D600 Review

angevin1

Nikon D600 Review


Firstly let me say that this week spent with the D600 was fun.
I rented a Zeiss 85mm f1.4 to go along with this Camera, just for kicks.


Goals:

1. Video performance?
2. FX/DX crop mode?
3. Noise?

Let me start with #3. I am not the noise police. Most noisy photos that folks post on the Internet don't bother me and much of it I can barely discern. I performed a noise test using the D90 against the D700 two years ago and what I found was exactly what I found with the D600: If you want to operate in High ISO territory, bring a Pro-level lens. With the D90 ISO 3200 was possible with good light, a good lens and then you could process it to taste. With the D600 I found ISO 6400 easily reachable for usable photos. What I saw in ISO 6400 with the D600 was quite amazing. Better than my D700 straight out of the Camera. I downloaded NX2 so I could open up the RAW NEF's and see them in full potential. See the links at the bottom of this Post.



FX-DX crop mode. In the default setting the Camera senses a DX lens, it automatically goes into this mode and you'll be none the wiser. It just works. And yes. You can take a FX lens and change the settings into DX mode for a 1.5 crop just like having a FX lens on a DX Camera. Your 100mm Macro becomes a 150mm. It works!


I tested the Camera's Commander function and found it to be in keeping with all Digital Nikon's I've used, D70, D90, D300, D700. It has a reliable line of sight range outdoors of about 65ft. With 85ft. Being about the Max distance from the Off Camera flash to the Camera. If you're just getting into flash photography, I highly recommend Nikon's On-board Flash Commander system and one of the Nikon branded flashes to go along with it. It can save you many headaches as you learn how to control an off-camera flash using TTL, Nikon's proprietary Flash Control system for Off Camera Flash.


The Quirks.


One thing I did not know about Nikon is, they have an Auto-brightness feature on their LCD. I prefer WYSIWYG. It'd be nice if they allowed that feature to turn off via a menu tweak, with default being on. The Canon 5dMk2 is WYSIWYG....When your scene is dark, the LCD looks Dark. Not so on the Nikon.


The D600 also has two Live View Modes. Photo Live View and Movie Live View. Cool. Interestingly when you set ISO for taking photos, then switch over to Live View to take a Movie, that ISO doesn't follow you. You have to set a Movie ISO.


Changing Aperture. You have to switch out of Live View ( EDIT: That is Movie -live View!) to change Aperture. That's a wee bit of a pain. More so because you cannot accurately see what your exposure looks like in the LCD. You can take a photo in Live View-Movie Mode, but guess what? The camera switches over to Photo Mode, aka Photo ISO to take the photo and unless you have those ISO's matching you'll chase your tail a while to find out what is going on. This is strange also since it tells you right in the manual that it will take a photo in Movie Mode and it'll be cropped 16:9, just like a Movie frame, not hinting about that ISO thing.


Changing Aperture take-2. If you want to change aperture without going out of Live View mode you can do that if you have an older Nikon lens with a manual aperture ring. But get this, if you mount that lens, such as I did with Nikon's 35-70mm f/2.8 and go ahead and turn the ring off of it's lock on f/22, the camera sets an EE (flashing letters) code and will not go into Live View, normal behavior. The hat trick here is to put the Camera into Live View first then unlock the aperture ring and it'll shoot a Movie. With EE flashing loud and proud. Just like other Cameras though, it will not take a photo while flashing that code, in any mode.


39 point AF Sys. In order to be able to change the AF- focal point to whatever place you desire you have to press-in the button that is on the front lower right hand side where the Af/Mf switch is. It's in the center of that switch. Others may have known this but it took me some time to find it in the manual.

Zeiss 85mm F/1.4
f/9
Shutter Speed 1/400th
ISO 25,600
Std. Pic profile, adjusted; -4 sharpness,-4 Contrast, -2 Saturation.


Photo #1 25,600 ISO unprocessed changed to JPEG in Adobe LightRoom3

http://www.tomwisephotos.com/Photography/Mega-Challenge/i-TqfDjdx/0/L/256k-adjnxLr-2-XL.jpg

Same photo with noise reduction applied, White Balance, no sharpening. in Adobe LightRoom3.

http://www.tomwisephotos.com/Photography/Mega-Challenge/i-cqhxFVL/0/L/256k-adjnxLr-XL.jpg

Video Review to come...

ziggy53

Thanks for posting your impressions and review, Tom. I appreciate the time and effort and look forward to the video review.

Do you have any recommendations for who might be best suited to the Nikon D600? (What applications it's really good for?)

angevin1

ziggy53 wrote: »

Do you have any recommendations for who might be best suited to the Nikon D600? (What applications it's really good for?)

Women. When my AFS 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (older-kit/plastic DX lens) was mounted to this Body, I felt it was within a few ounces of the weight of the Nikon D90 with the same lens attached. My Partner loves her D90 and this body would be a substantial & justified upgrade for her in: Overall image quality, Auto-Focus Speed and Accuracy, Movie Function/Choices & Quality.

I imagine the Intervalometer and Time Lapse functions would be of interest to many types of shooters.

While Arguments have been presented in other threads as to why this Camera would not fit certain Pro-situations, I can say that I believe it was easier to get a decent looking 6400 ISO photo Straight-out of this Camera. So in other words a person who knows their going to have to be shooting 6400 ISO without Adjunct-Flash would be well served by my observations.

There is a Shutter Speed Limit of 1/4000th of a second. And I ran into it, but only because the ambient light I was shooting in was too bright for that ISO speed & I didn't want to go with a Small Aperture beyond f/9. No prob. Popped on an ND filter and off we went! But this was while trying to go with High ISO for testing.

Having owned a D700 for several years, with which I shot many things from Portraiture inside/outside, Weddings, & Events, as well as Landscapes & Hiking documentation and Wildlife.
Overall I believe this Camera would have suited for any of those endeavors with equal aplomb and in fact would have trumped the D700 via the D600's FX/DX crop mode for wildlife. The D600's dual SD-Card storage Slots gives several options for back-up storage/redundancy or simply more-storage.

One thing I failed to mention was Nikon's White Balance. In keeping with other Nikon's I've owned or tried. The Auto White-Balance feature here is stellar.
There is a choice of saving up to 4 Custom White Balances that can be set with either another photo previously taken, one taken instantly or even in the scene before you where the Camera measures and sets it, flashing "GOOD" on the top LCD screen to let you know you're good to go for that preset. You can then switch to these saved WB presets. That I would think would lend itself well to a Shooter who had a gig that was Outside/Inside and they were having to go between the two extremes, needing only to change their predetermined saved WB preset to ensure proper WB. Maybe not a big deal for RAW Shooters, but a useful function to have I think. These presets once saved are also adjustable, being able to take into account strong color contrast and the like and then again save.

Matthew Saville

angevin1 wrote: »

Women. When my AFS 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (older-kit/plastic DX lens) was mounted to this Body, I felt it was within a few ounces of the weight of the Nikon D90 with the same lens attached. My Partner loves her D90 and this body would be a substantial & justified upgrade for her....

THAT'S not sexist at all! :-P

Hey, I'm a manly man and I like my lightweight cameras too ya know! I use them for backpacking 10 miles in a day, and other stuff like that where you feel EVERY ounce on your shoulders and hips for 12 hours a day.

I also have been testing a D600, and my initial reaction is something completely different from your three points- pure image quality amazingness. Shooting at ISO 100, in extremely dynamic conditions, I am just blown away by the D600 files. I too had to use Nikon View NX 2 to save zeroed-out JPG images with minimal processing, for me to get them into Lightroom for "proper" assesment, but WOW am I impressed so far. I can't wait to see what Lightroom 4 can do to these NEF files, with shadow and highlight recovery. It is going to be in-freaking-sane.

So, would I buy a D600? Yes, if I were an outdoor photographer or if that were my hobby and I had the $$$. HOWEVER, my tests have also forced me to conclude, thus far, that I would still prefer a D700 for low-light photojournalism and other action-related things.

I am not sure that the autofocus is on par with the D700; I am having trouble getting the D600 to lock in ISO 3200, f/1.8, and 1/60 type of low-light, Especially when my subject is darker colored.

I will say however that I didn't have any problem controlling the focus points, as others have mentioned. You do NOT need to always hit the new AF button in order to move the focus point around, only the first time to take it out of "all-points" mode. Then, after you remove that one default setting, you can move your focus point around the viewfinder just like any other Nikon.

I don't like the new AF button system either, like many; I find the older set of two switches to be more easy-access during action conditions.

Much more, coming later!
=Matt=

endurodog

Any comparisions to the D7000?

Matthew Saville

endurodog wrote: »

Any comparisions to the D7000?

I'll let Angevin speak for themself, but my impression is simply that the D600 is a D7000 on steroids. Everything is better, except the FPS which is slower by 1.5 FPS and the AF, which I can't tell yet whether or not is better...

=Matt=

endurodog

Very cool, thanks Matt

angevin1

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I too had to use Nikon View NX 2 to save zeroed-out JPG images with minimal processing, for me to get them into Lightroom for "proper" assesment, but WOW am I impressed so far. I can't wait to see what Lightroom 4 can do to these NEF files, with shadow and highlight recovery. It is going to be in-freaking-sane.
=Matt=

You can convert and save the D600 NEF's to Tiff, which is what I did in NX2.

angevin1

endurodog wrote: »

Any comparisions to the D7000?

It is worth taking the time to read the review in full over at DP Review. They do a great job of 'comparing', which is what you are interested in.


This from DP Review:

D600 versus D7000: Specification highlights

• 24.3MP Full-frame CMOS sensor (compared to 16.2MP DX-format CMOS)
• Maximum 5.5fps continuous shooting (compared to 6fps)
• 3.2in 921k-dot LCD screen (compared to 3in)
• D800-style combined movie/still live view mode button
• Headphone jack for audio monitoring in movie mode
• Uncompressed video recording via HDMI

As I had mentioned to you before I am certain that the Jump you made from the Nikon D40 to the D7000 was a HUGE leap forward. Comparatively the D7000 to D600 will not be on par with that leap. Changing up to a D600 (edit, duh!) will more than likely not give you Uber-improved Imagery over the D7000.


SO why make the upgrade? FX is one very good reason. FX/DX Crop mode is a very strong selling point.


If video is your thing, then that is much improved, but only perhaps for the person who wants or needs more options.


Not a bunch of reasons to upgrade. And once again, I don't expect the imagery to be that much better over your D7000. Also, I still recommend you renting one to compare yourself.


Hope that helps~

endurodog

Thanks Tom

Matthew Saville

angevin1 wrote: »

You can convert and save the D600 NEF's to Tiff, which is what I did in NX2.

No need to waste the space. For now I'm just converting to JPG and taking those into LR. I shot with ADL all the way up and Neutral Pic Control with the contrast turned down, so the images are just about as dynamic as they're going to get, RAW or no RAW...

angevin1

D600 in Video Mode
Video Performance. The First day I got this Camera, and the First movie I shot with it, and brought into my Studio, I was amazed. It was easily clearer, cleaner with Spot-on Skin tones compared to my Canon 5DMk2. The key reason I mention this and how it was so evident was when I pulled it into After Effects, which is my preferred platform for editing, I could literally advance frame by frame and see a clear capture of each individual frame, as if I had taken a Still photo for each frame. That by itself was a first for me. I like to think I have gotten some decent frames out of my Canon 5DMK2 but really without doing a thing except hooking a lens to this camera, mounting it onto my slider and shooting at 1080p, 30fps, this camera gave a good result. I then mounted the Canon onto the slider, change the lens onto the Canon and NO! Not nearly as clear or clean as the Nikon. Those frame by frames looked like they always do and as I had gotten used to them appearing: Some clean, some not so much. And skin tones always based on how I White-balanced, versus the Nikon's typical stellar AWB.


I shoot with a flat profile on my Canon, so I decided I'd better try and get both Cameras set to render similar flat profiles. If I was going to be a decent judge.


I changed my Canon over to Std pic profile, set Sharpness all the way negative, Contrast the same, Saturation -2. I did not change Hue. Same with the D600, Std. Pic profile with the same settings.
One good thing about comparing these two camera's is, they can use the exact same lens. The 5DMK2 can take an adapter to mount a Nikon lens. I have plenty of Nikon Lenses so the testing ought to be a bit closer to reality.


Changing things over did help the comparison, as well as giving me some latitude for color correcting later in post.


But in truth, I think the Nikon D600 makes a better, cleaner frame than does the Canon 5DMk2. Of course that is looking at things frame for frame.


The Video/Movie Making forums are blowing up right now over the fact that this Camera and it's uncompressed HDMI out does not render an actual 1080p image when captured via a dedicated recording device. Apparently when using such a device as an Atmos Ninja The “Clean” HDMI out has a black bar around the image, “Window-Boxed”, requiring it to be enlarged in post. Which is a Sure no-go for those counting on using a remote recording device since it is not really a full 1080 image. The reason folks want the clean HDMI out from a Camera is because that bypasses the Camera's internal codec allowing you to record in-to a codec of choice, such as Pro-Res 4:2:2 codec. One poster on a Forum claims to have talked with Nikon Britain and gotten feedback that Nikon is looking into this Clean HDMI out 'error' and will fix it via firmware. A Lot of others are just upset and still others are resigned to let this Camera go by.


Based on my first observations on Day One, I was seriously contemplating this Camera! And even though many have argued that “IT” is not just about a Sharp image, I have to say I am a sucker for a Sharp image!


As time went on and I actually put this Camera to use in it's Movie-Making mode, I found that there were a couple of things that just don't really fit well with me and this Camera.

Those things are:
1. the LCD and it's "Reality"
2. Not being able to change Aperture in Live View, which is #1's cousin.
3. Anything having to do with trusting and knowing the exposure, which is really what the first two gripes are about.


The imagery from the D600 was enticing so I also felt I needed to try and figure out how to make peace with it.

One Key thing for me is what I am viewing in the LCD or Monitor. I did hook my remote monitor to this Camera and found no matter what I did I got the same view as I did via the LCD: An image that was in Nikon-Speak “ Enhanced”. If I were shooting stills of macro or even run and gun events, I wouldn't care a bit that the LCD was brighter or darker than reality. I never have really used the LCD on DSLR's...except for Movie mode! Movie mode is different. Either you're viewing an LCD or you're using an External Monitor. I have gotten used to having a Camera with Live View give me direct Visual Feedback as to what my scene looks like. I used it extensively recently filming a Water-Fall scene I need for an upcoming project and when the LCD would show me the clouds had cleared, I would stop it and go back when the exposure returned with the cloud cover that I was looking for. I didn’t need to look at anything else, not even the sky or ambient, I just studied the monitor. That would be near impossible with the D600 and it's “enhanced” LCD display. I have reported before in other forums that I only use the LCD/Monitor for framing. But I was wrong. The Water-Fall scene taught me that.


The way I shoot is thus, in simple form: After Set-up, including setting WB. I take a photo. I judge the Photo for exposure, and tend to expose for the highlights and let the darks/shadows fall where they may. Then I shoot. And I mean then I shoot a scene. Having at present taken over 3200 individual Movie clips on My Canon 5Dmk2, I can say without a doubt I have improperly exposed less than a dozen times due to my method/s (I've taken far less photos with this Camera and have botched exposures a bunch more). I feel the key reason for my Movie exposure success is twofold. One I always take a photo before hand and look for blinkies! And two, The Canon 5DMK2 LCD is WYSIWYG: What You See Is What You Get. No enhancement! Straight up. If it's dark appearing on the LCD bet the bank it's underexposed or dark ambient! The Nikon D600 is not even close to equal in this regard.


So how to get around this supposed problem and find a way to love this clean, clearer image producing Camera?


One Key way is to set the Photo ISO the same as the Movie ISO since they have two different settings AND when taking a photo in Movie mode The D600 Switches over to Photo Mode-ISO to take the Photo then returns magically to Movie ISO. That for me seems to be the key ingredient. We cannot adjust the Aperture in Movie Mode while the Live-View is active, unless as I stated above you use an older adjustable aperture ringed lens AND do not unlock it before switching into Live View. If you do that, then you can manually change aperture while shooting a Movie, but then again, why would you want to since you really cannot judge exposure by what you see on the LCD or External Monitor? So that is a wash at best.
Some have mentioned a Live histogram aka Magic-Lantern. As I said, I tend to use my LCD for framing. I really don't want to have to judge a histogram AND watch for framing even though I tend to control lighting and know when a scene has to change the lighting to continue the scene. I can imagine some scenes I shot earlier this year of a performance would drive a histogram watcher crazy.... the lens couldn't have been fast enough. Why? Because 98% of the frame was totally black and only the actors face or arms were lit. Meaning the Histogram would have probably never gotten mid-ling. We were shooting at ISO 3200 to 5000 @f/6 to f/8 to begin with, so there wasn't much other place to go but Aperture. And if I'd shot that and thought, “oh crap! Dial open the Aperture”, I'd have had a mess. A stupid white/green/blob mess of noise with a blown out actors face!


To answer my question redundantly/rhetorically It would seem the only way to ensure a good exposure is to at least set the Photo ISO and the Movie ISO the same. Take a photo and Take a quick movie to judge by too. Look at the Photo Histogram as we would in typical photo shooting and then continue. Also I think it will take some serious getting used to to know that what you are capturing is fine and dandy in the exposure department. By the way. On the Canon 5Dmk2 when shooting a movie and you take a photo during shooting, the camera takes a photo and continues shooting the movie afterward. the Nikon takes the photo too, but it stops the Movie afterward.


The D600 doesn't offer Auto Focus for Movie Mode. And no one with any serious intent needs that or even wants that. However if An Auto focus can be made that can follow the directors storyboard and do as he says, then it might be worth having. Manual focus is the regular way to shoot in Movie mode and it works just fine.
What regular stills shooters need to do is review or download the DOF Master app. and study it for their particular lens. Just like those big ISO numbers I threw out above on the Performance Shoot: 3200-5000 and f/6 to f/8 The reason was to prevent us from having to pull focus, or keep the talent in focus. Most Hollywood Movies and even plenty of Indie films have a focus puller that follows the talent on or in a described scene and turns the focus ring to keep the talent in focus, hence pulling focus. It is a job, and that's why they assign someone to do it. When you watch making-of Special Features on your Dvd or Br disc at home you'll sometimes see someone with a measuring tape measuring the actors or some such and wonder what they're up to. The lenses they use have tiny gradients of distance engraved on them and they can plan out a scene and their focus pulling chore.
All that said. DOF is your friend, so is ISO with this Camera. For Manual Focus and Movie Making, Just choose a larger number Aperture, such as f/8, look down at the lens ring and set the focus distance that you want and go at it. If you input your go to lens for Movie making into DOF Master you'll find you can pretty quickly figure out what distance to set your lens at and shoot. Wider is easier!


Moire seems to be a thing with Movie Making Folks, and understandably so. We will not get rid of Moire completely until we have a Global Shutter (so it is said). But until that day there are things that can be done to avoid or at least hide the problem of Moire. Below is a Moire film I made with the D600 and one lens. It is split frame. On the right I focused on the Laptop, on the Left the shades where you'll see plenty of moire. Notice how it seems underexposed too? Guess who was still having problems with exposure...:) Just that little bit of difference as to where your focal point is makes the moire much less or even disappear. You may need to download this to see it better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmkRfdlub2s

And here is an ISO test. Using two Different lenses. I keep saying how a pro level lens makes a difference and I think this Movie makes it Clear that yes, it does. When you have to go High ISO you will be rewarded with a better result if you start with a better lens. If you download this you will BE AMAZED!

See I figured out the exposure finally!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mltyBjRFiU

And finally a Video where I chose to put both the Canon and the Nikon to work. In this Music Video the Nikon Images are all moving via a slider and the Canon images are still on a tripod. This was the first place I noticed the Nikon did not like me. I left it on AWB, but on this piece I chose to go with Mixed lighting. By Now probably anyone still reading knows what mixed lighting is and how it is not a typical thing. But I Chose it because I had the opportunity and wanted to. I had 1200-true watts of florescent light hitting her right side and 1500 watts of Tungsten outside a window to her left. I WB for Flo's. Except on the Close up at 32 seconds in where I changed the Canon over and WB to Tungsten or available light and that was predominated by tungsten, using in camera Custom WB set with...a photo!

The Canon handled it quite well due to being White Balanced before I shot, I think. The Nikon I just left on AWB. In the raw image files before color correcting the Nikon just seems flat and lifeless, which is how The Canon looked too. But the Nikon never really improved. The Canon I was able to saturate and change the hue to suit me. However The Nikon had to put up with changing light. Even using a slider you can see the light change across her face sometimes getting better sometimes not, so the Nikon had it's work cut out with AWB. You judge for yourself how you think the Nikon/Canon performed.


Sound was via the H2N which can be seen readily at the Piano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOy67LCGvKM

Cuong

angevin1 wrote: »

Video Performance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmkRfdlub2s


Sound was via the H2N which can be seen readily at the Piano
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOy67LCGvKM

Can't see these 2 videos since they're set to private.

Cuong

Robert_C

I wonder if the D600 is good enough for wedding photography or photojournalism. I don't like the idea of the AF points all crowded together in the center. Probably I'll just get a good used D700 instead.

angevin1

Cuong wrote: »

Can't see these 2 videos since they're set to private.

Cuong

Should be fixed now. Sorry for the confusion.

Matthew Saville

Robert_C wrote: »

I wonder if the D600 is good enough for wedding photography or photojournalism. I don't like the idea of the AF points all crowded together in the center. Probably I'll just get a good used D700 instead.

The focus point spread was not as much of an issue to me as the focus point accuracy and reliability. I have only been able to test the D600 at one wedding and a few other small events so far, however it doesn't seem to be as good as the D700 at nailing focus at shallow apertures in extremely low light. It can still get focus, but in AF-C it "jitters" a lot more, (you know what i'm talking about, AFS-G lens owners) and in AF-S it hesitates an extra instant or two before confirming.

Overall, I would rather continue to use my D700 for weddings than try and "make do" with a D600 just to gain the extra megapixels and dynamic range. I feel like the D600, although maybe better on paper at high ISO, doesn't really provide much of a real-world improvement at ISO 3200 or 6400, so thus the D700 is still "photojournalism king" in my book. Pick one up for $1700 or so and grab yourself a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 to go with it, and you'll still be within the price of a D600...

=Matt=