The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
D600 What do you think?
- Thread starter tollie
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I do want the same battery. My issue is different needs so having a different smaller body and mpx would be great for the shows I do with thousands of images shot. Honestly rather put the mileage on a 1500 body than my D800e. But I'll see what is finally announced. Worried also about AF continuous speed if it's slower than a no go. In a way the D4 would be perfect but too much money for what I need it for.
With certain events I shoot requiring close to 1000 shots, with a majority of them having a need to be post processed, I'd welcome a body with a more managable file size, but having a significant resolution advantage over the well known 12 mp cameras. As a tradeoff for accepting lower rez, I would hope a somewhat significant improvement in high ISO performance than the D800, increased FPS (would love to see 6FPS) and a form factor that is approx the same size and build as the D800. In other words, it's lower resolution (smaller file size) but higher ISO performing sibling. Using the same batteries as the D800 is a given.
I think in many ways that alone would make it both a desirable companion to the D800 while at the same time, a stand along camera that given single body users a choice at this level of camera. If one needs more FPS and better high ISO performance above the D600 I described, then the move to the D4 would be required. In essence, this D600 would be the logical successor to the D700, something many have been waiting for whereas the D800 was a new class of 35mm DSLR's for Nikon.
Dave (D&A)
I think in many ways that alone would make it both a desirable companion to the D800 while at the same time, a stand along camera that given single body users a choice at this level of camera. If one needs more FPS and better high ISO performance above the D600 I described, then the move to the D4 would be required. In essence, this D600 would be the logical successor to the D700, something many have been waiting for whereas the D800 was a new class of 35mm DSLR's for Nikon.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Some of these posts call reference to better high ISO performance ? Can t disagree in desiring better performance ...however the D800/E matches the D4/D3S standard (per DxO Labs ) thru 3200 . It is only after 6400 that the D4 distinguishes itself . I understand the advantage of the “fat pixel” but it would be hard to improve beyond best in class ?
Further does t downsizing the larger D800 file to say 18MP (similar to a D4) create the appearance of lower visible noise ?
Not debating the benefits of going better here ..but the D800E scores as best in class sensor technology for high iSO.
Further does t downsizing the larger D800 file to say 18MP (similar to a D4) create the appearance of lower visible noise ?
Not debating the benefits of going better here ..but the D800E scores as best in class sensor technology for high iSO.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
It probably does Roger, guess more the issue is just pushing thousands of 36mpx files at one time when the need is not there. For roadie guys we are on MBP or MBA which seconds add up fast in time saving.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Just for accuracy I went down another level of detail in the DxO Lab reports and in fact the D4 is about one full EV better than the D800E when viewed on a screen in the range of ISO 1600-6400 . In print they are indistinguishable differences .
For me this is the important range 1600-6400 ...above that nothing looks consistently satisfactory . If I was shooting events I would prefer the better ISO at say 3200 . This seems to be how Nikon set up the D4 verse D800 . The D4 has the smaller files ,high capture rates,better battery and better high ISO ....the offset is that it loses DR ,color depth etc in the base and low ISO range . (use the slider on the right side of the graph to visually see the differences ). (sounds like many here want a cheaper,smaller version of the D4 setup).
The DxO comparisons are very interesting because you can see how the different products have been “tuned “ to meet specific market requirements .
I use the D800E without the grip and thus the smaller EL15 battery but you can use the larger EL18 (from the D4) in the grip (you need a special end plate ). If I was doing events I would use the grip and the larger battery . You also can get a professional battery charger that tests and charges two EL18 batteries .
The other possible set up would be aimed at Sony and Canon ...better DR,tone range , Color depth and low ISO performance .
My guess is they will do neither and will hit the middle ISO400-1600 with a great 24MP value offering. This moves buyers out of the APS C (D300S) DX range into the bottom of the FX (full frame ) offerings . Anything less than $2K will set a standard for price performance .
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The D800 did a nice job shooting the runway stuff with the grip and 200 . ISO 1600 images looked very nice maybe a touch of noise but very workable. I even shot jpeg on some of it since I felt that comfortable once the lighting was consistent. I'm pretty impressed by what Nikon is doing and I like the targeting of there cams to certain needs, they get it. The D600 might be a more all around cam I agree and will sell like crazy. But I think it will work for me at least what the rumored specs. are. They need to work on a couple areas on there glass. Wide angle PCE lens, a nice 135 1.8, 200 2.8 and new 300 f4. A fast 50 1.2 would be interesting . Like to see better wide zooms with better distortion and CA control.
Guy, f/4? They already have a nice 300 2.8.
-bob
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
To big though. They need to clean up that 70-300 zoom could be a nice travel lens make it F 4 constant
Quiet agree and I'm in the same boat. I'm not disputing the number that DXO comes up with but #'s don't always tell the full story under all sorts of conditions. I've shot 1000's upon 1000's of files under demanding low light conditons with the D3s and have tried out the D4 and a borrowed regular D800 (before I purchased my own) under similar conditions and on the whole, the D4 and often times the D3s had more than just a single stop better ISO performance...sometimes considerably more. Yes, it always depends how one meters and shoots but in the real world under extrodinary fast paced performing arts and TV specials where lighting is changing moment to moment, the low light, high ISO shots that were consistantly useable, that didn't need enormous post processing work for noise, were the D3s and D4 files. The D700 did fairly well too although somewhat behind those two.
Thats why with a smaller file size (24mp vs. 36 mp) and fatter pixels that the D600 should have, I'm hoping if Nikon could pull the quite remarkable higher ISO performance they accomplished with the D800, then maybe they could up the ante and provide a stop more than that with the new D600, along with a somewhat faster frame rate and easier size files for what I and Guy just mentioned. Sort of a body that in these particular catagories (resolution, higher ISO performance and relative file size), fits between the D800 and D4. If this is possible, then it would be a nice companion for some to their D800 and for others that don't want a large pro sized D4 type body, a alternative.
As for imporvements in the various focal length lenses Guy mentioned, I am quite in agreeement. Nikon need to address these single focal length lenses and zoom, especially if used on the D800. Although the Tamron 70-300 VC lens is not a constant f4 zoom, at the very least, it runs circles around the Nikon 70-300 VR for travel and priced when rebates are available at a more than reasonable price and does quite well on the D800.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Dave
Take a close look at the DxO Lab tests. I have the D4 and the D800E and before that the D3s and the D3x with likewise 000 s of captures . In the range of ISO 1600-6400 the D3S/D4 both pull about one EV better performance maybe 1 1/2 at the maximum difference . (when viewing on a screen ) on a print they are near indistinguishable . If you go past ISO 3200 on a D800E you have exceeded it range ..no so on the D4/D3S which doesn t completely fall off .
The point being ..exactly where on the graph would you like to establish your high ISO performance . The answer will be different if you are speaking of shooting at 6400 on the D800 and 12800 on the D4 ..here I would agree the D4 will be a little better . Comparing a D800E at ISO800 and the D4 at 1600 ..I would call it a tie .
But beyond that aspect.....I could t find any other camera sensor that exceeded the D800E up to ISO3200 except theD4/D3s . So I would doubt that “best in class “ high ISO capability is what Nikon has in mind .
I have not once found the DxO Lab reports to be in error . I have misinterpreted the results as I did earlier in the thread ..but once I look at the exact comparison points ..its pretty much as I see it on the screen . The sum mary evaluations aren t really helpful but the detail measurements seem to be a good validation of my more subjective screen evaluations .
Roger Wrote >>>"Comparing a D800E at ISO800 and the D4 at 1600 ..I would call it a tie"<<<
Hi Roger,
As I mentioned in my lengthy post "above", I don't doubt the accuracy of DXO's published results and have often relied on them, but like many well controlled "Static" published test results", they may be extremely accurate in well "contolled" circumstances but often do not reflect certain real world shooting circumstances, such as the one I descibed in length (my post above). I know what my own eyes see.....in examining massive amount of files under low to very low ever changing stage lighting where exposure in various part of the frame differ wildly. If say the D800 was set to ISO 1600 under these circumstances, the D3s/D4 often would have a 1.5 stop advantage and depending on how accurate the exposure was for the main subject (little to no time to assess it accurately it in the moment to moment dramtaic changes in lighting), the D3s/D4 would at times exceed that 1.5 stop advatage over the D800 by a comfortable margin. I'm not refering to additional gains the D800 makes when downsizing it's files to D3s size...then the differences are reduced and thats a different story. It's with each camera shooting it's max. native file size. Files obtained are examined both on screen (at least at 50%) and eventually some are printed 24x36 or larger and these differences hold up.
What it says to me is the D800 is a remarkable achievement, having trippled (or almost trippled) the number of pixels of it's 12-16mp siblings, yet held onto and even possibly surpassed the noise characteristics of the D700 when using it's native full rez file, not only in quantitative amounts but quality.
I have no doubt if a well controlled tripod mounted test of all these cameras were performed under well controlled low light conditions, that the results might be close to or emulate the published results of DXO...no question about that. I'm just refering to the results I (and other shooters I often work with) have observed under the set of conditions outlined.
Dave (D&A)
Hi Roger,
As I mentioned in my lengthy post "above", I don't doubt the accuracy of DXO's published results and have often relied on them, but like many well controlled "Static" published test results", they may be extremely accurate in well "contolled" circumstances but often do not reflect certain real world shooting circumstances, such as the one I descibed in length (my post above). I know what my own eyes see.....in examining massive amount of files under low to very low ever changing stage lighting where exposure in various part of the frame differ wildly. If say the D800 was set to ISO 1600 under these circumstances, the D3s/D4 often would have a 1.5 stop advantage and depending on how accurate the exposure was for the main subject (little to no time to assess it accurately it in the moment to moment dramtaic changes in lighting), the D3s/D4 would at times exceed that 1.5 stop advatage over the D800 by a comfortable margin. I'm not refering to additional gains the D800 makes when downsizing it's files to D3s size...then the differences are reduced and thats a different story. It's with each camera shooting it's max. native file size. Files obtained are examined both on screen (at least at 50%) and eventually some are printed 24x36 or larger and these differences hold up.
What it says to me is the D800 is a remarkable achievement, having trippled (or almost trippled) the number of pixels of it's 12-16mp siblings, yet held onto and even possibly surpassed the noise characteristics of the D700 when using it's native full rez file, not only in quantitative amounts but quality.
I have no doubt if a well controlled tripod mounted test of all these cameras were performed under well controlled low light conditions, that the results might be close to or emulate the published results of DXO...no question about that. I'm just refering to the results I (and other shooters I often work with) have observed under the set of conditions outlined.
Dave (D&A)
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Diffrent types of light like tungsten for instance will be much diffrent than daylight. I'm glad the numbers are high which is great in controlled environments but real world with diffrent subjects and lighting it is variable at least to the perceived noise one may see. Also we may differ on what looks good and bad as far as noise levels. I like science but again we are artists with varying tastes. Bottom line though noise will get better as new profiles get built and fine tuned for these new cams. Let's not forget firmware updates as well. Honestly 35mm shooting has never been this good. I'm very excited about it now. Nikon deserves a lot of credit along with the sensor makers and the developers of raw processors.
I do agree the way Nikon has targeted there cams the D4 makes perfect sense to be tuned for higher ISO.
I do agree the way Nikon has targeted there cams the D4 makes perfect sense to be tuned for higher ISO.
I should have made the point in my previous post that Guy so aptly mentioned in his....namely different types of "artificial" light can have a profound affect on both the quantity and quality of the noise seen in a image shot at high ISO.
I still feel that Nikon hasn't yet release a real successor to the D700....a body which had an extrodinary balanced approach to reasonable maket price, high ISO performance, fast/high frame rate, pro quality built in a relatively smaller body that their larger Pro DSLR's like th D3S/D4. I would have though ultimately a D4 baby brother (like the D700 was to the original D3), would eventaually be offered...or at the very least somewhat similar. If it was to have 24mp instead of the D4's 16mp, then this D700 successor would have a FPS rate approaching that of the D700 and higher ISO performance surpassing both the D700 and D800 (due to tech advances made that we see with the 36mp D800).
This camera would fit into a gap that was previously occupied by the D700 and fits in between the D800 (for resolution/file size) and D4 for FPS rate and high ISO performance. The D600 almost sounds like "it", although whether it's fatter pixels (relative to the D800), translates to even better high ISO pefomance than th D800, that is to be seen, as well as built quality. I believe it's a body that's badly needed in The Nikon line-up where a companion body that has a different set of priorities, goes well as a D800 companion for those that often have priorities that stems beyond needing the resolution/file size of the D800 at all times, but a body that both in size, batteris used etc. Are a good match. Much like when Nikon had a D2H and D2X (or alternatively the D3X and D3s) and were often the chosen pair of many shooters.
Dave (D&A)
I still feel that Nikon hasn't yet release a real successor to the D700....a body which had an extrodinary balanced approach to reasonable maket price, high ISO performance, fast/high frame rate, pro quality built in a relatively smaller body that their larger Pro DSLR's like th D3S/D4. I would have though ultimately a D4 baby brother (like the D700 was to the original D3), would eventaually be offered...or at the very least somewhat similar. If it was to have 24mp instead of the D4's 16mp, then this D700 successor would have a FPS rate approaching that of the D700 and higher ISO performance surpassing both the D700 and D800 (due to tech advances made that we see with the 36mp D800).
This camera would fit into a gap that was previously occupied by the D700 and fits in between the D800 (for resolution/file size) and D4 for FPS rate and high ISO performance. The D600 almost sounds like "it", although whether it's fatter pixels (relative to the D800), translates to even better high ISO pefomance than th D800, that is to be seen, as well as built quality. I believe it's a body that's badly needed in The Nikon line-up where a companion body that has a different set of priorities, goes well as a D800 companion for those that often have priorities that stems beyond needing the resolution/file size of the D800 at all times, but a body that both in size, batteris used etc. Are a good match. Much like when Nikon had a D2H and D2X (or alternatively the D3X and D3s) and were often the chosen pair of many shooters.
Dave (D&A)