D600!!!

[sovietdoc]

wtf is the point of D600 when there is D800..

Money shouldn't be an object, only "what it can do"


Let's just wait and see now how DxO tests new D600 and gives it higher score than 5D III. And still say how Nikon's 24-70 is still better than Canon's 24-70 II in resolution after they do a test on 24-70 II.

DxO is my number 1 stop for looking at unbiased hard numbers for Canon gear.

 

[KmH]

The cost of the camera is directly related to how much it costs to produce a full frame image sensor.

All of Nikon's entry-level DSLRs, Including the D600, have some common features:

• 1/4000 shutter
• only 3 exposure brackets
• no 10-pin connector
• no flash PC cable port
• 420 px, or the newer 2016 px metering sensor
• 9, or 39 auto focus points

Prosumer and Pro bodies have

• 1/8000 shutter
• 9 exposure brackets
• a 10-pin connector
• a flash PC cable port
• the 1005 px, or the newer 91,000 px metering sensor
• 51 auto focus points

So is the D7000 a prosumer, or entry level? Cause it contains parts from both lists.

The only item the D7000 has from the second list is the 1/8000 shutter. The D7000 redefined the upper entry-level grade segment in some ways, like the shutter speed.

The D600 is essentially all the D7000 internals with a full frame image sensor in a somewhat larger camera body. Note Derrel's observations in post #59 relative to the shutter speed.

 

[mjhoward]

The D7000 redefined the upper entry-level grade segment in some ways, like the shutter speed.

No it didn't. Your lists are incomplete. It's a semi-pro body.

 

[ZapoTeX]

DxO is my number 1 stop for looking at unbiased hard numbers for Canon gear.

It is certainly a great source, but it has some big limits.

For example, for high ISO noise, when they compare sensors with different resolutions, they measure the noise at the sensor's native resolution, then they "normalize" the result to 8 megapixels. Problem is: the formula they use for the "normalization" is based on the hypothesis that noise in each pixel is independent of all the other pixels nearby, which is NOT true (sometimes you can clearly see patterns in noise).

The above methodology gives an unfair advantages to sensors with high pixel count.

Ciao!

 

[Derrel]

The DxO Mark testing methodology might indeed give an edge to sensors with a high pixel count...but as we have seen,more and more, and as the D800 PROVES, conclusively, more pixels means more information to work with...the D800's High_ISO performance is actually much better than that of the D700. Why? Three times the MP count, 36 versus 12 MP. With newer,better,and lower-noise electronics, a "modern" sensor with 36MP actually has more resolution, better color, and lower noise than an older, lower MP count sensor. And, comparing cameras of the same generation, APS-C versus FX, the BIGGER sensor performs better...better color depth, higher resolution, wider dynamic range. So, yeah, their methodology does give an unfair advantage to sensors with high pixel count...because as we NOW know, higher pixel count is actually a net PLUS in most actual picture-making metrics...

Witness, two cameras of the same era, introduced within two weeks of one another, the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D 800...take a LOOK, using your eyes, and see how the HIGHER-MP count, identically-sized 36MP sensor kicks the 22 MP sensor's proverbial "butt". Same lens. Same day. More MP...wins...

Huh...

Part II - Controlled tests

OKAY...VERY,very,VERY obvious which camera has the BETTER imaging performance, at BASE ISO, with a good lens, in good, bright summer lighting.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Now, let's compare the side-by-side DxO Mark sensor scores, since in this thread there has been some commentary on the reliability/veracity/trustworthiness of DxO Mark scores....compare the DxO Mark scores with what is SEEN in the Fred Miranda side-by-side, controlled testing above. zOMG--DxO Mark scores seem to accurately reflect that the D800's sensor is SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than the one in the Canon 5D-III. zOMG! zOMG! How can that be???

 

[sovietdoc]

To get to the bottom of this, we don't really need to compare DxO's own scores for 5D III and D800 side by side, but rather take a look at DxO's page of "imaging industry leading partners" to see who pays them and who doesn't Because apparently Canon isn't on that list..hummm........

Forget about sensors, DxO says 70-200 I is better than II and obviously that's true. I won't surprised if they come to the same conclusion with 24-70 II how its worse than I and are both are crap compared to nikons 24-70.

Anyone who takes DxO scores seriously is either a Nikon fanboy, or doesn't know enough about technology in the camera he/she is shooting with, and that's why he/she believes what DxO has to say.

The biggest problem with DxO is that they change their scoring criteria based on what sensor nikon has available. The biggest impact on their sensor scores used to be low light performance a few years back, when nikon was better at it. Now, the biggest criteria is sensor resolution. Sounds to me they're just adjusting their score criteria based on which category nikon performs in best.

After seeing all this, whoever thinks DxO is legit is just a noob or a religious fanatic.

 

[spacefuzz]

I think D600 will do ok, there really are lot of people who would love this camera (especially landscapes)

 

[Derrel]

Part II - Controlled tests

Canon gets its A$$ handed to it by a new Nikon that costs $500 LESS...and the DxO Mark scores prove what our eyes can SEE. Sorry sovietdoc, but when Canon was leading the sensor wars, all we heard from the Canon fans like you was how "awesome" the sensors were; since that time, Nikon fired most of its senior executives, replaced them with men who were 20 years younger, and went on a HUGE campaign to win back the professional and serious enthusiast d-slr markets...which is what happened when the D3 revolutionized the pro d-slr market and the D300 embarrassed Canon, with a true semi-professional body that was NOT deliberately crippled [a Canon specialty!], but could meter with EVERY lens Nikon had made since 1977...Nikon decided to leverage its LENS HISTORY, and its 15 year lead in color-aware metering and color-aware, and distance aware flash. Nikon's lead in multi-flash TTL remote flash control meant better flash pictures.Canon kept touting "More MP! More MP! Same old camera, but more MP!"

The 5D was a good example: a CHEAP camera body, + good sensor, $3,499 at intro, then $3199, then $2999. The D700 OTHOH was like a Baby D3, for $2699 from the get-go. Only 12 MP, but 12 good MP, and a "pro" body. That could FOCUS, unlike the !D Mark III!

Since 2007, Canon has been falling farther and farther behind the position they HAD HELD since maybe 1996...so, in a decade, Canon lost its supremacy...all I heard a decade ago was how many "white lenses" were on the sidelines at sporting events...then the "it-cannot-focus-right Canon 1D Mark III" debacle dragged on for 18 months...it became pretty obvious that Canon had lost its mojo, and was just regurgitating the same old stuff as fast as they could update the numbers...D30,D60,10D,20D,30D,40D,50D,60D...a new camera every 16-18 months...but basically the SAME OLD chit...with more megapixels...

So, now that the testing "people", all over the world, are point out Canon's problems, the Canon fanboy types show up, in places like the "Nikon D600!!" thread to whine about how the rigorous testing sites are all "payed off". I find that approach amusing. I smile at it. Soooo grade-school. Losing out to a hungrier, smaller competitor whose MAIN businesses are cameras and optics must suck. Such is life for Canon. But they make a hell of a photocopier! They are #1 in photocopiers!

 

[rexbobcat]

The DxO Mark testing methodology might indeed give an edge to sensors with a high pixel count...but as we have seen,more and more, and as the D800 PROVES, conclusively, more pixels means more information to work with...the D800's High_ISO performance is actually much better than that of the D700. Why? Three times the MP count, 36 versus 12 MP. With newer,better,and lower-noise electronics, a "modern" sensor with 36MP actually has more resolution, better color, and lower noise than an older, lower MP count sensor. And, comparing cameras of the same generation, APS-C versus FX, the BIGGER sensor performs better...better color depth, higher resolution, wider dynamic range. So, yeah, their methodology does give an unfair advantage to sensors with high pixel count...because as we NOW know, higher pixel count is actually a net PLUS in most actual picture-making metrics...

Witness, two cameras of the same era, introduced within two weeks of one another, the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D 800...take a LOOK, using your eyes, and see how the HIGHER-MP count, identically-sized 36MP sensor kicks the 22 MP sensor's proverbial "butt". Same lens. Same day. More MP...wins...

Huh...

Part II - Controlled tests

OKAY...VERY,very,VERY obvious which camera has the BETTER imaging performance, at BASE ISO, with a good lens, in good, bright summer lighting.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Now, let's compare the side-by-side DxO Mark sensor scores, since in this thread there has been some commentary on the reliability/veracity/trustworthiness of DxO Mark scores....compare the DxO Mark scores with what is SEEN<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20222"/> in the Fred Miranda side-by-side, controlled testing above. zOMG--DxO Mark scores seem to accurately reflect that the D800's sensor is SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than the one in the Canon 5D-III. zOMG! zOMG! How can that be???

So more MP = better!?

 

[KmH]

More MP means smaller pixels that are less sensitive to light, which results in a lower SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), which causes a decrease in ISO performance.
When MP and ISO performance are both increased, something other than more MP is causing the ISO performance improvement.

DxO Labs measurements show that advances in pixel and RAW conversion technologies have compensated for the decrease in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) brought about by the proliferation of smaller, less light-sensitive pixels in DSLRs.

DxOMark - SNR evolution over time

DxOMark - Pushed ISO: Let's make it clear

 

[PhotoWrangler]

So more MP = better!?

Depending on the application of course. They aren't the be all end all.

 

[molested_cow]

Anyone knows how many stops of auto bracketing the D600 can do? Dpreview says AE bracketing: (2, 3 frames at 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV, 2/3 EV, 1 EV steps)

Not sure what it means.

 

[TheLost]

Yes, I have. And if you shoot properly lit photos, and print in 'normal' sizes (8x10, 11x14, 16x20) you would probably never know the difference between the two... at least the average viewer wouldn't.

I'm going to have to disagree about this point... 1) Print size has nothing to do with it. 2) Not everybody shoots in a studio. 3) A D7000 w/Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 will take completely different Portraits then a D700 with the same lens. The shallower DOF is VERY noticeable.

 

[IgsEMT]

If only I had the extra 6k... at least with D4, there's less controversy

 

[zcar21]

The DxO Mark testing methodology might indeed give an edge to sensors with a high pixel count...but as we have seen,more and more, and as the D800 PROVES, conclusively, more pixels means more information to work with...the D800's High_ISO performance is actually much better than that of the D700. Why? Three times the MP count, 36 versus 12 MP. With newer,better,and lower-noise electronics, a "modern" sensor with 36MP actually has more resolution, better color, and lower noise than an older, lower MP count sensor. And, comparing cameras of the same generation, APS-C versus FX, the BIGGER sensor performs better...better color depth, higher resolution, wider dynamic range. So, yeah, their methodology does give an unfair advantage to sensors with high pixel count...because as we NOW know, higher pixel count is actually a net PLUS in most actual picture-making metrics...

Witness, two cameras of the same era, introduced within two weeks of one another, the Canon 5D-III and the Nikon D 800...take a LOOK, using your eyes, and see how the HIGHER-MP count, identically-sized 36MP sensor kicks the 22 MP sensor's proverbial "butt". Same lens. Same day. More MP...wins...

Huh...

Part II - Controlled tests

OKAY...VERY,very,VERY obvious which camera has the BETTER imaging performance, at BASE ISO, with a good lens, in good, bright summer lighting.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Now, let's compare the side-by-side DxO Mark sensor scores, since in this thread there has been some commentary on the reliability/veracity/trustworthiness of DxO Mark scores....compare the DxO Mark scores with what is SEENView attachment 20222 in the Fred Miranda side-by-side, controlled testing above. zOMG--DxO Mark scores seem to accurately reflect that the D800's sensor is SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER than the one in the Canon 5D-III. zOMG! zOMG! How can that be???

Nikon has clearly more resolution and dynamic range, but what difference does that make in say, a 5x7 photo? Can we easily see the difference as on the computer?

I was checking the pictures from these two cameras, and high iso and colors look better with the canon in my opinion.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III sample images | Cameralabs

Nikon D800 sample images | Cameralabs