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

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.

Sep 16, 2012permalink

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

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.

Sep 16, 2012permalink

marike6--

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

gnob

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 16, 2012permalink

gnob

Thanks man.

Sep 16, 2012permalink

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

Sep 15, 2012permalink

starman1969

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

le_alain

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

Sep 15, 2012permalink

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

Maji

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.

Sep 17, 2012permalink

FranciscoJG

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.

Sep 15, 2012permalink

Get a D4.

Sep 16, 2012permalink

Hoddo

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.

Sep 15, 2012*permalink

Pixel count is often a distraction.

Sep 16, 2012permalink

nathantw

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

Sep 15, 2012permalink

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

Jefftan

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 16, 2012permalink

maniax

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?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

shauravraj

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

JKP

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

M Jesper

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

How can you make noise judgements based on jpegs?

Sep 16, 2012permalink

Northgrove

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.

Sep 19, 2012*permalink

Saffron_Blaze

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 16, 2012*permalink

Northgrove

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

Sep 19, 2012permalink

Goldmandima

Strange feeling that you ' conned '.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

You know it's our policy not to.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

D200_4me

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'...

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

The Fuji XPro1 does. As will the XE1.

Sep 15, 2012permalink

GMart

Meh, it's no bowl of Special K.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

AshMills

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

ecleo

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

CFynn

What's wrong with that?

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

ecleo

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?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

M Jesper

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

gl2k

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

iudex

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

camelot98

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Akurugan

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

lokthefish

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!

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Debankur Mukherjee

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

gsum

See page 2.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

that's hardly a low-light.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

puneetvikramsingh

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

ozturert

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

puneetvikramsingh

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

lensberg

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...

Sep 14, 2012permalink

photofan1986

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

ashwins

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

puneetvikramsingh

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...

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Who cares about claims of sensor performance based on jpegs?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Thanks for that analysis.

No need to read the experts now.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Teru Kage

"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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

lensberg

@ 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...

Sep 14, 2012permalink

sorinx

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?

Sep 15, 2012permalink

BMWX5

Where are the real sample photos for Sony A99?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Amateur Sony Shooter

I suspect A99 will give similar result.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Andrei Todea

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).

Sep 14, 2012permalink

iudex

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

bruder

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

iudex

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

BMWX5

@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!

Sep 14, 2012permalink

teddyilagan

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Chris2J

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!

Sep 14, 2012permalink

teddyilagan

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

ozturert

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Chris2J

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 :-).

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

thejohnnerparty

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

ashwins

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

All:

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

maniax

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Dimitri Khoz

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

jm67

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

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

Hell ya!

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Dimitri Khoz

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

songeun7

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Dimitri Khoz

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?

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

Pat Cullinan Jr

"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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Fave Photog

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Toccata47

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

plasnu

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Simon Joinson

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Fave Photog

Thanks for the clarification, Simon.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Ingloryon

Useless comments...

Sep 14, 2012permalink

babola

@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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Tap0

@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 !

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Simon Joinson

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

greatzed

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

JustSomeDude

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

FTW

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

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 ?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

John Motts

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

Just as any recent FF camera will.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Ignore.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Can you spell "j p e g" ?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

babola

24-120 f/4 poor lens?
Hardly.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

babola

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

proxy

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?

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

ulfie

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

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

Nikon Raw files are far better than jpegs.

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

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!

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

jsis

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Griffo59

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!

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Hynee

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

Another huge hit for Nikon. Great color and sharpness.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Photomonkey

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. ;)

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

toomanycanons

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!

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Caleido

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.

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

sooflyfisher

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!

Sep 13, 2012permalink

rikkus

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

ChibitulSmecher

POMTL!!!

(Pis$ing On My Toes Laughing)

Sep 13, 2012permalink

PhotoKhan

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

rhlpetrus

Verdade? Estou achando bem razoáveis para jpegs ooc.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

KonstantinosK

I agree.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

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

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

PhotoKhan

@rhlpetrus

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

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

PhotoKhan

@nicolaiecostel

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

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

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

Simon97

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

We're in the process of uploading ours.

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

DStudio

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! ;)

Sep 13, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

rhlpetrus

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

DStudio

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.

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

Andrei Todea

What about ISO 12800 and 25600?

Sep 13, 2012permalink

beemerman2k

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!

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

Andrei Todea

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!

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

EssexAsh

does the left focus point work though?

Sep 13, 2012permalink

JIMIX PHOTO

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

avod

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

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

Combatmedic870

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

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

DrWhom

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!

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Mike Arledge

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Leiduowen

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 :-)

Sep 14, 2012permalink

John 3

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

Simon Joinson

would that we could

Sep 13, 2012permalink

For a few clicks more

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

AllOtherNamesTaken

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.

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

DrWhom

"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!

Sep 13, 2012permalink

For a few clicks more

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.

Sep 13, 2012permalink

AllOtherNamesTaken

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.

Sep 13, 2012*permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

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

Sep 13, 2012permalink

For a few clicks more

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.

Sep 14, 2012permalink

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.

Sep 14, 2012*permalink

JustSomeDude

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

Rock Kenwell? Is that you?

Sep 14, 2012permalink