Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nikon D600 real-world sample images [UPDATED]

By dpreview staff on Sep 13, 2012 at 20:01 GMT
Buy on GearShop

Just Posted: Sample images from the Nikon D600 24MP full frame DSLR. We got the chance to go shooting with the D600 in New York and have prepared a real world preview samples gallery. We grabbed a series of shots covering a range of subjects in a variety of lighting conditions to give a taste of the camera's image quality. As always original, out-of-camera, JPEGs can be downloaded for closer examination. We hope to add to the gallery as soon as we get some more time. [Updated with full ISO range series]


Nikon D600 preview samples gallery - Posted on September 13th 2012

There are 32 images in the samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the new galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

808
I own it
167
I want it
93
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 179
12
Shogun Fantastico
By Shogun Fantastico (Sep 19, 2012)

Ptooey. These sample images betray darkling tremors. The constrained phallic balloons are painful to my eyes. But the sprinkler hose shot has made me to guffaw if technology is so cuckholded now -- how are we not to expect quackgrass and dandelions to prosper with such a random spray pattern? But there is the statue of poet Burns, who "always despised the whining yelp of complaint." I am herewith withholding my photographic talent from the world until Nikon releases a real camera.

0 upvotes
Jan Dolezal
By Jan Dolezal (Sep 18, 2012)

Below is a link to a simple noise test. Nothing scientific, but interesting IMO that at 50 ISO images look visibly softer that at 100, dunno why... At 3200 noise is becoming clearly visible.
http://nikonclub.cz/clanek/nikon-d600-test-sumu-vysledky-vytecne

0 upvotes
Corpy2
By Corpy2 (Sep 16, 2012)

Sorry, but these don't look all that hot to me. I don't see great resolution, great sharpness, or anything.

I come from a background of Canon, 7D and Mark II, and I sold these and am now very satisfied with the quality of, of all things, an Olympus e-m5 m43 camera (with their good lenses, of course). These look worse than what I see fro that camera.

Am I missing something?

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 16, 2012)

Most of these are out of camera JPEGs. But if you think the E-M5 OOC JPEGs rival these, then you are all set for gear. But what you may be missing is that if this camera performs anywhere near the D800, you'll get 1 1/2 to 2 stops better high ISO performance, way better AF tracking, way more lenses, better DOF control, etc. Besides raw from a D600 or D800 will be about as good as it gets for anything except a Medium Format camera like a 645D or Phase One.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 16, 2012)

Maybe have a look (read: download) at these D600 samples as well, and compare them to the 5D3, 7D or your favorite EM-5 image.

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d600/sample.htm

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

marike6--

Nice to see Nikon posting jpegs that at least started out as raw files.

0 upvotes
gnob
By gnob (Sep 16, 2012)

Question. Are this images taken direct from camera or are they processed raw files?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

No, DPReview states when the jpegs started out as raws.

Remember that some Nikons produce tiffs directly from the camera, so "direct from the camera" with those particular Nikons can mean a great deal more that the inadequate jpeg format. Don't know if the D600 shoots tiff, the D700 does.

1 upvote
gnob
By gnob (Sep 16, 2012)

Thanks man.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 15, 2012)

Just saw a nice D600 video demo, and it really is impressive. It's all nature so no opportunity to check for moire, but if the D600 lacks the moire that exists in the D800, I may have to bag my plans to get a Fuji X-E1 to go with my D800, and get this camera. Thanks for the samples DPR, they look terrific.

D600 Video
https://vimeo.com/49395253

1 upvote
starman1969
By starman1969 (Sep 16, 2012)

Thanks for posting. Why didn't Nikon give ME a D600 to go and do this :-(

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 16, 2012)

I know, I would have liked one too. But I'm not going to photograph wolves. That must be it.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (Sep 15, 2012)

Oh BS. What we need is a D40/60/3200 sized body, with a built-in motor, and all that the D600 includes. Now that would be something, and all at less weight!

See, the competition is smaller cameras, and with this new quality. They are not there yet, but getting close. A D600, and yet at a reasonable, D40 size, would not need to be much smaller; for practical purposes.

If you then preferred bigger, well you got that. If you wanted smaller, you go that too. What you do not yet have, is a native F-Mount; at D3100 size, with a focus motor, built-in. As challenging as that is to design, it can certainly be done! This would send ripples throughout the camera industry, and rule the stater market. AKA, everyone would want one. This could be customer affordable; which is very good, especially in this economy, due to scale, mass market, and higher overall profits.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

"focus motor, built in"? Name a new Nikon AF lens that uses a motor in the camera body, name any.

You realize the D40 is an APSC sensored camera?

0 upvotes
MasterOfGoingFaster
By MasterOfGoingFaster (Sep 16, 2012)

I'm sure Nikon would love to hear how they can add the addition of an in-body AF motor AND a FX sensor AND FX screen/pentamirror in a D3200 body that is already packed tight. Magic?

0 upvotes
le_alain
By le_alain (Sep 15, 2012)

I want a D700s with just that sensor that's all !! Don't need polycarbontae too, to smalll body, left whell (even if it can be block, which is a plus..) Same confort, solidity as D300 or D700, but with this sensor. I don't want the D800 and his 36 Mpx

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

And I want a D700s with the D3s' sensor. Skip the Sony sensor.

0 upvotes
Maji
By Maji (Sep 17, 2012)

Do you realize that the DR of the D600 matches that of D800, at least from ISO 400 as per Bill Claff's calcs. That is superior to that of the D700. Also, you are getting more MPX, if that matters. To me the DR and MPX is a bigger deal but again needs vary between person to person.

0 upvotes
FranciscoJG
By FranciscoJG (Sep 15, 2012)

I need a machine that does not have a build quality entry level. A machine with the quality of materials and ergonomics of a D300, don't need polycarbonate holding my objective and dream with long years of good use without weaknesses that reduce the quality of images.
APS-C will have 16Mpx and a FX have 24Mpx. Ok, who needs to pay more for even more extra pixels?! And still get worse build quality?
Nikon is inappropriate in time with respect to its offer on APS-C and is lost on what they want with the FX range. Is this to open more space for the mirrorless system?
Nikon's DSLRs are of poor constrution quality, or are too expensive. Nikon will lose customers, those who can spend 2000 to 2500 USD with body and an objective. I've used a D7000, I liked the photos, but who are more than 60 minutes to shoot an event, will realize what a D300 has to give in terms of comfort that the D7000 nor dreams. Maybe I should rethink and buy a Pentax carefully built, or other brands. Disappointed I am.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

Get a D4.

0 upvotes
Hoddo
By Hoddo (Sep 15, 2012)

They look pretty good to me at high iso when you consider the pixel count is twice that of the D700.

Question for DPReview, during processing how much was the noise filter used or are these straight from raw to jpegs?

For me the difficulty with this camera is here in the UK the price difference between the D600 and D800 is marginal. I'd be more inclined to buy the D800 for better build quality, a sync flash port and a few other odds and sods.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

Pixel count is often a distraction.

0 upvotes
nathantw
By nathantw (Sep 15, 2012)

Looking at the photos that are provided here I'm pretty inclined to continue using my D700. Thank for letting me see the light.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

Those are jpegs, how on earth can you judge image quality from jpegs?

0 upvotes
Jefftan
By Jefftan (Sep 14, 2012)

nothing special
If I take all these pics with NEX-5N it would not be worse than these

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

"nothing special" is a statement about jpegs. Who cares, except those who need immediate small files for upload?

0 upvotes
maniax
By maniax (Sep 14, 2012)

Why dont they make camera's with iso 25 and up for example? It would prevent me to take a ND filter with me for example.... also you can still buy 25 iso film if you want very fine grain, so why not on digital?

2 upvotes
shauravraj
By shauravraj (Sep 14, 2012)

Does anybody know if Nikon is upgrading the d300 model anymore?

0 upvotes
JKP
By JKP (Sep 14, 2012)

Great camera up to ISO 6400. From there on, noise expodes.

0 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 14, 2012)

I'd say that is good. More interestingly tho, check out the dynamic range at iso100 in DSC_3988. :)

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

How can you make noise judgements based on jpegs?

1 upvote
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Sep 19, 2012)

Yes, and that's an observation of their JPEG engine. But when shooting at extreme sensitivities like ISO 12800+, you should definitely not use JPEG, but RAW and post-process in proper software. It's simply no question, regardless if you shoot D600, D800, or D4.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Saffron_Blaze
By Saffron_Blaze (Sep 14, 2012)

It would be amusing if the D600 produces finer images than the D800.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 16, 2012)

Assume you mean with the same lens, at the same setting, at the same ISO, capturing exactly the same scene.

Bet the D700 beats the D600 in some situations.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Northgrove
By Northgrove (Sep 19, 2012)

I don't understand how the D700 sensor could beat the D600 in any particular scenarios.

0 upvotes
Goldmandima
By Goldmandima (Sep 14, 2012)

Strange feeling that you ' conned '.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 14, 2012)

Could DPReview please post a range of raws for download? Say 7 or 8 at different ISOs.

I'd bet UFRAW can open them; sure it's not ACR but it will give some idea of what a D600 raw can be.

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 14, 2012)

You know it's our policy not to.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 14, 2012)

The preview photo captions states, quote: "Preview based on a production Nikon D600."

So since this is not a pre-production camera please share raws. I believe, DPReview did so with the D800 and maybe the Canon 5D MIII previews.

So no, I don't know it's the policy with production cameras. I do know that if DPReview doesn't have a beta of ACR, which supports the new raw format, then the raws don't get shared. However I have no idea what beta of ACR DPReview may or may not have.

Also fix the comments software. I logged on and couldn't post. The webpage had my screen name but the software said I'm anonymous. There's a crafty Odysseus line here.

1 upvote
D200_4me
By D200_4me (Sep 14, 2012)

Excellent camera, but since there are so many cameras that do extremely well at ISO 6400 and higher, the high ISO argument is not as important as it used to be. For me, these days I just want something that won't get in my way by being too big or heavy. That's why I've recently changed my way of thinking regarding what type of camera I use. I sold my D700 and currently use an E-M5. Now, I'm likely going to buy the Fuji X-E1. Why? The image quality is amazing, it's a beautiful camera, the size/weight is good and the lenses are excellent. At this point in my life, I'm interesting in being more creative and less worried about what the guy at the zoo thinks of me when he and his D3s look down on my little mirrorless camera. Besides, many of those zoo show-offs with the huge rigs are very often coming up with far less creative and compelling images than I come up with when I'm feeling free and creative with my 'little' camera. I used to be 'that guy'...

11 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 15, 2012)

Okay, but the Olympus E-M5 doesn't do well above 1600ASA.

The Fuji XPro1 does. As will the XE1.

0 upvotes
GMart
By GMart (Sep 14, 2012)

Meh, it's no bowl of Special K.

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Sep 14, 2012)

Good enough to show my faults as photographer that much better. Pre-ordered.

6 upvotes
ecleo
By ecleo (Sep 14, 2012)

"enthusiast's" camera and "enthusiast's" lens.

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Sep 14, 2012)

What's wrong with that?

Some "enthusiasts" take much better photographs than some "pros".

7 upvotes
ecleo
By ecleo (Sep 14, 2012)

You're right:) But I know some better lenses than Nikkor 24-120. What do you think about D600 quality looking at samples taken with this lens?

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Sep 14, 2012)

I'd say it could be better with a 24-70. ;)

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Sep 14, 2012)

I am a professional enthusiast :) Which camera for me :)))

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Sep 14, 2012)

I think that all modern DSLRs (and some mirror-less) have reached a level of image quality that renders demo pics useless. These images could have been taken with every other serious cam as well.

It's all about features, handling, lenses and accessories that makes a system superior over another.

25 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Sep 14, 2012)

I agree completely. This pictures are nice and I see no flaws. However I guess that almost identical pictures could have been taken with a decent APS-C, e.g. K-5 for less than half of the price. This does not mean criticism of D600, I just mean to say that differences can be found when pixel-peeping the standard photo scene in 100% magnification, not in real life pictures.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 14, 2012)

I think you both have to wait for a range of raws, instead of making claims based on jpegs shot with one lens.

0 upvotes
camelot98
By camelot98 (Sep 14, 2012)

they are ok pics...i guess we wait for more to really see what this camera can do..

0 upvotes
Akurugan
By Akurugan (Sep 14, 2012)

More importantly, let see how nikon quality control fares!
I always wait 6 months beore purchasing a new nikon dslr, its not like the good old days for nikon, way too many manufacturing defects that are not recognized or acknowledged by Nikon. Even after the complaints go public, remember the d7000 oil spray issue or the d80 aperture control module failure?
And nikon customer support really sucks, maybe some day the name will regain it's glory.

6 upvotes
lokthefish
By lokthefish (Sep 14, 2012)

all the camera manufacturers have quality control issues tho. it's not like the old days because they are producing so many more units at a faster rate. still...no excuse for sloppy QC!

3 upvotes
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Sep 14, 2012)

Where are some low light indoor photographs.......

2 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Sep 14, 2012)

See page 2.

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Sep 14, 2012)

that's hardly a low-light.

2 upvotes
puneetvikramsingh
By puneetvikramsingh (Sep 14, 2012)

ISO performance is one stop better than my Nikon D5100....

4 upvotes
ozturert
By ozturert (Sep 14, 2012)

And you can decide this by looking at the pictures only?

1 upvote
puneetvikramsingh
By puneetvikramsingh (Sep 14, 2012)

this was the first impression...detailed analysis will be done by dpreview :P

0 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Sep 14, 2012)

Just 1 stop alone wouldn't really be an impressive feat with a FF sensor... I was hoping on the lines of at least close to 2 stops better than the D5100 / 7000 ... Perhaps close if not equal to the D4 ... We'll just have to wait and see...

3 upvotes
photofan1986
By photofan1986 (Sep 14, 2012)

Agreed. I think many, many users do not realize that aps-c cameras have come a very long way, and that 24x36 sensor won't bring much to the table, actually. One stop advantage at high iso is really not worth it, imo. As aps-c sensor are produced at a much bigger scale, the development is much faster than for FF cameras. Hence, the price of aps-c sensors has come down quite a lot. The difference in price between a FF and a APS camera is quite big (D7000 vs D600n similar body), but performance is very, very close actually.
But in many people's minds, the FF SLR was and remains the be-all and end-all thing to have in a photographer's bag.

2 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Sep 14, 2012)

Hey lensberg,

where could you possibly find such advanced sensor technology that would have in 6 months made a 24MP sensor's ISO performance as good as D4's 16MP sensor's ISO performance, huh?

If you were really expecting that then you must have been dreaming.

1 upvote
puneetvikramsingh
By puneetvikramsingh (Sep 14, 2012)

Full frame cameras are meant for rich and professional photographers....if i have money for d600 then i will try to save more money for D800...

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 14, 2012)

Why are any of y'all having this discussion based on jpegs?

Who cares about claims of sensor performance based on jpegs?

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for that analysis.

No need to read the experts now.

0 upvotes
Teru Kage
By Teru Kage (Sep 14, 2012)

"I think many, many users do not realize that aps-c cameras have come a very long way, and that 24x36 sensor won't bring much to the table, actually" - By photofan1986 (5 hours ago)

FF isn't just about ISO performance; the difference in DOF is limited by physics and can't be overcome with any improvement in sensor tech. I'm not saying FF is superior ro APS-C, but sensor size matters for those who require shallow DOF.

1 upvote
lensberg
By lensberg (Sep 14, 2012)

@ ashwins - no doubt its asking for a lot, but chronologically speaking, looking at the gradual progression of sensor technology, from the days of the D3S to the D4, 5D III & 1D X of today... it is an imminent reality that higher MP sensors will produce cleaner results at high ISO's... whether of not Nikon have managed to achieve this is another question altogether... but I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt until an official review...

0 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Sep 14, 2012)

@ photofan1986
"One stop advantage at high iso is really not worth it, imo."

And then you lose that too getting the same depth of field when you need it :( Nowadays the quality of the lens means the most if the sensor is about the same age of technology.

1 upvote
sorinx
By sorinx (Sep 15, 2012)

1 Stop is to be expected with a 2x size sensor. Not forget you get also 50% more pixels.

What is the difference in prince/size for 1 stop faster lens?

0 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Sep 14, 2012)

Where are the real sample photos for Sony A99?

1 upvote
Amateur Sony Shooter
By Amateur Sony Shooter (Sep 14, 2012)

I suspect A99 will give similar result.

7 upvotes
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Sep 14, 2012)

Sony uses the SLT technolgy which means that about 30% of the light isn't used by the sensor so the same sensor should give better results on Nikon (at least in terms of IQ).

1 upvote
iudex
By iudex (Sep 14, 2012)

Exactly. As the example of NEX7/a77 (and other NEX/SLT cameras with identical sensor) shows, the SLT technology gives a slightly worse outcome just because of less light getting through the semi-transparent mirror. For the same reason I guess that RX1 pictures will be better than a99 pics, despite having the same sensor.

3 upvotes
bruder
By bruder (Sep 14, 2012)

Here A99 real samples:
http://tinyurl.com/9gg4gj9

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Sep 14, 2012)

Still - the difference is mostly mathematical one. Hardly important if you do anything other with photos then 1:1 pixel peeping. And certainly nothing even close to the importance of glass in front of the sensor.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 14, 2012)

Plastek:

No SLT cameras don't do well in lowlight because of the mirror. The same sensor in a mirrorless or slr system does better in lowlight. It's not simply math.

"Glass in front of the sensor", ironic that you bring that up.

2 upvotes
iudex
By iudex (Sep 14, 2012)

@Howaboutraw: ;-) yes, it´s all about that glass in front of the sensor. :-)

0 upvotes
BMWX5
By BMWX5 (Sep 14, 2012)

@bruder, those not A99 real samples. They used a camera with pre production 0.92 firmware. Plus so many of the photos were underexposed. I prefer to wait from professionals such as DP reviewers!

0 upvotes
teddyilagan
By teddyilagan (Sep 14, 2012)

I'm a long time fan of DPR, but recently it starts to irritates me. This post should show us the sample pictures of D600, what annoys me is that it took 5-6 steps before I can actually see the sample pictures.

7 upvotes
Chris2J
By Chris2J (Sep 14, 2012)

Did you also complain to your car's manufacturer that you actually have to leave your house, unlock the car - albeit with the remote - get in and start it, before being able to drive off? I had no issue with the speed of accessinng the photos and actually appreciated the fact that these were posted this soon. Well done, DPREVIEW!

4 upvotes
teddyilagan
By teddyilagan (Sep 14, 2012)

Well, it's a different story for your example is unavoidable and you should have to go through that step before the other one. Isn't it a wonderful experience for the readers of DPR if they saw to post "We uploaded sample image of D600" and after they click the link we can go directly on photo gallery? http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/nikon-d600-preview-samples/slideshow

4 upvotes
ozturert
By ozturert (Sep 14, 2012)

Correct. I click a link and then I need to find the right link again and click again? It's like newspapers' web sites which try to make you click as many as possible to increase the site's number of hits.

4 upvotes
Chris2J
By Chris2J (Sep 14, 2012)

I think we used different links. It seems the "Samples Gallariy" link at the top of the screen takes you back to the home screen, which is obviously a mistake in the configuration. I clicked on the image of the gallery and it took me directly to it. However, I know how easy one can make such a mistake when you do things in a hurry - although I agree it is not professional to make mistakes - albeit quite human :-).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Sep 14, 2012)

Just got back from NYC where I made a bunch of street images with my GRD III. To say that these city street shots are a bit cleaner and more detailed would be a bit of an understatement.

I don't know if the D600's high ISO is as good as the D800, but the images are bright, clean, sharp and colorful, even at high ISO. I see very little at all to complain about. Nice job DPR. Thanks.

2 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Sep 14, 2012)

The night shots looked a little noisy to me @ 6400 ISO.

0 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Sep 14, 2012)

Night shots at ISO6400 look little noisy no matter which camera you would be using...

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Sep 14, 2012)

All:

The DPReview D600 are jpegs. No, they did not start out as raws, or DPReview would have noted that fact.

1 upvote
maniax
By maniax (Sep 14, 2012)

in the past 100 iso/asa was considered fast. Yet, beautiful pictures were made by famous photographers. Nowadays people just care how it performs on 6400 iso or higher.
You think you can shoot better pictures if you have 256000 iso grainless?

I'm sure its a very nice camera in all aspects, its just that for me a camera that limits you makes me more creative.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Sep 14, 2012)

Good for you. I shoot in dimly lit venues and I need the ISO.

6 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Sep 14, 2012)

With my compact APS-C Canon G1X
I shoot noisefree ISO3200 images
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6479708377/photos/2077715/my-iso3200-shot-lamp?inalbum=my-g1x-photos
And even ISO12800 ones are pretty usable.
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6479708377/photos/2185047/my-iso12800-shot-toronto-taxi

If I thought about buying D600 and upgrading to FF,
I'd expect it to deliver results at least on the same level as my tiny G1X with 28-112 fix.

Nowadays, good ISO3200-12800 performance is a MUST, especially for the FF.

0 upvotes
jm67
By jm67 (Sep 14, 2012)

In the past, 100 was considered fast and 400 was blazing (don't know about you but I'm talking about film starting with my first SLR in '79). Nowadays I myself care not just about how my camera can perform at 6400 however, I do have needs for it to shoot cleanly at 3200/6400. For those who don't have the need, buy pretty much any modern camera. Likely the raws will looks better as usually is the case. There's nothing wrong with having a tool that makes your job easier.

0 upvotes
JohnBee
By JohnBee (Sep 14, 2012)

RE. You think you can shoot better pictures if you have 256000 iso grainless?

Hell ya!

6 upvotes
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Sep 14, 2012)

RE:
"johnbee (13 min ago)
RE. You think you can shoot better pictures if you have 256000 iso grainless?
Hell ya!"

It will allow us to shoot in the situations where we could not take any pictures before.

Less grain/NR artefacts = better looking picture

Everyone who posesses "creative eye" will appreciate improvements in HiISO performance.

2 upvotes
songeun7
By songeun7 (Sep 14, 2012)

Dimitri, you don't even know what size sensor your Canon G1X has. It has 1.5" not APS-C.

1 upvote
Dimitri Khoz
By Dimitri Khoz (Sep 14, 2012)

You are completely right.

If "less than APS-C" G1X sensor can do clean ISO3200-12800,
expectations for a FF should be even higher, shouldn't they?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Sep 14, 2012)

"You think you can shoot better pictures if you have 256000 iso grainless?"

That would enable me to shoot 2-page spreads with a hand-held 3000mm f/45 Gezornplotz.

0 upvotes
Fave Photog
By Fave Photog (Sep 14, 2012)

Is the purpose of these images to showcase the 24-120/4 or to showcase the abilities of the D600? The answer is obviously the 24-120, or else Nikon's best lenses would have been used: The 14-24, 24G, 35G, 85G, 200G, 70-200VRII, etc.

Another basically useless 'review'/'preview' by DPR.

2 upvotes
Toccata47
By Toccata47 (Sep 14, 2012)

The 24-120 is included as a kit lens in one of the d600 release packages. I think it's pretty clear the camera does just fine with the lens. In fact, dpr are doing folks a service in giving an accurate idea of what can be expected out of the gate, particularly if your new to nikon or can't budget for the pricey lenses.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (Sep 14, 2012)

I don't think those images are "useless", but it is true that the lens performance is poor.

0 upvotes
HiRez
By HiRez (Sep 14, 2012)

Yeah, I'm not that impressed. Poor contrast and flattish color reproduction. Would like to see some RAW examples with the 24-70 or 70-200. And apart from the lens, I'm not that impressed with the amount of grain in the shadows and low light capability. ISO 6400 looks just barely OK. Also a lot of these photos look slightly overexposed to me.

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Sep 14, 2012)

Barney got the camera at midnight last night, this is not actually our review. If it were we're be calling it a review and probably would've put a bit more time into it.

12 upvotes
Fave Photog
By Fave Photog (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification, Simon.

0 upvotes
Ingloryon
By Ingloryon (Sep 14, 2012)

Useless comments...

1 upvote
babola
By babola (Sep 14, 2012)

@Toccata47...sorry but there isn't a D600 kit available at the moment with 24-120 f/4. I checked with the Nikon distributor who confirmed only two options at the moment - body only and combo with 'affordable' 24-85VR. H ehinted a possibility of 18-300VR in the future, but not 24-120 f/4.

0 upvotes
Tap0
By Tap0 (Sep 14, 2012)

@Simon, The folks at DPReview could have waited for a couple of more days and put some thought and effort in the preview photographs with a variety of lenses... After all , you are the worlds premier digital photography website !

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Sep 14, 2012)

we'll post more later. there's no prizes any more for being the last to publish. this is just to whet the appetite.

0 upvotes
greatzed
By greatzed (Sep 14, 2012)

Why is everyone here so damn insatiable? It must be maddening for the editors of the site to read comments like this time and time again from mindless midget monkeys such as yourself.

0 upvotes
JustSomeDude
By JustSomeDude (Sep 14, 2012)

@babola: A DX kit lens for an FX camera? Uh, no.

0 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (Sep 13, 2012)

I ow a D40, D200, Fuji S5 and a NEX-7, among other dusty things in my shelves and, if I compare, there is really nothing to be exited about. So, in exception of a lot of noise and a waste of money this D600, sames as Alpha 99 will not make your day, as I can find out by myself. I downed other samples form other sites, including Nikon, there was nothing that made my wallet jump out of my pocket. I am not religious, i compare what is comparable.

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Sep 14, 2012)

What are you on about ? You allready own 3 DSLR's and one high end mirorless and you are considering investing another 2 grand in a DSLR ?

0 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Sep 14, 2012)

FTW means even if he wanted to invest, those D600 samples did not impress him. You should take a reading class before commenting...

3 upvotes
John Motts
By John Motts (Sep 14, 2012)

The D600 will wipe the floor with a D40, D200, S5.

Just as any recent FF camera will.

2 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Sep 14, 2012)

This is the same tool who posted above that the D40 beats the D600.

Ignore.

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Sep 13, 2012)

Good body/sensor combination but looks flat to me. Poor lens?

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Sep 14, 2012)

Can you spell "j p e g" ?

0 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Sep 14, 2012)

Hahaha JPG does not equal flat images! you just made yourself sound *bleep*

0 upvotes
babola
By babola (Sep 14, 2012)

24-120 f/4 poor lens?
Hardly.

1 upvote
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Sep 14, 2012)

hi babola, it's not bad, but CA could be better for the price...

0 upvotes
babola
By babola (Sep 14, 2012)

That's hardly a reason to call 24-120 f4 a poor lens. Don't believe the Internet reports some would lead you to believe re quality and performance of this lens, the chroma level on this lens shouldn't be a reason for anyone's concern. Yes, it's not perfect lens but which lens in this zoom range is? I have been shooting both 24-120 f4 and 24-70 f2.8 and I'm yet to see a noticeable difference in CA between these two, that's in REAL life what I mean, not the pixel peeper's lab-rat test of posted on the Internet.

0 upvotes
proxy
By proxy (Sep 14, 2012)

Real life is not as colorful as these pics... unfortunately life is quite flat. So what do you expect... hot dogs jumping out of the picture barking?

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Sep 14, 2012)

My God, they used the poor man's Nikon 24-70???

Come on, dpreview, break out the pro zoom to test an FF camera not the second-rater.

Comment edited 42 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ulfie
By ulfie (Sep 13, 2012)

Hmm... even viewing enlargements of the "Original" images, they don't seem light years better than m4/3s, e.g., Oly OM-D EM-5 can do nowadays. Some of these nighttime, high-ISO shots too are very chroma blurred, again not all that different than m4/3s or ASP-C.

1 upvote
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Sep 14, 2012)

Did you ever consider the fact that these might be jpegs with in-camera noise reduction ?

Nikon Raw files are far better than jpegs.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
1 upvote
HiRez
By HiRez (Sep 14, 2012)

I agree, but then why bother posting them if they aren't a good representation of what the camera is capable of? Showing these may actually be hurting the camera more than helping. Let's see the RAWs!

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Sep 14, 2012)

"Nikon Raw files are far better than jpegs." - ALL Raw files are far better then JPGs. Nothing to get excited.

0 upvotes
jsis
By jsis (Sep 13, 2012)

Couldn't care less about daytime, more interested in high ISO performance.

0 upvotes
Griffo59
By Griffo59 (Sep 13, 2012)

I wonder what the founders of photography would make of this.

Photography - painting with light.

But you want to do it in the dark?

Yeah!

8 upvotes
Hynee
By Hynee (Sep 13, 2012)

I think DSC_4028 has a touch of shakey hand blur, left to right. I guess it's one of the unlucky shots, even with a VR lens at 1/100 @ 70mm, all over the frame the vertical lines aren't quite as sharp as the horizontal lines.

0 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Sep 13, 2012)

Another huge hit for Nikon. Great color and sharpness.

5 upvotes
HiRez
By HiRez (Sep 14, 2012)

Really? I'm not seeing that...at all. And I'm looking at them on a calibrated monitor.

1 upvote
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Sep 14, 2012)

Drawing conclusions form the first samples is a waste of time. All we know is that images have been recorded. It is up to more comprehensive use by many more people before we can pass judgement on this camera. After that, we will make our decisions as to the best camera we can afford to make the precious photos that we will upload as 800 pixel JPGs or as 720P videos to YouTube. ;)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Sep 13, 2012)

Holy carp, I almost fell out of my chair when I read "we got a chance to go shooting with the D600 in New York". Give ME that chance, please!

0 upvotes
Caleido
By Caleido (Sep 13, 2012)

I like what I see. I see more resolution and about the same noise, if not less than the D700. The colors stay strong and real at high ISO.
I personally think and for my work, this is a better compromise than the D800 - which is not really a shining high ISO monster. I was slighty disappointed by the D800 images. You got tons of resolution, but on the other hand it showed a very processed look, noise showing up very early, albeit very thin. Which is no surprise of course. But these D600 images are very clean at low ISO.

I would like to buy it as a backup body to my D700. And give the movie feature a shot, would love to play with with 1.4 lenses. And use it when 24MP is needed (bigger prints etc...)

But I'm going to hold it out until the price comes down a bit.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 59 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
sooflyfisher
By sooflyfisher (Sep 13, 2012)

I am by no means very knowlegable it iso and stuff. But being used to my D90 those ISO 6400 shots are impressive! Especally when I'm afraid to go over 1000-1250 on my D90!

0 upvotes
rikkus
By rikkus (Sep 13, 2012)

How can we be sure these weren't taken with, say, a Nokia Lumia 920?

20 upvotes
ChibitulSmecher
By ChibitulSmecher (Sep 13, 2012)

POMTL!!!

(Pis$ing On My Toes Laughing)

0 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Sep 13, 2012)

Hmmm...not very impressed. Strange colors and quite "flat".

PK

4 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Sep 13, 2012)

Verdade? Estou achando bem razoáveis para jpegs ooc.

0 upvotes
KonstantinosK
By KonstantinosK (Sep 13, 2012)

I agree.

0 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Sep 14, 2012)

Nikon jpegs are notoriously dull, unless customised otherwise. You should really be looking at raw files, as soon as they become available.

2 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Sep 14, 2012)

@rhlpetrus

Verdadinha...Faziam isto, há quase 12 anos !

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d200

PK

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Sep 14, 2012)

@nicolaiecostel

Really...!?...Notoriously dull...?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d200

PK

0 upvotes
Plastek
By Plastek (Sep 14, 2012)

Dull as for modern-age camera.
We all know Nikon got very long tradition of cameras tailored towards black&white high-ISO photography. Showing D200 doesn't tell us anything new.

1 upvote
Simon97
By Simon97 (Sep 13, 2012)

That certain other camera test site has samples up with many showing the same scene at different ISOs. ISO 1600 is nearly free of noise. Great camera for those old primes that APS-C cameras made too telephoto.

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 13, 2012)

We're in the process of uploading ours.

24MP + flaky Wi-Fi is not a classic combination.

5 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Sep 13, 2012)

Richard - you mean you're actually trying to use and evaluate their new technology in the process? How can you do that? Time is of the essence - you're already hours behind the other guys! ;)

0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 13, 2012)

No, just trying to get them off a laptop and onto the internet.

And, if by 'the other guys' you mean Imaging Resource, we thought it would be more meaningful to wait until we had some shots in daylight before putting up a gallery.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Sep 13, 2012)

Richard, from the numbering, you've had this camera for some time already. Are we going to see the studio samples soon?

0 upvotes
DStudio
By DStudio (Sep 13, 2012)

That's understandable about the WiFi - sometimes LTE works better if you (or Barney) is out of the office.

This was my sarcastic way of saying I'm impressed with how quickly you've moved here - and, yes, some daylight shots is a good idea! By the way, good choice of lens here - "the other guys" didn't seem to figure that out, either.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Sep 13, 2012)

What about ISO 12800 and 25600?

0 upvotes
beemerman2k
By beemerman2k (Sep 14, 2012)

The last 2 pictures in the collection, although it's not stated, were taken at 12800 and 25600 ISO. Given that the Aperture is constant and the shutter speed continues to increase, the ISO was obviously raised to maintain the same exposure.

The fact that you have to do some minor detective work to discover this testifies as to how clean the images are at these ISO's!

Comment edited 54 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Andrei Todea
By Andrei Todea (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks. You are now visiting the "Updated with full ISO range series". When I asked this question the highest ISO was 6400. Thank you for your help anyway!

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
EssexAsh
By EssexAsh (Sep 13, 2012)

does the left focus point work though?

3 upvotes
JIMIX PHOTO
By JIMIX PHOTO (Sep 13, 2012)

Well... It does take pictures, all right ;)

0 upvotes
avod
By avod (Sep 13, 2012)

I think d800 is not direct competitor to 5d mk III, but d600 is

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Sep 13, 2012)

You are correct....But....The D600 is much cheaper and has entry level build.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Sep 13, 2012)

I think 'enthusiast level' would be fairer. I can't think of any entry-level camera that has mainly magnesium alloy construction.

5 upvotes
HiRez
By HiRez (Sep 14, 2012)

Yeah, this isn't the highest end build but it is far from "entry level" build. Magnesium alloy plus weather sealing is not entry level. Looks solid unless you are a pro who regularly abuses cameras.

0 upvotes
DrWhom
By DrWhom (Sep 13, 2012)

I think this camera might re-kindle my love affair with my 50 1.8! I knew I should have shelled out extra for the 70-300 over the 55-300, but I guess the DX mode will have to do for a while :) The D600 is the perfect option for FX upgrade from DX, IMO - You can upgrade your glass piece by piece, and still enjoy the better dynamic range, low light performance, auto focus (over my D90) and video performance. I will probably wait a few months for the price to stabilise, but D600 here I come!

0 upvotes
Mike Arledge
By Mike Arledge (Sep 13, 2012)

I guess I need to see a doctor about my testosterone levels, because apparently all this FF hoopla is not giving me the boner it is giving everyone else... Just be happy we live in such times to have so many GOOD options by so many major brands.

12 upvotes
Leiduowen
By Leiduowen (Sep 14, 2012)

Yup, we're living in the best photography times! And don't forget about the 2nd hand market - just wait for a couple of months until the geeks have had enough play with their new toys, and then get a broken-in camera for a fraction of the price. As for your hormone levels, why don't you try a new sexy prime lens? I guess it will do wonders :-)

1 upvote
John 3
By John 3 (Sep 13, 2012)

These are much more interesting pictures than the ones you take in Seattle. You should consider relocating.

0 upvotes
Simon Joinson
By Simon Joinson (Sep 13, 2012)

would that we could

6 upvotes
For a few clicks more
By For a few clicks more (Sep 13, 2012)

They are all good but nothing exceptional other than the extra resolution maybe. Except the high ISO ones, my Nikon D40, Fujifilm S5 and other cameras can also take the same images.

0 upvotes
AllOtherNamesTaken
By AllOtherNamesTaken (Sep 13, 2012)

I'd like to see your D40 take that same ISO 1600 image (I do not consider that high ISO these days). If it looks as good, I'll buy it off of you as I'll be able to save a lot of money.

Also keep in mind these are JPEGS, which are always considerably worse than 14bit RAW output.

Comment edited 4 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
6 upvotes
DrWhom
By DrWhom (Sep 13, 2012)

"Except the high ISO ones" is a huge caveat. I have a D90 now, and I frequently find myself wanting a usable ISO3200 shooting flash-free indoors, never mind 6400!

6 upvotes
For a few clicks more
By For a few clicks more (Sep 13, 2012)

Hah, somebody is offended again. Learn to read and think !!!!
I said "except the high ISO" ones. Well, that is how it is. I am not working at a magazine where high crop is required. And I would never sell my Nikon D40 to you.

0 upvotes
AllOtherNamesTaken
By AllOtherNamesTaken (Sep 13, 2012)

Nobody's offended, simply pointing out ISO 1600 or even 3200 isn't high when cameras can do 204,800 these days (though it isn't exactly pretty!). D4 or downsampled D800 images can handle ISO 12,800-25,600 quite easily for most applications.

I'd imagine the D600 beats the D40 handily even at ISO 200 or 400...

My apologies if I offended in any way, but the D40 is simply not comparable to the D600.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Sep 13, 2012)

"Nikon D40, Fujifilm S5 and other cameras can also take the same images."
And then you woke up.

4 upvotes
For a few clicks more
By For a few clicks more (Sep 14, 2012)

To Reilly -> Maybe you are the whose eyes are squinted by the shiny but empty fancy marketing gimmics. I will still keep on to disturb you by repeating the phrase: Nikon D40, Fujifilm S5 and other cameras can also take the same images.

0 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (Sep 14, 2012)

Enjoy your Nikon D40.

And yes, little Timmy, it IS just like the D600.

Now you run off and play with it and leave the adults to talk.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JustSomeDude
By JustSomeDude (Sep 14, 2012)

"Nikon D40, Fujifilm S5 and other cameras can also take the same images."

Rock Kenwell? Is that you?

0 upvotes
Total comments: 179
12