Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon D600 Preview Updated with Noise & Noise Reduction Samples

By dpreview staff on Oct 4, 2012 at 23:14 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Updated: We've just added a noise and noise-reduction page to our hands-on preview of the Nikon D600. We've got a production sample D600 in the office, and over the coming weeks we'll be adding test pages to the preview as we move towards the publication of a full review. Our final analysis of the D600's image quality will come later, but for now, click the link below to see for yourself how Nikon's newest DSLR measures up to its competitors in terms of noise in both JPEG and Raw mode. 

809
I own it
167
I want it
93
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 135
Wubslin
By Wubslin (Oct 11, 2012)

Glad to see my already low opinion of Nikon is fully justified then.

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Oct 10, 2012)

Myself I am using only fast HQ fixed 35mm lenses. Everything else limits my picture quality in terms of sharpness and colorspace, near or far. I walk rather than using a telelens.The lenses are a big problem nowadays. I wont use anything with shaky telescopic mechanisms or soft fixed telelenses.

This preview of an undeniably great body tested with a mediocre macro kit lens is pretty much worthless.

Something else - go to artschool, train your eyes and brain and take 2 decades of training your composition skills. Most of the pictures of users are just bland gearhead crap, many comments of "professionals" total bull.

If we talk serious picturetaking - middleformat or better with fixed lens is the way to go

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Oct 10, 2012)

Been lurking in this forum for a while. Am I professional, doing photography for 35 years and am an artdirector.

We are talking about a consumerformat partially used by lowend professionals. It is a means to an end not the holy grail.

Starting with the D3100 - lens quality becomes the limiiting factor.

High ISO is a styling method or a sorry and lazy excuse for not having the proper lowlight/fast lens with you. Some commentators are favoring "film". Lighten up - this stuff was always bad. Glad it went the way of the dinosaurs.

.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 10, 2012)

w-

High ISO digital, together with a good lens, is great for shooting live performances, better than the film days when I used a Noctilux.

You've sort of implied that one is limited to certain lenses on the D3100, else I guess you could also mean that any other camera down the scale of quality doesn't benefit from high quality lenses. Tell that to those who own a Samsung TL500, Sony RX100, or Panasonic LX5. Note the manufactures other than Nikon.

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Oct 10, 2012)

High ISO picturequality for archival purpose only. Totally pointless but seems a huge selling point for amateurs. I am a manual shooter and never take pics above 100.

Lowend DSLR bodies like 3100 outperform most lenses available. So do the highend Nikonbodies. Lenses are severe limiting factor.
Fact. Tried a 600. More of the same. Tried 800e and 35mm: Almost there but only slightly better. So I stick with the 3100 and 35mm for the moment.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1:1.8G DX or better. Other lenses degrade quality, sharpness, colorspace and limit composition. Products you mentioned are not serious tools. Digital equivalent of an Agfabox. Sorry.

3100 and 35mm. Handshot, UV filter, tiny bit of unsharp mask. whitepoint adjustment. Raw to JPG at 100%:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/335803_227989143996762_815872065_o.jpg

Note achievable colorspace, sharpness, depth of field presentation, natural focusplane. 600 does slightly better but not much.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 10, 2012)

w-

Quote: "High ISO picturequality for archival purpose only." So this means that you don't care about recording images well in lowlight. And what on earth does "archival" have to do with anything here.?

Raw for archival would make sense.

The fact is that starting with the Nikon D3, whole new possibilities for taking photographs, sans flash, in lowlight opened up. It's still a huge advance, one that the D600 is only flirting with and the D800 can't touch.

The photo you linked is a nice image, but daylight beach shots aren't usually what high ISO is important for--I guess unless the sky is overcast and you're trying to freeze a surfer in mid air. And for realistic representation you've allowed a bit to much magenta to creep into the rocks of the shore. So much for white point picking. But since it was raw, you can play with it in Photoshop to fix it.

1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Oct 11, 2012)

@wakaba

Interesting that in the same comment you say that "lens quality becomes the limiting factor" with digital cameras (I agree, that's why I've adapted my Olympus 4/3 lenses to m43, and why I'm not switching to a system with better sensors), yet you criticize film, where fast prime lenses are dirt cheap.

My point about film was that you can get 4 or 5 fast prime lenses for a couple of hundred bucks in some systems, and use them to take pictures that are the equal of digital for small print sizes, which is what the vast, vast majority of us do, even professionals. Wedding albums shot by professionals are full of 4x6 photos.

You know as well as I do that most people who buy this camera won't use 25% of it's capabilities.

0 upvotes
Preternatural Stuff
By Preternatural Stuff (Oct 11, 2012)

What tosh about small print sizes! Any pic looks nice in small sizes -screen or print.

I learnt my photography during the film days and will NEVER want to go back to rolling my own Provia slide film from 100ft roll canisters in black bags, fighting against X-ray machines at airports and paying money for film & development.

You dinosaurs are not limited by age but more outdated in your attitudes. You need to stop living in your cave and get some sun.

N.B. Most photogs serious enough about the art do use more than 25% of our cam's capabilities, perhaps not you.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Oct 11, 2012)

@Preternatural Stuff

Why worry about small print sizes? Because that's what 99% of photographers print 99% of the time, if they print at all.

Please note, I shoot primarily digital. I'm not a dinosaur. I am a graduate of an Ivy League University. I'm not a professional photographer, but I doubt there is much (if anything) that a professional photographer could teach me about digital photography, or processing photographs digitally. I am computer literate +.

My point was that many enthusiast photographers, who already shoot APS or m43 digital, and who are considering a move up to FULL FRAME, would be well served by a film camera and 4 or 5 prime lenses, that they could get for $200 or so, then spending $5,000+ on this camera and the same digital lenses.

If you work for Nikon, don't worry, lots of insecure people will feel that they "have" to buy this camera. They may never have printed over 8x10 in their life, but they want camera jewelry to put around their neck at the beach.

0 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Oct 14, 2012)

@how...
High ISO is degrading picture quality. High ISO paintings just copyproof that you were there...

I grew up with film - sorry - total tedious crap. Could aswell paint a picture - expressionism is a style... Lenses, Bodies are cheap, material and processing are not. PS and Gimp win.

My example pic shows what is doable with experience, a sharp lens and a very decent sensor/software/body.

The Magenta in the pic is acutally there. It might be more prominent on your saturated LCD but not on my calibrated screen.

My personal Wishlist for a DSLR Nikon in 3100 Formfactor: 60mb Sensor, FX or more, M and A Dials, 5ps, simple 3100 software, No antialias, better/bigger Backscreen, optimized for 24/64/100 ASA/ISO, perfect WiFi theter. Just wont carry overloaded heavy stuff around anymore.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 15, 2012)

wakaba:

The problem with the magenta claim about the rocks: The fence posts are also shaded magenta.

Then quote: "High ISO is degrading picture quality. High ISO paintings just copyproof that you were there..." This is a preposterous claim, and just means that you've never used a good high ISO dlsr.

And another preposterous idea, unless you just want to shoot and then print bright landscapes, quote: "My personal Wishlist for a DSLR Nikon in 3100 Formfactor: 60mb Sensor." This last isn't impossible, just not how cameras are mostly used and you should know that being a "pro".

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
GarysInSoCal
By GarysInSoCal (Oct 6, 2012)

Shot this image last weekend at 3200 ISO with D600... dark forest in Mt. Baldy CA at a Select Models photoshoot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/GaryAbigt/Jin1.jpg

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Oct 6, 2012)

Yeah, and you processed the cr*p out of it, it looks like oversharpened plastic. Also, the diaphragm seems quite closed, a 50 1.4 or an 85 1.4 shot at f/2 whould have transformed the image quite dramaticcaly, and would have allowed you not to shoot at ISO3200.

10 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 7, 2012)

nicolaiecostel et al:

How can you make an over processing judgement based on a 185 KB file? Yes a 5MB jpeg could tell you something, but that wasn't supplied.

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 8, 2012)

HowaboutRAW - yet again you show your photography expertise.
You really need to be blind not to see how harshly this image was processed.

4 upvotes
GarysInSoCal
By GarysInSoCal (Oct 8, 2012)

Sorry Nicipoo... didn't have a 50 or 85mm lens... only lens I had to work with on my D600 was the 24-120 F4 Nanocoat... shot at 6.7. Couldn't shoot it at F2 so I needed the higher ISO... ;)... :P

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 8, 2012)

Plastek:

Sorry but you don't know what you're writing about. There's no obvious way of telling if the artifacts and compromises are there from turning the file into a jpeg or because of sharpening, etc. Yes, the last is a possibility, but no you can't really know.

Also we don't know if this file started out as a raw or started out as a jpeg.

So your claims of what you can be sure about are incorrect.

You've put words into my claim, I never claimed I couldn't see artifacts in the image, just that how they come to be there is not clear.

In short, you're wrong.

1 upvote
GarysInSoCal
By GarysInSoCal (Oct 8, 2012)

For the record... I shoot JPEG only... that image was shot with camera sharpness set to NINE... max in-camera sharpness setting... and the 24-120 F.4 Nanocoat is a pretty freakin sharp lens... ;)

1 upvote
Dan
By Dan (Oct 11, 2012)

"For the record... I shoot JPEG only"

People here don't take kindly to seeing such a statement...sorry =)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 11, 2012)

Dan:

Only when statements such as: "'For the record... I shoot JPEG only'" are made in conjunction with image quality claims about a camera which will shoot raw.

0 upvotes
King Penguin
By King Penguin (Oct 6, 2012)

Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?

1 upvote
FranciscoJG
By FranciscoJG (Oct 6, 2012)

35 mm film had a number of pixels (crystals) highly variable, since these increase in size when it used ISO above 100. Lower in number, so increased the grain in the image. In the latest film would say of 2004/2006, in which the digital was "killing" the analog, it wasn't difficult at ISO100 if they could count up to 50 million crystals on a film 35 mm. So, Yes, it could have 20Mpixel only, and do not, could have more than double that. The limitations of the analog were not in number of pixels, but on the chemically image retrieval, low light sensitivity, distribution and size of pixels (crystals). Not to mention cost of revelation and other well-known drawbacks.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Oct 7, 2012)

I think 35mm film still makes a lot of sense for many enthusiasts.

I mean, $2,000+ with a kit lens is "affordable"?

Have you seen the prices of film cameras on ebay lately? For $100 you can get a great camera and 3 or 4 PRIME lenses.

I understand that makes no sense for a professional, but for many of us duffers who shoot much less volume it does, especially if we don't often need the benefits of full frame.

I shoot m43, digital compacts, and 35mm film. The scanned film results are great ($150 Plustek Opticfilm scanner). The cost of development is minimal for me. I develop my own B&W and I only pay for development, not prints, of color film. Dynamic range is great with film. Blown highlights in high contrast daylight shots are much less common on color film for me than on digital. Also, shooting film is pleasant in a different way than shooting digital.

I'm not entirely playing devil's advocate here. I'd love to splurge on the D600. But film works for many of us, too. My $0.02.

5 upvotes
Scott Eaton
By Scott Eaton (Oct 7, 2012)

The arguements for film are basically stupid and illogical. Film, as a recording matrix is not 2-D in nature as digital is, and is highly variable across it's density and color range. Printfilm loses resolution rapidly when under exposed, and slide film when over exposed. Slide film records highlights as empty film base (nothing - no data). The dyes in film also vary according to emulsion type, so assigning a specific mpixel count to film is flat earth science. Also, before digital arrived, every professional I know shot MF and LF to get away from the quality limitations of 35mm. However, 35mm today in film -vs- digital arguements (like this one) is regarded as a much better medium for revionist sake. Next, volume color film processing gear costs more than a MF digital camera, and with digital I don't have to worry if the lab ran control strips that morning or if my film is scratched on the rollers. Last, a film scanner *is* a digital camera, but one that takes pictures of film.

0 upvotes
Scott Eaton
By Scott Eaton (Oct 7, 2012)

{ Continued} If a $150 Plustek and 35mm film is your vision of quality, the D600 is outside your context. 35mm film and a Plustek woulnd't be considered seriously in the quality standards prior to 2000. Your results are not great, and you dont have more dynamic range with consumer film than RAW extracted digital. I know betetr than to ask for samples.

0 upvotes
Dmatter
By Dmatter (Oct 7, 2012)

I think overall quality and processing pipeline for digital are better. Just try to photoshop every hair or cracks on film emulsion. Today top sensor resolve enough detail and dynamic range to bring near to excellent image quality.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FranciscoJG
By FranciscoJG (Oct 7, 2012)

I've just converted to digital. But, I still shoot on film, as I listen to music on LP and CD. None of the technologies is bad, all have their advantages and disadvantages. Make our own photos in B&W controlling the whole process of revelation to the end product, is an emotion that digital never gives us. And say whatever they want, but B&W in digital, still haven't seen that has achieved the level of analog. Not in photos printed at least.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Oct 7, 2012)

@ScottEaton

1. The OP called this camera "affordable". It is trivial to pick up a complete 35mm setup, with 28mm, 50mm, 135mm, and 200mm prime lenses for less than $200. To have a setup like that with the D600, you're talking about $5,000 at least.

2. You made your quality statement without any reference to a standard. I print mostly at 4x6, sometimes at 8x10, rarely at 13x19. Film gives excellent results at 4x6 and 8x10, and good results at 13x19, depending on the shot.

3. I don't know where your arguments about D.R. come from, but I'm speaking from experience. I could not possibly care less what DXO, etc. say about film vs. digital dynamic range. Color film (not slide, not B&W) has greater DR than digital, period. No agonizing over histograms, no exposing to the right, etc. Color film just captures all the information in daylight scenes.

4. You are arguing about what "professional" photographers need. This camera is not aimed at "professional" photographers. I hope this helps.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Oct 7, 2012)

@FranciscoJG

I agree with you about B&W.

I usually print B&W with all carbon inks on an inkjet. They look good, but the quality is still not as good as darkroom prints, which is obvious to me when I take the time to do darkroom prints. The main reason, I think, is that it is hard to get black blacks with a printer, so contrast is lacking on computer prints.

Color printing on a computer is better than color in a darkroom though, IMHO.

0 upvotes
Natureimmortal
By Natureimmortal (Oct 8, 2012)

The argument for films is ludicrous. If I still used film it would have cost me the 2k plus about 4k to take the pictures I do in a year. Lets say on a sunday morning I take 100 shots of boar or deer. That would be 3 films worth in a couple of hours.
2k to buy the film and 4k to get it all processed in a year. For that I can buy a 1Dx. 2k for a FF camera is almost give away.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (Oct 8, 2012)

@Natureimmortal

Next time I'll remember not to make a "ludicrous" argument based on what I need. Instead, I'll adjust MY needs to what works for YOU!

I'm still sitting with the same roll of film in my film camera for two weeks+ now, because I don't take many film pictures. Why? Because the DOF on FF sucks. I much prefer the in-focus pictures that I get from my GH2 at f2.0 and below. So I only very occasionally use FF.

I'm sorry for my arrogance, in assuming that I should calculate my needs based on what they are, and not on what works for you. Please forgive me.

0 upvotes
Natureimmortal
By Natureimmortal (Oct 8, 2012)

The only argument for film is the look it gives you, the Dr and whatever else, if you like it fine. Price is not an argument. My example was simply an example. Some people take less and i certainly take far more. Once you figure in the costs of scanner, developer, chemicals, film.... the 2k for a digital is really not much.

0 upvotes
Dan W
By Dan W (Oct 8, 2012)

I'm sure you're not alone but the cameras of the last couple of years can shoot at iso 1600 and 3200 with excellent results. I don't hesitate to shoot at those iso's when necessary with my D7000 and NEX C3.

0 upvotes
Dave Luttmann
By Dave Luttmann (Oct 9, 2012)

Takes Scott's comments with a grain of salt. He thinks scanners have AA filters and Bayer filters. Of course, he also claims to have worked closely with Kodak....

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 11, 2012)

bobbarber:

You realize that the good used "prime" (dumb term) lenses get used by people on their DSLRs. For example that 50MM 1.2 Canon L is not going to show up on Ebay for a couple of hundred bucks.

If you mean that some not so good 50mm F2 Minolta/Canon/Nikon lenses can be bought used, then yes. Those can be okay to good lenses, but to call them "prime" is inaccurate. They are simply fast.

Film costs to buy and to process. Shoot ten rolls of 35mm, process the film only, sans prints or contacts, and you've spent about $150.

Assuming you have Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, or better software, shooting digital raw gets you the same quantity of digital negatives (raws) for the price of electricity and a bit of wear on the flash card and camera.

So film is more expensive, the good lenses are not cheap, negatives are fragile, and film is ISO limited. And it takes real skill to scan film well. (I'll assume you don't have your own expensive colour darkroom.)

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
FranciscoJG
By FranciscoJG (Oct 6, 2012)

It is technically possible, in a few years, to an APS-C sensor to have 40 Mpixel, and a sensor FX to exceed 100 Mpixel. Just need to have a density near 14Mpixel per square, and this has already ben made in 2005 by Sony. I don't have is doubts that the customer don't need this. I have no doubt that today a 4.7 µm pixel makes a better picture than in 2008 a 8.4 µm pixel, due to improvements in the structural construction of the sensor. Nor do I doubt that the built-in image processing is today extremely better than they did in 2005/2008.
I have no doubt that such high density sensors will bring great increase of diffraction and shading, not to mention many other problems. And for what? To show the images on any screen or Tv, 3 to 4 Mpixel is everything you need. To print on paper 12 x 16 inch picture, 12 Mpixel is enough. The 16 x 20 inch need 18 Mpixel; for 20x28 inch, 24 Mpixel is enough. Someone will print more than 0.00001% of is pictures in a larger format than this?

3 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 6, 2012)

Before someone else says it, and although it does not even apply to me, the big advantage to many with the D800 is that you can still get a good 16MP image using the DX crop mode. In field conditions it is frequently easier and just as effective to use a shorter, faster lens at ISO 1600 and then crop than a longer slower one at ISO 3200 (to maintain the shutter speed). It effectively gives you two cameras in one, or a free 1.5X teleconverter, depending on how you look at it.

Other than that I have some sympathy with your point. My typical print size is 19X13 because that's my limit at home, with occasional print orders sent off for A2. I only ever did one A1 size print and on matt canvas rag it still looked pretty sharp (trick is to choose the right paper). So for me, 24MP is very adequate. I still find landscape shots with large DOF are more often than not lens or diffraction limited anyway.

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Oct 8, 2012)

And when everyone has their eyes glued to their 3-5" smartphone screens, maybe 4MP is really more than enough.

0 upvotes
SBoudreault
By SBoudreault (Oct 9, 2012)

"To print on paper 12 x 16 inch picture, 12 Mpixel is enough. The 16 x 20 inch need 18 Mpixel; for 20x28 inch, 24 Mpixel is enough."
Lol, non sense... There's plenty of great 20x30 prints made from 6Mp cameras... Damn, I can print crops form my D700 that big !

Yes, you will see grain if you stand 2cm from it, but then so will you on any 8X10 camera print.... Large picture are meant to be look for further away, just like large TV's :)

But yeas, please go ahead and by that 100Mp FF, htat way you can crop, buy more, change every 6-9 months... go for it !

S.

1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 9, 2012)

@SBoudreault
So you agree with the OP - 24Mpix is enough to pint 20x28. He never said it was necessary, only that it was sufficient.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Oct 6, 2012)

This is pretty useless information. For one thing, if these tests were well done, no computer monitor could render the results in a viewable way; for another thing -- forgive my naivety, but all these cameras at all settings look pretty well the same to me -- on my imperfect monitor. I suspect that people who see huge differences between them are the same people who would be enraptured at finding one more angel on the head of the pin.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Oct 6, 2012)

No information is useless, you just have to understand how significant it is and how it applies to your specific needs.

Of course, it's still true that a good photographer with a decent lens and competent post processing could get spectacular large prints from any of these cameras, and for those that hardly ever print anything, the data is largely academic.

0 upvotes
Sam Carriere
By Sam Carriere (Oct 7, 2012)

Oh dear, 57even. If you really believe that no information is useless, you haven't spent much time browsing political blogs. ... :)

0 upvotes
57even
By 57even (Oct 8, 2012)

I was talking about information, not opinion ;) If someone actually produces a full set of factual statistics to back up a political argument, rather than cherry picking the ones that suit them, then I will vote for them. Never happened, probably never will :(

But any politician who told the truth would not last 20 minutes. It's not what people want to hear.

0 upvotes
FranciscoJG
By FranciscoJG (Oct 6, 2012)

8 years ago, a camera with 6 to 8 Mpixel was the best in the world. In the following years, I smile, while appreciated technical efforts to reach where it was necessary. And as I said at that time, it was necessary to arrive at a value around 18 to 24 Mpixel. Why these values? Because we all have the right to print a photo, with the highest possible quality, in format that can go up to a 50 cm by 70 cm at least. For that, some 18 to 24 Mpixel is what we need. Above this value there are several technical and practical problems. Still predicted that for an APS-C sensor 16 to 18 Mpixel is as much to get. To reach 24Mpixel. a FX sensor is required. Everything that deviate from these values is no longer necessary, not even for most professionals. Stop the race for tons of pixels. Work to improve the sensors results in critical areas, and lower production costs. No more pixels, have already achieved what everyone needs in these two formats. Even more, it's not what most photographer needs.

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 6, 2012)

Let me see 8 years ago, there was still good reason to use film above ISO 400.

And there weren't really any full frame dslrs.

Yes, I realize that the 4MP 2003 released Nikon D2H was usable over ISO 400.

"To reach 24Mpixel. a FX sensor is necessary." Huh? Sony Nex 7.

Look I think you have a point that the MP competition is silly, but you're making things up.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 6, 2012)

Right and it's worth repeating as the masses who bring prices down still don't get it. There's also the fact that cameras are lens limited and to get best focus, is to use CDAF or manual focus.
Can't wait for the time when people start arguing on a sensor's ability to preserve highlights.
Back to topic, this D600 has started the race on FF for everyone, and a true DSLR belongs to FF.

0 upvotes
taktak91
By taktak91 (Oct 6, 2012)

Well, it seems everybody has an idea for a perfect, sure-to-be-best-selling dream camera that nobody else wants. It's all right to dream, but you shouldn't claim that your dream is everyone's dream, because chances are, it's not.

0 upvotes
Jahled
By Jahled (Oct 6, 2012)

I was in the British library yesterday with my boss looking at their scanners, and when asked what we photograph our books with proudly whipped out one of my 1Dx's. Our host then showed me one of five 80mb Phase One cameras they use when a scanner can't do it. A lot of the stuff I photograph ends up in books barely bigger than this post; I guess for posterity, as huge as you can get.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 6, 2012)

@HowaboutRAW - I think what the OP means when he says that "To reach 24Mpixel. a FX sensor is necessary" is that, unless you are content to either restrict your shooting to wider apertures only or else to suffer the effects of diffraction, then to fully enjoy the benefits of 24Mpix you need a Full Frame sensor area. I don't think he meant to imply that 24Mpix was not technically feasible on APS-C. But if the diffraction limit means that at smaller apertures you are effectively only enjoying a lower resolution then what is the point?

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
1 upvote
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 6, 2012)

@zodiacfml "...and a true DSLR belongs to FF"

I wonder what sensor dimensions we would have arrived at if we were not constrained to follow a standard conceived and optimised around the limitations of decades old film and optical technology. People tout Full Frame as if it were some kind of Gold Standard - the very name "Full Frame" implies that anything else is somehow a partial measure only. Full Frame was never designed for the characteristics of digital sensors and there is nothing inherent in it which automatically would recommend it as "the best". It is but a straight-jacket imposed upon us by the siren-call of backwards compatibility with an obsolete chemical technology.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 6, 2012)

wetsleet:

But OP (FranciscoJG) wrote not a word about diffraction or lens resolving power.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 6, 2012)

Jahled:

Well how else would you get the fiber or the page or the weave of a tapestry that is meters by meters in size?

But yes right, a 16MP camera can do just fine for small book reproduction.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 7, 2012)

@wetsleet

If the industry didn't followed old film standards then we would have the 4/3 system.
Plenty of lens designs and the best ones are from the FF format and it's not ideal to make a new system just to fit a new sensor.
DSLRs are specified from the SLR, it makes sense to fit a sensor to it that closely match its original.
This is the reason why 4/3 system is created versus APS since Olympus thought it was a waste of size and weight.

Yet, probably you could argue that there's little to be gained when going from APS to FF but some people appreciate these small gains.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 8, 2012)

I got A77 (24MPx APS-C) and as for diffraction I can tell you one thing: This camera requires quality glass. I mean: Really high quality glass. That's expensive, and few people can afford it, so packing over 20 MPx to APS-C in entry-level camera is most idiotic thing one can do (and congratulations for Nikon being first one to achieve this level of idiocy).

With quality glass though you can freely shoot down to f/5.6 without being worried much about the diffraction, and down to f/4 without being worried at all :) You are in a need of downscaling though, if you try to shoot pictures with lenses that achieve their maximum performance around f/8.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 8, 2012)

Plastek:

How is Nikon the first to cram 24MP into an APSC sensor? The A77 and D3200 use the same sensor, though the Sony has that problematic mirror. The 24MP sensored D600 is a FF camera.
"Quality" is not an adjective.

0 upvotes
luka3rd
By luka3rd (Oct 5, 2012)

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!

0 upvotes
Dyun27
By Dyun27 (Oct 6, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 6, 2012)

Dyun27:

Based on the shadowed raws I've shot with the D600, I think it a bit of a stretch to call the images to clean upto ISO 6400. I'm seeing noise in shadows at ISO 5000.

But yes, looking at actual pictures, ISO 6400 is perfectly useable on the D600, unlike with the D800.

The D4 is even better than the D600 at high ISOs, however using the D4 during many concerts would be impossible because of the shutter+mirror noise (does not apply to a rock concert).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 5, 2012)

Barney, a question (sorry if it's there, I didn't see it): for the graphs, do you normalize resolution? Thanks.

1 upvote
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 5, 2012)

We do not. Although it is something we're considering including as an option for future development of our studio testing.

18 upvotes
Albino_BlacMan
By Albino_BlacMan (Oct 6, 2012)

I think it would be a fantastic option if you did! Having everything normalized would create a better comparison and not disadvantage images with higher pixel density.

I suggest everyone "like" Barney's Comment to show support for this idea!

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 6, 2012)

Thanks, looking forward to that. People are seeeing D800 much worse in these comparisons, once normalized it should be about same as D600.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 6, 2012)

It's more of a question of how to do it - we're committed to trying, so no need to press 'like', it's on the list :)

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 6, 2012)

Suggestion: use some basic res as reference. May be 12MP, 8MP, 6MP, whatever, it doesn't really matter. For the graphs you don't actually do anything in terms of image, you just correct mathematically noise and other parameters, like DR, and plot them, with an option like "Normalized". For images you'd need to resize and that's a bit more complicated, since you need to choose the routine, I'd use PS basic bicubic w/o extrasharpening. Good luck!

0 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Oct 5, 2012)

I was gonna count all the snarky comments on this thread but I ran out of fingers and toes...

4 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (Oct 5, 2012)

The FF 24MP sensors are nice... but I don't find them all that compelling on IQ vs. my APS-C 24MP NEX-7 (substitute that for the A77; the sensor does better without the SLT). The difference is minor in JPEGs with the NEX-7 looking particularly good in the graph. In the raw graph, the 24MP D600 is about as much quieter than the pack as the NEX-7 is noisier.

All good, but I'm still looking forward to the 54MP FF you'd get by scaling-up the NEX-7's APS-C 24MP... perhaps that'll be in a FF NEX next year? ;)

0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 5, 2012)

surely as pixel density increases the diffraction limit looms ever earlier on the aperture scale. So whilst the Nex-7 24MP sensor may be excellent (I don't doubt it), if you need to use smaller apertures the same resolution on a larger sensor has an automatic IQ advantage. The D800 starts to suffer from about f8 - it has a pixel density equivalent to 16Mpix on a DX (crop) sensor.

3 upvotes
luka3rd
By luka3rd (Oct 5, 2012)

Yup! And never forget it! 24 is about the sweetest spot that we all were waiting for! ;)

1 upvote
mikeber
By mikeber (Oct 5, 2012)

I am waiting for 87M pixels from an APC sized sensor. Without 87M, I won't buy any camera!

1 upvote
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (Oct 6, 2012)

The diffraction limit is a much less precise thing than people make it sound. For example, the center resolution of my Sigma 8-16mm goes steadily down as it is stopped down from f/4.5 at 8mm because of diffraction. However, the diffraction limit (smallest aperture for good contrast in pixel-sized details) for a lens is independent of format for similar sensels (e.g., same pixel size). Thus, the D800 has the same diffraction limit as a NEX-5N. If you're seeing a difference, it's probably because of IQ problems off-center on FF hiding diffraction "blur" (a bigger problem than people seem to realize).

24MP APS-C, or 54MP FF, is not all that close to Nyquist sampling of the resolution of a good lens near its optimal aperture. Further, a 54MP FF body can use APS-C crop lenses at 24MP.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
wetsleet
By wetsleet (Oct 6, 2012)

there is a good understanding of diffraction, and tools to calculate. here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

0 upvotes
ProfHankD
By ProfHankD (Oct 6, 2012)

Good theoretical reference on diffraction. The biggest real-world issue is that PSF of lenses (I've measured over 100) doesn't look like an Airy Disk, and that's why a lot of lenses have quite different diffraction limits when the models say they shouldn't. The PSF also is commonly quite deformed away from the optical center, and PSF shape changes with aperture too. In sum, measured lens resolution is a much better metric than computed diffraction limits.

As far as sensor pixel count goes, there should be a clear improvement possible all the way to Nyquist sampling of the image created by the lens (and perhaps minor improvement beyond). Depending on how you model Bayer interpolation, 5um sensels roughly correspond to Nyquist on 50 line pairs per mm... which most lenses can do. Especially at MTF30 (rather than MTF50), quite a few lenses resolve well enough to need sensels as small as 2.9um to reach Nyquist. 24MP APS-C is 3.9um. 2.9um pixels would give about 44MP APS-C or 100MP FF.

0 upvotes
2PK
By 2PK (Oct 5, 2012)

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.....

5 upvotes
sandy b
By sandy b (Oct 5, 2012)

"As for the high iso low noise performance there are already cameras out there that cost less and peform as well if not better" words are cheap. Put up or shut up.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 5, 2012)

2PK,

Sure at lower ISO the Sony 850 and 900 were nice cameras and they took good AF Zeiss lenses.

However compared to the D700, both pale in comparison for ISO range.

With sandy b, name a FF camera that performs as well at high ISOs and costs less?

1 upvote
2PK
By 2PK (Oct 5, 2012)

Ok in an easy to understand graphical format for you;

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5067916696/photos/2251501/d600-02?inalbum=d600

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5067916696/photos/2251500/d600-01?inalbum=d600

Sadly Canon don't have anything that comes close below the 5dMk3.

BTW no one said anything about FF in terms of ISO/noise performance.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
jdh99
By jdh99 (Oct 5, 2012)

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.

2 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (Oct 5, 2012)

2PK,
Your graphs are nice. Exactly what I thought Looking at the images. Seeing the images above have convinced me to get either the Olympus EM5 (weather sealed) or EPL5 (smaller, lighter but no EVF).
The EM5 compared to the D600 is amazing. That sony sensor really is great. The bigger sony senor is good too, but I don't need 24MP. I only print 8x10 I find.

0 upvotes
2PK
By 2PK (Oct 5, 2012)

jdh99,
I did say as good as or better, the difference between all of them is marginal and in some tests some cameras perform better.
The amount of noise in the red channel on the D600 is shocking compared with lots of other cameras.

0 upvotes
jdh99
By jdh99 (Oct 5, 2012)

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 noise
This 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 OMD
I dont consder that a marginal difference but a very signifcant one

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
jdh99
By jdh99 (Oct 5, 2012)

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.

0 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Oct 5, 2012)

Is Fuji still having that lil problem with color fidelity?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 5, 2012)

2PK,

So am I to understand, that you think the Olympus OMD is better than the D600? That's preposterous, and I most certainly have raws from both.

Also I look at photos not graphs to verify camera/sensor performance. It's better that way. Don't pay attention to DXO scores either.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 5, 2012)

jdh99:

Quoting: "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."

You've reversed something.

1 upvote
jdh99
By jdh99 (Oct 5, 2012)

Oops you're right. I meant the opposite. It's been a long day :)

1 upvote
lightandday
By lightandday (Oct 5, 2012)

A quick look -Noise & Noise reduction graph says D800 - am I missing something or is the first column the D600 ?

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
gareth hacon
By gareth hacon (Oct 5, 2012)

Please forgive 'VivaLasVegas' he is so into Canon it's embarrassing!! Just look at hus posts and comments - nothing what so ever usefull!!
This is a great low cost full frame camera.
www.garethhacon.com

1 upvote
VivaLasVegas
By VivaLasVegas (Oct 5, 2012)

The 8 years old Canon sensor just embarrassing the hell out of Nikon's latest greatest sensor in jpeg and raw.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 5, 2012)

You still need the doctor to check your eyes. ;)

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
20 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Oct 5, 2012)

I dissagree, you don't need a doctor VivaLasVegas, you need a guide dog...

22 upvotes
OldschoolRu
By OldschoolRu (Oct 5, 2012)

Haha , A++++

1 upvote
Plastek
By Plastek (Oct 8, 2012)

"out of Nikon's latest greatest sensor in jpeg and raw" - it's not Nikon's sensor. It's Sony one.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 8, 2012)

And an eight year old Canon sensor still doesn't surpass this Sony sensor.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Oct 5, 2012)

This is an outstanding camera.

...but there is a disturbing trend happening in the D600 forums and if you guys at DPR could check it out...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/42637418

(could you check your "production unit" that is loaned to you for dust bunnies, just for peace of mind...) Thanks in advance...

As I said, this camera rocks... but Quality Control should be for the benefit of the consumers.

.

5 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Oct 6, 2012)

The same symptoms exhibits itself on different unrelated users:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50011877

Hope this is not another ORB adventure similar to a different brand of camera starting with "F" and 4 letters.

Really like this camera. But the QA somewhere in the assembly line has failed. Cannot rule out sabotage? By whom? Hmmmm???

.

1 upvote
Philip Peynerdjiev
By Philip Peynerdjiev (Oct 5, 2012)

Canon MKIII is perfect for JPEG's shooting, in RAW Nikon is king.

2 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Oct 5, 2012)

There is only one crazy man on Earth who shoots Jpeg on a $3500 camera. His name - Ken Rock****.

11 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Oct 5, 2012)

I shoot almost all images with my D4 and 800E in Jpgs. NEFs are just backups.

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 5, 2012)

Actually some pros use JPEGs, like people in sports and PJs as well. But this camera is not fro them. I'd bet 100% of enthusiasts spending 2,000+USD on a camera use RAWs.

3 upvotes
Rich Rosen
By Rich Rosen (Oct 5, 2012)

The camera is very capable of handling sports. I use it for high school football. Its burst rate is more than adequate for this sport. My use of jpegs or raw is dependent on the situation.

0 upvotes
EmmanuelStarchild
By EmmanuelStarchild (Oct 5, 2012)

If I may add my .02: Jpeg certainly has its use. First of all, you can shoot more shots continuously with Jpeg before you fill the buffer. It's for places that you're familiar with, such as indoor arenas, where you already know the exposure settings. Nothing wrong with shooting Jpeg on a $3500 camera.

2 upvotes
dbateman
By dbateman (Oct 5, 2012)

Lots of people shoot Jpegs! Most of the people I know who actually make money with cameras, try to get everything right in the camera. So the files just fly out to the customer. The people I know that don't make money from images, just shoot and say they will fix it later in Post.
The web famous Kirk Tuck also tries to shoot mostly Jpeg and get it right in camera. Last I looked he was still making lots of money from photography.

I don't make money from my images, I shoot Raw+Jpeg and work on the Raws. Maybe I should learn to be a "Pro" and shoot Jpeg only!

0 upvotes
Rahul Ranadive
By Rahul Ranadive (Oct 6, 2012)

Camera makers should improve their R&D for better JPEG's. So while the photographer takes care of all the "on location" factors, he is rewarded with good Jpeg's--saves time, effort and money. Also pushes Software monopoly Adobe etc to price better, if additional software is needed.

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 5, 2012)

I don't expect anything less than spectacular from this camera. :)

1 upvote
limlh
By limlh (Oct 5, 2012)

From the samples, I think the Bayer sensor has reached its limit. The X-Trans sensor of Fujifilm X-Pro 1 is now king of high ISO. So will be the X-E1.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (Oct 5, 2012)

Honestly, no one cares. Let me know when Fujifilm has built a range of lenses that is as wide as Nikon and Canon. Until then, zzzzzzzz....

12 upvotes
stuntmonkey
By stuntmonkey (Oct 5, 2012)

You outta have a look at:

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120922_1-Fuji-XPro1-Leica135.html

That artifacting would make me think twice.

3 upvotes
kecajkerugo
By kecajkerugo (Oct 5, 2012)

And the Fuji size is a fraction of that monster! So is OM-D from Oly (somewhat worse in high ISO but still great and small)

2 upvotes
MichaelEchos
By MichaelEchos (Oct 5, 2012)

lol. Artifacting should be easily fixed with good software support. But noise wise, there's no difference for Bayer sensors or X-Trans sensor, since they are gathering the same amount of light.

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Oct 5, 2012)

...if it was "easy" Adobe would have done it already. But they obviously haven't. In fact, no one has. OOC jpegs seem to have some mojo that no raw developer does. Fuji need to buck up and share their recipe.

1 upvote
sandy b
By sandy b (Oct 5, 2012)

More like the King of RAW noise reduction, I prefer to that myself.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Oct 5, 2012)

People were saying that the Bayer sensor had reached its limit 8 or 9 years ago. How incorrect they were.
We do seem to be getting to the limit regarding mirror/shutter vibration in DSLRs though.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Oct 5, 2012)

limlh:

No, the king of high ISO work is the Nikon D4, then the Nikon D3s, and next the Canon D1X.

You don realize that the XPro1 is an APSC sensor? To me, from the samples I've shot, in the exact same light and shadow, the D600 bests the Fuji for high ISO work, but they are certainly close. Again: Neither can touch the D4 or the D3s.

0 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Oct 5, 2012)

nah, they just moved the sensitivity towards high iso which is why its native ISO is 200, just like the OM-D. Lower ISOs still has use for long exposure, wide aperture, and slightly less noise.

0 upvotes
branden hughes
By branden hughes (Oct 5, 2012)

I did some sample shots of this camera vs the Mark 3 and D800 also. Check them out here:
http://brandenhughes.zenfolio.com/blog/2012/9/canon-5d-mark-3-vs-nikon-d800-vs-nikon-d600

0 upvotes
Superka
By Superka (Oct 5, 2012)

Vey good. Sligtly better then 5Dm3 even. Nice job, Sony.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
19 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Oct 5, 2012)

As far as I can tell its better than the D4. I wonder if its better than the king of low light D3s.

6 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Oct 5, 2012)

...better than the D4? Are we talking jpegs? Because I'm seeing th exact opposite. In fact, I think this slots right with the mkiii, right behind the D800.

1 upvote
RKGoth
By RKGoth (Oct 5, 2012)

It's better than the D800, worse than the D3S, about comparable with the original D3. Which is pretty impressive given the reception the original D3 had.

3 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 5, 2012)

The D800, D4 and D600 are all very very close in RAW, both CNX2 and ACR, for high ISO, which is also seen from DxO MArk graphs. The D600 and D800 beat the D4 at base ISo by about 1 full EV in DR. And if you resize all to 16MP, the detail at all ISO is better form D800, then from D600, D4 is last. Iliah Borg says color is better from D800 than from D4, he hasn't commented on the D600, but it's quite same as D800's from DxO. Of course, most of tehse items will only be relevant after careful PPing from RAW, people using a D4 are worried about other things, like catching the guy as he grabs the ball in the endzone or when the ball hits the bat.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Oct 9, 2012)

Go over and look at some raw files at Imaging Resource. Check the red fabric swatch at 25600 and tell me you don't see exactly this

D3s > D4 > D3/D700 >D800 > D600

Not the same.

At least when it comes to chroma noise. That red swatch really exposes the least sensitive channel. You'll see the gap narrow down to 3200, but above that it's pretty obvious that there's a difference in noise. And the D600 is NOT better than any of these. Almost as good, but still a little behind.

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Oct 5, 2012)

RAW in this machine (so it seems) is going to be incredible. Slightly better than the K5, which is already fantastic. The only camera with better SN ratio is the X-pro1, and I've seen quite some smearing of details at the former's high isos.
Just an absolutely unscientific speculation, but that you know already ;)

gashô

1 upvote
Superka
By Superka (Oct 5, 2012)

What is K5? Never heard

0 upvotes
voland354
By voland354 (Oct 5, 2012)

pentax k5

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Oct 5, 2012)

You must be kidding. The k-5 is good for an ASP-C, and that't kinda it.

3 upvotes
RKGoth
By RKGoth (Oct 5, 2012)

The K-5 and D7000 use the same basic sensor. The D800's sensor is a full frame with otherwise identical pixel specification - compare the raw from the D800 and D7000. May as well be looking at the same camera. There have been some interesting claims for the dynamic range of the 16.2 APS-C sensor, but the noise performance shows how close to the limits of current fabrication and tech that sensor is.

As for the camera, the K-5 - now supplemented with an AA-filterless version - is a fantastic body that is woefully neglected by professionals. Compact, solid, versatile (sensor can be shifted for recomposition in macro, great connectivity and programmability), if the K-5 carried a Canon or Nikon brand you wouldn't be able to move for them.

2 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 5, 2012)

The flexibility of RAW from the latter Nikons is amazing. I'm still impressed, after almost two years, what one can do with D7000's files. The D600's can only be much better, due to the larger size and updated tech. I checked high ISO from Raws and CNX2, the D600 puts at least 1.5 stop over the D7000 around 3200ISO and also the low ISO shadows recovery is outstanding. Good job Nikon+Sony.

0 upvotes
putomax
By putomax (Oct 5, 2012)

"You must be kidding. The k-5 is good for an ASP-C, and that't kinda it."
ja ja ja you make me laugh nicolai, thanks!
I'm interested in IMAGE quality/usability, not in size.
you're still right, ja ja ja

gashô

0 upvotes
Blackburn11
By Blackburn11 (Oct 5, 2012)

Hmmmm.... Wonder if the full review of this will be up before their review on the Pentax k-30. :)

6 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Oct 5, 2012)

The K-30 will almost certainly come first. Photokina and the associated rush prevented us from getting it done when we wanted to, but it is nearly ready. Until then, there's a lot of information in the preview (of the K-30) that we've been updating when we can.

2 upvotes
Tim O'Connor
By Tim O'Connor (Oct 5, 2012)

Um, am I missing something? I dont see the D600 listed, only D800.

1 upvote
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Oct 5, 2012)

The original sample(first) is the D600

1 upvote
CeleryBeats
By CeleryBeats (Oct 5, 2012)

If you look at the "graph" in RAW you can see that the D600 is the new king of noise performance across all iso's.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Oct 5, 2012)

Hi Barney, good job, the D600 is a breakthrough camera for those wnating the benefits of FF at a smaller price and size, it deserves all the attention you have dedicated to it. Thanks DPR.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 135