouldnt make much sense considering the cost. Theres lots of other advantages to going to FF but also some disadvantages like you say
D600 looks great in RAW at high ISO. To my eyes equals if not betters 5dmiii which costs $1400 more. Combine that with amazing dynamic range and you have an amazing product.
dreamplayer: These test results are affected by lens and sensor.The nikon 24 85 lens might be less sharper than the lens mount on 5D mk iii.In real life, the 5D MK III's focus system is much quicker and more precise than the d600's.As we all know, details and sharpness rely on focus system, lens and sensor.
Even though, DPREVIEW gave us the great tests. We can't say which camera is the winner when you have to consider system compares to system.
DPreview studio tests dont use kit zooms they use a sharp prime/macro lens to give a fair comparison between cameras. For nikon they typically use a 50mm f1.8 although they dont mention it here.
The D600 is not competing against the 5dmiii which costs around $1400 more. That said have you tested both cameras? For most the d600 autofocus should be more than adequate. For those who need better AF the D4 or 1DX might be a better choice