Andreas, I was thinking of getting a D7000 for the extended range for wildlife shooting (making a 600mm lens out of a 400mm lens) - what do you think about the D600 for that purpose? Switched to DX it apparently has only got 10,5 Mpix left (is that correct?)
That beetle enlargement is impressive though.
I'd be interested in a comparison between a D7000 shot and a shot with D600 cropped to the same frame. Is the D600 shot better? (less noise)
I am using a D700, and am not to interested in the D800 due to file size, although I know it would be the best choice probabely. Don't want to give up the D700 either, since I love the rendering with all my Zeiss lenses. Don't think the D800 has the same "flair"- resolution is not everything.
cyra,
I hadn't have time to compare the D600 thoroughly with other Nikon bodies. The DX/16MP game is probably best solved with a D800 (has 16MP in DX). But it is not on your options list.
The biggest "drawback" of FX cameras used in DX mode is the viewfinder. Unfortunately, the remainder of the frame is not blacked out to facilitate framing. Personally, I find it easier to do DX shots with DX cameras. It all depends on the frequency. If you intend to continously use the D600 as DX camera, consider the D7000. But ...
The better all round package (for me) is the D600.
With regards to your D800/Zeiss comment. Is it your "thinking" or build on experience? Personally, I haven't come accross any situation, where the D800 images were worse than the D700 photos. The majority of my D800 photos is visible better (technically seen).
Can't ignore the fact, that the newer sensor is able to capture twice as many photons than the predecessor. (Shadow recovery). Second point for me is the higher resolution and its impact on USM. With the D800E, i am desharping my images. Together with downsampling the image is more natural than a smaller res image where USM is applied.
I am not saying that the D700 is a bad camera. All I am saying is: The D800 is better.
AndreasE wrote:
The DX/16MP game is probably best solved with a D800 (has 16MP in DX). But it is not on your options list.
The biggest "drawback" of FX cameras used in DX mode is the viewfinder. Unfortunately, the remainder of the frame is not blacked out to facilitate framing.
I guess the framing is done later by cropping.
If you intend to continously use the D600 as DX camera, consider the D7000. But ...
The better all round package (for me) is the D600.
Wildlife-long-lens photography probabely is about 25 % of my shooting. If I got the D7000 I would keep the D700 for FX and my Zeiss lenses from 21 to 100 mm.
If I got the D800, I would sell the D700. With the D600 I am not sure whether it could replace both the D700 and a second body D7000.
With regards to your D800/Zeiss comment. Is it your "thinking" or build on experience?
my "thinking"
I am not talking about resolution or sharpness. Sure the D800 is king there. I have seen many images with adorable detail. But ( and this really is a subjective thing), D800 images look kind of slick to me, almost supernatural, even artificial in a way, and for me they somewhat lack character. I do prefer the more "gritty" feel of a D700 image. Good old D700 (for me) seems to transport the emotional content of an image better, have not seen many images yet from the D800 which cought my attention in that respect. It might have something to do with the OOF rendering, I don't really know.
Personally, I haven't come accross any situation, where the D800 images were worse than the D700 photos. The majority of my D800 photos is visible better (technically seen).
Can't ignore the fact, that the newer sensor is able to capture twice as many photons than the predecessor. (Shadow recovery).
D800 images certainly are better in a technical sense, the 3fold resolution is just overwhelming, no doubt about that. And shadow recovery is stunning, as far as I can tell from samples. Don't want to question this at all. The D800 certainly is the right choice for landscape, macro and anything else that needs detail. Still, I am not sure about those moody Zeissy bokeh shots I love with the D700 but have not seen as yet done with the D800 (but will gladly be shown to be wrong).
Second point for me is the higher resolution and its impact on USM. With the D800E, i am desharping my images.
are you saying you are applying blur
Together with downsampling the image is more natural than a smaller res image where USM is applied.
I can imaginge that.
I still wonder where the D600 stands between the D700 and the D800, I guess much closer to the D800.
It seems to share the amazing shadow recovery (your jeep images! ).
For my intended use as a "long lens extender" for shooting wildlife the D800 would certainly be the better choice. I am not sure I'd want to sell the D700 to finace it though, also not sure I want to haul around two bodies of 1 kg each. The D600 would be a compromise of sorts, but might not be what I expect on either end of the range.
I guess I need to see more images with both D800 und D600, especially with Alt lenses and my beloved Zeiss lenses.
I am not in a rush, but want to be settled next spring.
thanks for your insights Andy! ...and am looking forward t o more pictures
Cyra,
you mentioned so many different aspects, let me address some of them:
1) The framing I meant is the DX "frame" in the viewfinder of a FX camera, not the framing in postprocessing. For me, I see too much in a FX viewfinder when shooting DX, which makes composing and framing of the scane during shooting "harder". For frequent DX shooting, I prefer to shoot with DX cameras.
2) The D800 (and D4 and D600) require a different form of postprocessing than the previous generation. If the same process like with a D3 is applied, I agree with you, they look "too slick". imho, there are 3 reasons for this. 1) the higher resolution vs. the D3/D3s/700 group. I consider resolution an intermediary aspect, similar to what I can do with RAW. 2) The noise has higher frequency (finer granularity) and 3) dynamic range is better. Enough difference for me to apply different processing style.
3) On "blurring". No, I don't blur the pictures. What I do is, that I take software sharpening and many of its associated artefacts out.In combination with downsampling, a D800 photo looks more natural for me, when all in-camera and CNX2 sharpening is turned off. The downsampling creates enough accuity. Accuity which is not as "overdefined" as a 12 MP image with USM applied, which was my standard postprocessing approach in the past.
I haven't had enough time to use the D600 in many different environments, but it is impressive how much progress someone can see between the sensor of the D3x and the D600. Considering the price difference, even more so.
1) You are right, the object ist much smaller in the frame, this sure is a disadvantage for MF (I have a Telyt 280/4), haven't thought about this. In this respect the D7000 is probabely still the best choice for wildlife shooting.
2)-interesting to look at the high resolution file as a kind of RAW. Improved dynamic range is much of an improvement, but the finer granularity I am not sure of. This is probabely what causes the different (what I call slick) look. I actually like the coarse grain of the D700. Look at this image from Lieutnant Z, I think the coarse grain (or grittyness) enhances the texture a lot. I would love to see a comparative shot with the D600/D800. Especially one that looks more natural and not slick.
3) so you just switch off every automatic sharpening and just downsample. Interesting.
I know that downsampling can work wonders with a good base file.
I'll keep watching peoples pictures with the new sensors :-)
(don't want to hijack this thread to much with my specific question)
My first impressions of the D600 were disappointing.....
I was at Best Buy looking to replace the 16 gig CF card I seem to have lost today. Then there it was. The latest, greatest D600 sitting next to an even more awesome D800. Wahoo. Unfortunately, neither one had a lens, or power and the security alarm went off as soon as I touched the D600. Great. The only thing I learned is that the D600 is obviously bigger in the grip area than my D7K and it felt as like it was a similar reach for the right hand as the D800 sitting next to it. Oh yeah, and someone had already taken the plastic protector for the D600's LCD.
Impressive.
I would love a comparison like this between 12/24/36 MP resolution. D700/D600/D800
I really would like to see how a useful crop (say 25%) and 100% look like in comparison.
Has anyone seen that done yet?
Iam deciding which one to pick D800 or D600 because here in UK Price difference is only £200. D600 is £200 less then D800 as i have no lens iam deciding to buy 24-120 as walk around and 70-200 for sports.
I showed the 3 images to demonstrate that at this final resolution there is not much difference in noise between ISO 100 and an ISO 6400 image with the D600. It wasn't so in the past.
