... and look at the resolution, clarity, and those silky smooth backgrounds and skies, that don't have a single spec of noise at ISO 100.
When DxO tests the D600 sensor, it will surely come on top of the 5DIII sensor.
Better DR at base ISO is guaranteed (likely a stop better), while noise at ISO 6400 will be the same or slightly better.
Overall, a fantastic camera for enthusiasts.
Reading some of the posts here, pros have no interest in this camera whatsoever ... which only shows that Nikon was extremely successful in differentiating the D600 from a pro body.
At the same time, the price and features are right for enthusiasts (the price will surely drop below $2K next year).
Let's just say that if this body had a native EF mount, I'd be pre-ordering today.
And also that Canon will not get a dime from me until they 'answer' the D600.
Your move, Canon.
+1, when D3X and 5D2 released...i knew right away that Canon is milking us... i'd stopped buying any new bodies from Canon since then. Still waitting....yes - your move Canon
gregfountain wrote:
I'm curious. Is it the extra 2M pixels that makes it a better sensor
No.
As I wrote in a previous post, DR at base ISO is guaranteed to be better vs the 5DIII (likely a stop better).
Simply because this is a Sony sensor - and Canon has not been able to match Sony in DR.
There would be zero banding.
Again, because Sony sensors, with their ADC architecture do not have banding.
Finally, I'm fully expecting that noise performance at ISO 6400 will be the same or slightly better than the 5DIII.
Again, because this is a new Sony sensor.
To summarize:
- better DR (likely 1 stop)
- more megapixels (ok, just 2mp more)
- no banding whatsoever
- same/better noise performance at ISO 6400
So, kids, which of these two sensors is used in a $3500 body vs a $2100 body - the better one or the worse one .
As I said in a previous post, some of the differences between the D600 senor vs the 5DIII sensor are:
- better DR (likely 1 stop)
- more megapixels (ok, just 2mp more)
- no banding whatsoever
- same/better noise performance at ISO 6400
Disclaimer: these are informed predictions based on Sony and Canon sensor history.
The benefits are at base and low ISOs - cleaner shadows, both in the amount of shadow noise (which improves dynamic range) and the quality of the noise (no banding).
As far I read higher DR and less noise in the shadows. Nothing one would see without pixelpeeping in direct compare. Nothing that would make my customers think not to book me as a photographer.
Ralph Conway wrote:
As far I read higher DR and less noise in the shadows. Nothing one would see without pixelpeeping in direct compare. Nothing that would make my customers think not to book me as a photograper.
Well, there is the matter of pulling details out of underexposed and to some extent overexposed shots for those of us who aren't always perfect with exposures
jorkata wrote:
As I said in a previous post, some of the differences between the D600 senor vs the 5DIII sensor are:
- better DR (likely 1 stop)
more likely 3 stops at low ISO and similar at high iso
- more megapixels (ok, just 2mp more)
yeah, meaningless, only 9% difference
- no banding whatsoever
very good
- same/better noise performance at ISO 6400
probably pretty close
if it is true that it has no MFA that is pretty bad though, the one thing that cripples from something great to something mediocre, a shame
it sounds like the video might very well be better than that on the 5D3
(which is why many were shocked Canon did so little after three years, resting on their laurels until it's too late, tis their way for the last half decade or more)
skibum5 wrote:
more likely 3 stops at low ISO and similar at high iso
yeah, meaningless, only 9% difference
very good
probably pretty close
if it is true that it has no MFA that is pretty bad though, the one thing that cripples from something great to something mediocre, a shame
it sounds like the video might very well be better than that on the 5D3
(which is why many were shocked Canon did so little after three years, resting on their laurels until it's too late, tis their way for the last half decade or more)
The MFA part has been corrected. It was a mistake. The camera doe offer AF fine tune.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm not sure where the lack of MA idea came from but according to the Nikon site it has MA.
if it has MA then it looks a lot better
other than the AF likely being at least a bit worse it seems awfully close to the 5D3 and actually better for the image quality, most likely, and probably for video quality too for a lottt less, for the video and landscape and general shooter it might be a better cam for less, for the person who really pushes AF, whether it holds up though remains to be seen, it might not (and their lenses are still worse) but canon has to get on the ball with their sensor development and stop thinking they are king of the hill who sit around and do nothing (as one canon manager said at a show a number of years back, shortly before nikon introduced FF, guess your sensors are not infinitely and decades ahead of the competition now are they)
Ralph Conway wrote:
As far I read higher DR and less noise in the shadows. Nothing one would see without pixelpeeping in direct compare. Nothing that would make my customers think not to book me as a photographer.
not really....it's all about non-digital IQ look....smooth transition from one pixel to another which you have less and less from Canon larger resolution sensor(s). Just look at D600, D800...images again.
Just out of curiousity how much do you guys pay to switch? In other words, when you sell off all your old gear and buy new gear, how much value do you lose as far as lenses, accessories, and bodies? 10%? 20%? More?
The D600 price has to drop. Why on earth would I buy one of these for £1955 when I can get a D800 for £300 more? Not convinced with the D7000 based AF either.
As I wrote in a previous post, DR at base ISO is guaranteed to be better vs the 5DIII (likely a stop better).
Simply because this is a Sony sensor - and Canon has not been able to match Sony in DR.
There would be zero banding.
Again, because Sony sensors, with their ADC architecture do not have banding.
Finally, I'm fully expecting that noise performance at ISO 6400 will be the same or slightly better than the 5DIII.
Again, because this is a new Sony sensor.
To summarize:
- better DR (likely 1 stop)
- more megapixels (ok, just 2mp more)
- no banding whatsoever
- same/better noise performance at ISO 6400
So, kids, which of these two sensors is used in a $3500 body vs a $2100 body - the better one or the worse one ....Show more →
I understand that for some people the sensor extremes (shadow performance) makes a significant difference... but for many it's at the point of irrelevant. I'm in that category. Most photographers are. For me, poorer shadow quality makes a difference in about 1 in 10,000 photos. Right now I can push the shadows slider all the way to the right in LR with no discernible hit in performance up to ISO3200, and that's enough for me in nearly every case.
Giving me something irrelevant is, well, irrelevant. Sure when Canon sort it out I'll take it, but it isn't something I'd buy a camera for.
Now, I'm the first to admit it's not great, but more and more people are comparing cameras on sensors. For me, the general performance of the body is more important and the lens is WAY more important.
But then again I've said this so many times before that I'm boring myself now
Unfortunately this is true.
.