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.

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

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.

Interesting, but he really does not completely examine the lens and the optical properties. A lot of lenses fall off in sharpness as one gets smaller then f/22, mainly those whose wide open aperture is 1.4-2. I am certainly not an expert, but 5-7 f/stops down from wide open is about a small as the lens will really be sharp...my experience. I suspect to fully evaluate the issue requires an optical bench which can be set up to actually measure the image quality in a manner which sees the difference in the ability of the lens to resolve and diffraction.

Maybe someone who develops huge telescopes or is an optical engineer can help.

TaoTeJared said:
THAT IS ABSOLUTE BS! (To whomever posted that - Not you Donald) I have been shooting macro shots at f22 with no different diffraction noticed from 10mp to 36mp cameras. The only thing I have seen is that the images are dramatically sharper. Increasing the MP does not change the diffraction (that is lens dependent.) The only reason people are seeing it is that they can now zoom to 10,000% rather than just 1,600%. I don't get people who look at photos in this way.

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

1 pixel on an image could be 2,3,4,8,12... pixels that are analyzed to make the "color/contrast/tone" of one pixel. Multiple pixels are analyzed for correct color and then assembled into an image. All of the morons out there who are talking about diffraction are using the assumption that 1 pixel on a sensor = 1 pixel on a photo. There is nothing further from the truth.

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

Practical review of the D600 shooting sports at high ISO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FGu2WDvJY&feature=em-uploademail-new

At this point, and if you can afford the D600, That is what I think would be the best decision.

I really don't see a D700 as anything more than a back-up if someone is upgrading. (I'm assuming you can afford both) It's 4 years old so anything you get is going to have some life gone out of it. I look at it this way, generally most don't like to upgrade for less than 2-4 years. In 3 years, the D700 would be 7 year old tech. At that point I'm not sure it will hold up as well in terms of the future/current IQ at that time and possibly the parts would get to the end of their life cycle. I think you would want a new body within a year or two. A D600 would get you easily 4-5 years.

I mentioned this before, but my brand new D600 had two dust spots too. A quick puff of air resolved that. Don't return it, that just wastes your time and likely results in the store losing money. First try to blow of the sensor with a blower.

I have a feeling that they wont release such a mini-D4 camera though because they want money from the D4...

The images from a D600 will likely resemble what you're used to with a D7000 more and it doesn't seem like you do anything *too* rugged with your gear so you probably don't *need* the better build... that being said, the better build is nice as well as the controls.

I've been happy with the D600 so far so I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as long as you don't mind the AF coverage. I started with a 3 point AF D40 so I was used to focus+recompose and it isn't a deal breaker for me lol. I can understand how it wouldn't blow you away for sure though... I was more impressed after I started shooting it than before :)

I've never shot with a D700 so I can't really speak for it but I'm sure whichever you go with will not disappoint you. Both are great pieces of gear.

rensuchan said:
R8R, what do you shoot with now and what's your main reason for buying?

Few months back I replaced my D7000 after United airlines lost my other one, with all my lenses.

Since then I've bought a couple good full frame lenses with the intent of buying a FX body. I shoot indoors in concert venues a lot so high ISO performance is important. I am also trying to break into event photography and maybe 2nd shooter stuff for weddings, etc.

- I like the build, grip, AF and controls of the D700.
- I like the resolution and video capability of the D600, plus the dual cards but the rest is a bit of a wash.

So I'm at the point where I am considering the D700 for general stills shooting and keeping the D7000 for video and extra reach with zooms.

OR - same setup with the D600 as the main and D7000 for reach. The advantage here is they are more similar to each other so I can switch quickly between bodies with less chance of fumbling the different controls. (not to mention use the same cards, etc)

Dunno.

I've picked up a D600 in a store and it's nice...but I wasn't blown away. The D700 is a real beast.

It would have been nice to see Nikon release a compact D4, much like the D700 was a compact D3. This fractured line up is much less thrilling.

R8R, what do you shoot with now and what's your main reason for buying?

Ok so Now I am torn between the D600 and getting a used or refurb D700.

I don't know what to do.

Help.

nwdcrob said:
...but after changing the lens only two times the amount of dust spots has radically increased.

You can take a brand new camera out of the box and as soon as you remove the body cap you might be introducing dust. If you are getting a ton of dust after 2 lens changes then you really do need a rocket blower. I would call them essential, not optional.

I use the rocket blower to dust off the rear elements before swapping lenses all the time. Also, it helps to keep the open end of the body pointing down when the lens is off.

Dust is a sorry fact of digital photography. You can't eliminate it, only mitigate it.

nwdcrob said:
Are FX sensors more prone to dust problems than DX sensors?

In one word - No.

donaldejose said:
Tao: Diffraction limitations on a high mp sensor is another subject I have read many comments about and was trying to test. Rumor has it the D800 starts to lose sharpness due to diffraction at about f8.

THAT IS ABSOLUTE BS! (To whomever posted that - Not you Donald) I have been shooting macro shots at f22 with no different diffraction noticed from 10mp to 36mp cameras. The only thing I have seen is that the images are dramatically sharper. Increasing the MP does not change the diffraction (that is lens dependent.) The only reason people are seeing it is that they can now zoom to 10,000% rather than just 1,600%. I don't get people who look at photos in this way.

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

1 pixel on an image could be 2,3,4,8,12... pixels that are analyzed to make the "color/contrast/tone" of one pixel. Multiple pixels are analyzed for correct color and then assembled into an image. All of the morons out there who are talking about diffraction are using the assumption that 1 pixel on a sensor = 1 pixel on a photo. There is nothing further from the truth.

I'm having bad luck with the D600. I returned my first one because there were a bunch of black spots on my photos. The second one had two faint dust spots but after changing the lens only two times the amount of dust spots has radically increased. I'm waiting to receive the Giottos Medium Rocket Air Blaster to see if I can blow the possible dust off. If that doesn't work I have to assume its oil spots instead and I'll return the camera and wait a few months to see if Nikon corrects possible defects with the shutter system. Nikon's QC in Thailand needs to get their act together. My six year old D80 (never cleaned sensor) has substantially less dust than my new D600 that has been used only two times.

Are FX sensors more prone to dust problems than DX sensors?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcnwrob/8050927393/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcnwrob/8050934000/in/photostream/