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.

Safyre thx I do shot raw to be able to edit especially the WB etc.my pic were uploaded first to view NX straight from camera then I emailed them using the NX email but the extension was .jpg that's why I thought he'll be able to view them thx again

Thx adams when emailing the pic (from NX2) the extension was .jpg so I thought he will be able to open them !

Agree with Johnny; if you plan on editing any of your photos now (or in the future), you definitely want to shoot in raw.

Telling someone to not shoot raw is like telling someone to get their film developed into prints at Walgreen's and then to throw out the negatives. I can understand telling a beginner not to shoot raw, but as you progress in photography and your work becomes more meaningful, you're going to come to it at some point so you might as well start early.

Now I know, why people around the world have difficulties with getting mail. E-mail protocol was created to share messages not enormous in size files. Use dropbox or any other file sharing service for this.
Apart from that, Your friend need to download plugin to view raw files on his Windows. Simply google for it. Or as Gabb suggested download PIcasa.

Spraynspray I use element10 thx

Thank you guts for all your reply it helps a lot. Thank you friedmid for the technical explanation .

For quick viewing raw files Google's Picasa viewer is not bad and it downloads under a minute. Also it has a unique raw conversion engine which is useful at times when all else fails :-)

Sary - what software do you use? Photoshop? Lightroom? Elements? Whichever one it is will allow you to export or 'save as' a file that your friend will be able to see (TIFF or JPEG). If it is Photoshop, don't send a PSD as he will not be able to view that one either.

Easy as that.

I would still shoot raw + JPEG even if you don't use the raw. Someday you might want the extra info in the raw files and memory is cheap.

One more RAW file analogy (probably the one I should have used in the first place!):

It's like giving your friend an undeveloped roll of film instead of a developed photograph...

Emailing RAW files is odd... especially when you don't seem to really understand what they are or how to work with them (not trying to be harsh... just real). So, a couple of things:

1. RAW files are _not_ pictures. They contain all of the information necessary to create a picture... but by themselves they are not pictures. You don't "view" RAW files... you "develop" them into photographs using software. That software interprets the information in a RAW file to create an image.

Sending someone a RAW file doesn't make any sense because it's like giving someone a model airplane kit when you meant to give them the completed plane.

Create the photograph you want and send your friend a jpeg of it.

2. You shouldn't be shooting RAW. Shooting JPEG is almost definitely what you want. Photographs (all developed and everything) will come straight out of your camera and you can send them to your friends. They are going to look great, be a lot smaller and be a lot less work.

3. At the point where you feel artistically limited by what's in a JPEG.... then do a lot of research and possibly switch to RAW. That time might be years from now.

Or get photoshop Cs6

You either need to convert them, or your friend needs to download the Nikon RAW plug-in for windows.

hi guys,
i've just emailed a friend some .NEF RAW picture taken with my D800 but he is not able to view (open) them -he's using microsoft os on his laptop-
do i have to convert them before sending, or does he need to use a special software ?
tank you

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

You will find LR4.2 to be waaaaay better than LR4 and RAW will transform editing for you too - the two together are amazing.

I have been shooting RAW for years... but there is one good explanation about why I'm not shooting RAW yet with my D600: I don't have anything that can process it ;-)

I haven't upgraded to Lightroom4 yet... and 3 was never upgraded to be able to handle D600 RAW files...

I'll be upgrading soon though... and plan to switch over to RAW again. But honestly, it's kind of nice having the camera do my postprocessing for me ;-)

admittedly you didn't need to shoot these in RAW, but if you really wanted to see what your camera can do, why not shoot in 14bit RAW?