whyamihere: Dear Nikon,
Maybe next year's model can feature such novel updates as, "Has an ISO button."
Just a thought.
If you want an ISO button, buy the D7100.Problem solved. This is entry level with some amazing features. For more advanced options there are more advanced bodies.
Andrew770: Here is the good news about the D600 for the few with issues. Once the shutter mechanism is replaced, the D600 is perfect!
That is an outright lie. I've had mine replaced twice. It didn't fix the issue, it made it worse. Cleanings helped reduce the problem, but once the shutter was replaced, issue started all over again like when it was new. If anything helps, it's regular cleanings.... but it will take a few cleanings to be rid of the problem for good.
technotic: The D610 needs to have the cleanest sensor in history since reviewers will be examining it with electron microscopes :-)
I see what could be maybe 1, and that could be due to lens changes. Doesn't necessarily mean it has a problem.
Bob from Plymouth: Hmmmm ? Can't say I have had many more spots on my D600 than any other DSLR and I am very pleased with the results it produces.
However, there has been a problem for some and the question that springs to my mind is: Can the D610 shutter be retro-fitted to the D600? Maybe this is the shutter Nikon service centres have been fitting to D600's as their official fix. Does anyone know?
Without actually looking into the camera to compare the two shutter mechanisms I couldn't tell you 100%, but I've had my shutter replaced twice and twice the problem was not fixed. Not only was it not fixed, it made the issue worse, because prior cleanings had helped clear it up and the new shutter mechanism started throwing new debris onto the sensor, like when it was new. So,... if they're fitting the new D610 shutter mechanism into problem D600 bodies, expect the same problem in the D610. I have a feeling that they are NOT replacing the D600 shutter with a D610 shutter. Let's hope and pray that this body will be as solid as it's supposed to be with none of the debris problems included.
MSTR Photography: It appears to me that all of these images are very well done. However, none of them show the benefit of not having a low pass filter. When images are shot of lines or patterns which tend to produce moire, then we will know the true purpose of this camera. I cannot imagine that a camera without a low pass filter would be of use to a wedding or an architectural photographer who does not wish waste time removing the moire in photoshop to the detriment of image quality. However, in landscape or action shots of sports or wildlife this would appear to be a boon!
I think this camera will be most beneficial to people shooting wildlife and sports. More reach/resolution + better detail in feathers/fur, etc. So far I'm most worried about the buffer size. This is still no D400 at 6FPS and small buffer, but everything else seems pretty nice.
SiliconVoid: In recent years I have defended DPReview dozens of times across the internet regarding their integrity and analysis, specifically regarding their ability to assess a product on its own merits and across its designed capability range - instead of penalizing a product for what it lacks in a comparison. THEN I read this review.
If you add the D600 to the scoring module on page-25 you can see what is supposedly areas that would allow it to score differently (higher in this case) and it is interesting that the areas showing better performance are simply not substantiated in the pages of the 6D review. Not to mention areas of heated debate and comparison (the 6D's inferior 11-point AF system and Canon's tired old 63 metering zones) where even though DPR hops on the bandwagon to proclaim Canon's failings of the 6D their own testing shows that the 'lowly' 11-point AF and 'zone' metering system out perform the D600.
What the hell is that, does DPR write the reviews before or after testing???
Am I wrong in saying that both the EOS 6D and D600 have their own positive aspects about them? If the D600 scored higher than the 6D, so what?
The D600 offers 2 SD card slots, more focus points, better focus tracking, faster FPS, better resolution, nearly (if not) equal ISO performance, it has flash, great dynamic range/shadow recovery, uncompressed video, headphone jack, 100% viewfinder coverage, etc.
The EOS 6D offers Wi-Fi and GPS, it has a more sensitive center AF point, has very good high ISO performance, very good noise reduction when it comes to JPEGs and good quality video.
It's obvious (except to maybe a blind person) that the D600 just gives you more bang for your buck, hence the higher score. That doesn't mean the 6D sucks, it just means you have to pick the camera that will be more useful to YOU personally. For me the D600 was the better choice not only because of the options and performance, but because I already had Nikon gear.
LSE: Great review. The 6D could have been a lot more. But it's primitive AF, low resolution, and lack of dual card slots among other things show canon, as usual, is all about protection of their upper lines than actual innovation. In isolation, the camera is not bad, but the d600 easily bests it in many areas making the Nikon the better all around camera choice.
@ CFynn, I've seen 6D owners complain about some oil on their sensors as well. Oil on sensor is not uncommon for DSLRs, not even the high end ones. Canon is not immune to these things. My D600 had spots, so I cleaned my own sensor. Done. Now I can enjoy it as much as I want with no hassle.
JMichaelsPhoto: Why hasn't this camera been in-depth reviewed yet?
It has been extended, but clearly it still isn't finished. Last time I saw, two weeks ago somebody claimed this review was going to be posted very soon. I guess "very soon" in dpreview language means weeks.
DPReview007: 1. Is the 6D better in low light than the D600 Nikon?
2. How much better?
3. Is it better only in JPEG or also in RAW?
4. If it is better, why does DxO Mark have a much higher ISO rating on the D600 (all high end Nikons)
5. (bonus question to DPReview,and for the record, I love you guys) What's the ETA of the full review please?
The 6D and D600 are about the same when it comes to high ISO and when you're looking at RAW files. Some will say that the 6D is better by a hair, but honestly when you downsample the D600 file from 24 megapixels to 20 megapixels to match the 6D file, to me they look pretty identical. The only advantage (in my opinion) is that the 6D goes beyond ISO 25600,... however I personally would never shoot photos I plan to do something important with at higher ISO than 12800.
The 6D high ISO JPEG files look much better than the D600 files, because Canon has some pretty good noise reduction software built into the camera. Nikon in-camera noise reduction is good, but not great. Canon's noise reduction comes with a price however, because it reduces sharpness and detail.
Not sure about your DxO Mark question. I don't know how they conduct their tests exactly and why their numbers end up being what they are, especially the high ISO numbers. You'd have to ask them.
JMichaelsPhoto: Comparing brands is like comparing apples to apples, IMO. So the Nikon D600 is a little faster, has more focus points, a few more pixels but the pictures that come out of it are all green and whatnot. I mean, okay...it handles better, is faster, has dual card slots but it takes green pictures. It's probably not all that bad but every reviewer out there isn't too keen on nikon DSLR's right now. Canon is on a roll it seems, and for the 6D...it's predictable that your thoughts on it mirror the thoughts you had on the 60D. I own a 60D and I'm probably one of the kind of owners Canon wants to buy this camera and in my opinion, the same reason I decided to go with the 60D over the obviously better 7D will be the same reason I decide to go with the 6D over the 5DIII- price. It's damn-near $1500 cheaper, still FF, and class competitive IQ and ISO performance with a really sensitive center AF point- class leading, in fact. So the choice is an easy one for me. I like nice pictures.
Green pictures? What are you talking about? Mine doesn't take green pictures. It works just as intended, and so do the majority of D600 bodies. There is a very small minority that is experiencing the green color cast on the screen, but this does not affect RAW files whatsoever. There are very, very few bodies with this problem. So few that I've only seen one person mention it on the flickr forums. If it was a wide-spread problem, the forums would be filled with these posts.
Just downloaded the trial version of DXO Optics Pro 8 and compared a couple of photographs that I processed in DXO and in Lightroom 4.3. I have a Nikon D600. As far as I can tell, I much prefer the results I get in Lightroom 4.3 to DXO. DXO isn't bad and maybe has some advantages that I can't see, but in my opinion and at this point I would take Lightroom 4.3 over DXO any day. Lightroom is easier to use, faster, more intuitive, and in my eyes produces better results. It felt a little painful working with DXO due to the constant lagging each time I applied a change to the RAW file. As if that wasn't enough, Lightroom is also much cheaper. Nearly half the price, especially if you're a student and can buy it at less than $100.00.
Canonuck: I bought the 6d last week with the 24-105 f/4.0 L kit. After several hundred shots I am still awed by the fast AF and low-light focusing and performance. I plan to keep my 60D for its articulated LCD, and its crop-factor is useful for the extra telephoto reach when needed. The 6d's big, bright viewfinder is a joy to use (I had forgotten what it was like to use real pentaprism viewfinder on a 35mm film camera - I've owned and used Canon's Ftb, EF, and EOS 650 film bodies, over the years). The 6d's viewfinder lets me feel I can do without the articulated LCD. Image quality seems impressive, but I want to see lab reports and comparisons. I suspect that the 6d's IQ will prove better, in some cases, than that of the 5D3 - after reading another review where the tester found lower noise at high ISO from the 6d than the 5D3.
Here are the DxO results for the Canon 6D: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-6D
and here's a link to their results for the 5D Mark III. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Canon/EOS-5D-Mark-III
Here is the side by side comparison: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/836%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/795%7C0/(brand2)/Canon
Nearly $3,000??? What kind of crack is Sony smoking? This is a pocket camera for the upper class, not for ordinary consumers. I wouldn't pay that kind of money for a camera just because I'm able to put it in my pocket. It doesn't outperform my DSLR and I can stick that in my bag. Sure it's two or three times the size, but it still takes better pictures and costs $700 less. Ridiculous. At $1,000 I'd understand. $2,700? Nope.
photopro: After reading the comments here and other blogs etc. i can only shake my head at most of you... no offense to any of you but you micro analyse the functions like you are NASA engineers, when in fact i suspect most of you rarely shoot high speed applications, basketball, F-1 type racing, NFL football on a regular basis, or shoot in light low enough to pick apart a 5000 vs. one low light focusing point. i learned on 35mm and medium format manual focus, and had very few rejects. If you are worried that your late model (20D or later) wont get your shot its not the equipment at fault. I shoot mostly wedding and portrait and some sports with a 20 and 50D and any rejects are my fault. 50% of the capability of these cameras can do more then 90% of your ability.. Most pros would agree, but then again you wont find many pros here nitpicking...
I think we're getting really spoiled by cameras that do everything for us. All we seem to have to do is point and frame. I'm not complaining, but I tend to agree that the camera is a tool and one must know how to use it to it's full potential to get the most out of it. If that means manual focus every now and then, that's what it takes. While some people here spend their time complaining, the real photographers are out there shooting and making incredible images with basic cameras. I myself went with the D600 because I'm a Nikon shooter, but I think this 6D will be an incredible camera as well with plenty of options to help any good photographer create works of art. All the whiners need to stop relying on technology to do everything for them.
GarysInSoCal: I waited and waited for what I saw as a worthwhile (and affordable) replacement for my beloved D700... and I have finally found it. Been shooting with the D600 for over 2 months now... LOVE IT! At first I didnt think the extra resolution (12 megapixal VS 24 megapixal) was something that I really needed... but man-o-man was I WRONG! And this camera works even better in low light. Have recently shoot some 64,000 ISO images deep in a local forest with minimal noise... VERY HAPPY with those results as I couldn't accomplish that with my D700. Lenses I've recently used on it with amazing results are the 24-120 F4 Nanocoat ED-VR, 16-35 Nanocoat ED-VR and the 70-300 ED-VR. NO spotty sensor issue and I'm extremely happy with this purchase.
I'm sure you mean ISO 6,400. ;)
aramsun: To silence all these people dismissing the Canon 6D for the Nikon D600... The Nikon does not allow any sort of control during video recording. If you are a filmmaker or even remotely interested in video..
Nikon plans to release an update for the D600 soon which will allow aperture control during live view recording.
How much longer until DPreview finishes the review of the D600? Seems it's been weeks. Surely they've had enough time to test and compile the rest of the review, no?
TJGKG: The D7000 seems to have better image results in the studio comparison than the D600. Maybe I'll keep mine after all and just upgrade the lenses to FX. It will be interesting to read the full review. So far I am not that impressed.
I own the D7000 and the D600. I don't care what these lab tests show, my D600 files are a lot nicer and cleaner than my D7000 files. While these controlled tests are designed to best compare all these cameras, real world tests are going to be a lot more clear in my opinion. You get better/faster focus, better ISO performance, more resolution, better dynamic range and wider filed of view than with the D7000. Those are just facts. I love my D7000, but it's gonna stay in the bag for a long time to come. The D600 outperforms it in many ways.
luka3rd: I love the performance on ISO 50, 100 and 200. That's what I needed.But I am also very pleased that until 1600 is a great performer... very usable.For more than that, well, buy something that's meant to be PRO!
ISO 1600? Have you tried shooting the D600 at ISO 3200 and 6400? I have. Let me tell you, the images are clean up to ISO 6400 no matter what these lab tests say. This camera surpasses the D700 in ISO performance as well as color fidelity. This advance isn't a huge stride forward, but definitely noticeable. I got some excellent results shooting a show in some of the most difficult lighting conditions a concert photographer is going to face. For ISO performance you don't need to spend $3,000 to $6,000 anymore. Nikon changed that with the D600. Now if you want to go for faster FPS, 51 AF points and full weather sealing, then yes...you will have to shell out a couple thousand more.
After looking at the RAWs, frankly I think all these cameras are way too close to call and in the end it's the photographer who will make the biggest difference to the images taken. I gotta say though, the D600 is really holding it's ground among these $3,000.00 + cameras, maybe even surpassing some by a tiny margin! I never dreamed it would come so close to the noise quality of the D3s, at least at ISO 6400 and below. The D3s starts pulling away from the rest at ISO 12,800. They all have some positives and some negatives, but having this kind of noise handling for $2,000.00 is firggin' awesome.