tobicus wrote:
It looks like an awesome camera, and if we didn't have two D700s already, we'd probably have picked two D600s up instead for wedding work.
From the sounds of it, you are much better off with the D700 bodies, mid-range pro cameras, rather than high-end consumer bodies such as the D600.
Will be in two weeks time, in Mana Island Fiji, test shots of some kids in their natural street environment to check focus, sharpness & resolution capacity.
Make no mistake this is one hell of a camera, lens combination and I have no doubt having blown these up to A3 on a Ricoh colour photocopier and they are seriously sharp.
Ziffl3 wrote:
nice shots ... but lots of blown hightlights
I've never worked with the D600 but from my experience working with high-dynamic-range Sony sensors, highlights tend to blow real easily - probably worse than Canon. The flexibility you gain in the shadows (with those Sony sensors) you lose in the highlights.
Grace are you working in RAW or HQ jpegs?, re the highlights, I know the images are great quality with the gear your'e using, but posting appears to have softened them on my 27"iMac & I'm not sure why ?
I just got a d600 and used it for a wedding. Up to iso 6400 is quite usable. AF is similar to the D800 just a smaller coverage area. The images look very similar to the d800 and the smaller file size is really nice.
wer2012 wrote:
I just got a d600 and used it for a wedding. Up to iso 6400 is quite usable. AF is similar to the D800 just a smaller coverage area. The images look very similar to the d800 and the smaller file size is really nice.
I shot this pic on the D600 at 25,600ISO raw processed in LR with some NR:
Ghost wrote:
The images seem soft. So far not impressed. Might be gear... might be technique.
it's most likely the gear.
my wife uses a d7000 (supposedly the d600's runt brother) and the images look similar. the AF is pretty damn iffy, but when it nails a shot, it nails it.
many of her images end up requiring a lot more time to fix than my d700 files.
I was going to pick a d600 for her but I think the better choice would be a d700 or a d300(s) or something...
anyone else out there notice how green/magenta sensitive the camera is in the shadows?
one of my major gripes with the 7000 is it's tendency to cast a green or magenta shadow (which of course becomes really bad when shooting around grass or in wooded areas.)
my wife uses a d7000 (supposedly the d600's runt brother) and the images look similar. the AF is pretty damn iffy, but when it nails a shot, it nails it.
many of her images end up requiring a lot more time to fix than my d700 files.
I was going to pick a d600 for her but I think the better choice would be a d700 or a d300(s) or something...
anyone else out there notice how green/magenta sensitive the camera is in the shadows?
one of my major gripes with the 7000 is it's tendency to cast a green or magenta shadow (which of course becomes really bad when shooting around grass or in wooded areas.)
