We are spoiled: Nikon D70 vs. D600 ISO comparison

By [NR] admin | Published: August 12, 2013

Nikon-D70-vs.-D600-ISO-comparison

The Nikon D70 was announced in 2004, the D600 in 2012. The above video by Kyle Clements show how much the ISO performance has improved over the past decade. Yes, we are spoiled.

Via Reddit

Related posts:

  1. Time-lapse video of the Nikon D600 dust accumulation problem
  2. Meike MK-D600 is a cheap alternative battery grip for Nikon D600
  3. Nikon D600 gets second best DxOMark score after the D800/E
  4. The Nikon D600 sensor doesn’t get any more oil spots after 3000 shots
  5. Nikon D600 shipping to retailers five days after the announcement!
This entry was posted in Nikon D600. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • I AM MISSING

    Yes, but the D600 does not have the reach of the D70.
    Where is my D400??

  • skaarj

    At least the D70 didn’t have a built in oil sprayer for the sensor. It also had 1/500 flash sync and 1/8000 shutter.

    • Eric Calabos

      and was sub $1000
      so we need to study evolution of Corporate Greed and Quality Control over the past decade

      • peteee363

        why is it corporate greed, did anybody twist your arm, and force you to buy one? other people make cameras.

        • Eric Calabos

          Cause D600 body is in the same class of D70, so the only difference is sensor size. and today’s cost of making FX sensor has decreased since ten years ago, but Nikon charges you with yesterday price. As they do it with their overpriced N1 system.

          • peteee363

            but Nikon is not the only company making dslr’s, have you considered another less greedy maker? and why isn’t Nikon, or any other mfg allowed to make money? their shareholders don’t own stock to see the company lose money. but also the d600 is rated higher then the d3x, and is considerably less money then the d3x. but you still call them greedy. they could have put the improvements into a d5, and charged even more money, but they didn’t.

            • Aldo

              NO. We don’t consider other brands. We are knee-khon die hards forever.

            • Eric Calabos

              No they couldnt. Cause Sony/Canon would grab their marketshare. Cause today, even non-japanese CIMOSIS can make a competitive FF sensor
              and, D600 rated higher in DxO. “Just in DxO”. They dont evaluate body and internals, and never count the number of dust related particles on surface of the sensor

            • John Baxter

              Eric, it is clear that you know a lot about this topic and about the world in general.

              Why don’t you start a kickstarter and build your own camera, a FF pro body with 1/500 flash sync and 1/8000 shutter, for sub $1000?

              Because I will buy one from you.

            • Remedy

              Kind sir, You we may argue about image quality of D3X and D600 but if You really can’t see how mechanically-wise D3X is in a different universe then… You need to read some more.

            • peteee363

              the d3x is much more of a camera, with many more features, and better built. but I was saying, the d600 is worth what they are asking when you compare it to the d3x. it is a smaller, lighter camera, and has pared down features. but it is a very good camera, for pro and amateur alike. but to expect the large increase of features and quality over a d70 to the d600 without an increase in price is foolish.

          • And we keep on coming back for more… Your point?

      • Corporate Greed? How so? The D70 was priced comparable to the current D90 or, more accurately, the D5200. Both the D90 (which is probably do to be recycled soon) and the D5200 are far more camera than the D70 was. I think this guy was comparing the D600 to the D70 because that was the jump he made. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Possibly a better one would be the D70 to the D7100.

        • JM

          In real terms the D600 is not hugely different in market position from what the D70 was. It’s a perfectly interesting and valid comparison.

          Comparing any kind of camera with any other kind of camera is perfectly valid for the sake of interest, even though there will always be those who whinge that it’s wrong.

    • MichaelSidney

      1/8000 shutter is actually pretty impressive.

      • umeshrw

        Not really. Before D600 all digital cameras had 8000 as norm.

        • Mr Brut

          DX cameras have a smaller shutter and mirror; maybe they can get high speeds with a less expensive mechanism.

        • UnknownTransit

          The D80/D90 have 1/4000 max. If Nikon can give the D7000 1/8000, why not the D600?

          • umeshrw

            Sorry . My bad.

            • MichaelSidney

              😉

          • Limited shutter, limited AF, just two of the specs that they purposefully limit to distinguish it from the the D800. Remember, button count and percentage of magnesium used in construction etc. don’t feature very high up on function checklists.

        • MichaelSidney

          Not true. The D90, my camera before my D600, did not.

    • Sandy Bartlett

      The D70 had an electronic shutter that was prone to blooming, had it had a mechanical shutter at that price range, it would not have been 1/8000 and of course would not have had 1/500 sync. I believe it was Nikons last DSLR with electronic shutter.

      • D70S, D50 and D40 non X also had the same system. The D40X, it’s successor the D60 and later cameras eschewed the electronic shutter due to high pixel count making it technically very difficult.

  • Good to have a little perspective. Thank you.

  • Eric Calabos

    D70 is DX . compare it with D7100

    • Matt

      Yeah, makes way more sense

      • Cyrille Berger

        No it does not. D70 has 1650 pixels/mm2, D600 has 2820 pixels/mm2 and D7100 has 6572 pixels/mm2. And noise is function of the pixel density, the D600 has a pixel density closer to the D70, hence if you want to see how much noise reduction has improved in 9 years, it is more interesting to compare two cameras with similar pixel denstity.

    • Larrry

      D7100 is also DX. If they wanted a comparison over time, keep it FF. Compare a D700 with a D600.

      • Stan Chung

        D70 vs D7100 as what the OP meant.

      • JM

        Which Nikon full frame from 2004 would you suggest he compare it with?

      • Aldo

        d700>d600

        • alx

          not comparing IQ…

    • Aldo

      He is addressing how the d70 compares to the d600… He clearly says at the beginning…

  • alan hall

    Why not do the comparison with say a D7100

    • Because I don’t have a D7100. 😉

      Also, I still get a fair number of messages in my inbox from other people who made the jump from the D70 to the D600, asking questions about how the two compare. (It’s a no-contest, the D600 is obviously better – digital technology advances by leaps and bounds, and it’s been 9 years, plus its a jump to full frame!) But, they ask anyway, so I’ll answer. 🙂

      • alan hall

        OK,,,I was just looking at DX to DX,,great vidio.

        • DX to DX would make a lot more sense.

          Comparing an ancient crop to modern fullframe is like bringing a plastic butter knife to an assault rifle fight. It doesn’t stand a chance (until some dust flies in and jams up the gun)

          • Calibrator

            You could still club your enemy to death with a jammed rifle…

          • robert

            yes, but looking at a dx camera today from 10 years ago and you realize the tech hasnt come far AT ALL when it comes to low noise in iso. at most an acceptable amount the d7000 can do without me getting disgusted from looking at the image grain is around 2000. thats not such a huge jump. if you told me 4000. I would say, yes, its substantial. but even on my d3, I can barely shoot at 4000 and be happy with it. but more than anything it depends on the lighting. how well exposed the image is.

            and yes, youre right about the brightness issue of the ff images. I was shooting with the d300 and then started with the d3 and just couldnt understand why the hell the images on the d3 in my screen looked so great. it simply looks flat and dead with the dx vs FF. its a different world altogether.

          • Deep_Lurker

            You could put the D600 into DX crop mode: D70 vs D600 in DX crop mode with the pics further downsized to 6mp. (Or not. 6mp vs 10 isn’t as big a gap as 6mp vs 24)

            Even better would be D80 (10mp) vs D600 in DX crop mode (10mp) – but that would require you to get your hands on a D80.

  • Bruce

    I don’t understand how the evolution of technology makes us spoiled.

    • Because of all the complaining online. Yes, the D600 had oil spots – a big hole in Nikon QA, but we tend to forget the huge step forward in digital imaging we witnessed in the past decade.

      • Nitpicker

        I “kind of” agree with that but the frame of reference what is considered to be state-of-the-art, mediocre or sub-par should not extend that far back in “ancient” history, especially in our hyper charged times. The technological advancements truly are astonishing, yes. But a modern day Dodo remains a Dodo even if in the past there were … birds… that couldn’t…. fly…… that analogy doesn’t make any sense!!

        • Spy Black

          Only a Dodo would see the D600 as a Dodo…

          • Aldo

            I only resent the d600 because it could have been “the one”. Maybe in its next life time… who knows. For now I’ll stick with Trinity.

            • patto01

              Really? I never thought she was a bit attractive! Persephone (Monica Bellucci) however…

            • Aldo

              she looked good in the first one.

      • Bruce

        Helping people realize how far we’ve come over the years is one thing, but calling everyone spoiled because we live within our own age of technological innovations isn’t a statement that makes any sense.

      • Biased1

        We do not tend to forget the huge step forward. If we did we would still be using D70’s

        • Art

          did or did not? I am still using D40.

          • Art, I agree… I have a D90 and D7000 but just bought myself a D40 on yahoo auction with 18-55 for $90. It’s a wonderful camera. simple, small and a helluva lot better than a P&S. it’s perfect for the beach/boats where you don’t want to carry an expensive toy.
            Old tech still has its place.

    • j

      If Nikon isn’t giving the “price and feature whiners”cameras for free then they aren’t spoiled they are just still annoying. I am tired of all of those who are refusing to pay for something “better” and wanting everything for dirt cheap. It seems to be a huge probably with “electronics”. Nikon improves their cameras to create a product that will sell and keep them in business. The advancement in technology is primarily done in Nikon best interest and no one else.

      • peteee363

        but it does suck to keep purchasing new camera bodies all the time. in my film days, I started with an f. ten years later I upgraded to an fa. I didn’t need to keep getting a new body all the time. and if you get a high mp camera, you need the best glass. the good lenses looked bad on my d800. but, my d800 is approaching some of my old 4 x 5 in resolution. and a d800 is much easier to carry around then a 4 x 5.

        • Steve

          I don’t think you need to buy bodies “all the time” today. Personally I’ve skipped some generations. Plus for studio stuff where lighting is involved D70/D200 technology is still pretty great. D70 also has that electronic shutter for amazing sync speeds.

          • peteee363

            I have skipped some. I loved the d3x, but for 8 grand, way too much. then the d800 came out. I waited about a year, and the price dropped about a grand. but still the electronics are evolving much quicker then the body does. I would love an interchangeable sensor/electronics pack. then I can keep my body, and get some real use out of it, like my old fa’s or my f’s did. but if you hang on to these digital cameras too long, they are worthless after four or five years, in comparison to what you paid.

            • Aldo

              That’s why you gotta milk them. My d800 has paid itself over a few times… if you do photography as a hobby then yeah, it may hurt see your camera go down in value.

          • Aldo

            main reason to upgrade really is ISO performance… this is perhaps the most significant limitation of older equipment.

        • dyi

          Oh wow, peteee363 is back to tell us about all the fantastic gear he has… constantly.

        • Oh poor you… oh wait, you’re trolling… It doesn’t suck, you love it… You must do, given that you are posting about having a D800… You bought it, your fault. Serves you right etc. etc. what do you expect us to say?

      • It’s called the open market. Nikon charge what we will pay. They can’t charge more because we wouldn’t pay it… If too many people complain about the price, something will give… Not just the price, but perhaps even a lessening of the esoteric quality of the final product…

  • twoomy

    Nice presentation. One thing he didn’t notice though is amp glow on the D600. Long esposures/high ISO on the D600, you tend to get pink/purple glow in the corners as was shown in his samples, but he didn’t talk about it. The D800 does NOT have this amp glow issue, so I’d be curious if he’d be even more impressed by the D800.

    We are spoiled though. I remember the days of the D100, early Coolpix models, etc., chroma noise everywhere, barely usable ISO 800, etc. So many more low-light possibilities these days.

    • I’ve never noticed that on my D600, I’m going to have to push and and see if I can make it happen. Thanks for the idea!

      I’ve done a few long exposure time lapse sequences with the D600, but I’ve always had the camera shut down before I get any sort of nasty glow happening.

      eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed22h9Uzt7Q

      I wanted a much longer sequence, but the camera just shut down on it’s own. (probably should have given it more than 1 second cool down time between each 30 second exposure)

      But it does happen with the D70 – I’ve done some long exposure star trail time lapse sequences, and noticed a purple haze coming in from the top left corner after about 40 shots, and it slowly grows and gets brighter until the battery dies on me.

      • peteee363

        also could the lens used create some of the effects at the higher iso’s?

      • twoomy

        I notice it during longer 4-minute exposures–red glow in one of the corners and some red lines going across the frame. I’m sure many other cameras have this too, so it’s not a “bug”. But I’m amazed that you can take the Nikon D800 beyond 5-minute exposures without the amp glow.

  • Wow. Thanks for posting this, Nikon Rumors!
    It’s always cool to see a site I come to posting stuff that I’ve done. 🙂

    • Very welcome, keep me informed in the future.

    • preston

      No, thank YOU Kyle! Excellent video comparison.

    • samseite

      thank you kyle great video. hope to see more from you!

    • Aldo

      Good video… There are obviously lots of people out there holding on to their old cameras as they see no reason to upgrade or simply aren’t convinced of the advantages of FF cameras. This is a great tool for them in their upcoming buying decisions.

      • Remedy

        I do realize D4/D3S beats the crap out of 100$ P&S camera, but that still doesn’t mean the majority can afford one.

        • Aldo

          I mean if you use a point and shoot you probably don’t need an dslr anyway.

  • robert

    spoiled my ass. thats the evolution of tech. $2000 is not spoiled. show me a FF for the price of the D70 and I wont say a word.

    Im not getting it for free. im paying for the tech so yes, I want the new tech. tech today is more expensive than it used to be. phones never cost $800. lenses never costed $2000+ for a zoom. were paying for the tech. sell it for the prices they used to then and I would say youre right. So I dont see your point.

    I have to be spoiled because I want new tech? and im paying through the nose for it. compare the d70 with the current DX like the d7000 or so and realize, the advance is not as good as you think for 10 years. it could be much better. the most acceptable iso for that camera is around 2000. compare that to FF where you can shoot 6400 nicely and you see that the tech in dx hasnt really advanced.

    • umeshrw

      Robert , the spoiling part is not about tech. It is about shooting. Earlier we needed to be careful about shooting. Use tripod more often. That kind of stuff.That is the kind of things OP is talking about. True the prices have increased exponentially. But I had to pay 95k INR for my d100 and then 90k for D300. It is different that I paid 150k for D800e as it is FF and a step up. I am sure that if D400 would have been there it would have been priced at approx 90k. It seems that nikon is keeping the price of bodies sensible and charging through the nose for lenses to compensate. As for D7000, and even 7100 they are true successors of D70 and hence have bad high iso performance. Now D 300s on other hand is decent and can be compared to D100 by same analogy and even that is old tech.

      • peteee363

        but people also forget, you are not spending so much on film processing and prints. I used to keep my local lab busy with slides, negatives, and prints. but with a modest investment, I now print 24 x 36 inch prints for about 2 bucks each. and the same day I shoot. that used to be impossible.

        • robert

          no, im not saving much, if anything its more. im shooting much more frames than before. coffee table albums cost more than a regular album we did.

          I used to do no more than 1000 pictures in a wedding with film. with digital its now 2500 to 3000!

          add the wear on the camera and youll see its not saving anything. add in the shutter replacement I will have to do down the line. its not cheaper. if anything its more expensive to be digital.

          your logic is inaccurate.

          • peteee363

            couple of questions? I know digital is easy to overshoot. but why must you triple the number of photos shot? are you shooting the dx cameras, or the dxx, dxxx, and dxxxx models? the dx versions have much better ratings for higher shutter counts. and yes costs have gone up, a lot! most film related products use plastics, plastics are made from oil. have you seen oil prices lately?

            • Aldo

              lol

          • umeshrw

            —-I used to do no more than 1000 pictures in a wedding with film. with digital its now 2500 to 3000!—-
            With DX I used to do that. Overshoot a lot. Now with D800 even though the leeway is more I shoot less . It is the pleasure of accurate shooting and saving of card and HDD space make me do it. It is afterall upto us not to let ourselves get too sloppy. Have fun.

          • Aldo

            you shot 1000 pictures with film? O.o

        • umeshrw

          +Yes we save on processing etc. But in return the equipment costs have gone up. It is very delicate and cameras have to be changed whether we like it or not. Not to mention lenses are not as tough as they used to be. Agree that all in all we are doing better.

          • robert

            So how are we doing better?

            more money
            shorter lifespan
            durability issues
            qc issues

            save on processing…doesnt seem like a great trade off to me.

            • umeshrw

              Purely on monetary point ; it depends. If we used to shoot a lot and spend a lot on films and processing then it is better. Also if we do not need to spend on very expensive equipment regularly then ok otherwise bad. The one area( or two) where we are definitely better off are as Petee363 said quick turnaround time and as far as I am concerned- peace of mind . Those TPs were a hell of a lot more difficult to shoot and to get processed properly. If labs messed them we are screwed. Especially on MF at big and expensive shoots.

      • robert

        some good logic.
        I remember doing a group shot and showing 3 fingers to the group, saying “3 pics” and shoot only 3. today its “ok guys, 3 pictures, the first” click, click, click, click click, “ok, 2nd” click click click click click, “ok, last” click click click click..:)

        I liked the fact that I was “searching” for a good picture with film. I was hitting 30-32 acceptable pics out of a 36 roll. today its like 35% I erase. its shoot first, compose after. and since its coffee table books…PS to the rescue! and I hate that. its not an art anymore.

        lens prices is crazy. there is no proportion to what theyre asking from previous gen lenses. I havent bought a new lens in years and dont plan on it. so many people selling used in mint condition and some have mack warranty(nikon warranty not transferable) and im happy with that. im not giving nikon any more money. I simply buy used.

        • patto01

          If you’re shooting professionally, the art is in the eye of the client. If they agree with your assessment, you can still shoot film. If they don’t, suck it up.
          When I’m getting paid to shoot, I try not to think too much about it. When I’m shooting for my own benefit, I can do what I want but the client is never satisfied…

    • Smithy

      You guys in the US were spoilt! I paid over AU$2,000 for my D70 in 2004 and currently the D600 is about the same price – so on a price basis the comparision is very relevant – in Australia anyway 🙂
      Thanks for the effort in doing the video, very interesting to see how far the technology has come.

      • robert

        im not from the US. dont assume 🙂

    • Aldo

      have you seen how much the canon 5d goes for? it is full frame…

  • AnotherView

    Spoiled? Don’t talk to me about being spoiled until you can show me a successor to the D300s…and it better not be the D7100.

  • Oh Yeah.

    I thought Physics was Physics.

  • robert

    I think what would more appropriate to say is not “were spoiled” but that we forgot to appreciate what things were like. that would be better.

    but I very much do appreciate what I had to what I have. I laugh that im able to shoot at 4-5k iso at a wedding when I used to shot the dark and light lacking interiors of weddings at 200/400/800 iso film and mostly it was at 200 with horrible face flash and dark background photos.

    but I want more. I want the D4 and to be able to shoot at 12800iso. then I will have complete freedom from off camera flash! pss, I will still use it as it gives depth to the photos.

    but I cannot appreciate Nikon greedly demanding large sums of money for something that didnt really advance much in 10 years.

    im talking about their lenses.

    • umeshrw

      Sorry. Saw this late. Hence the earlier post.

    • peteee363

      well, the high priced lenses are a must with high mp cameras. I just sold all of my nice glass, and needed to get the nano coat stuff. it was night and day on a d800e. hard to believe, until I saw it firsthand. my d700 did not require such glass, but it is 1/3rd the mp of the d800.

      • robert

        the high price has nothing to do with new or old tech/lenses. it has to do that nikon recalculated the pricing because of the strong yen to dollar a few years. problem is the yen is not so strong for a while and they arent lowering it back to what their pro gear was selling for (add inflation if you want) but still way overpriced.

        • peteee363

          I do think you may be wrong. I had a 14mm 2.8 d lens, a great lens. on my d700 it was spectacular. but on the d800 it looked fuzzy. I switched to the 14-24 newer nano lens, and it was night and day. and the 14mm 2.8 was not a inexpensive lens. same for the 24-120 3.5-5.6, to a newer f:4 nano, night and day on resolution. but my older 80-200 2.8 looks stunning on the d800, don’t figure.

          • robert

            evolution of tech. has nothing to do with the pricing. get those 2 things separated.

            look at every new tech, like SSD, GPU, TV, home appliances. older tech moves out, new tech in and sells for what older tech sold when it was new. SSD sold for a lot, today is reasonable. 1080p screens as well. its evolution of tech.

            google glass sell for $1500. in a few years will sell for $3-4. not that id buy. you look like a douche wearing it.

            like smartphones, new tech gets priced at last years announced phones. the iphone 5 sells for the same price the 4s sold when it was announced.

            inflation doesnt warrant a thousand buck jump over the previous 80-400VR

            14-24 is an elite lens. Its the only lens I think should sell for around what theyre asking. but still should be around $250 less. all the rest at least 25% overpriced.

          • robert

            the 17-35/28-70/80-200 AFS lenses sold for around $1250-1400 when they were released. whats inside these new gen lenses that warrant $600-800 price increase?

            the IQ is not such a jump that it warrants these differences. I know cause I own them. me and my partner do weddings together

            nikon are thieves. simple as that. I will not be buying any new lens from them in the foreseeable future. so many used in min condition lenses and cameras.

            • peteee363

              that is a great alternative, ebay and craigslist. but! make sure you do not get stuck with a gray market lens, as they will not repair them. you will need to find somebody else to fix it for you. but have you not noticed the higher prices at the restaurants, and food stores? higher shipping costs? the extensive damage Nikon had had recently in japan and Malaysia? prices always go up. pick an 80-200 lens, they make a relatively small quantity of those lenses. the bulk is the cheaper lower end kit lenses. but just by shopping ebay, you can get great deals, and save bucks, even on refurbished lenses.

  • nik

    idiot. ff vs apsc

  • catinhat

    So which one has more accurate color?

  • Jonathan Beaulieu

    they should have same exp. coz under expose pic will have more grain than correct exp. is it the metering aspect that they are measuring or iso the test should have been done on manual mode

    • umeshrw

      They have explained that they have tested in normal conditions with standard layman settings. Agree that it makes the test incorrect but come to think of it. The brightness levels of auto mode in d70 are far far less than that of d600. that effectively adds 1 to 1.5 stop more sensitivity to d600 automatically.

  • MacPaul

    DF vs. FX, so completely useless comparison.

    • Mike M

      It’s not a “useless” comparison when DX was all that was available 8 years ago. The point is look how far we’ve come in 8 years, and the fact that anyone complains about noise performance is ludicrous, the D70 took good pictures when used properly, new cameras damn near bend the laws of physics and people still complain about their performance.

    • Aldo

      Not useless at all…

    • robert

      youre 100% correct. its useless.

      because looking at the images, youre led to believe there is an advancement in tech but what should be compared is DX to DX. for 10 years of DX the high iso performance is still crap. 10 years and all we got was a stop and a half of a difference. THATS CRAP FOR 10 YEARS.

  • Mike_23

    So shooting the D600 at 6MP in camera means he shot JPEG with a reduced size? Also not a realistic test as you compare the combination of the sensor and the JPEG engine advancements at an unrealistic setting. Shoot both RAW and make sure you don’t have any noise reduction enabled while converting to JPEG/downscale in lightroom or similar.

  • Pai

    Under studio condition, or with tripod, I think the people would like to use low ISO whenever possible. So, this pure technical comparing doesn’t make real sense. (Many people took very beautiful photos with old D70.)

    • Michaelius

      Some people prefer to use cameras outside of studio. For photo turism high usable iso is priceless

  • EnticingHavoc

    WOW !!!! I’M BLOWN !!!

    An almost 10 year old DX camera yields considerably worse results compared to the latest FX model !!! Who knew !!!
    I was in the delusion that progress in technology has stopped in the early 50s.

    Stay tuned : A 2013 smartphone delivers more features compared to a 1994 cell phone. Did you know that ?

    Seriously, why do people waste their time with such pointless smackdowns ?

    • Aldo

      What a pessimistic and useless comment. Stay tuned, Midol comes out with a stronger pill.

    • Can’t Believe It

      You think you are being funny, but the voice quality of cellphones took a sharp nosedive right about 1994 when providers switched over from analog to digital and voice quality has never recovered. So yes, these comparisons are meaningful.

  • Aldo

    I agree with the guy doing the tests… most ISO tests out there are done in good lighting and are a bit useless.

  • Biased1

    Why would anyone compare two cameras that have different censors, body prices and dates of release?

    • Aldo

      If you bothered to read… or hear you would know.

      • Biased1

        I did read the article and watched the video. At minimum you should agree that it’s not fair to compare $700 body and $2000? How about we compare D3100 which cost $550 with a kit lens today and D2Xs which was $4,700 in 2006 and prove very little progress over the years or even degradation of some features?

        • Aldo

          He was being asked for this comparison, and he was simply kind enough to do it. No need to over analyse.

          • Biased1

            I do not know…. OK if someone asked you to compare 2000 corolla and 2013 lexus would you be willing to waste your time? I see your point but at a minimum, as I said, the camera bodies should cost the same.

            • The comparison was simply done to show the progress of high ISO performance over a decade, nothing more.

            • Biased1

              I think we are all on the same page. I just do not see the logic of a comparison where there are so many variables that it’s not clear which variable is responsible for the difference, cost, time, or tech. progress.

            • Aldo

              The sensor and the processing power are responsible for the progress.

            • Biased1

              Is $1,250 cost difference a factor at all?

            • Aldo

              not really.. inserting bills into the camera won’t make it perform better…. and if you are referring to price difference… there is really about 200-300 bucks price difference (inflation accounted for) if you compare how the d70 was priced back then.

            • Aldo

              If I owned the lexus and the corolla… why not? I’d do it. That’s exactly what happened here.

            • robert

              I too wouldnt put that effort in.

              its misleading you see the differences and say WOW because you look at the images but bottom line its not accurate and deceiving
              then they say were spoiled. with those price tags. BS!
              and ff has been out for very little time and dx still sucks.

            • Can’t Believe It

              Of course I would because you never know until you try. That’s the difference between a thinking, independent person and a mindless consumer slave.

            • Biased1

              “you never know until you try”?
              Of course you do. It’s called life experience and critical thinking. I now wonder how you buy a car. Do you test drive EVERY car that meets your budget because you never know….
              “mindless consumer slave”?
              Please, save the complements. Show some class.

    • robert

      it may seem like there an advance but for 10 years, when looking at dx sensors, the advance is very little.

      he said 800iso is the hghest it can do acceptably.
      take a d7000 and youll see it cant do more than iso 2000.

      thats not much at all.

      I also think Nikon has the tech to do better high iso performance with DX but dont do so. the faster we get a camera that can do iso 3000-4000(well) the slower their sales will get. simple as that. people are blind.
      Nikon isnt going to shoot themselves in the foot.

      so while it seems the test here is impressive, its irrelevant and im not impressed. compared DX to DX and youll see that really nikon hasnt given us anything worthwhile in DX..FOR 10 YEARS OF DX.

      • Michaelius

        Little advance ?
        My d5100 iso 3200 shots are comparable to iso 800 from d40x

  • SD

    Can you explain the 6MP change on the D600?

    My fear is that by setting the D600 to output at 6MP the sensor is still 24 MP. The number of pixels having been quartered *may* mean that a set of 4 pixels on the 24 MP sensor are averaged to create a single “6 MP” pixel. Hence, if correct, you have essentially averaged over 4 samples. Then, you have reduced the noise by a factor of 2 (the sq root of the number of samples used to average).

    If the above is correct (??), then some of the gain in performance is really due to the averaging of pixels to create the smaller file size of 6 MP images. However, if instead, Nikon simply chooses 1 of the 4 pixels to write into the file, ignoring the data in the other three entirely, then your experiment is valid.

    Do we know?

    Nice video, btw. =>

    • This is a good point to bring up.

      I think the camera is averaging the pixels. Zoomed in to 100%, the 6MP D600 shots look better than the 24MP shots zoomed in to 100$, but 100% on a 24mp shot is a lot closer, and when you zoom out or print, there isn’t much difference.

  • BroncoBro

    Yeah but, wait ’til the D400 comes out. Again, when is that happening?

  • Clint

    My buddy used to shoot a D70 when I was using a Canon 20D. The D70 looked like crap above iso400….so yes, Nikon has come a LONG way….

  • Jim

    Back in the analog (film) days, improvements would have been sought through trying different film, developers, techniques. All at relatively little cost. Now it’s a new camera every few years. Great for the camera manufacturers.

  • petee

    The D70 is beyond the capabilities of most photographers. Go shoot photos instead of fretting about clean images.

  • Hoot

    This post shows how if you’re rich can afford more expensive hardware, the image quality is better. Wow!

    Maybe compare it with another DX camera that cost the same as the D70 when the D70 came out.

  • Yannick

    It’s a good video, but this comparison is weird. You can compare a D600 to a D700 but with a D70, it’s like comparing a Core 2 Duo with a Pentium III ….not the same league. It would have been pointless to compare a D4 with a D70 but it shows us how the technology has evolved. So it’s a great video for that, but comparing a full frame sensor to a DX sensor is pointless for many of us. The nice thing about this is that in 10 years, our D4/D800/D600 sensors will look like crap compared to the new sensors (which is a little scary …)

  • kassim

    Wow, I’ll buy 2 or 3 D70. Thanks Nikon Rumors!

  • Back to top