ISO D600 vs D3x
/forum/topic/1167106/0

1
       2       end

Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 651
Country: Sweden

I recently opted to buy a used D3x instead of a D600 or a D800. A few considerations dwarfed the economical ones (for what they are and the context they reside in, I conciser the D600 and D800 to be bargains).

Anyway, although high iso capability was not high on my priority list I was interested in the comparison that is possible to do on dpr, both cameras being 24Mpx.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/21

A screendump of samples at 6400 shows this







I'm not perfectly sure if one can draw too far reaching conclusions, but taking them strictly on face value, doesn't the d3x look better (more pleasant noise, sharper and higher contrast)? Could difference be down to a more aggressive in-camera noise processing in the D600?


Steve Beck
Registered: Sep 22, 2006
Total Posts: 895
Country: United States

Actually IMO the d600 looks better. The noise in the d3x is to digital (blues and reds). The noise in the d600 is less and not as large grain.



Rooster L200
Registered: Jan 01, 2009
Total Posts: 235
Country: Netherlands

d600 looks better!



Edward Castro
Registered: Jun 19, 2006
Total Posts: 1156
Country: United States

Yup, D600 looks better.



davenfl
Registered: Jun 29, 2008
Total Posts: 4063
Country: United States

D600 wins IMO. Much cleaner noise and easier to cleanup in PP.

Dave



Avi B
Registered: Dec 07, 2006
Total Posts: 6893
Country: Canada

I also agree that the D600 looks cleaner and the nature of the noise is also nicer.



tjpenton
Registered: Jan 04, 2011
Total Posts: 271
Country: Canada

D600 for sure



leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 8581
Country: United States

Yes, the D600 is better. And for what it's worth this sample is from the raw files, so there wouldn't be any in-camera processing going on.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 651
Country: Sweden

Well, funny. To me it looks clear that the d3x is much sharper, has higher contrast and much more vivid colors. I was very surprised as I was expecting the D600 to wipe the floor with the d3x anywhere beyond iso800. I'm probably subconsciously biased.
I do agree the noise is much more apparent in the d3x though, but I do find it rather pleasant (finely grained).



Todd Warnke
Registered: Sep 04, 2006
Total Posts: 3422
Country: United States

I'd say the D600 is the clear winner, though I do agree that the D3X has higher contrast, is sharper and has more vivid colors. So why the D600? Because these are RAW files and so I can take that cleaner D600 image and sharpen it, increase the contrast and pump the colors and not have to first scrub the noise (which reduces contrast, smooths out details and drops saturation). In other words, the D600 gives me a better starting point for PP work.

Peace,

Todd



Ralph Conway
Registered: Jul 31, 2008
Total Posts: 3757
Country: Germany

D600



JimFox
Registered: Jan 11, 2005
Total Posts: 36517
Country: United States

D600 too...



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 651
Country: Sweden

Todd Warnke wrote:
I'd say the D600 is the clear winner, though I do agree that the D3X has higher contrast, is sharper and has more vivid colors. So why the D600? Because these are RAW files and so I can take that cleaner D600 image and sharpen it, increase the contrast and pump the colors and not have to first scrub the noise (which reduces contrast, smooths out details and drops saturation). In other words, the D600 gives me a better starting point for PP work.

Peace,

Todd


So you take the cleaner image, sharpen it, increase contrast and pump colours to end up with..what you got with the D3x from the get go? Bumping colours and contrast in post isn't really the same thing as getting them out of the RAW file is it? Neither is sharpening (to gain resolution).
I was at first thinking the exact same thing but in reverse, the D600 file looks like the d3x file with an aggressive noise-reduction filter applied.
ISO 6400 is outside of native ISO (so is 3200) for d3x so it should perform relatively horrible.



vchowdhary
Registered: Jul 12, 2009
Total Posts: 1190
Country: N/A

D3z looks sharper... and contrasty. Or maybe thats why it looks sharper. The color noise is also higher.



Rodolfo Paiz
Registered: Jan 07, 2007
Total Posts: 9620
Country: United States

I like the first two from the D3x, and the last from the D600. But if I had to pick a camera from these images, I'd pick the D3x. I'd have to pay extra, but would be happy to do it for the big integrated body, the weathersealing, the AF, and the battery life. The D600 is an excellent camera, but I personally need something that can shoot in the rain.



tjpenton
Registered: Jan 04, 2011
Total Posts: 271
Country: Canada

I believe OP wants someone to confirm the D3x was the right choice...



tjpenton
Registered: Jan 04, 2011
Total Posts: 271
Country: Canada

Not saying specifically that it wasn't! (Just for clarification)



Ralph Conway
Registered: Jul 31, 2008
Total Posts: 3757
Country: Germany

What was the price?



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 651
Country: Sweden

tjpenton wrote:
I believe OP wants someone to confirm the D3x was the right choice...


Would you, please



ADCOLE
Registered: Nov 27, 2011
Total Posts: 253
Country: United States

The color and detail is a lot better from the D3X.



1
       2       end