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.

@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.

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You dinosaurs are not limited by age but more outdated in your attitudes.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.

@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.

@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.

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

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

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.

{ 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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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....

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

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

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.

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.

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.

@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.

wetsleet:

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

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.

@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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Is Fuji still having that lil problem with color fidelity?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

pentax k5

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.