D600 - First Impressions, maybe a few different thoughts.

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Hello all, Picked up my D600 at the local store(!) Tuesday afternoon, then went directly to shoot an adult kickball game under (poor) stadium lights. I own half of a D3s (never seem to have it when I need it) and a D700 as a daily user camera, among others.<br /> <br /> For daylight general photography, the D700 is a nice alternative to the D3s. You all know why. But, under the abysmally dim lights that illuminate most amateur sports venues, the D3s clearly outperforms the D700. Moving from the D700 to the D3s resulted in significant quality gains for my favorite subject, high school basketball (my son and his team), and for the kickball team I shoot. Even in less challenging lighting, I like the look of the D3s shots slightly over the D700.<br /> <br /> Before dropping the bucks for the D600, I wanted to compare the screw drive AF operation in the D600 to my D700 (equipped with EN-EL4 high output battery in the MB-D10). Since I am paid only with beer for the kickball photos, I can't justify upgrading my ancient very first version 300mm/2.8 AF that I use at this venue.<br /> <br /> So, I took my 80-200 AF-D push-pull lens (slowish AF operation) to the store to test D600 vs. D700. Unscientific results: The D700 with big battery seemed to rotate the AF mechanism a little faster, but the net time from far to close focus lock-on then back seemed very close, certainly not enough different for me to determine a clear winner. Probably the D700 would squeak out a win here, but I also gained the impression that the D600 would be a better 2nd/alternate camera to the D3s since it was smaller and lighter (not by a huge amount) than the D700. And it has more MP.<br /> <br /> I rarely use the 80-200; prefer primes, so I was anxious to try out the old 300mm on the D600 at the game. Many have condemned the AF operation of some older Nikkor AF lenses, but my impression is that they work pretty well with modern bodies for us weekend photographers that can't justify exotic glass. <br /> <br /> In fact, ONCE I CHANGED FROM AF-A to AF-C 9 pt, the D600/300 AF combination worked well under the lights. Fast enough to capture the third baseman throwing, then the first baseman catching the ball. The combo seemed to be able to track adults running from third to home when shooting from home dugout, almost straight on. I did not have the D3s handy for comparison, am sure that it would be better, but the keeper rate seemed fine. Will add that the 300/2.8 does not seem to be a difficult lens for screw drive focus to operate. The internals must be fairly light and easy for the camera to drive. With the D3s, the 300/2.8 and 300/4 AF-S seem to be able to track my son running straight at me at about the same success rate.<br /> <br /> Other findings: The D600 seemed a little more challenged with a relatively small brightly lit subject (outfielder) against a dark background. I think a little more tendency to overexpose here.<br /> <br /> The AF array is smaller as many have pointed out. Well, they are not spread out enough in the D3s, either. Both could be better. A D300 wins here.<br /> <br /> Guess I am lucky. Tested center, left and right AF sensors with my 135/2 DC wide open. All seemed to be fine with this difficult to focus lens.<br /> <br /> I have not printed any shots yet, but on the monitor my impressions of the extra resolution (24MP vs. 12) was not as visible as I would have expected. Score one for the 12MP format and file size.<br /> <br /> I wish my D3s had a lens biased auto-iso. I think auto iso shutter speed is the most accessed menu item for me with the D3s. Score one for the D600. I biased the default setting up one notch.<br /> <br /> Conclusion, my D3s will remain my top option for low light sporting events. I had considered upgrading the D700 to a D800, but could not justify since I do use 5 FPS often and the larger price spread. Maybe this basketball season I will be able to try out a D800 to see if the AF is clearly better than the 3s AF. The D600 now fits the bill as a "second" camera to use all of the time with no regrets.</p>

<p> </p>

[Astekas]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"on the monitor my impressions of the extra resolution (24MP vs. 12) was not as visible as I would have expected.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Going from 12MP to 24MP is only a 1.4x increase in resolution. So thats not a surprise,that it was not a big difference. A lot of people in their minds think it's a linear progression in resolution, the belief that all marketing departments depend on.<br>

This is a list of common megapixel resolutions and twice their<br>

resolution:<br /><br />(1x > 2x)<br /><br />2MP > 8MP<br />4MP > 16MP<br />5MP > 20MP<br />6MP > 24MP<br />8MP > 32MP<br />10MP > 40MP<br />12MP > 48MP</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p><strong>Ricardas,</strong></p>

<p>I know what you are saying is sort of true, but most people are looking at the MP's when they talk resolution.<br /> Yes, you would need 4x the MP's for double the resolution in a strict sense, but not in the common sense, which is what most people recognize I think.</p>

<p><strong>Robert,</strong></p>

<p>nicely written and gives a pretty clear idea of what the D600 offers compared to the D700. I don't see the 600 as a competitor to the 700 in any speed of operation areas, but in terms of MP's, DR and dual cards, it is clearly better.</p>

<p>I have one sold of my D700's recently and purchased a D600 to replace it. For me and my shooting, this was a no brainer. Dual cards have been a must have since the Mk2 canons for me. Combined with the extra res, DR and color improvements, this is a great body for most people photogs. IMO.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Yeah, As an engineer, I knew the MP math before purchasing the D600, but still was surprised how relatively invisible a 40% difference in linear resolution actually is between the two cameras. I used a D2Hs (4MP) and D200 (10MP) at the same time several years ago. Ever which of those two cameras arrived at the best lighting, exposure and focus produced the best results, MP was relatively unimportant. When I get time, I might dig out the D1h from the bottom of the cabinet to see how far we have come.</p>

<p>Also meant to mention that the Auto white balance seems good on the D600, possibly a little better than the D700 under stadium lighting. Is there a trick to fix inconsistent white balance under stadium lights? My understanding is that the color temperature of the lighting changes 60x/minute. Have not tried manual white balance in a while, might revisit. MWB was essential back in the D1h days.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>FWIW, the D600 seems to be a wee bit quicker, and generate a slightly higher pitched noise than the D200 with screwdriver lenses. Battery life and auto focus (even accounting for the dismal coverage — would on-sensor PDAF work better?) seem like big gains. The only things I don't particularly like are the switchgear (feels cheap), senselessly crippled bits (multiple exposure, virtual horizon VF display, bracketing, live view AF), and some of the UI changes (ex: navigation in picture review)... and the SPAM dial. Lock or no, it's significantly more awkward to adjust than the D200/300/700/800.</p>

<p>All in all, it's a nice piece of kit at a price unimaginable even a few years ago.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em> Maybe this basketball season I will be able to try out a D800 to see if the AF is clearly better than the 3s AF"</em> It is.<br>

<br>

<em>"</em><em> on the monitor my impressions of the extra resolution (24MP vs. 12) was not as visible as I would have expected"</em> Not sure what you were expecting to see. The beauty of this body, like the D800, will be in the print quality.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Robert, thank you for the user review, it has a lot of good information.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe this basketball season I will be able to try out a D800 to see if the AF is clearly better than the 3s AF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my limited experience, IMO the D800 definitely has AF that is much better than whatever the D3 family offers. My 500mm/f4 AF-S version 1 has never been good for birds in flight until I put a D800 on it. Previously I had used the D3, D3X and D3S on it without good results.</p>

<p>However, keep in mind that the D800 only shoots at most 4 frames/sec, so it does have more time between frames.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Going from 12MP to 24MP is only a 1.4x increase in resolution. So thats not a surprise,that it was not a big difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography isn't bean counting. The 21 MP 5D Mark II has a huge resolution increase over 12 MP cameras such as the D700, and the 36 MP D800 has a huge resolution increase over the Canon. Incidentally, I have owned and used all of these cameras, so I'm not making academic pronouncements by plugging numbers into a spreadsheet.</p>

<p>If you don't see an enormous resolution increase between 12 and 24 MP, you might want to confirm that you are focusing accurately, sharpening properly, ensuring reliable camera stability while shooting, and avoiding extremely small apertures. If you handle these 20+ MP cameras improperly, you'll be rewarded with stunning image quality. If you handle them like a point-and-shoot, don't blame the engineers.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>A resolution increase of 1.414 (square root of 2 as in "twice the megapixels spread out over the same surface area") is huge!</p>

<p>I have four smaller cameras up on eBay this week, so you know what I'm planning. . . .</p>

<p>Back to shooting in the dark!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[ruslan]

<blockquote>

<p>invisible a 40% difference in linear resolution actually is between the two cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you compare 100% crop to 100% crop - on a monitor (display)? Wrong. 40% is a huge gifference when you compare professioally printed A2 prints. 24 MP do a good job for this size, whereas 12 MP at A2 is crap, weak and lax (loose) picture - if seen at the distance of 1.5 feet. <br />There is also such notion as inter-pixel detailization, which is seen between crops. <br /><br /></p>

[polizonte]

<p>I agree with Dan South's observation; having used D700's since 2008, photos that I recently took during a vacation with a Canon 5Dmkii seem to be visibly more detailed when viewed on my 21.5 computer screen. A modest increase in dynamic range from a D600 would interest me more than higher resolution.</p>

[polizonte]

<p>A few things about the D700 that have bugged me: 1.Even when the camera is turned off, the onboard flash can pop up in the carrying bag, if the flash button is (accidentally) touched; I think the D600 has to be "on" for this to raise the flash. 2. A number of times, with heavier lenses, I have accidentally moved the camera AF-S/AF-C lever and later noticed my photos were out of focus; this might not happen with the D600 due to the arrangement of the controls. The D800 feels more familiar but at my age I can't justify the extra cost.</p>