After so much text and charts in the last posts, 2 D600 images from earlier today.
This is a vertical cut from the center of a D600 frame captured horizontally. Throwing two thirds away, higher resolution sensors can show their advantage in this scenario.
I've quite often mentioned the increased dynamic range the new FX sensor generation is able to deliver, for instance in "pulling up the shadows", etc ...
I thought you might be interested in a direct comparison between the D600 and the D700, quite a few people are familiar with. To simplify things, the subject is a boring one, but it was quick to set up at home.
The setting:
Some leafes at home
tripod, AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II, 200mm, VR=off
both cameras triggered with remotes
An energy savings lamp a bit away "lighted" the scene. It was very dark.
Intentionally exposed to the low side. To show the difference between the cameras.
Exposure set to M
Postprocessing:
fileformat: 14bit lossless RAW
CNX2 ver. 2.3.4.
Whitebalance set to incandecent
Noise reduction set in CNX2 to OFF
Dynamic light set to 70 and high quality
saved in 2560x1700 and 900x600 (highest quality)
You make a strong case Andy for the D600. You've definitely got me thinking, though I'm not often called upon to shoot in settings that are especially dark. I appreciate the effort you put into providing this information for all of us. Thanks.
CGrindahl wrote:
You make a strong case Andy for the D600. You've definitely got me thinking, though I'm not often called upon to shoot in settings that are especially dark. I appreciate the effort you put into providing this information for all of us. Thanks.
Hi Curtis,
it is not my intent to either promote the D600 or to tell the D700 isn't an excellent camera. Let me be clear. The D700 is an excellent camera.
This post was meant for all those discussions I could see on the web, were basically the assertation was made that the progress in the few years between the D700 and the new generation is more or less neglible. While I would argue, that this is in 90% of all photos made a true statement, there is at the same time an "unavoidable" progress in the underlying process technology of modern sensors.
While most of the debate around the D800 had been centered about the utility of the high resolution, from my POV the biggest innovation step was the better dynamic range for those situations, where the image could benefit from pulling up the shadows. When I tried the D600 for the first time, this increased capability became quite early clear to me, but I could not "grab" it in a direct way. Thats the reason, why I did the above test to get a better feeling about the "how much is it really?" question.
The photon numbers I stated are taken from the sensorgen.info website, multiplied by the resolution of the respective sensor. Traditionally, the process improvements in sensortechnology is time dependent. The later, the better is the efficiency. It was a huge step when the D4 and the D800 more or less appeared at the same time earlier this year. The 8 months since then allowed the D600 development team to squeeze out even more sensitivity which puts the D600 very close to the D4 - an astonishing feat.
The preceived difference between D700 and D600 night images varies - from visible advantage for the D600 photo, to almost identical impression to better preceived quality for the D700. With regards to the D300s there is no doubt, that the current generation of sensors provide significant improvements.
Here are 3 images which show a scene with different perception. Other will follow.
Same processing in CNX2 with all 3 images
Andy,
Again, really great stuff. Will be receiving my new D600 on Monday and canīt wait to start shooting.
Thanks for taking your time to share all this great info.
Andy thanks for all the great information on the D600. I was wondering if you had tried the in camera HDR and what your impressions of its capabilities.
bobh665 wrote:
Andy thanks for all the great information on the D600. I was wondering if you had tried the in camera HDR and what your impressions of its capabilities.
I tried in-camera HDR in one of the previous Nikon cameras. Too many limitations for me.
The D600 sensor is excellent for night shots. Here is one example I just did an hour ago while walking with the dog while on a short trip with my wife. This moonlight shot was taken with the AFS 16-35mm/4 VR. I "underexposed" the photo a bit to avoid completely blownout lights in the village and brought the shadows up a bit - which is easy with the D600. Somehow, I like the tonality of the image. And it was without any HDR.
leighton,
I don't think I will pursue this route. Too much fun as hobbyist ...
I just realized, that my webspace provider recompressed my images and reduced the filesizes by 80%. I need to look into what happened, but the quality of the uploaded JPEG is significantly better than what you currently can see. Sorry for the inconvenience.
You have certainly got a lot of experience with Nikon cameras and the images you have posted are excellent. Perhaps you can help me with something.
I upgraded recently from a D90 to D600. The minimal shutter lag, the crispness of the shutter and the high ISO performance were immediately apparent.
What was noticeable though was the small area covered by the AF points in the frame as compared to the D90. And that each individual AF point was smaller in size in comparison. While in good to low light, the AF is acquired much quicker than in D90 but the story changes when photographing in very low light. E.g., street photography when the subject is not well lit. D600 outer focus points fail to acquire focus and the center point takes a painfully long time to lock on (a few seconds). Try the same thing with D90 and it locks on much quicker.
I have tried this with the FX lenses 85 1.8D, 80-200 2.8D and the DX lenses 18-105, 35 1.8, the behaviour remains the same.
One thing that comes to mind is perhaps the D90s AF point being larger was able to detect more phase difference in the selected point than the smaller AF point of D600.
Please let me know of your experience in this matter.
Usman,
I am not that experienced as it might look like. I try to understand things I am using and I am sharing these learnings in places like here at fredmiranda. That's all.
With regards to your question. The answer is a tricky one, because so many things depend on the environment, the photographer, the light, subject and the technology. Isolating the cause from the symptoms is sometimes the hard thing.
Some comments to your points:
1) The size of the AF fields is related but not identical to the AF fields you can see in the viewfinder. Usually the real AF field is a bit larger than the one you see.
2) The D90 has a 11 AF module with the center element of a cross type. So from the specs, the D600 should be better (and it usually is)
3) One tip: If your camera, independent of the model, has issues to lock on with the AF field of crosstype, it usually helps to tilt the camera by 45 degrees to change the alignment of the contrast lines in the subject with the phase detection circuits in the camera. This move is quick (just tilt the camera), use the AF, hold the shutterbutton halfpressed and turn the camera back to the view you originally intended. This works on all cameras, be it single digits, double digits or triple digits bodies.
4) Depending on your shooting assigments, you might take a look at the D3s technical manual , Nikon professional services published a while ago. This paper describes the different AF settings for the different sports - highly recommended reading. And if you download the D3s technical paper, download the D3X paper as well. Both are very good.
Your comment on the smaller AF arrangement of the D600 is a valid one. It is smaller. Probably the camera with the smallest AF arrangement Nikon introduced in the last few years (bar the entry level cameras). Usually I don't care about all those AF fields as I stick mostly with the center AF field and recompose - this is far faster than selecting an AF field. Where I do need the AF fields are in 2 areas: 1) sports and moving animals. 2) portraits with very fast lenses (f1.4 - f2.0).
(1) is obvious, but (2) is more tricky. The shallow depth of field of a lens a f1.4 does not allow to focus with the center AF on the eye of the person to be portrait and THEN recompose -. the focus plane would move immediately away from the eye. So a non-center AF field is needed to avoid this very common reason for out of focus portraits with fast lenses.
To the core of your question:
I haven't done any side-by-side comparison between the D90 and D600 Af module (and won't do it), but i would be very surprised if the D90 AF would outperform the D600 from a pure low light performance.
The AF arrangement is something I can safely ignore, as I do 98%+ of my images with the center field.
As this thread is reactivated again, some images I did which shows the significant progress the D600 sensor made by Sony introduces to everyday shooting.
Example one.
A dark image at night with not that many highlights.That is the easy one, as there is enough headroom to push up exposure without running danger to blow highlights.
I was walking in the night. 10pm. The moon was partly covered by clouds passing by. I did not have my remote wireless with me, so my exposure time was limited to 30 sec (you need the wireless beyond 30 sec exposure)
A bit more complex scene. I allways had a hassle to capture night shots with city lights during a pitch dark night.Either it was too dark but preserved the lights, or too bright for the lights but right for the surrounding. In this example, I wanted to preserve the street lights. Naturally, the environment around went even darker. Without pushing EV , only DL applied, some of the mountains surrounding the mountain village came back (the human eye could see them).
I am not arguing that the D600 is the only camera capable of doing so, or there is no way you can't do similar things with other cameras. It is just very simple with the D600.
The difference in IQ is massive really. Thanks for the comparison Andy.