blutch wrote:
I'm talking about the wide shots at three different isos, not the close one that you processed. I see no difference in those three images... ??
I referred to these shots as well.
If you can't see a difference between the images at ISO 100 and ISO 6400, then someone could be inclined to conclude, that the camera is able to deliver better quality at ISO 6400 than other cameras where the degradation in image quality is higher. This was the point I made earlier.
The last few days I was in Madrid. Unfortunately I didn't have much chance for photography, but on one evening I was with a big group of non-photogrophers for dinner. No time for tripod, etc ... More or less taken while walking & talking to the restaurant. ...
In this department, the D600 is on par with the D4 and D800/D800e and way ahead of previous Nikon D-SLR generations. Even more impressive is for me the progress between the 24MP D3X and the 24 MP D600, the later one an "FX entry level" camera.
AndreasE wrote:
I referred to these shots as well.
If you can't see a difference between the images at ISO 100 and ISO 6400, then someone could be inclined to conclude, that the camera is able to deliver better quality at ISO 6400 than other cameras where the degradation in image quality is higher. This was the point I made earlier.
rgds,
Andy
I'm amazed if those ISO numbers are correct. The question I have is, why isn't there more light at iso 6400 than there is at 100? It looks like you set aperture and shutter to get the same lighting results. Was this just to compare noise? The lack of noise is pretty shocking. B
blutch wrote:
I'm amazed if those ISO numbers are correct. The question I have is, why isn't there more light at iso 6400 than there is at 100? It looks like you set aperture and shutter to get the same lighting results. Was this just to compare noise? The lack of noise is pretty shocking. B
The new generation of Nikon FX sensors can capture about twice as many photons than the previous generation.With this "budget" you can either pull up the shadows much more then previous possible, even in low light situations. The second benefit is much less noise at higher ISO (as shown here).
To be able to compare the images, usually the images are exposed at the same exposure level. If I would have kept time and aperture identical, then the higher ISO image would be brighter. But this was not the intent.
I played with a couple of these files in PS. DR is very impressive. These are some of the "better" examples I have viewed of D600 files so far....Thank you. As a Canon shooter I am not sure I am going to be able to wait for the 6D..
CGrindahl wrote:
You're making it awfully hard Andy, to resist this camera...
Great demonstration of its capabilities. Thanks for putting the time in and for sharing your results.
Hi Curtis, long time not seen!
Hope everything is well. I see that your MF thread is growing steadily.
I am not sure if I as a D700 shooter would be the one most tempted to switch to a D600. The D700 is still a formidable and capable camera with a wide range of uses, so the benefit increase for D700 users is smaller than for others. I'd rather see the owners of the D80, D90, D7000 line to be more tempted to "upgrade" via the D600 to FX. A step where the incremental value gained is so big, that the cost of upgrading is more easily justified (vs. for an D700 user).
It is similar with computers. When the newest generation (n) comes out, the biggest benefit to switch is not for the owners of last years generation (n-1), but rather those who didn't do it for multiple generations (n-2 or n-3).
The thing what fascinates me most is the improvement vs. the D3X. The super-duper top of the line camera a few years ago, with an 8.000 $ ticket doesn't have any area in sensor and image quality better than the D600 - the new FX "entry" level camera for a fraction of the price.
All the best,
Andy
Michaelparris wrote:
I played with a couple of these files in PS. DR is very impressive. These are some of the "better" examples I have viewed of D600 files so far....Thank you. As a Canon shooter I am not sure I am going to be able to wait for the 6D..
Glad you liked it.
Today i went to local shop to pick up D800 but when i hold D600 i was double minded, the only thing is stopping me to get D600 is weather sealing is not the same as D800 thats what i've been told by sales man. so i came back and still deciding which one to get it ?
i am leaning to the D800 because my D4 accessories i use will be usable and i much prefer CF over SD. i do have a D7000 but it is not my primary use camera though it does get a lot of use. i'm in no hurry though at this point.
the D800 should have been XQD/CF. SD is too much of a compromise to me but i'll live.
I use to concern myself with weather sealing being better in one camera than the other. The d600 is weather sealed, maybe not as good as the d800 or d4. In all the years I have been shooting, when I feel a rain drop I run like a cat the cover to keep my gear form getting wet, no matter if its weather sealed or not. I just do not take chances.. Thats just me though...
the basic issue on any of these high resolving cameras is that when shown on even a 30" screen they have been stomped down to a level that make it the equivelent of a 5MP-8MP camera overall unless you are willing to eat up the bandwidth of a site to truely represent it. it will be the print that will make the difference.
?