Nikon D600: Are the "benefits" of this camera really worth it over the Canon 6D?

Started Dec 29, 2012 | Discussions thread
DigVis Forum Member • Posts: 97
Re: No not really


you are applying your subjective view of what most would consider objective parameters. I get what you are saying: None of the aspects on which the D600 is objectively better than the 6D is of any use to you (apart from the 100 % VF). On the other hand, several objective and subjective aspects of the 6D makes it a better camera for you. These are all valid arguments, but you are arguing as if your subjective view of these aspects are general and apply to everyone. Try to broaden your view a bit, and acknowledge that not everyone's photography is the same as yours.

brightcolours wrote:

Bamboojled wrote:

Lets take it step by step.

Does the D600 have faster frame rate? YES = Better

*Yawn*. 4.5 vs 5.5 FPS on paper. Are you being serious?

Are you saying that there is no objective basis to say that 5.5 is better than 4.5 in any case what so ever? Or are you arguing that Nikon is falsely (on paper) claiming a higher frame rate?

Does the D600 have far greater Dynamic Range? Yes = Better

No, it does not.

At base ISO 100, it certainly does (by >2 stops).

Funny thing is that where DR matters (higher ISO) the 6D has higher DR.

At around ISO 3200 that may be true (by 1/3 of a stop). What is funny though, is that you below consider images taken at those ISO settings to be "ridiculously lousy" anyway.

Funny thing indeed. Does the 6D have too low DR at low ISO settings? No, it has way more than enough there too. Go figure.

Does the D600 have Dual card slot? Yes = Better

I will hate the confusion with 2 slots, seriously. If I ever have a camera with 2 slots, one will remain unused.

So if A only has 1 slot and B has the option of using 2 slots, the B is not objectively better in this aspect?

Greater dynamic range affords you greater control in shadow lifting this results in better images and greater control of your final image.

Nonsense. First of all, shadow lifting for 4 stops makes for ridiculously lousy images (low DR, bad gradients in the lifted parts due to low information in the dark parts of RAW).

Nonsense. Lifting shadows of a D600 ISO 100 image 4 stops makes the shadows equivalent (within 1/3 stop of noise) of an ISO 1600 image. Of course, you may consider ISO 1600 and up to be "ridiculously lousy".

2nd: the 6D has more than enough DR if for whatever reason one would have to pull a few stops in some image, Got to love the spec sheet lovers.

So if A can do up to 2 stops, and B up to 4.6 stops, then B is not quantitatively better in this aspect?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
MOD Mako2011
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow