Options
Nikon D600 sample images from Lightroom 4.2...
Matthew Saville
Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
B&H was nice enough to loan me a D600 for testing, since I'm a writer for SLR Lounge.
I shot with it a little bit at a wedding this past weekend, and all I can say is WOW. Image quality, image quality, image quality!
I still don't think I could live with the D600 as my main professional body for wedding photography, however, but I do need to test the autofocus and other functions a little bit more. I strongly dislike how I cannot enable 1-click zooming using the "OK" button during image playback. That is a huge show-stopper for me as a wedding and portrait photographer.
However, the image quality is still un-deniably stunning. The shadows and highlights just keep going and going, they're like little energize bunnies!
But, enough talk, check out more photos HERE.
I shot with it a little bit at a wedding this past weekend, and all I can say is WOW. Image quality, image quality, image quality!
I still don't think I could live with the D600 as my main professional body for wedding photography, however, but I do need to test the autofocus and other functions a little bit more. I strongly dislike how I cannot enable 1-click zooming using the "OK" button during image playback. That is a huge show-stopper for me as a wedding and portrait photographer.
However, the image quality is still un-deniably stunning. The shadows and highlights just keep going and going, they're like little energize bunnies!
But, enough talk, check out more photos HERE.
“My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
0
Comments
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Sam
Phil
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil
So I noticed one of the images referenced active-d lighting. Was this just a test, or do you use active-d lighting?
Assuming you are shooting raw and processing in lightroom, do you see benefits from using the active-d lighting?
I always thought it was just a .jpeg thing.
Website
Facebook Twitter Google+
Matt,
Beautiful images!
But, in the article you wrote, the 100% crops seem very noisy to me at those ISO levels. I personally would be disappointed with that performance.
High ISO performance is important to me. That's why (among other reasons), I jumped to Nikon and procured a D3s.
YMMV
That is in no way not appreciative for your nice review
Hey Dee,
It's not just a JPG, thing, it's just a Nikon proprietary thing. So yeah if you shoot in JPG then it permanently applies the D-Lighting, however if you view your RAW images in Nikon's View NX 2, it's the same thing- you get what you see on the back of the camera.
Yes, I do process all my images in Lightroom mostly, when I'm at work. However I still rely heavily on the indicating factors on the back of the camera to tell whether or not I'm getting the right exposure from which to draw the maximum dynamic range, so I use D-Lighting and overall Picture Controls to try and give myself the best overall feel for how my images will edit.
Other times, I'll set my camera to Vivid Picture Control, turn D-Lighting off, and crank the contrast up! That makes my in-camera images look ridiculously contrasty and, well, it impresses people at a wedding reception. I even shoot in-camera B&W sometimes, because it's just a JPG preview and it doesn't matter once I get into LR. All it does is help me foresee my artistic vision.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
The reason the 100% crops are noisy is because, well, they're being pushed an insane amount. What I wanted to show was the absolute edge of the envelope. Most any other camera, especially a Canon, would have complete trash in the shadows with this amount of pushing. The 5D mk3 would be plaid green. Example of a comparable situation:
In general I tested the high ISO, and have found that depending on the processing and conditions, ISO 3200 and 6400 are roughly as usable as on the D800, which is slightly better than the D700 if you do your comparisons down-sized to 12 MP.
I just haven't fully tested the high ISO's yet. I will be doing more thorough "lab tests" soon though; I just wanted to get out and shoot a real-world situation ASAP....
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
But, it is MHO that noise has to be there in the first place (for the given ISO) for the pushing to bring it out stronger. IMHO those particular image samples appear too noisy at those ISO levels, even pushed to the limit.
YMMV
Again, I have no dog in this hunt
Just to keep current with what's being offered, I'll certainly enjoy your more in-depth review
Or, let's just see how the D600 fares in DPReview's newly updated D600 ISO test...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/10/04/nikon-d600-preview-added-noise-page
(I haven't actually looked at it yet, so I'm not linking in a "told you so" kind of manner, I'm actually going there now to see their results!)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the link, very instructive comparisons of ISO's.
(NOTE: My comments are with all camera's ISO with NO NOISE REDUCTION in the comparisons.)
Looks like the D600 is a good bit better than the D800 even at ISO 800 and up
But, the D600 is behind even the old 5DII until ISO 6400 where the 5DII starts with that undesirable purple'ish chroma noise.
It is very surprising to me that the D800's ISO performance does not appear that good, given how new this camera is.
This info confirms my original input, for me anyway. I shot with a 5DII and was pleased except for the high ISO purple'ish chroma noise/pattern/banding when you really pull-up the shadows. I'm now shooting with the D3s and am starting to get plenty used to its spectacular high ISO performance, which is a big part of why I settled on that camera. (I am not trying to inject which of these cameras are better. Just stated for a history, driving my comments)
Again, I'm NOT knocking the new D600, I was just surprised at how much noise I saw at not that high ISO's when really pushed.
YMMV...
But getting back to your comment about noise. Again, from what I could find online I would say that the D600 is as good or a bit better than the D3s. What you're forgetting is that the D600 has twice the number of pixels. Printing at the same size it maintains more detail and the noise will look finer because it's resolution was halved.
Thanks for taking the time to do these comparisons Matthew. Do you know where we can find some D600 raw's for download ?
Facebook
500px
Agreed, and testing seems to easily confirm this.
HAving shot my D600 and D3s back to back Sunday at college volleyball, I can confirm that the D600 images were indeed superior in real world use. Both cameras were shooting at ISO3200.
Examples here: http://perronetford.photoshelter.com/gallery/FSU-Volleyball-v-NC-State-2012/G00001J9MEe1kUuc/C0000JvRma.I7Awg
What do you want?
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Facebook
500px
Send me a message with your email address..
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
First of all great photos, and thanks for the review!
Had a look at the High ISO Raw comparisons, and it seemed to be a lot better than the D800 and 5D3, no real surprise I guess, the sensors Nikon has been getting from Sony seem to be getting better and better.
Canon really need to do something to respond to this sensor tech, maybe the 6D will be a step in the right direction?
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Thanks for the super testing, you said it won't be your main wedding camera...why? I just sold 2 of my 3 D3 bodies to get 2 D600's to shoot weddings
I am keeping the last D3 for sports.... I do not want to spend the $$$ on D3s or D4. Am I making a mistake?
Hey David,
Don't forget, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it is what it is...
I never mentioned anything about DR.
As to noise, if you looked at the link Matt provided and compared the D600 to the D4, well..., if you think the D600 noise looks better over ISO 800 on the D600, that's certainly your business.
When I look at those ISO samples, the D600 doesn't look better then the D4, which is about the same as the D3s.
I clearly stated that I was not comparing the two for "which is better", only for a baseline.
The D600 down-sampled for a given print size may be plenty fine, but that doesn't negate the clear observation that it has plenty of noise in those test samples, pushed hard.
Again, YMMV
Superior in real world use, that's a pretty wide swath of a statement. I don't doubt that for your standards and use, this would be correct. But, are you saying that every user will find the D600 images superior? Superior to what, every camera?
Sports, portraits, landscapes, street photography, macro, etc...
The images you link to do not IMHO show anything to this conversation. Both cameras should be able to produce good results within that shooting situation. No deep shadows, where the high ISO noise loves to live. You provided no 100% crops, only down-sampled small images
If we looked at the ISO samples Matt linked to, I find it striking that you think the D600 high ISO is better than your D3s.
This is often the "work around" argument of old. Point out different things than what someone points out. I did not even mention DR. I did not mention down-sampling.
Those contentions may well have merit, BUT, it does not change what the ISO test that Matt linked to clearly show. To my eyes, the D600 has a surprising amount of noise above ISO 800, to my standards. That's it... AGAIN YMMV
I hope that you are so tickled with your D600 that you buy 10 of them. That's a win/win for both you and Nikon! Yeah...
Who knows, I may wind-up with a D600 one of these days. But when I'm looking into the performance of a product, I want a wide-eyed evaluation, good or bad.
Again, I'll reiterate my initial comments: I personally find based on the ISO test Matt showed on his website and the ISO test he later linked to, the D600 has more noise at over ISO 800 than I would have expected.
You fellas can bang my opinion around to skirt this issue, and that's fine with me. But, it still doesn't change what I've seen so far.
YMMV
Shoot a lot,
Have FUN!!!
Did you read his post before answering it?
He obviously stated the images were superior to his D3s at college volleyball, he even linked some samples.
Plus Matt's images were effectively tonal mapped, shadow noise is expected, but he had much less of it than what would normally be expected. This is all about dynamic range, so I have no idea why you think your comments have nothing to do with dynamic range?
Me thinks YOU need to re-read my comments...
Do you really think DR is the same as noise?
No, nevermind, it's too obvious...
I'll be curious to hear your opinion when you have both in front of you to shoot.
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
Although D3s is/was the Nikon flagship camera, it was released 3 years ago.
Comparing the D600 to the D3s and saying this/that is better is nothing but comparing apples to oranges.
D800
16/2.8, f1.4G primes, f2.8 trio, 105/200 macro, SB900.
It never gets easier, you just get better.
If I get one, I'll certainly oblige you.
Again, I'm truly happy that your happy with your D600.
Photography is supposed to make us happy.
Shoot lots,
Have Fun!
Good point.
If you noticed, I very specifically stated multiple times that I was NOT comparing any two cameras for which one was better, but for a baseline only for my observations.
IMHO, discussing new camera performance isn't a "bickerfest".
YMMV
Mind you, I'm not at all worried about the D600 from a standpoint of durability or overall build quality. It is a very solid camera, with very well-rounded performance and features. It's a great camera for almost any type of shooter who could afford it.
Personally, I just like to push the envelope a little too far in the exact directions that the D600 falls short of the D700- autofocusing in impossible light, and control layout / customizability.
To be specific: 1.) The D600 hunts and "jitters" too much when I'm trying to nail focus at f/1.4-2.8 in extremely dim or extremely flare-y conditions. My keeper rate is 1/3 what it is with the D700. And 2.) The D600 lacks, among a few other things, the ability to customize the "OK" button (joypad center button) to do one-click 100% zooming during image playback. This is a HUGE feature for me when shooting anything where I'm on the clock, and I have been using it since the D200 so I really just can't live without it now.
It really depends on how you shoot, though. The D600 is certainly a very capable camera. If you're used to shooting weddings on a D3 however, you may also notice the same shortcomings in focus speed / accuracy that I'm noticing. But if not, then I guess just consider yourself lucky, and enjoy the D600!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Let me clear something up about my interest in discussing new camera performance, BTW:
I will be the first to admit that, overall at lower ISO's, Canon images are cleaner under normal shooting conditions. They always have been, that's why people always talk about Canon's silky smooth skin tones etc. At ISO 100 / 200, (depending on which Nikon your base ISO is) ...you will always see a little more noise in a Nikon image...
And compared to other Nikons, I honestly don't think the D600 is that much noisier than any other sensor either. Maybe a little bit depending on the shooting conditions.
However in this test I was simply not concerned with noise levels, I was entirely focused on testing and observing whether or not detail could even be seen at all in such deep shadows and bright higlights. Most of the time, blown highlights get a hard edge and shadows just go completely trashy. The D600, on the other hand, maintains smooth tonal gradation deep into the darkest shadows, and refrains from posterizing in all but the brightest spectral highlight edges... That is what I found impressive.
You previously mentioned "noise has to be there in the first place", or something to that effect. Well, to that I'd respond that the opposite argument can be applied: Noisy shadow detail is better than zero shadow detail. Otherwise it's just not worth pushing in the first place... (See the Fred Miranda test comparing the D800 and 5D mk3: http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html ...I suspect the D600 and 6D will compare similarly, though I could be wrong.)
My testing objectives and other people's observations have both proven very useful to me and I am grateful, even if they weren't on the exact same line of interest.
In my full review, I will be sure to demonstrate how CLEAN a properly exposed, normal condition D600 image can be. ;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
In bold is what I have been hoping for in a camera. If I can get detail in both highlights and shadows in one frame, I can apply a bit of selective NR to take care of that. If you don't have detail to begin with then it doesn't matter how good the noise performance is.
No, and it's not what I said.