Hi. Reviving a dead thread again for a D600 vs 6D comparison. The 6D has arrived in Singapore at the Canon shop. First impressions of the 6D vs D600. 6D seems better built right of the bat. the D600 wasnt shabby but the 6D almost feels like a 5d3. 6D High ISO( JPEG and RAW) is very similar to the 5d3. Couldnt take any sample images and video as the card door was taped over. The AF area on both camera's are tiny. In fact I think this camera is worse because at least the D600 can track sports with the 39 points but with 11 you need to be really on your toes when it comes to keeping that middle point on the subject. The hyped up middle point is not that impressive. I didnt do a -3ev test because it was in the brightly lit shop but from my experience of both you really need to be in some seriously dark conditions to see the D600 hunt. The shutter even on non silent mode is very quiet. The wifi and the GPS work fine I must say. They are not as useless as some people make it out to be imo. IQ is very good. In JPEG I wouldnt hesitate to use up to 25,600 for web use. In RAW i wouldnt try to go above 6400 however. Bascially, very similar to the D600. Overall, unless you need the wifi+GPS feature or you are dug in with canon, the 6D is trumped by the Nikon.

TaoTeJared said:
I have had the same thoughts - as a second camera with a 35mm lens. If you use a 35mm range on a second body and you think about it, even a D600 ($2,000) and a 35mm f2 AFD lens puts you at the same price but more weight - and for what?

For backup in case your main camera fails, you can still use the same lenses, accessories, etc.

For weddings most likely you wont need/want to manage two cameras hanging off your neck with two different lenses / settings / ergonomics (especially if you have a 2nd shooter already taking pictures). You're probably better off with one solid main camera, a few lenses to swap, and a backup body tucked away, just in case. And that backup body doesn't need to be a brand new D600 either.

That RX1 might be an excellent camera for the 2nd shooter, however. (Though again it might be preferable if the 2nd shooter uses the same gear system as the main photographer -- just in case.)

sevencrossing said:
Now if the Rx 1 had a 24mm f 1.4 then yes, I would be tempted

I think I would prefer 24mm too, and as for f1.4, msmoto is correct, it would be lovely to have, but would hardly make for a pocketable camera. I think they have done a pretty good job giving such a small camera a FF sensor and an f2!

The interesting thing about all these new cameras is the limiting factor of the glass. It appears all the new f/1.4 or f/1.8 lenses which are for either a crop sensor or full frame are so large they are the limiting factor for the size. My little Olympus E-PL2 with its very small 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom is actually OK for a large purse, but not a pocket camera. And if I were to place an adapter with the 24mm f/1.4 on it...mmmm

I suspect i may look for the 17mm f/2.8 as this is the only small lens I can see which fits the micro 4/3rds mount. And, the nice part is I have only $200 in the camera as I purchased it from Ritz on the last day they were open.

But, I am still waiting for Nikon's real answer to the DX mirrorless.... with "F" mount less or an adapter.

Now if the Rx 1 had a 24mm f 1.4 then yes, I would be tempted

I have had the same thoughts - as a second camera with a 35mm lens. If you use a 35mm range on a second body and you think about it, even a D600 ($2,000) and a 35mm f2 AFD lens puts you at the same price but more weight - and for what?

I actually use my fuji X100 a ton (35mm equiv) as a second camera for the "documentary" feel or when I need something wider. It is small so it really doesn't get in the way at all. If I have a 70-200 or anything like a 50mm,85mm,105vr + it works great so I don't have to swap lenses.

I like the idea of the High ISO is better since generally I just set it on manual focus, aperture at f8 and zone focus at 6ft. That gives me everything from 4'-12' in focus. Many times it will be at iso6400 which works for B&W most of the time, but there are times where I could use a better output in color and cleaner B&W photos.

There is one thing I keep my Fuji X100 for and that is the super high speed sync with the focal shutter. I can get 1/2000 sec shutter with flash. In day light, f2 and wanting to really darken the background, it is great. If they update the x100, that would keep me on the DX for sure. I don't use it much, but it sure is nice when I can.

Yes sorry Ade Barkah, I should have made myself clear, it would be a second (or third) camera to my Nikon DSLR's.

I think you have to honestly ask yourself if any camera with a fixed 35mm lens is the right tool for performing professional weddings and portrait photography? As a second camera, maybe; but I can think of any number of common scenarios in weddings and portraiture where a fixed 35mm lens will be severely limiting.

Thinking about it over the last couple of days, in spite of the universally excellent reviews the RX1 has received, the main cause of concern for me in purchasing one, is the amateurish looks one would receive, if I tried to use it for paid portrait or wedding work....... I don't think most paying clients would take kindly to having their photographer taking shots at arms length with a P&S? I suppose I could use it in conjunction with the optional OVF/EVF, but still it's looks I think would send out the wrong signal, anyone had any experience of clients reactions when using a P&S professionally?

Funduro said:
Many people with large amounts of disposable income will buy the RX1, whether they shoot Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Samsun, Sony or Olympus. They'll buy it to have it, to brag they have it, to make other jealous, to shoot their cats. I hope they have fun with it and I'll hope to hit the lottery this Saturday. ;-)

I don't have large amounts of disposable income, or intend to brag I have one, but am seriously thinking about putting my order in for an RX1.......Am I mad? The reviews make it sound fantastic, and if I get my folks to bring it over from the states next time they visit, it'll cost me £1800 instead of the £2600 Sony want for it here. As photojournalism/candids is my thing, and I'm getting too old to carry my D3s with a 24 1.4 all day long, do you guys think it would be a good idea? My heart says RX1, my head says Fuji X100 at 1/3 of the price.

Thanks very much for the reply roombarobot, appreciated.

Hope your decision has worked out for you...good luck also!

S

Rather than trying to get everything in one lens, with all of those compromises, I went with the two lens setup you mention, the 24-85mm and the 70-300mm. With the $100 off the kit lens and $200 off the 70-300mm when you buy them together, I also thought it was a better deal.

Good luck, sarrold!

PB PM...thanks for the reply and sorry, knew that...my mistake.

Question is though, for my non-professional requirements, would this lens do justice to a great camera like the D600 or am I really better off in the long run going with maybe the AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR and 70-300mm VR combination?

As mentioned earlier, lots of travel, family pics and surfing pics. Want to do large prints at 300dpi.

Cheers,

S

sarrold: The 18-300mm lens is for DX cameras (D3200, D5100, D5200, D7000), not full frame (FX) cameras like the D600, D800 or D4. For the D600, if you want an all in one, the choice is the AF-S 28-300mm.

HI all,

Am a first time SLR buyer - and have been doing my product research (as I always do when buying something of value) and love the sound of the D600.

Love photography and I get to travel a lot...as I work in travel.

Have built up a great collection of images on my old Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50 which I bought back in 2008 such as Myanmar, 2010

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38042740@N06/sets/72157625995728300/

My problem is, I have tried to print these in to large sizes to hang on the walls and the resolution is horrible...(unsurprisingly)

So, I have decided to take the plunge and invest in a really great camera...D600!

I obviously have no lenses...so I am starting from scratch and am looking for advice.

I will be taking pics of landscapes, cityscapes, people, family and also am an advid surfer...so would like to also have something to cover some surfing photography (which requires decent zoom). Lastly, I also want to do some HD video (family / surfing).

And lastly, my pockets are far from endless...so there is budget to consider. I read that you should spend 50/50 spilt on camera vs lens. I get that...But I can't do this all at once.

The camera will be a big upfront cost and I am fine with that as I see this as an investment which is probably beyond what I need now at my current level...but something I will grow in to and keep for years.

I can stretch to about $1500 on lenses right now...and have been looking at the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm...which I must say is pretty tempting given it "covers all bases" and will be great to travel with BUT I also understand it has its limitations...and is there any point getting such a great camera to be let down by the lens? (by all means correct me if I am wrong if you think that at my level this would be a good starter point).

Or do I really do the camera full justice and look at getting 2 specialized lenses. If this is the case, then I would need to get a starter lens...then later buy the 2nd one (something with longer length) when the bank account recovers.

Love to hear your advice?

Cheers,

S

Nice performance on D600 video capabilities...complements of FKP.

Lensed used: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8's, 85 1.4G, 16mm Fisheye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdlx8-KxchI

gwilliams8 said:
Ok I’ve bit the bullet sent my money and received my new D600, couldn’t wait/afford the full price so did some searching and plumped for Pro Camera Shop at £1,378.99. I know what most people have said about doing this but I must say the service so far was good – spoke to a nice Scottish bloke before ordering, paid through PayPal (for security) and received it yesterday after ordering it last Friday.

I take photos for a local Horse Dressage competition (part funded my purchace) as so can’t wait for this Sundays event to try my hand and use all the new features compared to my trusty old D3000. I am well impressed after drooling and holding it last night looking at all the settings and getting confused/excited about how to set it up.

Not taken any shots yet going to wait till Saturday when I can spend a bit of time experimenting and getting confident for Sunday

I meant to say that the Sony NEX lenses are just adequate, but not comparable to the quality of the Nikon lenses. I have not tried their latest lenses. This is one of the pitfalls of not waiting for Nikon. The NEX series works well with an adapter but you have to be comfortable using manual focusing and exposure to use them on the NEX Series.

I seriously thought about getting the Nikon 1 V1 when some of the stores were dumping them, but could not justify it because of already having the NEX C3, and NEX 5N. I like the larger Sony Alpha bodies and use them on my older Nikon lenses like the 50cm F5 mirror lens that I operate manually. But for birds in flight Nikon's AF-s and subject tracking is still the best.

I originally wanted a V1 for the extra reach of the CX Format when shooting small birds but do not like the low ISO limitation of the V1 with my older and slower lenses. Both Nikon and Sony's electronic viewfinders make shooting manually completely painless on still images. I like live view shooting on both systems, but neither works for me when shooting flying ducks that can appear and disappear on the horizon in seconds.

I will probably buy an FX compact to use whenever I want a shallower depth of field and really love the idea of one in a compact camera body. I prefer to buy Nikon because that is my primary system, but buying a few 300mm to wide angle lenses in not a deal breaker anymore for me. Traveling with the NEX Series has spoiled me.

Yes, I would like a Nikon product like this....which would accept all the lenses. But, what is so nice about the link, Adam, are the wonderful photographs of the people.....love it! Thanks!

sony just posted a gallery with rx-1 photos, don't know like You but I would love to see such a camera in Nikon lineup:
http://www.sony.jp/cyber-shot/1hand-fullsize/gallery_shitamachi.html

TaoTeJared said:
Now at some point in the future we will hit 100mp sensors in 35mm cameras - I don't doubt that. I also don't doubt that they will not be a resolution of 100mp.

I think this is where we're headed, as well.

Golf, I really like that second video. If you want to play around with a virtual wave tank, here's a fun applet:
http://www.falstad.com/ripple/

On the top dropdown, choose Setup: single slit
You can also play around with the wavelength like the guy on your video did or change the aperture size by choosing "Mouse = edit walls" on the third dropdown then adding to/removing from the aperture.

This applet shows the same thing but is a bit cleaner and with clearer controls:
http://www.falstad.com/wave2d/

golf007sd said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaGJjf_qO9M

This is a good Video Golf! Jonnyapple summed it up well.

This image (at 2:39) is what is striking fear in some people.

The fear that so many point to goes like this: "when pixels become so small that even at F8 we will see diffraction because the "image circle" will be larger than the sensor." In essence that is what some less informed about technology are saying. What they are trying to do (which is incorrect) is apply real diffraction with a theoretical wavelength size and how a sensor pixel will be smaller than the wavelength. They they say since the light now more than covers that single pixel, then we will see diffraction at lower and lower F-stops.

Now I could spend hours looking up the charts, calculating the math, then calculating various sensors to show how this fear is nothing but a boogeyman under the bed, but I think real world example is a better litmus test.

I give you the Nokia 808 Pureview 41mp camera phone. Now without doing the math, I know diffraction "light wavelengths" are larger than each pixel. The thing is the max images are that I have found are usually around 7728 x 4354. I mean around, because the "full" size EXIF of any that are uploaded are anywhere from 31-35mp. Now I do not doubt the sensor is 41mp, but the resolution it outputs is variable. And all I looked for were photos in bright daylight = now Auto ISO resolution downgrade. That means to me that at the native settings, the resolution depends on the screen. Basically multiple pixels are combined and the software does not try to emulate the 1:1 or sensor resolution does not = image resolution.

Now that doesn't toss out diffraction but What is does show is a real world example where multiple sensor pixels are combined. The boogeyman idea of diffraction above says that the light crosses that pixel boundary terrible images will come. errrr - wrong gilligan. If a sensor/camera software always combines, or has the option of combining say 4 pixels when the f-stop moves above F11, then those 4 pixels are probably larger than one was a few years ago and now have captured the light just fine.

Now at some point in the future we will hit 100mp sensors in 35mm cameras - I don't doubt that. I also don't doubt that they will not be a resolution of 100mp. And I don't doubt either that software, optical, and a slew of other engineers have already been working on this for years so the boogeyman doesn't get us.

@jonnyapple: Thanks for taking the time to explain this to us. I may have to study, research, and read your post a few times in order to fully understand all this. Some of the science behind all this is a bit challenge to say the least...but I'm trying to "get it."

Cheers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0NfVUTWG4

I usually like what f stoppers do, but this video is misleading so I want to set the record straight. I admit I was a bit put off by him saying DEfraction at the beginning, but almost everything he says comes across like a third hand retelling of a bad read of a wikipedia page.

Diffraction is nothing more than the effect of waves spreading out after they hit an obstacle. Instead of the object's shadow being sharp, you always (even at f/2.8 or f/1.0) have diffraction because your aperture (or the edges of your lens in the extreme case of having no stop) blocks all but a small part of the light. The best you can do in optics is to have diffraction limited imaging.

Wide open, lens sharpness is not diffraction limited. Individual points of light in the object are imaged by the lens not as points but as small circles or comet-shaped objects. This is caused by the lens not being the perfect shape to redirect all light coming from each point of the scene to the corresponding point on the sensor. This fuzziness is caused by the limits of our ability to refract the light perfectly (or reflect it perfectly in the case of a reflecting lens or telescope). Cut the designers some slack, though. Think of how many different colors of light coming from so many different angles they are asked to redirect onto a single spot of the sensor. Getting to where lenses are today has been an engineering tour de force.

The further you get from the center of the lens, the worse these aberrations normally are. Closing down the aperture eliminates some of the light collected by the edges of the lens, which minimizes the aberrations but also eliminates useful light. You might think you can just keep making the aperture smaller, but then this is where diffraction rears its ugly head. While it's true that for an impossibly tiny hole you would have the entire world in focus and (get this!) your lens wouldn't even need to exist, the image formed would get fuzzy due to diffraction before you got there.

I think people often forget that the first cameras had no lenses. People were making images using just a hole in a dark room (a camera oscura for the illuminati out there). To form a meaningful image, you block all the stray light and only let it come in from one direction, like so:

It was only when people understood refraction and realized that there is all of that wasted light that doesn't make it into the camera that could be collected and redirected that lenses entered the picture:

Ironically, even with a lens, the smaller you make the aperture that blocks the light, the bigger the effect of diffraction! The smaller the hole, the more spread out the diffracted light gets. It's not, as this video implies, that the light arrives perpendicular to your sensor when shooting wide open. In fact, the wider the aperture, the greater the range of angles with which the incoming light hits your sensor. Just have a look at the dragonfly picture above if you don't believe me. The problem is what I said to begin this paragraph: smaller hole = bigger spread (more fuzziness) after light passes through the aperture.

There is a sweet spot where you have minimized the aberrations from the refractive imperfections of your lens while keeping diffraction under control. But what does "under control" mean? This is where TTJ and I are taking issue with the way people are analyzing diffraction as sensor tech progresses. You absolutely have to consider the format the image will be delivered to know what an acceptable loss of sharpness is. For 800-pixel screen-ready images, I don't think you can see diffraction on even DX images unless your aperture is well below f/50 (maybe tomorrow I'll be in the mood to calculate this). This is one thing that the video should have mentioned. No one should be judging diffraction effects at 100% magnification unless that's about the size you'll be printing. I can't imagine more than a handful of us around here are. I'm certainly not.

The bottom line: For a given sensor size and a given print size, sensor resolution has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on diffraction limitations of our lenses! Stated in a more practical way, a D700 and a D800 will show diffraction limitations at the same aperture for an 8"x10" print of the same scene. Now, a D7000 and a D800 would be a different story; this is one of FX's advantages that isn't discussed quite as much, but I don't think it's as important as people want to make it [he said after spending 40 minutes on a post about it].

Sorry for the long post. I couldn't go to sleep with a clear conscience after watching that video if I didn't say something to try to set the record straight. Of course, TTJ summed it up with this:

TaoTeJared said:
This will be my standard line on Diffraction this year - Pixels & image pixels are not 1:1.