Thanks for these. Detail looks pretty good up to ISO6400 and then it gets ugly. Don't know if it's me but the grain looks different (more smeared) to the other FX bodies so maybe some in-camera NR happening though exif says its off. Low ISO shadows look very good.
Yes, thank you very much, too. If this is in Camera noise reduced jpeg it can not compare to 5D III at 6.400 and above. It looks more like 1D IV high ISO. I did not compare ISO 3200. That is already excellent for me with 5D II.
I'm not a fan of this particular camera way to manage noise, but I can't really complain about something I've yet to try. Alas, I'm sure it looks way better than my D300 files, but then again, I'm sure I'm looking at my D300 files with rose colored glasses.
I might be talking out of my ass, but there will be probably a way to disable the amount of "noise reduction" on the camera, which might be the reason for those soft, smudgy images.
The D600 uses new Sony sensor, which Sony representative insisted to be absolutely the best now. I did a little, quick and dirty comparison with D4 and D600 seems to beat this thing. It's dirty, because raw editor I have used doesn't have full D600 support, in particular it doesn't have proper linear rgb color space transformation matrix, so colors are a bit different. Proper color matrix will equalize colors but may introduce some more noise (it also may decrease noise level instead, though). First, 24Mp > 16Mp, so we have some room for improvements before downscaling an image to compare. I used this possibility in ISO 25600 by applying light NR.
The ISO 6400 sample was downsampled as is, without NR applied.
First, ISO 25600:
Full samples are here. The D600 isn't fully supported yet, so you'll see artifacts at the very right. Not a big deal though.
ISO 6400:
IMO Nikon is trying to defend D4 positions, so we have such a crappy JPG engine for D600.
Nice comparison. If those photos are from Imaging Resource the lighting/exposure is likely not equal between the two cameras as have been discovered in previous sequences on different cameras they've shot.
Those samples look better than I expected. Thought the D4 would be at least 1 stop better at ISO6400. Perhaps something funky going on with the D4 conversion?
There's a lot more color in the D4 shots, which makes them look very much better in my opinion. You could probably apply some color NR without getting the washed out look of the D600.
Makten wrote:
There's a lot more color in the D4 shots, which makes them look very much better in my opinion. You could probably apply some color NR without getting the washed out look of the D600.
I specially mentioned it:
it doesn't have proper linear rgb color space transformation matrix, so colors are a bit different. Proper color matrix will equalize colors but may introduce some more noise (it also may decrease noise level instead, though).
