Camediadude: Oh, isn't that a cute business model. Way to make millions of enemies overnight, Adobe! I will NEVER buy your garbage.
@Stu 5 - There are 3000 likes but as there is no "dislike" button on Facebook (which I would like) it is difficult to see the balance.
don_van_vliet: This is making me look at ditching Lightroom for Aperture, well done Adobe.They might never change Lightroom to subscription only for all I know, but it's a chance I don't really want to take. I would rather make the switch now, as opposed to racking up thousands more LR processed photos before being forced to move.
Using Apple (MacBook Pro's) for several years now, but they are not much smarter then Adobe, I can guarantee you! Apple also tries to tie it's customers up in many ways. My MacBook Pro has a 2,2GHz i7 but when I only open Photoshop the temperature skyrockets as they make the enclosements to small..Only 2 USB ports (USB2!?) to close placed together and include a built in SD card slot..Now the new Retina MacBook Pro is to thin to house a wired ethernet port, so Apple ditched that as "people only use wireless"..
And I can continue a bit more if you like!
Canon feels the breath of Nikon ;) This update doesn't make the crappy shadow detail any better compared to the D800, I suppose :)
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.
Good to hear your opinion and would love to see your iso 64,000 shots. Tried my 70-300 on a D800 recently and although I expected bad results because of all the "best lenses needed" blabla on the net, it turns out to give very good results even at 300mm (vr off) and matches the sharpness of the 70-200 at 200mm.
ThomasSwitzerland: You will never find a "perfect" product.
The same way as no perfect software can be developed.
This Nikon D600 is more than “fit for use”. To get FF at this price in this ergonomic body is a masterpiece of digital photography in the present technology life cycle.
Excellent FF quality becomes available now for many more aspiring users as ever before. And this is a major contribution from Nikon to the benefit of the markets.
Sure the 5DmkII sells cheaper than the D600, the sensor is inferior, no built in flash etc etc :)
The sensor of the D600 beats the 5DmkIII for dynamic range and shadow detail and the mkIII sells a "bit" more expensive..
Don't talk about the 5Dmk0, that is outdated technology now and worth US$0!
.."potentially allowing you to get sharp pictures at shutter speeds as low as 1/6 sec at 200mm. Although this can't do anything about subject movement, it should greatly expand the usability of the lens in marginal lighting conditions."
When shooting non moving subjects in low light it is best to use a tripod!?I understand the "Should greatly expand usability", but my idea is that although VR can be handy in some situations, it is mainly marketing and for people who don't (want/can) bring or use a tripod. Although this new lens sounds like a nice option, the 1 stop advantage of the f/2.8 is worth the extra money.
toomanycanons: I've used "HDR" quite s bit. Actually, exposure blending is what I call it. I had this one scene that I tried every type of HDR (Photomatix) I could, tried blending the exposures in Enfuse and was never happy with any of them.
Then I took a single fairly underexposed raw pic and just messed with it in CS5 and came up with the best rendition yet. I would never have thought I could bring up the shadows like I did. The sky looked natural whereas in the blended images they didn't.
It's like Stan on South Park says "Ya know, I learned something today..."
HDR and Exposure Fusion (Blending) are two complete different things. HDR involves rendering several images to a 32bit image and tone mapping this image to 16bit output.
Exposure fusion doesn't create a 32bit image, so tone mapping is not necessary. Exposure Fusion generally gets more natural results.
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
Don't know what you base your assumption on by saying DxO sensor ratings are questionable. When you understand their way to compare sensors with "screen" and "print" ratings, it shouldn't be that questionable.
Sure the 5DIII is a great product, but was showing in several tests to have considerably less shadow detail (2,5 stop dynamic range advantage) then the D800. It seems that the teaming up of Nikon with Sony has given Nikon a clear edge over Canon in terms of sensor performance in the latest models.
Puneet Vikram Singh: ISO 6400 of Nikon D5100= ISO 12800 of Nikon D600 (RAW)
For me, high ISO performance is one of the most important improvements in current sensor technology.
Try doing some street photography around sunset or late afternoon on a cloudy day with people as subject and it is great to be able to keep shutter speed up with low noise.
Out-of-focus thumb, lens and camera...
Must have been using FX....
Never understand why people stopping down beyond f/8 or f/11 to get larger DOF, talking about f/22 is talking about diffraction, period.
DOF is caused by a combination of sensor size, aperture and focus/subject distance. When f/8 or f/11 doesn't give enough DOF, f/22 will not get the whole picture sharp either, only taking more distance from the subject will (or taking a pocket camera with small sensor).
In this case Mr Dirk is the subject of post and not the camera, so the shallow DOF focusses on the subject, well done.
Nishi Drew: "it was important to include a 100% viewfinder, a good AF system with enough cross-type AF points, the ability to shoot with teleconverters and still focus at F8, a built-in flash…"
See Canon, Nikon understands that these specs in a camera are all important~No "pros don't use that" or "amateurs don't need that" reasoning
Not including a built in flash on a non-pro body is lame in my view.Not including it on a pro body like D800 or D4 is understandable for the integrity and sealing of the camera.So I think it's good that the D600 has a built in flash, also for off camera triggering and flexibility of not having to lug around an SB for a family dinner..
Sergey Borachev: Look at this comparison of the 6D and the D600. It is not funny!
Yep not funny at all.. Also the D600 was recently tested by DXO and had a 2,5 stop advantage in dynamic range over the 5DIII..
GPS and WiFi are nice added features on the 6D, but not including a built in flash on a consumer level camera is unbelievable to me.
This 6D will have a hard time beating it's direct competitor D600 on sensor quality as the D600 is just tested on DXO ahead in all aspects on the D800 (100% zoomed image) and has a 2.5 stop advantage in dynamic range over the 5DIII.
Although GPS and WiFi are nice added features on the 6D, it baffles me why Canon choose not to include a built-in-flash on their consumer FF camera..
dmshaposv: Sorry guys, couldn't resist...
Think a built in flash is also nice on a consumer camera.. - Nikon Wins
Fluorite: This camera seems to be in the same spirit as the old Pentax K1000. In other words, a fantastic student camera which doesn't confuse with an oversupply of features.Having said that, I can easily imagine myself using the 6D, even though I already own a 1DIV and 5DIII. The 6D is just a pure photography tool without feeling the need for chrome trimmings, fat tyres and 20" wheels.From a marketing perspective, it's probably not a winner, but from a photography perspective (specifically portraiture, wedding and landscape), do you really need that much more?
Average mobile phone users are not going to pickup a DSLR for better pictures but probably go for a iPhone5 or Nokia PureView 808 with 41MPix (more is better, right? ;).I am always amazed when so many people use cell phone cameras for sunsets etc, they just not know.
For a serious photographer, at which this new 6D is aimed, the availability of GPS and WiFi should not be decisive over image quality and to me is just added bling. . A built in flash would however be a very handy feature as many people don't have an external flash or don't want to lug around large photo bags on the road..
Seems just an enthusiast camera with some serious limitations;No built in flash, Limited Auto focus system, No auto focus assist light, 1/4000 max speed, AEB max 3 shots at 1/2 Ev, Flash sync 1/180th, Mono sound, 97% viewfinder, single axis virtual horizon etc..
Better safe some more money and buy a (semi) pro body, either 5DIII or D800!
IrishhAndy: Almost £2ooo for a crippled camera. You're having a laugh, nikon. My D700 is superior to this except for the megapixels. Most people would be better of with the nikon d7000.
Charging for megapixels is really stupid when you look at the nice mirrorless cameras at half the price. Why don't you just accept that the overpriced underperforming options are finished.
The D700 has lower noise then the D800 and beats it from ISO1600 on all fronts; DR, Color reproduction etc. So assuming the D600 technology is based on the D800, the D700 is still a very capable camera..
Don't know if he shoots raw, but his processing was not top, harsh shadows with minimum detail for instance.
Also in some photographs there is clearly dust visible on his sensor.
For a Pro photographer the results are below average, I might say!?
balico: Beside an issue with memory and diskspace, I don't see any reason to reduce resolution and/or shooting jpg during the shoot.
My advise is to shoot every shot at maximum resolution and in raw in every case as resolution can be scaled down on the computer (before merging) when needed but still offers flexibility to use the larger resolution files later on.Raw should be used at any time to give more flexibility with adjusting white-balance, highlight / shadow detail etc. As you capture a wide scene there is a big chance that the dynamic range is larger as well, which can be better taken care of with raw files.
Why is this not called "merging" Simon?My dictionary says; Merge = "to combine, blend, or unite gradually so as to blur the individuality or individual identity".
Reading the article again, it seems a very primitive (creative?) way to make a collage by transforming the images manually to line up, and can be done a lot quicker with software like Hugin or the merge function in PS, provided that the images are shot with overlap.
Another book about HDR.. Although it might contain useful information, the sample images of the shoe and railroad don't need any HDR processing and detail could be easily extracted from a good raw file.
That said, one gets a more natural looking output by using "Exposure Fusion" with added bonus that by stacking the images, noise is reduced while HDR normally exaggerates noise in an image. Look for the free program (donate ware) "EnfuseGUI" to try it.