Nikon D600 sample images

f/2.8, 25 seconds exposure, ISO 3200, 14-24 f/2.8 lens (credit: Nikon)

100% crop

Nikon D600 sample images can be found at:

This entry was posted in Nikon D600. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Andrew

    1st to love it

    • karl

      holy #$%@!

      a 100% crop from an astro shot gives an owl’s head ?
      how many freaking yottapixels does that camera have ?

      • pablo

        Yes, It has One Googolplex pixels!

        • Manuel


          • Nikon Shooter

            That’s it for me. I’ve waited for this camera to show up before outfitting my studio with new bodies and it looks like the D800 is going to be it. I just don’t see any reasons for going the D600 route.

            1. The ISO performance is unimpressive. The jury is still out, but to me it looks equal or worse to the D700.

            2. The price is simply too close to the D800 which blows the D600 out of the water, so why bother? At $1500 this camera makes sense but not at $2100.

            This is nothing but a glorified D7000. FF or DX are just names and at the end of the day what matters is the image quality and handling. This camera is probably decent at everything but so is the D7000 at half the price.

            I really wanted to like it and was hoping to see a true D700 replacement in it with a more manageable number of megapixels than the D800, better frame rate and possibly cleaner ISO (the smaller size doesn’t bother me).

            Unfortunately this camera does not excel at anything while its price has placed it into the premium category where we tend to expect from cameras so much more. What’s really premium about it? For $900 more I can get something truly breath-taking.

            While at $1500 this camera would be quite a catch, at $2100 it begins to look like a bad deal. If you got this kind of money for a camera then you can afford the D800 which is definitely worth more than its current price.

            • check

              “equal to or worse than”

              ok ok nvm

            • jake

              maybe for you the D800 is a much better body but for me or for many people who walk around shooting around a city a lot prefer the D600 body just because it is much smaller than obnoxiously huge D800.

              that said , I would like to get the same AF in the D800 in this body too.

              I have the D800 but if this D600 thing had the 1/8000 max shutter speed and the same AF as in the D800, I would have traded my D800 in for it.

              I also have the D7k and I much prefer the body of it to the huge and ugly D800, D4 ,etc.

              I just prefer smaller body for street shooting.
              For studio work , I think I prefer my D800 but it is not a good camera for street work (too many pixels and too heavy to carry all day long with my 85f1.4G)

            • Joshua

              I respectfully disagree. To me, the dynamic range and iso performance are fare superior than the D800. And it would make sense that it would be, they aren’t compressing all of those pixels into the sensor.

              From what I have seen (sorry, no first hand experience yet because Im in shopping mode), the D800 pretty much requires a high end Nikon or Zeiss lens or your images will actually look worse due to poor optical focus on the sensor right?

              I see the D600 vs D800 as a comparison similar to what we saw with the D5000 and D90. Remember what happened there? They came out with the D90 first, and then optimized the sensor and improved the software mistakes, and the D5000 ended up performing better iso/color rendition/dynamic range.

              I know DXO mark says something else, but remember, that’s raw sensor data, so basically, that’s testing without Nikon, when Nikon gets the sensor from sony, it performs way above what sony could have made it do (unless its a case where sony didnt make the sensor).

              I don’t know. I wish they would stop making pro-ish-sortof not really cameras. I want a clear distinction. I hate having to constantly tell clients that I know their uncle Bob’s camera takes great photos, but he cannot bring his DSLR to the wedding, because I’m the photographer.

            • Josh

              Well it’s still early and I want to see more raws but I tend to agree with Nikon Shooter. So far it looks like the D600 has ISO preformance equal to the D7000. Which makes the $2100 price even more ridiculous. If the camera has a mediocre FX sensor and lower than D7000 features, what exactly are you paying such a high premium for?

            • Nikon USA

              Nikon Shooter, yes at $900 more you also get a left and right AF problem.

            • Rob


              I seriously doubt DR or high ISO are better on the D600. The D800 may have greater noise at 100%, but printed the same size and with noise reduction, the D800 will always come out sharper and with the same or less noise (in my quick test so far it did). DR is usually better on higher MP cameras too, so your thoughts are also counter-intuitive there.

              As for not letting guests bring DSLRs to weddings: If you’re that insecure about your ability to take better photos than the guests, you need to find a new profession. A guest can be just as much of a distraction with a camera phone as a DSLR, so don’t try to claim that as the reason.

      • First comment ride

        Nevermind me. I’m just being a whore by riding on the post riding on the first post.

        • John Thomas

          I’m just here to cover your back!

      • Cyclop

        Hi bro, the owl is from another sample pics… Go Nikon site it got around 10 sample for u to download. By the way this owl picture is taken on February this year, they have this camera test half year before it announce.

        • karl


          /|\ <— you
          / \

          • nick192


        • jake

          longer than that for sure , Steve Simon had it for a bit over year before the announcement , I think.

          the owl photo is the only one I think I dislike , hye but go Steve Simon’s site and have a look at his cuba gallery.

      • twoomy

        +1 for making me spit out my coffee laughing. I was thinking the same thing. Bet if you view 100% crops from other sections of the photo, you’ll see an amoeba and Elvis hiding behind a rock.

      • Sahaja

        It is not an owl – it is a crop showing a being living on a planet circling Alpha Centauri

  • wow

    • What

      Doesn’t look any different from a D7K or a D700 — both of which are cheaper than the D600, which lacks many important features.

      • Liam

        Agreed. Every sample pic I’ve seen from this camera has been seriously underwhelming. I really WANT Nikon to take my money, but they aren’t giving me much incentive here.

        • Z

          Compared to Canon’s rumored 6D, this thing kills 6D … and 6D is rumored to be priced $500 higher … that’ll go over real well in the Canon camp …

          • Mikael

            Smells D800 vs 5D MK III 😀
            If what you say is somewhat true Canon will go on the 2nd landmine this year 🙂
            Canon users will never admit it, and Nikon will laugh at it, next generation the tables might turn 🙂
            Look at 5D MK II vs D700 🙂

          • Rob

            On PR, the rumor says the 6D is supposed to be $200 CHEAPER than the D600. The price given is the Japanese market. I’d actually expect $1999.

  • Peter Niko

    Is it just me, or high iso images are not that impressive?

    • RMFearless


    • Rebel


    • Andy

      Nope – it’s not just you – I’m actually underwhelmed.

    • Chase

      Actually, after being harshly critical of the initial high-ISO samples last night, I’m a bit more impressed with these ones. Not quite as good in sharpness as some of the pricier bodies (D800 is to be expected), but still not bad. Plus there is plenty of room to scale, much like the D800.

      I have to rescind some of my initial criticism. I still think it’s a little overpriced, but after comparing with the D700 – – I’m a bit less disappointed. I’m still waiting on the m43 announcements to make a final buying decision, but it would be nice to have a FF body.

      • Z

        See rumored Canon’s answer to D600, 6D specs and price … much worse …

      • zoetmb

        It wasn’t that I thought the price wasn’t fair considering that the Yen is down to 78 to the US Dollar – In 2007 it was 120, so this camera might have been only $1367 had the Dollar been stable, but I thought it might be still more than I wanted to spend.

        But then I realized that I paid $1700 for the D200 six years ago. $1700 is the equivalent of $1938 in 2012 dollars. That makes this body only $162 more than the D200. And I don’t remember anyone complaining about the price of the D200.

        And I’d think that we’d all agree that this is a lot more camera than the D200, although I still prefer the D200 controls.

        As for the images, I rarely like any of the images that Nikon posts, so I’m going to withhold judgement until I can get my hands on one. I do need good low-light performance because I shoot a lot of music shows and the clubs are getting more and more cranky about me using flash.

        The problem is that even if I thought “the hell with FX, I need the reach anyway” and waited to see if there’s really going to be a D400, it’s probably going to use a sensor of equivalent quality, so the high ISO performance will probably be the same as this camera.

        What I don’t understand are the people who think $2100 is close to $3000 (D800). It’s not. And if Nikon did release a D400, it’s likely to be at around $1700 assuming it’s similar body construction to the D200 and D300.

    • Dan

      Yeah, they seem great to about 800 ISO and then ok till 6400 iso and pretty much unusable after that. About 1/2-1 stops worse than the 5d mark III and probably more similar to the D7000 or maybe the D700. I still think the D700 has a bit lower noise. Nikon’s own press spokesperson said it is not as good as the D800. Not sure why it would not be. I figured it would be about 1/2 stop better than the D800.

      • check

        “Not sure why it would not be”

        –> cheaper sensor.

    • IdahoJim


      They look to be at least on my par with what I’m getting from my D800 prior to any noise reduction. It’s not a D4 to be sure, but I’ll bet tests prove it’s equal to or better than any other Nikon body available today. If true that would make it the 2nd best Hi ISO DSLR on the planet. Wouldn’t it?

      Just out of curiosity, what were your expectations for this camera? Better than the D800, equal to the D4 maybe?

    • jake

      I think you are not alone here , I agree and I think my D800 is stop better from ISO800.

      But at low ISO setting, I actually think this camera is pretty impressive.

      • iamlucky13

        The night shot that Nikon posted is a terrible picture to assess ISO performance from.

        First of all, it’s an extended exposure (25s), which is a lot of time for random noise to accumulate. You can’t really compare it to other high ISO images taken at hand-held speeds.

        The lens is focused at infinity at F/2.8. So the area that is in focus includes both a bunch of noise-sized specs that aren’t noise, in a large, dark area, which is the worst case for noise to be visible.

        The portions that aren’t pitch black are out-of-focus and lit with a red light, so you can’t assess detail retention or color.

        Of the other sites with samples, most of them aren’t full res. And one site has a bunch of ISO 25,600 samples, which honestly, don’t look half bad for being an ISO that Nikon only expects users to turn to in a pinch, and if you can ignore the fact that the dynamic range of the scenes that photographer shot is completely out of control and makes the images look bad in general (blown out lights and video screens contrasted against pitch black shadows.

        The few images that are worth comparing would have me put the D600 maybe 1/2 stop ahead of the D7000, which one would expect considering it has 50% more pixels but twice to total sensor area, and about even with the D700 on a per-pixel noise basis, but with twice as many pixels. And don’t even bother comparing it to the 24 mp DX D3200. The DX camera looks hideous in comparison.

        Don’t call that authoritative, though. That’s just how I see it. I’ll be curious to see what dpreview and DXomark measure.

        Which still won’t matter much to me versus what I see. I see a camera that is great up to ISO 3200, still generally acceptable at 6400, and only useful in certain situations at 12,800 and 25,600.

  • Looks like another winner. Way to go Nikon!

  • Acorn

    My D3100/D7000 can take this..

    • BC

      Your d3100 cannot equal that lol. I own a d3100 and it’s pretty noisy at iso 1600 in low light. It degrades quickly from there.

      No contest. I am interested to see some side by side comparisons though.

  • Kahiri78

    If you download the original owl pic, you can see at 100% that it is slightly grainy than i thought it would be, especially at iso 800. But ‘downsizing’ people might think otherwise 🙂

  • D700guy

    The crop pic isnt impressive at all

    • karl

      taken using the 200-400mm f4 nikon lens with TC-20E at 1/800s.
      It seems like Nikon didn’t want it to look good.

      • +1 It was rather a demonstration of the cameras f8 focusing capabilities.
        Don’t know why they didn’t use the new 800mm f5.6 prime + 1.4 tc on that or one of the f4 primes with the 2 tc.

        • scurvy hesh

          HA! Apparently they didn’t Carl. But I understand the example they are trying to make. Still it bothers me as someone who shot these little guys himself. You really dont nee to shoot Snowy Owls with a 2X+ 200-400 when they are resting. You just need to be patient and take your time slowly zig zagging your way closer while not directly looking at them. At least that’s what worked for me.

          D90, 200-400 @ 350mm No 2x needed.

  • Rebel
  • FX DX

    If I didn’t have D800 already, I would be all over this camera. Professionally taken pictures with a camera that has FX sensor, I am not surprised that these pictures are really good. Remember, photography is a lot more than the equipment you own.

    Those of you who are complaining about high ISO picture, please post a link of your ISO3200 image, so we can compare it with this D600 image.

    • Tripodman


    • Pete K.

      I also agree!

      These pics look good at ISO 3200…I am still going to purchase this camera…Who cares what the D600 haters have to say they will complain just to complain.

  • Peter Niko

    I was expecting d600 do have better high iso than d800 but i guess it’s the same or worse..

    but still its to soon to jump to conclusions…

  • slipstream

    The second cropped image is in my opinion awful. Not a good sample image at all, if you are to include a sample image at least make it one that shows off the full potential for this new camera.

    I am holding judgement on the D600 until all the reviews have been completed and any focusing or otherwise bugs have been been resolved, oh…… and the price comes down to a more sensible circa £1600

    • Peter Niko

      the official nikon sample are never the best…

      nikon is just awful when it comes to marketing… but at least they realy put out great cameras hehe

      • Legion

        While generally true, I have yet to see official samples from any DSLR that match those from the D3x in terms of per pixel sharpness, contrast, and color. When I first saw those I was blown away. Even now, I still find them impressive.

        In fact, compare those to the samples for the D600 and ask yourself why Nikon has not taken the same level of care in creating official samples.

        • SiliconVoid



          is every bit as sharp as this:

          The only differences you are seeing in the D3x shot is a result of full studio lighting, a 60mm macro lens, and being about 3-feet closer to the model, which means finer detail captured.

          As for resolving distant detail, sharpness, color, etc..

          contains just as much fine detail, in areas of fine detail, as this:

          Again more of a difference in the lens used, not the sensor performance. -.-

          Who wants to give odds that the D600 outperforms the D3x when DxO evaluates it…

          • Legion

            Point taken. Lesson learned that memory isn’t the most reliable thing in the world. (Not that I mistakenly remembered the quality of the D3x photos, but that I should have objectively compared them with the D600 photos before commenting.)

            FWIW, I did consider the D600 portrait photo to be incredible; I think it was the shot of the owl that underwhelmed me, even though I realize the lens + TC combo and conditions were likely far from ideal.

            And I won’t take any bets on the D600 sensor performance. It should be improved given the time elapsed and advances in technology since the D3x was released.

          • baked bananas

            Holy batshit!!!! I think you’ve hit the mark! This is basically a d3x in a D7000 body !!!! So this means……

            IQ D600 = d3x < d800

            So if yo want d3x performance on the cheap and need video get a D600

            If you want the best IQ in a dslr right now. Get a d800.

          • Paablo Ricasso

            Both shots are better with the new camera.

    • stoic little

      It’s an ISO 800 image shot at 800mm with a 200-400mm lens + 2x Teleconverter

      • SiliconVoid


        Amazing how much ‘technical’ evaluation is being applied – without considering all the technical details… =/

        • Jason

          I shot this Black Bittern this afternoon with 500mm VR and 2 x tele converter. Effective 1000mm its no advertising shot but at least its sharp. Teleconverters and long lens don’t makes images soft on the D4. This image of the owl looks very poor.

          • Jason
            • iamlucky13

              1.) It’s not as blurry in comparison as you might think it is. The higher contrast of the dark feathers is deceiving, and most of the snowy owl crop is out of focus.

              2.) Take the snowy owl photo and apply the same level of sharpening as you did to your bittern photo. No, it doesn’t make up all the difference, but it does help.

              3.) The 200-400 is pretty freaking awesome for a zoom, but the 500mm still edges it out for sharpness.

              4.) The D400 has a slightly lower pixel pitch, making lens softness slightly less visible anyways.

              5.) Aside from the generally minor effects of the AA filter and the Bayer conversion, how the heck would a sensor make an image look soft? The fundamental basis of your criticism is off base.

            • Jason

              The 100% owl crop is still soft and Nikon have yet to release a D400 or am I missing something in this Pseudo intellectual rambling. The owl’s eye and feather detail is soft!
              “The generally minor effects of the AA filter and the Bayer conversion” Wow that all sounds terribly clever.
              Bottom line, soft image!

              Not impressed with what I’ve seen of the D600 but thats just my opinion. I’m sure Rockwell with have it reviewed in time:-)

            • iamlucky13

              You’re blaming the camera for the softness that the camera should not be able to produce based on a test with half a dozen variables that aren’t controlled for.

              Give it break.

              You did remind me though…I need to run over to Rockwell’s page and get his opinion on it. So much suspense…will he spend a month condemning it as pointless and then call it the only camera worth owning once he gets one, or will he immediately mock everyone who owns a D800 for getting suckered by the MP count? Or perhaps he’ll write a post about how 24 MP is exactly the correct number (just like 16, 12, and 6 all formerly were) of pixels for a camera to have.

              Personally, I’m hoping for a bit about how well the 18-55 will work on the D600.

            • iamlucky13

              Ok, back from Rockwell’s site:

              It seems he’s going for the “D800 has too many pixels so sell your D800 now (on Adorama, of course) before the market gets flooded with them” angle.

              And early on in the article he says it should be 12 MP, but further down he outright says 24 MP is the correct resoultion for FX.

            • Mikael


              Why do you want to use 18-55 on a FX DSLR?
              Then you are down to 10MP files, and i cant understand that thinking you have tbh.
              Going for the D800 you atleast get something like 16MP to work with with that DX lens.

              Ken Rockwell needs to stop smoke crack while writing reviews.
              If you have a D800/e, why in the world would you want to sell it to buy something, according to half of the people here, something equal (or worse ) to the D800.

              When you buy something new, the value will decrease the moment it will be unboxed, doesnt mather if its by $100 or $1000, it will decrease.
              If you would get what you paid ( and you wont ) then it would be almost legit to write what he does, but since you will loose money on it and get something that aint better, well i cant understand him.

              And all of this is since it have 36MP instead of 24, man that dude is LUDACRIS.
              Sure maybe you dont need more then 12MP, he says that atleast 10 times each review, but that 36MP files will slow down your workflow that much is wierd.
              Considering Moore´s Law, that wouldnt be a problem, or wont be a problem within 2 years if you apply the law.
              Just checked out the MIPS on some nasty Intle hexcore cpus from 2010 and 2011, the MIPS increased 17% during that year. ( 2011 Intel = 177,730 MIPS , my AMD Phenom II something around 78,000 MIPS )
              Mostly its the software developers that are slowing you down, add a GPU to accelerate that heavy shit for you and you would be able to work in realtime all the time already today.
              Check out the adaptive wide angle filter in PS6, they rewrote the engine, and i have been working with panoramas of 20000 x 5000 pixels in realtime, so its bull shit that 36mp will slow you down more then 24mp, sure it will do some difference now, but its the software developers fault.
              They dont use good engines to power everything like they do with adaptive wide angle etc.

              My setup ( – screen ) was about $500, then i spent almost $200 extra on a good gfx card since i wanted to able to game at max resolution on my Dell 27″.
              So with less then $700 you will get something that will be able to eat 50MP files for breakfast if the software companies just spend more time rewriting the fundamental parts of the software.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            I think someone needs to post the whole image because it seems that some people are not understanding that it is a CROP, a 100percent CROP, a tiny portion of the actual image.
            They also should understand that the only reason the crop was chosen to be shown was to demonstrate that the camera could focus to f8 with teleconverters, which are less then optimal. Furthermore, it was a 2x converter, which is considered less sharp than a 1.4x and also used on the long end of a zoom lens, a setting where lenses are commonly not at their best, and then used with a converter which is not recommended.
            In short, the company was demonstrating the worst of all possible worlds:
            A zoom at it’s longest setting.
            Wide open.
            A 2x converter on a zoom.
            F8 effective aperture.
            And then they posted a 100 percent crop.


            Somebody please grow a brain bigger than that of the owl.

            • Jason

              yes 100% crop, we get it and someone has posted a link to the full image.
              Still not that impressive is it!

  • morg
    • I already added those links in the announcement post.

  • Kim

    Does anyone else have concerns about how small the focusing region in the viewfinder is? It seems to cover much less area than the D7000, D700 or D800. It seems like it will be hard to get some shots that might be off center and may not be possible to zoom in as far as one might like if unable to put a focus point for instance higher or further out on an eye for example resulting in the need for cropping. I would be interested to hear what others think.

    • I never thought of that. They are taking the AF from a crop body onto full frame. That’ll be interesting to see how small it seems in usage.

    • Yes, exactly. Is this supposed to be a focus-and-recompose-only camera? As a D7000 (backup) user, reusing the unimpressive focusing system from the D7000 is a huge fail in my view.

      Cheap camera for a not-so-cheap price. Watch prices to fall rapidly.

    • flesix

      It does cover the same area as in the D7000 and D800. But it’s less wide than that of the D90, which has 1 AF point on each side beyond the D600’s AF area. And even with those, I’m frequently experiencing what you’re describing and I wish the AF points were distributed much wider across the frame.

    • Dan

      It is concerning. I’ve been a Canon shooter but have been looking to switch to Nikon after Canon’s crap AF with the 5DII. I used a 7D mostly because it had better AF with 19 all cross type points spread out across the frame with a dual cross type in the center. Now, i’m not so sure. Nikon has stopped innovating with the AF and all cross type points are in the center. You really are not much better off than the 5DII with the 1 cross type point in the center. If Canon uses the same focusing system as the 7D in a new 6D Camera or better, Nikon will have competition from anyone other than landscape photographers. The Nikon looks great on paper with over 30 focus points but when you look at the coverage and worse, the cross type points coverage, any photographer who has ever tried shooting a white dress, black tux, or bird in flight should be worried.

      • Twaddler Belafonte

        You can be fully assured the AF on this is worlds better than the 5dII.

        • Manuel

          This may be true. But for me, it’s the biggest drawback by far. I can live well with 1/200 sync, i can live with 5.5 fps. That’s not comfy, but acceptable.

          The 51-point-AF module (D§/D300/D700) was always to much concentrated to the center in FX bodys. This one is even more that way. We’ve had that in the 90s.

          I want to have AF points in the area of the Golden Ratio.

          In addition, I’m very much underwhelmed with the AF performance of the D7000, especially in 3D mode. It’s not the lesser number of focus points – it just doesn’t snap on as well as the 51-point module by far. Let’s see if at least that has been improved on the D600.

          • Calibrator

            “I want to have AF points in the area of the Golden Ratio.”


      • luke


    • OMG you’re right.
      It seems really small on those pictures :
      if they’re to scale, it’s almost the same area as 5DII, and much less than D700.

      • SiliconVoid

        In the diagrams you linked you can see for example the bird taking up the whole frame, and the central part of its body within a zone of the AF mode.. where exactly would you want it to be that it does not cover…? Same with the girl standing in the doorway.

        If you do not compose your shots in the field with the anticipation of cropping and recomposition in post, you won’t have any problems with the AF.

        • Lorenz Kobler

          I have to disagree: if you overlay the focus area eg. to the portrait shot, you find that her eyes are outside… With the focus region of the D800 (or D7000), they are just at the edge. Though I already ordered a D600, I find this a bit annoying.

          Best regards,

    • Sahaja

      The spread of focusing points is not as good as the same array on DX but OTOH each focusing point covers less of the image so you should be able to more accurately place one on small objects.

      I can live with focus and re-compose if the subject is not near the center of the frame.

  • Nathan

    I’m a little confused by the people’s reaction to the low light, high iso capability of the D600. The D3x had pretty much the same sensor and everyone seemed to accept that it wasn’t a night vision demon, yet, most everyone here thinks the D600 should be. The D600 does what it can with the sensor it has. If it had a D4 or D3s sensor then I’d be crying over spilled milk, but as it stands it’s as good as it gets.

    • Niktard

      This is NOT as good as it gets. 5D II does better than that and its old as dirt and the same price. This is just the best Nikon can do at this price point. Which is sad.

      • Mikael

        But there is more to a camera then just low light is it?
        And this is aimed for new into the FF field, the MK II is going out, and the MK III whoops in at a good amount of money, for about the same as a MK II with good parts from 7D.
        But by all means, go for the MK II, that is a pro cam, aimed for pros, this aint a pro cam not aiming for the pros.

      • D400

        My D7000 has the same SNR as the 5D2, and it has less pixel pitch than this camera. I say that the people who took the sample shots aren’t very good at getting the most out of the camera

        • Nathan

          Or they had a very limited time with the camera and not long enough to learn everything about the capabilities.

          • Calibrator

            It doesn’t matter how capable the photographers were – the problem lies in the people deciding which shots get selected for the advertising. They have the power to reject…

      • krr

        You all just at that one ISO 3200 star photo and the ISO 800 teleconverter owl pic … there are already a lot more high ISO images and they are great up to ISO 6400, i dont think 5dmkii beats that!

  • Cantbelieveit

    What kind of ignorant trolls post here is beyond me.

    The noise porformance is MORE then great here and comparable with the D800.
    Even 25600 is usable for small prints or webuse looking at the image resource samples.

    Good job nikon!

    • Niktard

      You sir, are blind.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        I was just talking about you…
        It took me a while to compose.
        See the post below.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      I’m with you on that. Reading about the specs for the past while I didn’t really care much about the camera. But then looking at the pictures, I’m flat out amazed. The colors rival that of film. If you click on the fourth link they gave you, you can see the photos from Nikon France a little larger than the active link below. I really like the one of the city at night and the shot immediately before it. Hell. I like them all. It makes me want to go shoot pictures.
      And then the night shots at Imaging resource… I could see some grain on the shots at ISO 6400, but the one shot at ISO 4032 was very smooth. I think you could count the full frame cameras that would do that well that high on one hand. Not to mention the colors were still vividly saturated and the highlight and shadow detail remained. Magnified on my computer screen I was peeping at the equivalent of a 60 x 80″ print, and the noise was probably less than the edge softness at that magnification. If you are using a 13×19 printer, I think you’re safe at ISO 4032 or less. The pictures at lower ISO are only limited by the photographer and the pixel count. I only know of one full frame with more. I’m not going to be surprised if DXO scores this one higher than the D800.
      You crybabies are trolls. At this point you should know what you can do with your Canon.

  • Buster McGee

    Used D3 for $2,100 or brand new D600?

    • Geoff

      If you don’t need Video and the high MP. GO FOR IT. It’s a more professional camera with a much better AF system.

  • Mr

    The ISO 800 100% crop is from a 200-400 with TC20 attached for 800mm, at only 1/800 shutter… Not exactly ideal conditions.

  • Jikon

    Well, having looked over some of the samples from various sources, I’m impressed. Some of the low light/high iso pics look really good. The official D600 video has some amazing dusk and night video. I’d say that night shot at the top is pretty good considering it’s 25 seconds.

    I was a little bummed about the price, but it’s still a good deal, imo. Just gotta save a little more.

  • Best noise

    I think in the end. This camera will be one of the highest quality image DSLR’s ever created. Especially at this price point ;)))

    Noise looks really well controlled and i dont know if those -noise pixel peep fuckers who never took a good picture in their life- here realized…but the dynamic range looks out of this world amazing! Also in the videos…

    • Pablo Ricasso

      You said in one paragraph what took me around three. The only thing that is going to beat that is another Nikon camera. But only at one thing or another…

      • Pablo Rip asso

        Stop of being a FAN boy… please..

  • AlphaOne

    The snowy owl crop is not in focus. The other eye to me is sharper.
    It’s taken with a 200-400 with a TC 20E @ 800mm. f/8 , 1/800s and ISO 800.

    Not great, bot not bad either.

    • Ben Dover

      The snowy owl is great ! Look at his claws ! don’t forget this is 800mm and probably not the best weather conditions for this large tele shooting…

  • Great shot

    The own is a great shot. Period.

  • oldhkr

    Ok I know it’s not a big deal to most people but I had hoped that the D600 would have at least 5 frames of exposure bracketing. The D800 has up to 9. This truly is just a D7000 with a full frame sensor. Nothing really wrong with that but I wanted a little more for $2100.00. With the recent price decreases of the D7000 that full frame sensor is getting close to adding $1000.00 to the cost of a D7000.

    • Mikael

      Well you get the Expeed 3 processor aswell 😀 but besides the processor and sensor its a D7k 😀
      The price is abit high, for me its worth going for those 900USD more to get a more solid camera.

      • D400

        Except that the D7k has a pretty awesome sync speed – 1/320. you can also push that and get relatively clean sync at 1/400 and 1/500

        • SiliconVoid

          Every current Nikon body is either 1/200s or 1/250s sync, get used to it, get over it..
          Fill the frame with your subject, meter for that composition, and you probably won’t even need to use a flash to balance the exposure.
          (Yes there are situations where that isn’t possible, where you can use the flash to increase your shutter speed, etc – but it is not even remotely a make or break criteria.)

          The D7000 by the way is no faster sync rated than any of Nikon’s other bodies – 1/250s. Pushing beyond that you lose usable distance of the flash..

          Most people don’t really have a need for the capabilities they are complaining about, they just want every new model to include every pre-existing feature and function from every other model before it so they can comfort themselves in feeling they latest and greatest..

  • Great shot

    The owl is a great shot. Period*

    • Ben Dover

      I Agree !

  • Ben Dover

    Wow, these are some amazing pictures on Nikon Imaging. The photo’s taken in Morocco are

    I’m decided: this is my next camera ! Only looking at the few subtle changes that were made on the back panel compared to my actual D7000 and I knew it. This is the one !
    Hallelujah !!

  • raavem

    The pictures are great, but why would you think the D600 would have better high ISO performance???
    The only theoretical difference would be sharpness at f8-f11 compared to d800. The owls eye shows that.

  • Sam

    Seriously what is the point of having 39 focus points if they’re all in the same place. They may as well have 12 large ones or 100 tiny ones and it would be the same result if it’s all clustered in one place. Come on Nikon.. Time to make a new one instead of recylcing the D7000’s one

  • Jeff

    Not impressed. This camera body was way over-hyped. I am glad that I bit the bullet and bought the D800. It is truly a phenomenal camera. I will stick with my D7000 as my backup body.

    • RealityCheck


      What exactly are you not impressed by?
      Getting D3x image quality for ~$2100..?
      Getting support for almost every lens Nikon has ever made..?
      Getting basically an upgraded D700 with more mp and HD video..?
      Getting the same full frame ~5fps as the D700..?
      Getting a smaller body than the D700, D800, yet more ergonomic and more robust than the D7000 and better weathersealing..?
      Getting the same intervalometer functions as another FX body but for less money..?


      Are you not ‘impressed’ simply because for what the D600 offers it kind of devalues your D800..?

      • Geoff

        The AF system is garbage.

  • iaiai

    IRT Sam;

    Accuracy my friend,…accuracy.

    It’s proven whining and complaining is not good for the brain.

    Be happy with what is presented here. An awesome camera. look somewhere else otherwise.

    • User

      +1. Great job Nikon!

  • adnank

    here some nice samples , taken with nikon D 600

    • jm


    • All For Teags

      I remember seeing those images a few months back when the new 24-85 lens was announced. He’s been using the D600 (or prototype) for a while…. some great shots.

  • adnank

    here is another great video 🙂 nikon D 600

  • Nice camera! If it had shipped before the D800 I probably would have ended up with the D600 over the D800. However now that I have the D800 I won’t be replacing it any time soon and my D7000 is the fallback camera.

  • To all the complainers: If you want something to really be angry about here you go:

    Nikon D600 Compatible with AF NIKKOR lenses, including type G and D lenses (some restrictions apply to PC lenses)

    Bye bye D600 for architectural photography!

    • jorg

      that´s old news. the flash-housing is protruding some millimeters into the way of one knob. the lenses work fine, there is only one alignment, where you have to swivel the lens around, which does not limit the usability, only takes 20 seconds extra time.

      lots of whining about those pc-lenses, that only 1% actually use and ever held in hand.

      btw: i usually rent an 24 pc-e when i need it. never had any trouble with a D700 or D800.

      • Thanks for being so extremly wise and making clear that i am only whinning and thanks for implying I have never held a PC-E lens in my hands, but unfortunatly I am not talking (and care) about this knob ”problem”.

        Actually the 24mm pc-e can’t be shifted to its full extent on a consumer body like the d7000. Should it also be the case with the d600, it would be quite bad. Otherwise the d600 is way enough camera for architectural photography since it has a 100% Viewfinder, most people use hyperfocal focusing and you don’t need tank like build quality. There you go 😉

    • Calibrator

      “(some restrictions apply to PC lenses)”

      Do you mean this?
      I suspect that it’s the same problems as with the D800. There are certain movement restrictions for PC-E lenses but they are still usable on it.

      • That would be great! I just hope it’s not the same as on the d7000

  • With great probability I will sell my d300s and by d600 once it Tailand plantruns throu several production cycles and Nikon fixes all bugs.
    I don’t need that lot of AF points i usually use my camera in 11 pounts mode, and even more often use center point to focus.
    I also shoot soccer almost every week and found that there is no point in heaving 7fps burst, almost all my shot I capture in single shot without spraing.
    ISO is definately better then my d300s
    AF module in this camera in not the same used in D7000 – which is clearly stated on Nikon website, so i’m OK with it.
    And I’ve also have never found any advantage of having mag aloy body, this is a camera and it is made to shoot pictues not to hammer nails!!!
    So in the end I’m happy that it is now possible have supeb camera for this small amount of money.

  • Nion

    At this stage I’m pretty convinced about the great performance of the camera specially in regards of it’s Low light high ISO performance, dynamic range and video quality…. it looks better than D700 .You will agree with me if you closely look at the photographs of Florian Schulz & Steve Simon at their own sites. AF performance could actually be judged only after using the camera but it would definitely be better than D7000…Nikon won’t be that much idiot !!!
    Those who are not convinced please visit the following site :

  • Worst possible pic to choose for 100% crop example. The one through an already long lens plus a 2x teleconverter plus apparently shot in the dark at fairly high ISO? Even looks like it had a hint of shake.

    Other than that it looks a lot like the D700, but with slightly better ISO. Oh and double the resolution. Don’t know if I’ll upgrade just yet, but it’s certainly on the radar.

  • Jason

    I mostly shoot birds and use the D4, that owls head is horrendous and certainly not a keeper. Feather detail is almost completely lost and the eye soft. I’d be very surprised if these where published samples to promote the camera.

  • peterw

    200-400 with Tc2x III doesn’t look like a good idea. it is rather soft
    I guess on a D300s/ D7000 without tc and perhaps a bit cropping would be much better.

  • ed

    How is this lens??

    I’m thinking of getting this camera. I figure i have about 4k in total to spend (i’ve been on a D60 for way too long, never bought any DX glass, have some old/great F2 glass).

    I was thinking of getting the body, and then a better lens “kit”… but if this one is good, then i may reoncisder, and put my extra $$$ toward a couple others to round it out.


  • PP

    Are there any real world NEF files available for download anywhere?
    Not the cactus or the bill, or any other of the kind, just some real photos.
    ISO 1600 and higher.


  • jorg

    that owl is not the best example. still the result with a 200-400 at max FL plus double converter + slightly ISO is quite ok, mind it is f/8, so taken to the edge of the whole optical chain. imho that camera did a good job here.
    it is beyond me, why nikon did not pick a more suiting pic and explain the situation.

  • Mitko

    Dear D800 owners,

    How does the D600 compare to D800 in terms of dynamic and High-Iso/Noise (ISO 6400 let’s say)? Is it any better?

  • david distefano

    i was hoping for a camera to replace my wife’s d300 since it looks like nikon is not going to release a dx model any time soon. but at that price point, $2100, i would be better off giving her my 4 month old d800 and get me the d800e the one i wanted to get but didn’t want to wait for. all her lens are fx lenses, we share, so there would be no added expense.

  • Peter Niko

    After looking at some more samples and been a pixel peeper about it..
    i have to say the high iso images are good after all.
    I was expecting it to be better, cos as someone mentioned’s no better than the already old 5d mk2 and quite near D700…

  • Kevin

    The second 100 % Crop can not count. It is a bad example, because it is taken with a 200-400 + 2,0 TCE III. Florian Schulz (Wildlife Photographer who made the pictures) will post some pictures on his blog the next weeks, thats what he told me.
    Im curious to that pics then, because Nikon only posted some low Iso pictures, despite of 2 pictures of Florian which were not very expressive…

    • peterw

      He should have kept these pictures to himself.
      or rather, should have thrown them away. Probably a 600 F4 or 500 F4 was at hand, and it had given stunning images on this very camera. Or whatever camera had been used. This sitting owl is not a very difficult or special achievement.

  • ISO

    If most people here can’t agree by eyeballing the pictures whether D600 is better, worse, or equal to D7000, D700, and D800 at high ISO, it really says only one thing: the differences are minor and insignificant. I’m sure DxO will tell the whole story, but if you cannot see it — you cannot see it. What remains is the bragging rights (or lack thereof). Kind of pathetic.

    • Pablo ricasso

      I’d have to say we have a bunch of haters who don’t know * from shinola. These pictures show nothing but tremendous capability. DXO WILL tell the whole story.

      • booyah

        yep, dxo will tell the whole story…from a test lab. doesn’t mean you get the image in the field. but tech nerds are tech nerds, and photographers don’t care about the tool as much as the end result.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          And if you can’t see the capability of the camera and the sensor from viewing the images available to you then there isn’t much more to say.

        • Nion

          DxO rating might be a technical assessment in Lab but it has some practical implication also……..if DxO rating shows good report then there is a high chance that the actual photograph could be (if there is any fault ) easily corrected by photoshop.

  • PVS

    For a brand new sensor and processing technology used those samples at imaging-resource look quite disappointing, the color noise is even tad worse than on 4 years old 5dmkII. A camera like this should bave been released at least 3 years àgo, at this price point this is everything but “revolutionary”.
    too much hype over Nikon’s equivalent to 5dmkII, imo.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      You’re maybe the third person saying that. Or maybe you’re the same person who keeps saying it over and over, in hopes of making it true. I find your remarks about high ISO extremely doubtful. Canon images lose all their color and dynamic range and detail at high ISO and the 5D2 is worse than the 5D3 at that. It also shoots less than four frames a second. I suppose we’ll be able to confidently disprove your assertion when the reviewers post some side by side comparisons…

      But I can say for sure that you’re never going to get your 5D2 to do this:

      I also doubt the 5D3 is that good.

      • PVS

        Perhaps your methods are such but I got better things to do than to create various accounts for this silly thread.

        When you see a good photo, what first comes into your mind?
        “Wow, that must have been shot with Nikon!”

        Petty people have petty minds affording them petty perspectives.

        I shoot both with C and N, have bunch of Nikkors as well as Sigmas and EF lenses. Horses for courses – because I can afford it because it gives me the best results which I can compare and find which one applies best for certain tasks.

        Enjoy your 2.1k spent on camera which should have been released 4 years ago, I hope at least you can afford one. Since this camera is surely capable of that – I also hope you’ll spend more time trying to get good photos with it instead of popping up here on every NR post creaming yourself to “consumer individualism” Nikon blessed you with. Sheep.

        To others: sorry folks if I took the trollbait even though that silly screen name was an obvious clue.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          I consider myself somewhat unbiased. When I see a good photo, I usually have no idea what equipment was used, but I usually try to guess if I don’t see it written, before I check. And whatever is better is better, whether I like the brand or equipment or not. Sometimes I have even bought lenses that I had previously sold in order to retry them. I shoot Nikon, Pentax, Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma. I use Kodak and Fuji film on Kodak and Fuji paper and I’ve handed my film to a lot of different people to process. I also tried Agfa film. I also shoot Mamiya and I’m buying into the Pentax equivalent system and I’ve put together a nice set of lenses for a Sony camera that I don’t have yet. The only digital I have at the moment is a Samsung point and shoot, two Canon mini DV cams, a Fuji S2Pro and a Kodak full frame. I haven’t even bought a Nikon Digital camera yet.
          But I can tell you from looking at those pictures that I’m going to buy a Nikon Digital camera.
          What really pisses me off is a bunch of *s acting like they know it all complaining about said lack of features on a camera that has been introduced at a price point less than that of any full frame before it that renders images like the ones that I can plainly see are as good as anything imaginable.
          DXO will vouch for what my eyes are seeing.

          • PVS

            Dude, don’t make list all the MF I shoot or have shot with.Another dimension, another topic – especially the film.
            Enjoy RAW files from D600 here:

            I still think this camera is overhyped and overpriced (in 2012). If it had been released few years back it would definitely deserve “game-changer” title but now it just seems lame.
            The great thing about this hype is that we’re be able to see a lot of cheap D3s’ and D3Xs on the used market.
            Long live all the rich amateurs!

          • PVS

            Also, I would strongly recommend you not to pay attention to what DXomark rates it. For anything bigger than 12mp their 8mp benchmark is just ridiculous. Also there’s a whole lot of difference between how camera performs in studio with continuos light and how it handle in everyday situations – that’s why I don’t pay any mind to DPR tests too ( though their results are in favor of 5Dmk3).

  • O

    It might be just me but the owl pictures SUCKS! I expected less noise and better sharpness at ISO 800

    • Pablo Ricasso

      LOL. Yeah. Picture sucks. Wide open fully zoomed on 2X converter in dark… Not so much a demonstration of the sensor, genius. Do you see how narrow the depth of field is? Do you see how dark it is? Do you appreciate the fact that you’re on f*8?
      How does YOUR camera focus in the dark @ f8???

      See the way the feathers closer than the eyes are blurred? See the way the feathers behind the eyes are blurred? See the way the claw is in focus, and only a small part of the tree limb beneath it? See how the remainder is quite blurred? The camera with that lens combination had a depth of field of about a half an inch. And the auto focus nailed it. Not the best combination of lenses to be using, nor the best aperture, nor the best situation. And that’s the point.

      The * 39 point system that none of you have even used. The one that so many *s have been complaining about, as if they know. That one. It NAILED it.

      • Maji

        Great job in observing the nuances that you posted. It looks like Nikon has another winner in their hands.

        BTW, has anyone checked out the latest Canon 6d rumors? It is supposed to be about $2000 which is cheaper than the D600, but the specs are really weak compared to the D600. For starters:
        1. Only one cross type AF sensor.
        2. Only one card slot.
        3. 1/180s flash sync speed, and
        4. 4.5 fps.

        However, it will have built in GPS and WiFi. I think Nikon will be giving its people a big bonus this X-Mas 😉

      • peterw

        sorry Pablo,
        You state the claw and eye are sharp. But the eye in this crop is as soft as the feathers. Also, the feathers are just a few mm from the eyes. At F8 this should look sharper. The feathers could be unsharp due to a tiny wind blowing, or even the breathing of the animal. But the eye is soft too. It is the lens combined with the convertor. The result is stunning for a zoom with a 2x lens at F8. And, it can be used when not enlarged too much. But, one wouldn’t expect it in a folder to show of a new camera. They should have send out the photographer with the best of lenses, which is not a 200-400 with 2x convertor.

        To judge the autofocus from shooting a ‘sitting duck’, well, that is not state of the art. It could be sitting here an entire day. Days after each other.

  • EAS

    Thom Hogan in his section on the D600, where he responds to questions he has seen on the net, states:

    “The sample quality of images I’ve seen so far looks poor? Is the D600 not that great? Simple rule of thumb: never go by what you see from pre-release sample taking. Never. (1) The camera makers never get this right. Somewhere along the line the marketing department thinks that “pretty” pictures are better than pictures that are evaluated on disciplined shooting that reveals true image quality capability, so you end up with slightly missed focus points, slightly wrong exposure, sRGB Color Space at often camera default settings (for the JPEG), and even minor camera handling issues. (2) Unless you’re provided with true out-of-camera JPEGs to look at, it’s highly likely that there is recompression (and maybe interpolation) involved in what you’re seeing. If you actually get out-of-camera JPEGs to look at, see point #1 ;~). “

  • peter niko

    just realized Imaging-resource posted high iso studio samples!
    for pixel peepers delight

  • 103david

    As always, I’m amazed at the pontificating and punditry by those that have never even seen the camera much less used one. How ’bout maybe actually put one in your hands, snap a few shots, check your own capture, and try to learn the difference between a review and a unfounded opinion.
    Until you do, your commentary(s) are just a fart in a windstorm.

    • O

      No David, my comments are not ” fart in a windstorm” I do not need to get my hands on the camera to evaluate the sample quality. Do you?

  • Back to top