| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
|||||||
| How many D600 users - Page 3 | |
Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Aug 21st, 2013 01:31 |
|
21st Post |
amazing50
|
Eric wrote: amazing50 wrote:Defraction is caused by two things, a small f stop and sensor or film resolution. Old low resolution film in plate cameras would allow f64 exposures with no defraction and a great depth of field, but improved higher resolution fined grain films moved this back to f22 or f16. Now with higher pixel counts it's pushed back even further to f6.3. Doesn't mean you can't shoot at f16 with a D600, just that the pix won't be as sharp, for pixel peepers, as if you took the same shot at f6.3.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 21st, 2013 02:14 |
|
22nd Post |
jk
|
Amazing50, I have just been reading the D600 manual. (I must be bored!!). There is a image comment field that is present. Not the same as the Copyright field but you can use that instead. The other issues you mentioned all apply. Biggest problem that I see is the lack of the 10 pin interface.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 21st, 2013 06:07 |
|
23rd Post |
blackfox
|
comments here sort of follow my train of thoughts ,i,m happy with the d7100 its close ups and near distance performance is superb,however its distance performance seems lacking or is it just me trying to push it to the limits ,i somehow miss my old d300s which looked ,felt and performed "right" ,at the time of purchasing the 7100 i have to admit i was in a quandary and very nearly bought a canon 1Dmkiii as i have the mkii and although only 8mp its a super performer . the only real thing that kept me with nikon is the versatility of the 300mm f4 lens and t/c's that canon cant match imho .we all strive for perfection but obviously have to keep it restrained to available funds ,wish i was 21 again sometimes . 
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 21st, 2013 11:35 |
|
24th Post |
Eric
|
Robert wrote: Eric wrote: It was a rhetorical question Robert, as I am sure you realised. Like you I believe there will be a difference. In fact, if you look at some of the photos in this months Nikon pro magazine there are some examples using the D4 and the D800. I deliberately tried to guess the camera from the image. And on every occasion got them the wrong way round!!! That could be my eyes LOL. But I believe it showed that, 'in the field' without a tripod, the D800 doesnt outperform the D4. Same old story.  Personally I find the D3 more than adequate for my photography (including commercial work!). The only disadvantage comes from its bulk and weight...especially when combined with pro glass. This combination is not only unwieldy when walking about casually, but a more obvious target (even with its advanced years) for someone who has designs on taking it. I invariably carry both colour and IR bodies with me when on excursions adding further to the weight and value on my person. Last year, I left my camera back on the verandah of a mountain cafe and drove 11 miles along a ridge road before I realised. I did the return journey along the narrow, hairpin strewn road, faster than a F1 driver (despite Jan's screams and thumps LOL) to recover the bag...containing £6500 of equipment. Thats why I WANT the more modestly valued Fuji to work for me. Its images are as good as the D3...its just its ergonomics and tardiness for action shots that let it down a bit. So...getting back to the original point of the thread. Despite potential issues with the D600 identified by Amazing50s list, I would still consider the body IF it gave D3/Fuji images...with good consumer lenses. Its all about compromise when it comes to equipment payload/value Vs functionality Vs IQ.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Aug 21st, 2013 20:51 |
|
25th Post |
amazing50
|
This link gives a review of lenses suitable for the D600. It might be helpful if you are considering a purchase. http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/20/dxomark-investigates-lenses-for-the-nikon-d600
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 03:16 |
|
26th Post |
blackfox
|
just had a quick look through that and its only a test at the end of the day not a ,this is what to use list. there are some serious omissions in there list to
|
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 04:53 |
|
27th Post |
Eric
|
amazing50 wrote: Eric wrote:Hiamazing50 wrote:Defraction is caused by two things, a small f stop and sensor or film resolution. Old low resolution film in plate cameras would allow f64 exposures with no defraction and a great depth of field, but improved higher resolution fined grain films moved this back to f22 or f16. Now with higher pixel counts it's pushed back even further to f6.3. Doesn't mean you can't shoot at f16 with a D600, just that the pix won't be as sharp, for pixel peepers, as if you took the same shot at f6.3. I understand the phenomena, just confused that you said the issue 'came into play at f8 and above' ...and then said 'a minimum of f6.3 should be used'. Guess that is a safety margin? Aside from my interpretation of the wording, I find this issue a tad hard to wrestle with. (grammar!) Like many, I have for years shot film and digital being aware that lens optimum performance, though varying, invariably peaked around f8 - f11. But the subject dictated the aperture choice, not the ability of the lens or (now) the digital sensor to deliver optimum 'results' (however that is defined). If I am shooting close to a 'deep' subject, I may have to use f16 to get the desired dof. I dont say "oh hang on... the lens won't be at its best, so I better change my shooting position" or accept a dof that I didnt want. I suppose there are people out there, the pixel peepers you mention, who feel this sort of analysis is of merit. Analogous to hifi people telling me my speakers hiss when I just listen to the music. Personally, the day someone rejects my images due to small aperture artefacts, has yet to come along. It will be an interesting day if it does. LOL
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 05:26 |
|
28th Post |
Eric
|
blackfox wrote: just had a quick look through that and its only a test at the end of the day not a ,this is what to use list. I am obviously in a bolshi mood today. LOL As you say, DXO only test clinically, not in the field. They rave about the superb 14-24 Nikon. It is very nice. But use it in low angled/oblique light, add in some reflection off bright surfaces anywhere infront or to the side of the lens and its an absolute PIG for flare. No matter how good it might be optically under 'correct' and sympathetic lighting, the image quality can be shot to pieces by flare. I shoot large stainless machinery in a clients workshop. They are often 'fixed' where they were built, so I cant move them (if i was strong enough!) to avoid spurious light sources in shot. The images are going to be 'cut out' to remove unsightly backgrounds but with the 14-24 (often needed for the subject size and space limitations) it can be extraordinarily difficult to exclude flare sources. I end up throwing dark sheets all over the place (these machines are too big for background paper or cloths ) I had to close the factory roller shutter doors in +30ºC heat last week because outside lighting/reflections were creeping into the side of the domed lens. The workforce were not happy, so I had to work really fast. LOL
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 10:34 |
|
29th Post |
amazing50
|
I am thinking of a field test for this defraction question. I have a Zeiss S-Planar 120mm F5.6-32 with a Hasselblad C mount and an adaptor to the D600. With the camera on a tripod ISO 100 and set to liveview, to avoid mirror shake, and arpeture preferred, a series of 5 exposures will be taken, one at each f stop using fine jpg. and raw mode, with the camera settings to their least enhancement mode. I would appreciate some input on this test design and some ideas about what type of scenes, backgrounds etc. might be defraction prone as this high quality medium format lens in itself shouldn't be a problem, meaning any degradation of the images should be a result of sensor pixel density.
____________________ There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Thu Aug 22nd, 2013 11:46 |
|
30th Post |
Robert
|
Please may I suggest also alongside this to run a similar test with a good standard lens, say a 50mm (f1.8?) fixed focal length by way of a control and for comparison?
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 675 Current time is 14:06 | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > How many D600 users | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0680 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 91 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0680 seconds (69% database + 31% PHP). 91 queries executed.