Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600?? Locked

Started Jun 2, 2013 | Questions thread
This thread is locked.
spbStan Senior Member • Posts: 1,943
Re: Mark iii comparable to Nikon d600??

Both are good cameras but for your stated subject matter, the D600 will give better results. The AF system is not as fast on the D600 but portraiture is not a problem for speed of acquisition. What causes the D600 to win in this competition is the low ISO file quality with vastly superior DR and color depth. If you are like most portrait shooters you will do some post processing and this is where the Nikon's, all of them from the D7000 on up, shine, with lots of flexibility in usable captured data. Boosting shadows is a good example, the 5DIII files degrade in shadow recovery with artifacts and banding that limit post processing options. The D7000, D600 and D800 all have  this trait of great file data fidelity even when pushed 4-5 stops. 14.4 stops of DR really do come in handy.

For a sports shooter who needs to send off files immediately with no post the 5DIII would be better, with a more rugged body, good JPG rendering, and good AF system. In an attempt to get closer to the D4 and D3s for low light high ISO quality Canon resorted to a non-defeatable noise reduction in raw that lowers detail and resolution so for low light and maximum quality, it is not the  best but still pretty good. For those with the time to do post processing, selective NR can be much more effective but that option is not viable when general detail robbing NR has already been applied to the entire frame.

For other uses, there might be different conclusions but a D600 with a good lens is a better portrait and high IQ camera. It all starts with a better sensor with a lot more DR.

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