If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 16/09/2012 12:12 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:56:23 +1000, Rob wrote: : On 15/09/2012 12:06 PM, Rich wrote: : PeterN wrote in : : : : On 9/14/2012 8:05 PM, RichA wrote: : On Sep 14, 3:47 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: : RichA wrote: : On Sep 13, 3:01 am, Me wrote: : On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote: Yes, it has a FF sensor, : 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not : suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, : D7000 body ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 : body) but for someone who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The : kit lens, if it's as good as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good : though. : : The VF is 100% - : : VF magnification is 0.7. : : Just like all of Nikon's top of the line FX bodies, the : D3, the D3s, the D3X, the D4. The D800 and now the : D600 too. : : The D700 is different, it's 95% and 0.72x magnification. : : Other than that you don't know what that means, did you : have a point? : : -- : Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ : Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) : : Fanboy alert. Never mention anything even seemingly negative. : : : Exactly when did you give anything a positive review? : : : Most cameras today function well enough when they work that anyone can : take a decent image. Low-light capability is very good, focusing (in : most cases is very good). So, the only differentiators are the problems : and the short-comings. $2100 for a 1/2 plastic body when the D300 was : $1700 and all metal, 4 years ago? Counter-balancing this is that it's a : $2100 FF. The D800 and it's horrible focusing problems, a deal-killer : for many a new Canon owner. These are the only things that really make a : difference, not whether a D600 and D7000 have fractionally different high : ISO capability. : : : Where did you get the horrible focus problems from?? So you own a D800 : then.? or just read about them? : : For a start its a not bad just a few rants and lots of BS you don't have : to use the LHS for the focus, its not a sports action camera. Not all : cameras came with the problem. There have been no cameras released since : mid year with the problem and those which did have them, have had : firmware updates. : : I have read some reviews and can't see why DOF can't pull the problem : back into focus. : : The D800 makes you think more about how you take the shot, as its a lot : more defining on ones own neglect. I'm having some difficulty parsing that last sentence. Is it a roundabout way of saying that the D800 is harder to use than the D600? Bob It magnifies the operators short comings, what is taken for granted, fix it in an image editing programme, all those things you have come to accept when using a digital cameras which have soft images. I haven't tried the D600 so can't compare it with that, but going from 12Mp certainly you have to take more care to optimise your results. I have always thought my results from D200 or D90 have been soft and had to use sharpening in post processing. Even checked some images off a D700, those could still be be improved with post processing. Certainly, f/stop does make a difference if you shut down too much, to gain a greater DOF, makes diffraction more viable in the results with loss of definition. Tripods help reduce movement. Because of the 36Mb, which is heaps, I can see no difference, using sharpening in PShop. IMO its a redefining camera, which is worth taking your time checking the settings and using a tripod, to gain optimum results. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 16/09/2012 2:30 p.m., Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:33:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: : On Sep 13, 3:01 am, Me wrote: : On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote: Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not : suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body : ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone who : needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good as the : 16-85DX for $600 should be good though. : : The VF is 100% - and exactly the same spec as the D4/D800. : It doesn't have the round eyepiece that other FX slrs do, but probably : not much of an issue as there seem to be plenty of 3rd part accessories : on ebay etc which will slot in to the eyepiece frame if you feel the need. : : It is a bit larger than the D7000, perhaps the same size as a D300. : : There's no AF-ON button - that, the different AF module, and the "new : improved" (arguable) AF mode selector are the main differences from : D300/700. Plastic-schmastic. If it breaks, my insurance will pay for it. : : : Good for those carrying a back-up body, but cold comfort if you are in : the middle of doing something. : The two things I hope is doesn't have are the D7000/D800 focus : problems and hot pixels. The D7000 and D800 have hot pixels? Where? In the viewing screen? I can't remember the last time I heard of a serious camera having hot pixels in the sensor. You'd probably see them with very long exposure, and long exposure NR turned off. I'm positive that at about the time of the Nikon D90 release, RichA was flooding these newsgroups, bitching about the D700 costing $3,000 and moaning about how Nikon could and should make a "D90 with FX sensor". Now Nikon has done it (except the D600 is /much/ better specced than a D90, but still compact and relatively light-weight), he's still bitching. I'm 100% sure of two things - he'll never stop, and that the only people who might be able to fulfill his wishes (camera companies) don't listen to him. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 9/15/2012 10:41 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote: Plastic is good. Weighs less, and more comfortable to hold. True. I am more interested in hearing about the focusing issues with the D800, as I am torn between that and a D4. That should not really be too hard to decide (unless what you really want to have is both of them!). The D4 shines for event photography where higher ISO's are the norm and for sports photography or photo journalism where faster operation and frame rates are the norm. It is also a more rugged camera, hence for field work that may involve some abuse of the equipment (nature photography comes to mind), the D4 is better. The D800 has more pixels. It has better dynamic range too. Hence if large prints or cropping of images is important, or if producing the highest quality image with the least noise is significant, the D800 is better. Landscapes, fashion, glamour, and portrait work are examples of where the D800 shines over the D4. I use both models. If I could only have one it would have to be the D4, but the fact is that I shoot the D800 probably 2/3rds of the time. But when I need a D4 the D800 just won't do (event and sports), while if the D800 was not available the D4 will not be quite as good but will provide very usable results (people pictures, portraits, street photography, etc). One other point that I think is significant too... is that no matter what you have now, waiting to upgrade to either a D800 or a D4 is an unfortunate loss of time. A D3S is the only camera that comes close to comparing with them (specifically with the D4, not the D800), and either camera over everything else is a massive leap towards better photography (assuming you do have the time and talent to make use of such cameras). Ohh... Unless you typically mount f/1.4 lenses and shoot focus chart wide open, there isn't a focus problem. If you do shoot charts, there might be. I am leaning towards the D4 because of its better high ISO usability and higher fps rate. Although it has less pixels than the D800, the pixels are much larger. -- Peter |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 17/09/2012 1:05 p.m., PeterN wrote:
On 9/15/2012 10:41 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: PeterN wrote: Plastic is good. Weighs less, and more comfortable to hold. True. I am more interested in hearing about the focusing issues with the D800, as I am torn between that and a D4. That should not really be too hard to decide (unless what you really want to have is both of them!). The D4 shines for event photography where higher ISO's are the norm and for sports photography or photo journalism where faster operation and frame rates are the norm. It is also a more rugged camera, hence for field work that may involve some abuse of the equipment (nature photography comes to mind), the D4 is better. The D800 has more pixels. It has better dynamic range too. Hence if large prints or cropping of images is important, or if producing the highest quality image with the least noise is significant, the D800 is better. Landscapes, fashion, glamour, and portrait work are examples of where the D800 shines over the D4. I use both models. If I could only have one it would have to be the D4, but the fact is that I shoot the D800 probably 2/3rds of the time. But when I need a D4 the D800 just won't do (event and sports), while if the D800 was not available the D4 will not be quite as good but will provide very usable results (people pictures, portraits, street photography, etc). One other point that I think is significant too... is that no matter what you have now, waiting to upgrade to either a D800 or a D4 is an unfortunate loss of time. A D3S is the only camera that comes close to comparing with them (specifically with the D4, not the D800), and either camera over everything else is a massive leap towards better photography (assuming you do have the time and talent to make use of such cameras). Ohh... Unless you typically mount f/1.4 lenses and shoot focus chart wide open, there isn't a focus problem. If you do shoot charts, there might be. I am leaning towards the D4 because of its better high ISO usability and higher fps rate. Although it has less pixels than the D800, the pixels are much larger. http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Ch...0,D600,D800,D4 The high ISO "usability" based on what? The only real advantage is smaller file size (hence also faster frame rates possible). At a standard print size, noise performance is the same. The larger pixels don't add anything - the sensor area is the same, and the quantum efficiency and read noise are about the same, just as many photons are being captured - the D800 just knows the location of each of them a little better ;-) Preliminary tests on the D600 seem to show it's about the same as the D800 ("photographic" dynamic range throughout the ISO range). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
PeterN wrote:
On 9/15/2012 10:41 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: If I could only have one it would have to be the D4, [...] I am leaning towards the D4 because of its better high ISO usability and higher fps rate. Although it has less pixels than the D800, the pixels are much larger. Just be advised that the higher ISO is in fact a very small difference for the D4 over the D800. The pixels may be larger on the D4, but an image from a D800 can be resampled to the same size as the D4 image and will then be almost identical. If most of what you do is printed at larger than 16x20, the D800's pixels and dynamic range will outshine the higher ISO capability of the D4. But as far as the frame rate... if you shoot sports or anything else that commonly causes you to shoot in bursts, the D4 is *vastly* superior to the D800. It's more than just a twice as fast fps rate too, because even doing single shots it is relatively easy to fill up the buffer on the D800 and have to wait and/or shoot very slowly. The D4 will do a huge number of consecutive shots without a pause. The memory buffer is large enough for 76 compressed 14-bit RAW shots. I shoot in NEF+JPEG and can get more than 50 in one burst. The D800 holds only 20 RAW shots, and shooting NEF+JPEG reduces that a bit too. The difference in shooting speed is one that can often make or break the ability to get the images you want. That is very different than issues with pixels, ISO, and dynamic range where most people won't even be able to see the differences without a carefully selected set of prints to compare side by side. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 6D
On 13/09/2012 6:19 p.m., Rich wrote:
Yes, it has a FF sensor, 24mp. But, you don't get it for $2099 and not suffer some compromises. 1/2 plastic body, 0.7x viewfinder, D7000 body ergonomics (Yeesh! I hope it's closer to the D300 body) but for someone who needs FF on the cheap, this is it. The kit lens, if it's as good as the 16-85DX for $600 should be good though. Canon 6D announced - same price, less photographic features, than D600 but built-in wireless and GPS. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message ... PeterN wrote: On 9/15/2012 10:41 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: If I could only have one it would have to be the D4, [...] I am leaning towards the D4 because of its better high ISO usability and higher fps rate. Although it has less pixels than the D800, the pixels are much larger. Just be advised that the higher ISO is in fact a very small difference for the D4 over the D800. The pixels may be larger on the D4, but an image from a D800 can be resampled to the same size as the D4 image and will then be almost identical. Agreed, most people simply compare the unaveraged output of the higher pixel sensor when making their simple comparison. If most of what you do is printed at larger than 16x20, the D800's pixels and dynamic range will outshine the higher ISO capability of the D4. Right, the former is real, the latter mostly imaginary. But as far as the frame rate... if you shoot sports or anything else that commonly causes you to shoot in bursts, the D4 is *vastly* superior to the D800. It's more than just a twice as fast fps rate too, because even doing single shots it is relatively easy to fill up the buffer on the D800 and have to wait and/or shoot very slowly. The D4 will do a huge number of consecutive shots without a pause. The memory buffer is large enough for 76 compressed 14-bit RAW shots. I shoot in NEF+JPEG and can get more than 50 in one burst. Sounds like you really need a high speed video camera then! :-) Trevor. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
"PeterN" wrote:
Ohh... Unless you typically mount f/1.4 lenses and shoot focus chart wide open, there isn't a focus problem. If you do shoot charts, there might be. I am leaning towards the D4 because of its better high ISO usability and higher fps rate. Although it has less pixels than the D800, the pixels are much larger. That's probably the wrong way to think about it. If you look at the prints, the apparent noise in the print (even for smaller prints) will be more a function of the total sensor area than how that area is divided into pixels. Both sensors are capturing the same total number of photons for the same scene. Obviously, four small pixels have four times as much circuit noise as one fat pixel, but you can get the effect of pixel binning by applying stronger noise reduction to the higher pixel count sensor, and the circuit noise is pretty small compared to the shot noise at high ISO. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On 9/17/2012 12:53 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"PeterN" wrote: Ohh... Unless you typically mount f/1.4 lenses and shoot focus chart wide open, there isn't a focus problem. If you do shoot charts, there might be. I am leaning towards the D4 because of its better high ISO usability and higher fps rate. Although it has less pixels than the D800, the pixels are much larger. That's probably the wrong way to think about it. If you look at the prints, the apparent noise in the print (even for smaller prints) will be more a function of the total sensor area than how that area is divided into pixels. Both sensors are capturing the same total number of photons for the same scene. Obviously, four small pixels have four times as much circuit noise as one fat pixel, but you can get the effect of pixel binning by applying stronger noise reduction to the higher pixel count sensor, and the circuit noise is pretty small compared to the shot noise at high ISO. I could be wrong and oversimplifying, but noise reduction software works on a principle of color blurring. The main reasons I am going FF are that I do severe crops and wide angle images. I have often wind up with a fraction of my original image blown up to 12x12, of 12x18. I like the fast burst capability for animals, and the high ISO for high shutter speeds. -- Peter |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D600 a compromise but ok
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:15:14 +1200, Me wrote:
The high ISO "usability" based on what? The only real advantage is smaller file size (hence also faster frame rates possible). At a standard print size, noise performance is the same. The larger pixels don't add anything - the sensor area is the same, and the quantum efficiency and read noise are about the same, just as many photons are being captured - the D800 just knows the location of each of them a little better ;-) Preliminary tests on the D600 seem to show it's about the same as the D800 ("photographic" dynamic range throughout the ISO range). I saw a test report yesterday that put the 600 above the 800 in a large part of it's dynamic range chart. I was at first wanting to get an 800 to replace my 700 but now I think the 600 is better suited to me. I'm not "good enough" to use an 800 but I want FF to get wide angle! (I sold my 700... still sad about that!) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D600 | Me | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 22nd 12 10:43 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Chris Malcolm[_2_] | Digital Photography | 63 | July 10th 12 02:07 AM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 07:27 PM |
First images of Nikon D600 with 24 MP FX sensor | Wolfgang Weisselberg | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 12 01:35 AM |