[JohnBee]

A member by the name of DaveJC over at DPReview announced that the new D600 FF RAW image samples are up at Imaging Resource website: Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

To which I'd add, I've been anxiously waiting for.

However to my surprise, what I found has left me somewhat perplexed as I was expecting far better IQ from a 24MP FF RAW files what what I found with the ISO100 samples. Which do(btw) appear sharper than the K-5, but only marginally so, which is unlikely to ever transpire to print no matter what.

All in all, I'd say, I'm quite disappointed with this as I was thinking a 24MP FF sensor would do more in terms of resolution and color detail. Which leads me to question if this isn't perhaps relative to the sensor Nikon is using? And I say this because I could have sworn that some of the Sony 24MP crop sensor samples were better than this.

[rawr]

Indeed the colours lack something. But the resolution looks OK, especially on the still-life.
But I guess the D800 is the DSLR benchmark nowadays.

[JinDesu]

The comparometer kinda sucks, now that I actually take a very close look

http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/D7000/FULLRES/D7000INBI00100.JPG
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600INBI00050.JPG

Nikon D7000 (same sensor as k-5) vs D600 at ISO 100 vs ISO 50, things to note:

1) Look at the hair. D600 shows more detail (or less blur) but has a weird splotchy color issue that I don't see on the D7000 file.
2) Flowers - this is where I think one issue is. The flowers on the D7000 (especially the back ones) don't seem in focus, while the D600 does.
3) Another important location - her collar. The D7000 has more in focus than the D600. Checking lens exif, both were shot at F4 on the Sigma 70mm macro. Where it IS in focus, however, the detail seems to be equal.

The D7000 has more pixels per area than the D600 - and since sensors don't currently outresolve lenses (for example, I think APS-C sensors need something like 40MP to outresolve a lens), then it makes sense that the D600 isn't really going to show "more" detail in comparison.

As far as noise goes - the D600 seems better than the D7000 by a good margin (maybe a stop) and a bit better than the k-5 at luminance noise. However, the k-5 file has practically no chroma noise, so it's a bit hard to compare. As far as retaining details go - that's also a little hard to judge because of the differences in lenses - but we PF users know how fantastic the k-5 is in that regard.

One thing to be aware of - the comparo page doesn't let you choose what files you want to view. For example, the 5D Mk3's file has NR on (and does very well). You have to actually go to each camera's page to find the NR off images. I realized this when I was looking at the k-5's image vs the D7000 image at 12,800 ISO, and the comparometer's pictures favored the Nikon heavily. However, actually going to the individual camera pages, the D7000's image is pretty crud at ISO 12,800 with NR off compared to the k-5.

http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/D7000/FULLRES/D7000hSLI12800_NR0.JPG <-ISO 12,800 NR off D7000
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/K5/FULLRES/K5hSLI12800_NR_0.JPG <-ISO 12,800 NR off k-5
http://ir7.theimagingresource.com/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600hSLI12800NR0.JPG <- ISO 12,800 NR off D600

A really big thing now that I'm looking closer again is that the D600, in the female model ISO series, the ISO 50 shows that weird green splotch in her hair at ISO 50, a little less at ISO 100, and pretty much gone at ISO 200.

http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600INBI00050.JPG <-ISO 50
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600INBI00100.JPG <-ISO 100
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/nikon-d600/FULLRES/D600INBI00200.JPG <-ISO 200

http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/K5/FULLRES/K5INBI00080.JPG <-k-5 ISO 80 for comparison, and D7000 was listed before in opening of this post.
http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/FULLRES/E5D3INBI000050.JPG <- 5D mk3 ISO 50 for comparison

[pinholecam]

It will be interesting to see how the K5iis will compare.
At this very early point, I don't find that its day and night in any of the samples in terms of resolution or high iso performance.
There are some odd parts here in there in terms of sharpness that I'm not sure if its the lens/focus/DOF differences.
But taking the comparable 'good' parts on both, I just don't see that big a difference for me to immediately think of buying one.

This is all ignoring the arguments about DOF (can be a pro/con depending on what I shoot) and VF size of course.
More like a 'Is this D600 worth it for me to sell some stuff and buy one for what I do?" type consideration.


All this so far seems to indicate that there is a gap for Pentax/Ricoh if they are interested in FF.
Same sensor, same no AA-filter option as seen on the K5iis, with Pentax's secret spice to the RAW, can still mean that Pentax can enter the FF market with a highly competitive camera at about the same price point.

[jogiba]

Imaging Resource "Comparometer"

Nikon D600 vs Canon 5D MK III @ 25600 iso:




large 1920x1200 image

[Jasvox]

Is the d600 on the left? I just ran my own test at 25600 and my 5N is comparable, if not cleaner than the D600 at that ridiculous iso.

Jason

[jogiba]

Yes , the D600 is on the left.

[v5planet]

Given the price point of the D600, the more worthy comparison might be D600 v 5dii.

[JinDesu]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/199096...ml#post2100748

I made a few comments on the comparometer in the link above: The comparometer doesn't seem to let you choose the files with NR off for all the cameras - for example, the 5d Mk3 pictures in the comparometer have NR on and look fabulous. You have to go to each individual camera page to see the actual files without NR.

[Big G]

There's so little between the cameras these days, I don't see the point in jumping to full-frame unless it's for the D800 and BIG prints - the K-5 is more than good enough for the vast majority of users and produces flawless A3 prints (I have 36" x 24" from my 14 MP K20D).

[Big G]

Ugh, just looking at the samples - the D600 seems very blotchy with chroma noise?

[JinDesu]

Ugh, just looking at the samples - the D600 seems very blotchy with chroma noise?

It's not as bad as the D7000, I think.

[jsherman999]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/199096...ml#post2100748

I made a few comments on the comparometer in the link above: The comparometer doesn't seem to let you choose the files with NR off for all the cameras - for example, the 5d Mk3 pictures in the comparometer have NR on and look fabulous. You have to go to each individual camera page to see the actual files without NR.

The comparometer is notorious for one other thing - focal plane often being all over the map. It's not a good choice for determining detail, because you end up comparing the same part of the image when the point of focus is slightly different between them, and you come to odd conclusions.

[JinDesu]

The comparometer is notorious for one other thing - focal plane often being all over the map. It's not a good choice for determining detail, because you end up comparing the same part of the image when the point of focus is slightly different between them, and you come to odd conclusions.

Yep - they used F4 on the same lens for both the D7000 and the D600, so comparing the APS-C shot to the FF shot you have to really pay attention to in focus areas.