# rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing



## Freelancer (Aug 30, 2012)

The release probability of the Nikon D600 for Photokina is now at 99%. Here is an updated list of the specifications (new additions in bold):
•Very small and lightweight body
•16 bit image processing
•Expeed 3 processor
•Maximum video recording: 30 minutes
•Built-in mic
•19 scene modes
•Magnesium alloy only on top and back only
•Maximum shutter speed of 1/4000
•Shutter life: 150,000 cycles (the D800 is rated for 200,000 cycles)

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/30/updated-specifications-for-the-nikon-d600.aspx/#ixzz251haVGAP


----

not entirely sure what the buzz about 16 bit PROCESSING is, i thought the processing is 16 bit already but the data is only 14 bit? (two bits are always zero).

does this mean it´s 16 bit from the sensor, through AD, to the prozessor?


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 30, 2012)

So, this is the 5dMKIII competitor, not the D800. If the rumor about the price, $1500 is correct, then it is a 5DMKIII at half the price. Canon should be afraid.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 30, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> it´s an entry level fullframe. not really a competition to the 5D MK3 other then sensor size and MP.


Well, 39pt AF, 5fps, etc. Granted, the ISO levels and SD cards are a big difference that would keep pro's away.

But, since there are plenty of hobbyists who would rather pay <$2000 for the 5dII over the 5dIII, I'd be a little worried if I was Canon. Because if they release that camera at $1500, and Canon doesn't have a response right away, the price of switching becomes very, very easy to justify when there is a $1500 price difference, and when Canon's entry full frame (5dII currently) is significantly under-spec'd.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 30, 2012)

Woohoo, I've always wanted to play Super Metroid on my camera.

Oh, wait, that's 16 bit graphics 

Seriously, it's a rumor, and it's one thing, so isn't it too early to start with the "canon should be afraid" and "I'm selling all my gear" bit?


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 30, 2012)

99%? I just don't buy it. A lot of those features they've listed are expensive to produce, and the whole point of this camera is that it's supposed to be cheap. 100% viewfinders are complicated to produce. Weather sealing costs money. Full frame sensors are expensive. They're placing this in the price range of the D300? No, I just don't see it.

And the timing makes no sense, either. The D800 is still hard to get, and Nikon hasn't even yet bothered to fix some major issues with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> So, this is the 5dMKIII competitor, not the D800. If the rumor about the price, $1500 is correct, then it is a 5DMKIII at half the price. Canon should be afraid.



Lol. Really? Max shutter a stop slower, limited use of magnesium alloy, 'very small and light', definitely an entry level FF camera, not a workhorse like the 5DIII. But who knows, since the D800 is a somewhat specialized camera vs. the 5DIII which is more of an all-purpose camera, the D600 may fill the same conceptual place in the Nikon lineup.

I see no reason for Canon to be afraid. 



Stephen Melvin said:


> A lot of those features they've listed are expensive to produce, and the whole point of this camera is that it's supposed to be cheap. 100% viewfinders are complicated to produce. Weather sealing costs money. Full frame sensors are expensive. They're placing this in the price range of the D300? No, I just don't see it.



Nikon has been behind Canon in dSLR market share for years, and maybe they are feeling internal (or shareholder) pressure to change that - could be they feel the need for a loss leader. Amazon sells the Kindle Fire for less than the cost to produce it.


----------



## simonxu11 (Aug 30, 2012)

dstppy said:


> Woohoo, I've always wanted to play Super Metroid on my camera.
> 
> Oh, wait, that's 16 bit graphics
> 
> Seriously, it's a rumor, and it's one thing, so isn't it too early to start with the "canon should be afraid" and "I'm selling all my gear" bit?


Seriously, this D600 rumor has been posted online for a while and with its detailed specs and pics, it looks very promising. 
Do we have a solid "6D" rumor at least CR2?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 30, 2012)

I'm trying my best to keep my shutterspeed close to 1/8000s, it's Leica specs to have 1/4000s.


----------



## ecka (Aug 30, 2012)

Daily specification updates of an imaginary camera doesn't make it any more real


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2012)

ecka said:


> Daily specification updates of an imaginary camera doesn't make it any more real



Yeah, but we all said that in the runup to the D800 announcement, too... :


----------



## dstppy (Aug 30, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> dstppy said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, it's a rumor, and it's one thing, so isn't it too early to start with the "canon should be afraid" and "I'm selling all my gear" bit?
> ...



There's still rumors of a 5DmkII successor in the pipeline, and, well, the 5DmkII . . . 

The only thing canon might have to admit (not fear) is going to get some (New, not people selling their gear) business for a competitor is A FF under $1800 (this one says $1.5k, but that remains to be seen).

Besides, I hear the 6D is going to be 56megapixels and priced under the current 5DmkII. : People should probably start selling their gear now


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 30, 2012)

So only a few months after the D800 and D4 are released Nikon releases a FF camera with 16bit processing?

That's going to piss people off.


----------



## Positron (Aug 30, 2012)

ecka said:


> Daily specification updates of an imaginary camera doesn't make it any more real



As a person very interested in both a budget full-frame body and the pressure of competition on the market, I've been checking for updates every day. The last one of any substance was on August 4, and the last one that actually had theretofore unheard specifications was May 23 (!). So "daily" is wrong at best and malicious/trolling at worst.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > So, this is the 5dMKIII competitor, not the D800. If the rumor about the price, $1500 is correct, then it is a 5DMKIII at half the price. Canon should be afraid.
> ...



really? I disagree. first of all it is cheaper. big plus. second it is just 1fps slower. not enough to justify the cost of the 5DmkIII. Has slightly superior resolution and if the D800 is any indication, it will easily outclass the 5DmkIII in dynamic range and low noise in shadow areas at low ISO. Surely the 5DIII will have the better AF system and probably more pro-body feel. But if this camera costs 1500 dollars, you can buy two for the price of one 5DIII and the 5DIII isn't twice the camera. sorry.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> The release probability of the Nikon D600 for Photokina is now at 99%. Here is an updated list of the specifications (new additions in bold):
> •Very small and lightweight body
> •16 bit image processing
> •Expeed 3 processor
> ...



I think all Nikon's have a 16bit pipeline internally. But they end up recording at 14bit since nothing really uses all the bit space and the files would be larger. The D800 maybe with its 14+stops of DR is just about the only camera that takes good advantage of 14bit raw files. The canon's are stuck in 12 stop land so I doubt canon will see in necessary to increase the bit width anytime soon.

It probably won't happen, but if they had 16 bit raws and an increase in DR to take advantage of that extra room then it would make one killer camera for 1500 dollars.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > So only a few months after the D800 and D4 are released Nikon releases a FF camera with 16bit processing?
> ...




Sure it will...especially after DxO releases a result showing the D600 can achieve 16.8 stops of DR. :-X


----------



## weixing (Aug 30, 2012)

Hi,


neuroanatomist said:



> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...


 Hmm... how do you get 16.8 stop when there is only 16-bits??

If Nikon come out with such a full frame camera at such low price, I have no doubt that it'll sell well, but most likely will also eat into Nikon D7000 or D800 sales. It's also good news for Canon user as Canon sure will response with a low cost full frame camera... competition is good!

Have a nice day.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Aug 30, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



go buy a rebel.. it´s even cheaper.. LOL ;D

i can buy three VW golfs for one porsche.

i think most who are interested in a 5D MK3 (and need it´s features) would not be satisified with the specs from the D600.

the D600 will sure be no bad camera, but a camera is more then then sensor size and pixel count. 

build quality, af, iso range not to mention all the small things that make the 5D MK3 an incredible tool are missing (or worse) in the D600 as it seems.

it will be a nice entry level FF camera for amateurs. but i doubt professionals will choose it over a 5D MK3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2012)

weixing said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it will...especially after DxO releases a result showing the D600 can achieve 16.8 stops of DR. :-X
> ...



Simple - you massage manipulate fudge normalize the data. DxOMark scored the D800, with it's 14-bit ADC, at 14.4 Ev of DR (their 'landscape score'). 

If you want the technical explanation, DxO's Scores are normalized to an 8 MP print, and downsampling a higher resolution image to 8 MP for comparison purposes gives a boost (an unfair one, I think) to ISO and DR performance. That boost gets proportionally higher as sensor resolution increases, so it's no real surprise that a 36 MP FF sensor gets top Scores. IMO, DxO's Scores (overall and use case) are useless, although their Measurements are useful, provided you set them to Screen view vs. Print (for example, the Screen measurement for the D800 is 13.23 stops of DR at the lowerst ISO - and that actually _is_ possible with a 14-bit ADC).


----------



## Positron (Aug 30, 2012)

The number of attainable stops of DR is theoretically independent of the resolution of the ADC, though, since using tricks like variable resistance or non-linear quantization you could compress any number of stops of real-world scene into any number of bits of data. The result wouldn't necessarily be _useful_, but then when did we care about that? 

What I want to know, if anyone cares to explain it, is what exactly "16-bit processing" actually means. If it means that the camera's internal memory has a 16-bit address space, then it's completely meaningless mumbo-jumbo. If it means the ADC is 16 bits but the final image is stored as 14 bits, then they are throwing away 75% of the data captured (and a ton of wasted processing power) to save 12% of the space (4 MB, at best?), which seems like a Really Bad Idea for RAWs. So what's going on here?


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 30, 2012)

Even if it is one hell of a camera...it's still ugly as sin. I'm guessing if there was one reason i'd even entertain of switching, it'd be the fact nikon have uncompressed hdmi. But then, I prefer canon lens choice. And af. And the way they handle...


----------



## Aglet (Aug 30, 2012)

Positron said:


> What I want to know, if anyone cares to explain it, is what exactly "16-bit processing" actually means. If it means that the camera's internal memory has a 16-bit address space, then it's completely meaningless mumbo-jumbo. If it means the ADC is 16 bits but the final image is stored as 14 bits, then they are throwing away 75% of the data captured (and a ton of wasted processing power) to save 12% of the space (4 MB, at best?), which seems like a Really Bad Idea for RAWs. So what's going on here?



internal processing, for applying gamma curves, etc., benefits from not having least significant bits truncated until the processing is finished.
Even PnS compacts, who only output 8b jpegs, often process 10 to 12 bits internally to reduce posterization and provide better tonal gradations than they would if they only processed 8 bits worth of data all the way from sensor to file.

As for this D600 rumor, I'd buy one in a snap and toss my 5D2 out with yesterdays lunch were it not for the pile of pricey Canon glass I have for it. 
What Canon does to RESPOND to this third, kick-butt, FF-body within a year from their main competitor is what interests me more. 

If Canon puts out (very soon please) a reasonably priced FF that has better IQ, (for those who don't know my posts that means less shadow noise at low ISO and more dynamic range) that may stop me from liquidating more of my Canon kit. That would also cause me a bit of confusion because I'll have TWO FF systems to choose from then. (Yes, I prefer Canon's lenses)
As it is now, there's only one FF body that doesn't let me down for IQ, and it's from the dark side.


----------



## Positron (Aug 30, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Positron said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know, if anyone cares to explain it, is what exactly "16-bit processing" actually means. If it means that the camera's internal memory has a 16-bit address space, then it's completely meaningless mumbo-jumbo. If it means the ADC is 16 bits but the final image is stored as 14 bits, then they are throwing away 75% of the data captured (and a ton of wasted processing power) to save 12% of the space (4 MB, at best?), which seems like a Really Bad Idea for RAWs. So what's going on here?
> ...



I can understand keeping the data until you make the conversion to JPEG, but if you already have all that data why would you throw it out in the RAW at all? My understanding is that building ADCs good enough to get that kind of quantization resolution is much more difficult (and expensive) than moving the data around. Having the extra 2 bits per channel would allow a lot more manipulation with minimal destruction in post, and you could always throw them out when you're ready to export.


----------



## simonxu11 (Aug 31, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Freelancer said:
> ...


What small things??

-Auto ISO? Even D3200's auto iso is better than 5d3's
-Multi exposure and HDR? D90 got these in 2008, canon just added
-Build-in time-lapse functionality? no for canon
-Build-in flash with wireless trigger? no for 5D
-AF face detection? no for canon except 1D and in liveview mode
-AF point-linked spot metering? A standard feature in Nikon entire range, no for canon except 1D 
------------------------------------
-Shutter life: the same
-Viewfinder: the same
-Exposure compensation: the same
-Video spec: very similar, I think 5D3 is better and it has the silent touchpad
------------------------------------
-Resolution: you know it
-DR: you konw it
-A/D conversion: 16 bit for Nikon
-------------------------------------
-Continuous shoot: 5D3 is better by 1fps (D600 perhaps as fast as 5D3 with battery grip)
-Maximum shutter speed: 5D3 is better
-High iso: 5D3's better (I am guessing 0.5-1 stop)
-AF: 5D3 is clearly better
-Build quality: 5D3 is better, but the rumored D600 is smaller and lighter.
-Storage: 5D3 uses CF card, so it's better to me
--------------------------------------
IMO, if the rumored spec of the D600 is true, then it's not far behind 5D3, but it's $2000 cheaper.


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 31, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> -AF: 5D3 is clearly better
> ...
> --------------------------------------
> IMO, if the rumored spec of the D600 is true, then it's not far behind 5D3, but it's $2000 cheaper.


This may completely go against how your philosophy and how you shoot, but imho- i'd pay the extra $2000 just for the better AF, and the 1 FPS more. Why? 
I'd take getting the shot in 8bit JPEG over missing the shot in 24bit colours any day, because that's what matters most to me.
It's like that old saying- "F.8 and be there" or whatever it was. That person had it right. You have to get the shot before you can worry about anything else


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Aug 31, 2012)

I find it interesting how some people are talking about jumping ship for the rumored D600 when the D800 isn't even as good as the 5D Mk III, outside of its amazing sensor. And even that starts to lose its advantage at ISO 800. 

Speed, AF, video quality, high ISO performance, wireless flash system, build quality and hell, quality control during manufacture are all advantages for the Canon. Strong advantages. Plus, we get some pretty awesome lenses to play with. 

Let's put it this way: if both cameras had the exact same sensor, which one would you pick?


----------



## simonxu11 (Aug 31, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> I find it interesting how some people are talking about jumping ship for the rumored D600 when the D800 isn't even as good as the 5D Mk III, outside of its amazing sensor. And even that starts to lose its advantage at ISO 800.
> 
> Speed, AF, video quality, high ISO performance, wireless flash system, build quality and hell, quality control during manufacture are all advantages for the Canon. Strong advantages. Plus, we get some pretty awesome lenses to play with.
> 
> Let's put it this way: if both cameras had the exact same sensor, which one would you pick?


I find it interesting how many canon fanboies here, but they will deny this.
It all depends what you shoot if you compare D800 and 5D3.

Canon just leads in the AF only from this year with the 5D3 and 1DX, 5D3 leads D800 on high ISO performance in raw slightly (DXO and Dpreview showed 5D3 lost to D800), 1DX and D4 are very similar, with the 600EX-RT, Canon finally catches up with Nikon. 

Quality control??
black tape on 5D3, AF problem on 40mm, rubber grips on 650............Oh and the error code from 01 to 99.

I also prefer Canon but can't stand the some nonsense


----------



## Tayvin (Aug 31, 2012)

It's hard to complain about a $1500 FF camera, but I hope this "RUMOR" is wrong about the SD card slots. I don't think I even own a SD card anymore? I also remember reading another "RUMOR" about the D600 using a sensor that is not made by Sony. That may no longer be true, but if it is, don't expect the DR you get from a D800.


----------



## kirillica (Aug 31, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> What small things??
> 
> -Auto ISO? Even D3200's auto iso is better than 5d3's
> -Multi exposure and HDR? D90 got these in 2008, canon just added
> ...


it looks like you need a rebel camera, if you really care about HDR and face detection ;D


----------



## Danielle (Aug 31, 2012)

The D90 does not have in camera HDR. And why do you want built in flash? Other than occasional emergency fill, they're useless.

Looks like my partner (who has a D90) will have a nice upgrade path if they decide to in the next while. Myself, well I don't have any money to spend on anything much so I'll just wait it out and see what happens and make do with my 7D which is doing me really well anyway. Im not going back to nikon.


----------



## meli (Aug 31, 2012)

Tayvin said:


> It's hard to complain about a $1500 FF camera, but I hope this "RUMOR" is wrong about the SD card slots. I don't think I even own a SD card anymore? I also remember reading another "RUMOR" about the D600 using a sensor that is not made by Sony. That may no longer be true, but if it is, don't expect the DR you get from a D800.


apparently D4's & D3200's sensors are also nikon made and not sony, so if thats an indication, DR should be aproximately ~.5-1 stop less than D800's


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 31, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> What small things??



Something you missed: xsync!
1/200 at best for the 5D3 vs. the custom function that allows 1/320 on the current Nikons.
Noticeable with mains powered flash, invaluable with battery powered units.


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 31, 2012)

Just curious, I see some makes 1EV DR the same as 1bit, meanin 14bit processing gives a maximum of 14EV DR. But why is that?


----------



## simonxu11 (Aug 31, 2012)

kirillica said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > What small things??
> ...


Did I say I care about these features, which one of your eyes did you see that? I simply replied.
5D3 has HDR, 1DX has face detection, rebel series suddenly has two more bodies.


----------



## Lawliet (Aug 31, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> But why is that?



Because in a world with a perfectly linear sensor response one stop more light means twice as many photons on the sensor and electrons in the well, thus one more binary digit to represent that doubling. That assumes no other interference, like noise in the lower digits caused by the readout electronics.
Once you apply a gamma curve the whole relation vanishes and any number of bits can represent arbitrary dynamic range, although at the cost of tonality - you may experience banding.


----------



## simonxu11 (Aug 31, 2012)

Danielle said:


> The D90 does not have in camera HDR. And why do you want built in flash? Other than occasional emergency fill, they're useless.
> 
> Looks like my partner (who has a D90) will have a nice upgrade path if they decide to in the next while. Myself, well I don't have any money to spend on anything much so I'll just wait it out and see what happens and make do with my 7D which is doing me really well anyway. Im not going back to nikon.


You are right about the D90 which doesn't have HDR. 
I didn't say I need build in flash, I just replied to Kirilica that some of these small things have been built into Nikon bodies for years or better implemented than Canon.
You just mentioned build in flash can be used for occasional emergency fill, so it's not completely useless and it's better than nothing when this situation occurs


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 31, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > But why is that?
> ...



Thank you!
I learn something every day


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > So, this is the 5dMKIII competitor, not the D800. If the rumor about the price, $1500 is correct, then it is a 5DMKIII at half the price. Canon should be afraid.
> ...


+1 for Freelancer


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

If the price is really around $1500, I will buy it along with Nikon's 28-300 lens ... but my 5D MK III with my little collection of L glass will still be my main gear ... D600 with 28-300 will be very convenient for family vacations. I like the competition between Canon & Nikon, it means we get better products ... it'll be interesting to see what Canon will come up with.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 31, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> The release probability of the Nikon D600 for Photokina is now at 99%. Here is an updated list of the specifications (new additions in bold):
> •Very small and lightweight body
> •16 bit image processing
> •Expeed 3 processor
> ...



Could careless, nikon, sony, pentax, etc. I'm here at canon for the glass. 8)


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 31, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



Why is it an entry level camera?
The size of the body (which seems large enough at pictures) or is it that it has magnesium alloy on top and back only? 

These are still rumors, so we can only speculate, but to me the D600 is the 5D3 competitor, since the specs are so similar. And as long as it is half the price, I maintain my initial statement, Canon should be afraid. They are the King of the hill now, but situations can change if the company gets arrogant. And no, I´m not leaving Canon due to their great lenses, but I´m just saying.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 31, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Freelancer said:
> ...



It wont be in the same league in AF performance, Not until Nikon revamps its entire line-up will it even touch the beauty of the 61 Point AF on the 5D3.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> It wont be in the same league in AF performance, Not until Nikon revamps its entire line-up will it even touch the beauty of the 61 Point AF on the 5D3.


Amen!


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 31, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



It doesn´t need to have the same AF performance to be the closest competitor. 5D2 did well with 9 point AF, so 41 should do. And, if so, the D800 is not the 5D3 competitor, with nearly 50% more pixels. That is a bigger difference than 41pt. AF vs. 61pt. 

I really hope Canon are getting nervous, that mean they have to adjust the prices to meet the competition. I like the Canon lenses and camera layout (buttons etc.), and are gonna stick to them, but their prices are insane.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 31, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



41 cross type points vs 15 on Nikon. No competition. 

5 double cross type points vs 0 on Nikon. No competition. 

I didn't pay full price for the 5d3. Its not worth 3500+tax. I snagged it for 3099$.

Canon has nothing to sweat about when it releases its d600 competitor.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> It doesn´t need to have the same AF performance to be the closest competitor. 5D2 did well with 9 point AF, so 41 should do. And, if so, the D800 is not the 5D3 competitor, with nearly 50% more pixels. That is a bigger difference than 41pt. AF vs. 61pt.
> 
> I really hope Canon are getting nervous, that mean they have to adjust the prices to meet the competition. I like the Canon lenses and camera layout (buttons etc.), and are gonna stick to them, but their prices are insane.


5D2 was revolutionary and it is the 2nd most popular camera of all time (since the AF era) ... besides it was capable of amazing video ... and yet D700 with only 12 megapixel and no video capability sold very well with 51 AF points and stood its ground against the mighty 5D MK II. 
By the way, your math is pretty bad, coz "41pt" AF vs "61pt" is approx 33% difference ... between Canon's 22MP vs Nikon's 36MP is only 38% difference (not 50% difference as you claim ... 50% of 36 is 18, NOT 22)
Till recently I owned/used Nikon D700 (I sold it to fund 5D MK III) so I am speaking from my personal experience ... you may stop hoping coz Canon will NOT get "nervous". Each of these cameras, (that will be released sometime in the near future), will have their place and people will continue to buy both D800 and 5D MK III, despite new cheaper FF DSLRs, as both brands have very loyal customers who like their products.


----------



## Pitbullo (Aug 31, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> 5D2 was revolutionary and it is the 2nd most popular camera of all time (since the AF era) ... besides it was capable of amazing video ... and yet D700 with only 12 megapixel and no video capability sold very well with 51 AF points and stood its ground against the mighty 5D MK II.
> By the way, your math pretty bad, coz "41pt" AF vs "61pt" is approx 33% difference ... between Canon's 22MP vs Nikon's 36MP is only 38%
> Till recently I owned/used Nikon D700 (I sold it to fund 5D MK III) so I am speaking from my personal experience ... you may stop hoping coz Canon will NOT get "nervous". Each of these cameras, (that will be released sometime in the near future), will have their place and people will continue to buy both D800 and 5D MK III, despite new cheaper FF DSLRs, as both brands have very loyal customers who like their products.



I can see what I wrote was unclear. What I meant was that the differnece in resolution between 5D3 and D800; 22MP and 36MP (ok, "nearly 50%" is a bit off, thanx for doing the math for me here), has bigger impact, or is a more important difference, than the AF differences. 

Edit: And the 41pt. AF does not make the D600 an entry level, just because it has an inferior AF system to its closest competitor.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > 5D2 was revolutionary and it is the 2nd most popular camera of all time (since the AF era) ... besides it was capable of amazing video ... and yet D700 with only 12 megapixel and no video capability sold very well with 51 AF points and stood its ground against the mighty 5D MK II.
> ...


The "bigger impact" that you are speaking of, only exists in our heads ... generally the people who actually buy these cameras are those who can only buy that specific camera at that price point (there might be some exceptions but very few) ... people don't go for a cheaper camera when they can afford a better one. 
Let me give you a recent example, for a very long time in India Suzuki has been making small cars which cost around $5000, a couple of years ago another very popular Indian car maker launched a very "similar" sized car for only $2000 ... but the $2000 did not beat the "similar" sized $5000 car, in fact most people looked down on it $2000 car and it made the $5000 car even more popular ... because it was no longer the "cheapest" car around instead it had become something of an upgrade from a "very cheap" $2000 car. 
If anything the perception of "bigger impact" could actually work in favour of D800 & 5D MK III. 
Many people thought the same thing about Canon 1100D/Nikon D3100 vs Canon 550D/Nikon D5100 ... but the fact of the matter most people did not chose the entry level DLSRs if they could afford one level higher DSLRs like the 500D or the D5000 etc, despite both having the same sensor.


----------



## Pitbullo (Sep 1, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> The "bigger impact" that you are speaking of, only exists in our heads ... generally the people who actually buy these cameras are those who can only buy that specific camera at that price point (there might be some exceptions but very few) ... people don't go for a cheaper camera when they can afford a better one.
> Let me give you a recent example, for a very long time in India Suzuki has been making small cars which cost around $5000, a couple of years ago another very popular Indian car maker launched a very "similar" sized car for only $2000 ... but the $2000 did not beat the "similar" sized $5000 car, in fact most people looked down on it $2000 car and it made the $5000 car even more popular ... because it was no longer the "cheapest" car around instead it had become something of an upgrade from a "very cheap" $2000 car.
> If anything the perception of "bigger impact" could actually work in favour of D800 & 5D MK III.
> Many people thought the same thing about Canon 1100D/Nikon D3100 vs Canon 550D/Nikon D5100 ... but the fact of the matter most people did not chose the entry level DLSRs if they could afford one level higher DSLRs like the 500D or the D5000 etc, despite both having the same sensor.



I do get your point, and it is true in most cases. There are one other example, though a bit different. Nokia, once king of the mobile phone world, now in big big trouble, beacause of arrogance and not taking the competition seriously.

Canon needs the competition, and should take them seriously. The worst that can happen from that is that we get better and cheaper Canon products, and the best is that we get better and cheaper Canon products.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> I do get your point, and it is true in most cases. There are one other example, though a bit different. Nokia, once king of the mobile phone world, now in big big trouble, beacause of arrogance and not taking the competition seriously.
> 
> Canon needs the competition, and should take them seriously. The worst that can happen from that is that we get better and cheaper Canon products, and the best is that we get better and cheaper Canon products.


Well, in Nokia's case, they did not have anything that could keep its customers hooked onto Nokia phones like the lenses of Canon & Nikon. But I do agree that arrogance of not taking competition seriously will cost them dearly ... in the 80's Nikon (who was the supreme leader of SLR cameras) did not take Canon AF lenses seriously and it paid very dearly by losing its top position to Canon and has not caught up ever since. Having said that, with the current lens reliant cameras I do not see any problem with either Canon or Nikon losing out to anyone ... at least not until the competition comes up with some incredibly compelling lenses to match the capabilities of the sensors.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Sep 1, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> I find it interesting how some people are talking about jumping ship for the rumored D600 when the D800 isn't even as good as the 5D Mk III, outside of its amazing sensor. And even that starts to lose its advantage at ISO 800.
> 
> Speed, AF, video quality, high ISO performance, wireless flash system, build quality and hell, quality control during manufacture are all advantages for the Canon. Strong advantages. Plus, we get some pretty awesome lenses to play with.
> 
> Let's put it this way: if both cameras had the exact same sensor, which one would you pick?



That last question "Which one would you pick" is an interesting question. I'm going to assume that when you say "Exact same sensor" you also mean exact same supporting chips and processing engines so signal to noise ratios in the dark areas are the same and that dynamic range is also the same. Then I would pick Canon because I really like the Canon TS-E lenses (the 24 and 17, not the older ones with a single axis) and some of my other Canon favorites like the 135 f2, 85 F1.2, 50 1.2, 35 1.4. But I would miss the Nikon 14-24 that I enjoy now on my Nikon D800/E. 

I really intend on staying with Canon but right now, I'm not shooting any of my primary landscapes with Canon. I'm waiting for Canon to catch up with a full frame 40+ mp body that I"m hoping will compete with the Nikon D800E. I'm sure Canon can do it, it is only a matter of deciding to do it - timing is everything. Next year I will probably buy the Nikon 200-400 F4 if Canon doesn't come out first. But I won't buy any more Canon lenses until Canon comes up with a better Nikon D800E competitor. But I'm patient....


----------



## Danielle (Sep 1, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> in the 80's Nikon (who was the supreme leader of SLR cameras) did not take Canon AF lenses seriously and it paid very dearly by losing its top position to Canon and has not caught up ever since.




Oh, don't know about hasn't caught up since. I used nikons in the early 2000's, didn't care then but oh yeah, they were loosing badly. Now? Well they've already lost a chunk of the market which hasn't as of yet returned (if ever) but yes they HAVE caught up.

Damn, I just defended nikon! Sorry about that, but I thought it needed to be said. Doesn't matter what you shoot on nowdays, either make fantastic images, particularly in capable hands.


----------



## Pitbullo (Sep 1, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Well, in Nokia's case, they did not have anything that could keep its customers hooked onto Nokia phones like the lenses of Canon & Nikon. But I do agree that arrogance of not taking competition seriously will cost them dearly ... in the 80's Nikon (who was the supreme leader of SLR cameras) did not take Canon AF lenses seriously and it paid very dearly by losing its top position to Canon and has not caught up ever since. Having said that, with the current lens reliant cameras I do not see any problem with either Canon or Nikon losing out to anyone ... at least not until the competition comes up with some incredibly compelling lenses to match the capabilities of the sensors.



A good nights sleep has made me think that my argument is not accurate. Perhaps Canon is taking it´s competition very seriously (ofcourse they are), because Canons cameras are very very capable, perhaps the best, if we see them as a complete package. The arrogance is perhaps against their customers, since many of them are heavily invested in lenses, and jumping ship is first of all very expensive, and sencond, Canon have the best lens lineup of all. That is why they can charge sky high prices for cameras that are not revolutionary, but a carefull evolution of it´s predecessor. 

Sorry to have pulled this thread a bit off topic. I look forward to see Canons answer if Nikon is surpassing them on key specifications, like the 16 bit procesing. This is directly linked to the IQ, and therefore more important than AF for me (hobbyist). (And, to be clear, I do want a good AF, but IQ > AF, as AF, light meter and so on are all aids for the sensor to do its job. Crap sensor is still crap even if you have the best AF in the world. AF with some drawbacks can be overcome with technique.)


----------



## Aglet (Sep 1, 2012)

Positron said:


> I can understand keeping the data until you make the conversion to JPEG, but if you already have all that data why would you throw it out in the RAW at all? My understanding is that building ADCs good enough to get that kind of quantization resolution is much more difficult (and expensive) than moving the data around. Having the extra 2 bits per channel would allow a lot more manipulation with minimal destruction in post, and you could always throw them out when you're ready to export.



I agree.
We'll have to wait and see if alleged camera does indeed use 16b processing and whether that will also result in them providing 16b raw files.
Considering how clean the D800 output is (it's noisier than a 5D2 but it's random noise) then a larger pixel sensor with similar abilities could provide around 15b worth of real data and, while the 16th bit may be buried in noise, it could still be provided in the raw file and a good NR algorithm could extract useful tonality from it in some situations.

Photokina 2012 is shaping up to be a nail-biter for us rumor-mongers.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> A good nights sleep has made me think that my argument is not accurate. Perhaps Canon is taking it´s competition very seriously (ofcourse they are), because Canons cameras are very very capable, perhaps the best, if we see them as a complete package. The arrogance is perhaps against their customers, since many of them are heavily invested in lenses, and jumping ship is first of all very expensive, and sencond, Canon have the best lens lineup of all. That is why they can charge sky high prices for cameras that are not revolutionary, but a carefull evolution of it´s predecessor.
> 
> Sorry to have pulled this thread a bit off topic. I look forward to see Canons answer if Nikon is surpassing them on key specifications, like the 16 bit procesing. This is directly linked to the IQ, and therefore more important than AF for me (hobbyist). (And, to be clear, I do want a good AF, but IQ > AF, as AF, light meter and so on are all aids for the sensor to do its job. Crap sensor is still crap even if you have the best AF in the world. AF with some drawbacks can be overcome with technique.)


To be fair and IMHO one cannot go wrong with either Canon or Nikon Cameras / lenses ... for the past few decades, both these cameras have and continue to have certain features and lenses that are only exclusive to either Canon or Nikon. IMHO there is no such thing as as perfect camera that will please everyone ... I know a few friends, (heavily invested in L glass), that hate 5D MK III having "only" 22 mega "pickles" (especially one guy who is into landscape photography ... and his Nikon D800 user buddy keeps taunting him with the awesome landscape photos taken with D800 set at ISO 100 with a 14-24 lens) ... and I also have a few friends that invested heavily in Nikon glass and hate D800 that it has "too many" mega "pickles" (these folks shoot in RAW, so the files sizes are plain massive for their aging laptops that are taking ages to load and post process .... so they are having to shell out another $2000 for a new laptop). One can never please everyone. For years I have been happy with Nikon cameras and now I am equally happy with Canon cameras ... both have strengths and weakness ... it depends on which strengths meet your needs and which weaknesses you can live with.


----------



## Lawliet (Sep 1, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> (these folks shoot in RAW, so the files sizes are plain massive for their aging laptops that are taking ages to load and post process ....


Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

Lawliet said:


> Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.


I've never used DPP to apply lens correction to raw files ... but I'll give it a try to check out the file sizes.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 12, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.
> ...



If Digital Lens Optimizer is used, which is great, RAW file size almost doubles (!). I get around this by applying DLO, convert from RAW to JPEG, then undoing the DLO (which gives you original file size) before closing/saving the RAW.


----------

