# Canon 5D3 vs. Nikon D600



## helpful (Sep 29, 2012)

I just received my Nikon D600 yesterday. I was expecting tremendous performance from another soon-to-be legendary Nikon/Sony sensor.

Well... I was quite disappointed.

With both cameras at ISO 12,800 and 1/1,600 exposure, with identical lenses (Sigma 85mm f/1.4 for Nikon and for Canon at f/2.8 ), what I get from the RAW data is shown in the attached images cropped at 100%.

This is really stupid, Nikon. I thought that with most of another year of tech gone by, and the legend of Nikon and Sony thrown in, that the D600 would perform better than the 5D Mark III. Boy, was I wrong.

The Canon image looks almost as smooth as butter under identical processing. The Nikon image looks like it came from a pocket camera or something like that.

I am also starting to get very suspicious about DxO Mark. Why do they have results for Nikon in a heartbeat all the time? Why do they measure dynamic range by trying to measure a theoretical definition (black point photo level to white point photon level) rather than trying to measure actual amount of detail in images that are under or over exposed by a certain number of stops?

I am thinking about doing a simple and truly mathematical measurement of image noise now, just to see if maybe I'm not giving the D600 enough credit.

The real thing that matters isn't DR or anything. Once the finite-dimensional subspace of data is fixed (which it is for raw files), the only thing that matters mathematically is signal to noise ratio, which is basically an aggregate of precision and accuracy, the two components of any recording technology, including photography.

Here's my plan, before I do it.

Take two or more successive exposures in RAW at the same settings, and repeat this process to obtain other pairs of image data with various under/normal/over exposure settings and various ISOs.

Then I will measure the actual noise by calculating the difference between identical images. The means of the data will be adjusted to account for a tiny variation in exposure times. Any difference between the images would be purely due to the random variation of noise.

Then I will use the old formula from science for relative error (observed-expected)/expected * 100 and then use the RE to calculate the signal to noise ratio.

And one number is meaningless. DxO Mark loves to give the highest ISO where (in their system of experimentation) the SNR falls below about 80-85%, a "critical point" of image quality.

But with cameras like the 1D X, the SNR barely falls any further for a long, long way.

However, cameras like the 5D Mark II fall off much, much faster after getting to this "critical point" even if their score reported by DxO Mark isn't very much different from the 1D X.

For example (made up numbers):

Camera A:
ISO 1,000 SNR = 90%
ISO 10,000 SNR = 75%

Camera B:
ISO 990 SNR = 90%
ISO 10,000 SNR = 45%

Obviously, camera A is 65% better than camera B, but the way DxO Mark reports things, there would only be a meaningless difference of about 1% of one stop in the "ISO score" of camera A vs. camera B.

So if I get time (tonight is a RARE few hours off for me), I will try to report the results. And I'll be totally unbiased. I use about half Nikon and half Canon equipment, and I have absolutely no grudges or favoritism on either side.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 29, 2012)

I think we all could have agreed that the 5D Mark III would perform under most circumstances, better than the D600. Sorry to hear about your experience, but this is probably not shocking.


----------



## rpt (Sep 29, 2012)

Hmmm... The way I read the posts, the D600 would be better at ISO of 100, 200. I think somebody had even posted side by side comparative pictures. At the higher ISOs 5D3 kicks butt!


----------



## poias (Sep 29, 2012)

From our experience done on D600 and 5D3, it is the exact opposite in RAW. JPGs we do not use so not tested it. We're a dual shop (although now mostly N than C) and 5D3 has clearly inferior images coming out than any of the new Nikons, even D600. They have almost identical resolution but the shades of 5D3 is inferior, including its rendition of red, also you can clearly see banding upon small increase in shadow.


----------



## helpful (Sep 29, 2012)

I could have done something wrong. This is just the 16th photo that I have taken with my D600.


----------



## poias (Sep 29, 2012)

helpful said:


> I could have done something wrong. This is just the 16th photo that I have taken with my D600.



All I say is take more shots, especially RAWs if you are concerned about image quality in tests, as RAWs have full data, while JPGs only have very limited data like max 7 DR, while D600 DR at base ISO exceeds 14 (2.5 stops better than 5D3)!

In high ISOs, D600 clearly holds more detail even with aggressive noise reduction. In image quality (RAW processing), d600 clearly trounces 5D3... it is confirmed by many sources the world over, including empirical testing.


----------



## pierceography (Sep 29, 2012)

It's pretty widely known (at least in these forums) that the new batch of sensors produced by Canon and Nikon go as follows:

* Canons perform better at high ISO
* Nikons perform better at low ISO

To say nothing else about the rest of their capabilities, of course.

So why would you compare the two at such a high ISO expecting the D600 to perform better? Even the D800 won't beat the 5Dm3 at 12,800.


----------



## robbymack (Sep 29, 2012)

Why is this surprising? Seems to me if you want low iso dr you go Nikon, if you want high iso performance you go canon.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 29, 2012)

poias said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > I could have done something wrong. This is just the 16th photo that I have taken with my D600.
> ...



CLEARLY trounces? Oh boy, here we go again...........


----------



## thelebaron (Sep 29, 2012)

With so many topics on this here and at other forums, I set my pixel peeping skills to the test & took a look at image-resources raws of the sunlit setup with the mannequin.

To my surprise the d600 did have a visibly less amount of noise than the 5d3, really quite impressive. It did seem to overexpose the shots(not sure how that factors in), and all of them were slightly less sharp vs the 5d3 as well. I have to say though at the higher isos(12800,25600), the noise begins to get splotchier than the 5d3's and it loses alot of sharpness.
At the highest levels it looks a little like viewing an jpg vs a raw, in the sense that yes the d600 has less noise but it isnt the same fine grain as the 5d3's.


----------



## simonxu11 (Sep 29, 2012)

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d600/5


----------



## moreorless (Sep 29, 2012)

I'd certainly agree with the OP's point about ISO measurements, to be honiest the technical side of these DR measurements is beyond me but its pretty simpley to see that just taking an artbitary "noise limate" and marking when it is reached isnt really much of a test.


----------



## JR (Sep 29, 2012)

robbymack said:


> Why is this surprising? Seems to me if you want low iso dr you go Nikon, if you want high iso performance you go canon.



I would tend to agree with your statement regarding the D800 for example, which i find unusable above ISO 1600 personally. However, in terms of high ISO, the Nikon D4 is on par or slightly better then the 1DX.

Incidently, i find focus so slow on my D800 that when shooting at iso 100 indoors with a flash, i prefers the 1DX. With the right lens it provides amazing result. I did not expect that...off topic here but thought i would share...


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 29, 2012)

i had a closer look at the D600 autofocus... as good as it looks on paper i think it´s not that the 6D is much worse.

sure the D600 has more AF points but they are so cramped together that 66% are useless.

i could not test sport or action and how good the D600 is at tracking moving objects.


----------



## elflord (Sep 29, 2012)

helpful said:


> I am also starting to get very suspicious about DxO Mark. Why do they have results for Nikon in a heartbeat all the time?



The aggregate scores come out in favor of Sony sensors because of dynamic range at low ISO. 



> Here's my plan, before I do it.
> 
> Take two or more successive exposures in RAW at the same settings, and repeat this process to obtain other pairs of image data with various under/normal/over exposure settings and various ISOs.
> 
> ...



Before you do that -- take a look at DxOs measurements. They don't just give one number. DxO do report all their measurements -- not just SNR 18%, but the curves for different levels. 

By looking at the SNR curves, you can get a sense of where the dynamic range advantage of the Sony sensors comes from -- in the "full SNR" curves, the SNR in the shadows barely changes from ISO200 to ISO100 with the Canon sensors. 

Their dynamic range is ultimately based partly on signal to noise, because their definition of the "black point" for purpose of dynamic range is the baseline noise level. 

EDIT: I have some comments about your high ISO hypothetical. First, the phenomenom you describe does not happen all that often. SNR18% measurement usually follows a pretty much follows a straight line. Your comment about the 1DX ("with cameras like the 1D X, the SNR barely falls any further for a long, long way." ) is not true for cameras that have been tested (it follows a pretty straight line) and when the 1DX is tested, it will probably be shown to be false for the 1DX too.

Second, I don't really agree that the second camera is "obviously" "65% better". The assertion is based on one data point. Any single data point will stop short of giving you a complete picture. Also, the SNR you use doesn't make whole lot of sense for a couple of reasons. First, it's typically measured in decibels (basically you want the log ratio). Second, in the range you would reasonably care about, signal is greater than noise, so it would never be less than 100%.


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> based at??? your own tests



i thought that´s pretty obvious?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 29, 2012)

JR said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > Why is this surprising? Seems to me if you want low iso dr you go Nikon, if you want high iso performance you go canon.
> ...



The D4 won't match the 1DX out in a night sports event. I know so


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > i had a closer look at the D600 autofocus... as good as it looks on paper i think it´s not that the 6D is much worse.
> ...



I don't even see why these camera's are being compared. The 5D3 is equal or better in every way except in DR. Especially the AF, which just makes any nikon camera cry and weep in the corner.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I don't even see why these camera's are being compared. The 5D3 is equal or better in every way except in DR. Especially the AF, which just makes any nikon camera cry and weep in the corner.
> 
> *This is a typical illogical statement
> Tell me in what way, I know at least 3 journalists and photographers at different photo magazines who are trying out the AF from Nikon and Canon
> it takes a month to use different tests to determine what benefits one or the other system has. *



Don't be so naive, 15-cross type points for nikon, 41-crosstype for canon and 5 of those are double cross-type which nikon doesn't have, Nor any other manufacturer.

Yes, I've demoed nikons great 51 point system but Canon's just takes it lunch money away. 

Plus, most agency's have Nikon and Canon gear but so what? You should know better that real photogs will chose a camera mostly on ergos than anything else. so nikon shooter will stay with nikon and Canon shooters will stay with canon because of muscle memory.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> read what you wrote again , any Nikon camera



Thats right, any nikon camera. I just mentioned the best nikon has to offer at the moment.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Read my answer again, I've already have. You know your quite naive that the 51-point system is almost exactly the same from the D3-D700 system. They use a multi-cam 3500 Series AF system, which is good but old already which the canon 61-point system make it show its age.

I've always felt its AF was hesitant, while the canon just hits period.

The burden of proof is on you, and many others have already agreed that the 61-Point AF system is the best thing since sliced bread.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> You are not saying anything



http://xerodigital.ca/canon-1dx-nikon-d4-compare-wedding-photogrpahers/
The 5D3 is 99% the same AF performance as the 1DX.

Nothing more needs to be said to you.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 29, 2012)

I am expecting the "I am rubber, you are glue" argument pretty soon. =) Lets face it, there are people who will always prefer one system over the other, but from the vast majority of review websites, the 5d3 does beat the D800 in speed and accuracy while the d800 was more consistent, but always a hair off... that being said, the 5d3 would then beat the D600, and the D600 does beat the new canon camera.... the rest is pure semantics.


----------



## dunkers (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different scenes. Canon have chosen for example up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.
> It would take a very long time to test out which of the systems is generally best, it is probably not doable.
> There are reports that the Canon's AF seems faster but the number of keepers at moving subject is greater in Nikon, after some time when colleagues have tried out made we usually emerge which camera produces the best keepers in similar situations, as it emerged with 1dmk3 and d3




First off, the D600's AF system is NOT the same as that found in the D4 or D800. The d600 only has 39 af points, which is essentially a "revamped" D7000 AF. If you look around enough, you will

I primarily shoot sports so AF is critical for me. That being said, a few weeks ago I was shooting volleyball alongside a D4 user. He was switching between his 24-70 and 70-200. I was using my 5d3 paired with my 70-200. When reviewing photos between plays he kept complaining that his D4 kept missing. Mind you this is volleyball, which is a hard sport to shoot in and of itself. However, even for the simplest shots i.e. when the players were serving (nobody else in the frame), his D4 had trouble locking on.

Nearly all of my shots were keepers. Anything I missed was simply user error. I find myself having a hard time in post-processing because its hard to pick out which ones to keep and which to delete. 

Shooting through the net, my 5D3 had no problem locking on to the players. His D4 on the other hand, not so much. And from what I keep hearing, Canon's new 61 AF system just works and does it brilliantly. The D4 on the other hand works, but doesn't do anything extraordinary.


On another note, the D600 is capable of shooting sports. I met a guy who had a D4, a D800, and a D600. He was testing out the D600 to see its capabilities as a backup sports body. He seemed to be happy with it. However, he was NOT happy that it did not have a dedicated back-button AF.

The d600 was too small small for my hands (even the 5D3 is a little small for me) and I never liked the button layout/ergonomics of Nikon bodies. The 5D3 is thicker and feels much beefier in my hands. The grip on the Nikon is too small and narrow, which makes my fingers feel very cramped. 

Somebody mentioned earlier that people who've used the systems long enough prefer one over the other simply due to ergonomics. I've had my fair share of uses of Nikon bodies and they just don't feel right in my big hands.

Both systems perform so similarly in real world situations (stop oogling over the specs) that it doesn't really matter which system you use. I'm pretty sure that before whatever new camera came along you had absolutely no problems getting the necessary shots.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 29, 2012)

dunkers said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon and Canon have two different visions of how an AF system should be and function, and with what parameters. There are differences in response, starting up , stopping down and loops to hit the target in different scenes. Canon have chosen for example up to f-5, 6, Nikon to F-8.
> ...



One of the biggest complaints of my fellow user is that even in low ISO, primarily a game whereby it is very sunny and one team has white jerseys, the D4 shows a higher OOF rate than the 1DX (which is 0). The 1D Mark IV had this same problem. Furthermore, the 1DX beats the living crap out of the D4 where football lighting is low. So Canon wins with the top end at least, thus eliminating validity of those claiming that ALL Nikon cameras outperform their respective Canon counterparts.

The only metric I go by is keepers when I get home on my computer, and so far yes, the 5D3 and 1D4 have had a fair share of misses, but the 1DX I have had absolutely no misses.


----------



## jrista (Sep 29, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> dunkers said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Aye. I've heard the same thing from all the camera reviewers as well, including those who have historically been die-hard Nikon users: The 1D X AF system is unbeatable.

Even in the bird and wildlife photography arena, which is admittedly a lot smaller, both Canon and Nikon users have raved about the 1D X AF system. I've even read a couple reviews that indicate the 1D X's facial recognition works with animals and birds, often in profile.  As bird photographer myself, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a 1D X, but as I don't make much money off of my photography, its really hard to justify the $7000 expenditure (especially on top of the $10k+ glass I'd need to go along with it.)


----------



## picturesbyme (Sep 29, 2012)

Sorry (I shoot canon) but I have to ask...

why is the 5d3 vs the d600?
will be a 6d vs d800 "test" too?

I'm getting the popcorn...


----------



## Tammy (Sep 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> some of you fan boys are incredible. Canon can not handle f-8, Nikon can.



Nikon can not handle F/4 and faster lenses, Canon can.

Canon 5D3 41 cross type F4 and faster sensitive AF points (5 dual cross type), Nikon D800 0.

From what I read it is an autofocus design choice a manufacturer has to make. Focus on designing for performance at large apertures or small ones. Apparently, at this point in tech, you can't have excellence at both. The latest AF systems show a particular differing design, that is all.

If you shoot large aperture portraiture, etc, the Canon AF design of the 5D3 and 1DX etc are better suited. If you shoot birds/wildlife, Nikon's latest design is beneficial.


----------



## Gadger (Sep 30, 2012)

I've got both the Canon 5D mk lll and the Nikon D600. Without the analysing between them, for me I bought the Nikon D600 to use while travelling, being ideal for lighter, smaller and reduced the lens weight. 

My Canon lens 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L, 100-400 4/5.6L (also used to take the 70-200 2.8L IS, but stopped this lens a while ago due to the weight) to the Nikon lens setup of 16-35 F4 VR and 28-300 VR. 

I've got a Virgin flight coming up with just 6KG handle luggage allowance and one bag only. I've been checked at the check-in and caught a couple of times, over the limit. Then having to quickly spread the weight between the hold suite cases, which I don't like letting my expensive Canon white lens going in the hold.

So for me its fit for purpose.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 30, 2012)

The only metric I go by is keepers when I get home on my computer, and so far yes, the 5D3 and 1D4 have had a fair share of misses, but the 1DX I have had absolutely no misses.
[/quote]

Aye. I've heard the same thing from all the camera reviewers as well, including those who have historically been die-hard Nikon users: The 1D X AF system is unbeatable.

Even in the bird and wildlife photography arena, which is admittedly a lot smaller, both Canon and Nikon users have raved about the 1D X AF system. I've even read a couple reviews that indicate the 1D X's facial recognition works with animals and birds, often in profile.  As bird photographer myself, I'd LOVE to get my hands on a 1D X, but as I don't make much money off of my photography, its really hard to justify the $7000 expenditure (especially on top of the $10k+ glass I'd need to go along with it.)
[/quote]

*show me evidence*
[/quote]

I don't owe you any evidence, because I really don't give a crap what you think, honestly. All I know is that I have a pair of 1DX's, I'm making money, and I'm not having any misses. I'm happy. Are you?


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 30, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I'm surprised of the poor skills


I don't thnk you can judge skills from that vide. it was more about the impressions from someone who had always used Nikon cameras (along with a Canon shooter), but perhaps we could see your skills. Once you get past a certain point, cameras used are irrelevant. It's about how you use it and knowing how to use it to get the best out of it.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 30, 2012)

I think Mikael Risedal has a point, in absolute terms, but he's taking it (or trying to) to a level of scientific precision that is of scarce relevance on the field. It's like arguing if you should put 100g or 101g of sugar in your cake.

Sony sensors perform better, we all know it. If someone had to upgrade to FF right now I would advise him to buy a D600 over a 6D, that's sure. The 5D3 is quite another camera though, with a set of features that are fundamental for the professional. That said, an amateur would find much more value on the D600, while the professional can't rely on it when it's time to nail the shot that makes you bring home the dinner.

My 2 cents.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 30, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The only metric I go by is keepers when I get home on my computer, and so far yes, the 5D3 and 1D4 have had a fair share of misses, but the 1DX I have had absolutely no misses.
> ...



*show me evidence*
[/quote]

I don't owe you any evidence, because I really don't give a crap what you think, honestly. All I know is that I have a pair of 1DX's, I'm making money, and I'm not having any misses. I'm happy. Are you?
[/quote]

*One thing are sure, the Sony sensors are unbeatable today, that we can measure.
I have not seen any AF tests who are valid so the statements like yours are highly subjective like Volvo is the best car etc
*
[/quote]

Yes, highly subjective. Again, I'm not interested in objective testing. I keep score via keepers and misses. That's what my work quality is based upon only; not lab testing.


----------



## AdamJ (Sep 30, 2012)

I'm hoping things will escalate from *bold type to CAPITAL BOLD TYPE, AND MAYBE FROM THERE TO REALLY BIG CAPITAL BOLD TYPE.*

Then we'll know he's   seriously annoyed.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 1, 2012)

Canon images have a "look" that Nikon can't quite match. Here are two pictures of my dog Scamp. Somehow, the Canon image is just more pleasing.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Oct 1, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> Canon images have a "look" that Nikon can't quite match. Here are two pictures of my dog Scamp. Somehow, the Canon image is just more pleasing.


D800, camera only a mother could love...?


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Oct 1, 2012)

After almost 6 months of internal debate (and renting the camera twice), i purchased a 5d MkIII last week. i'm no pro, its not my full time career, but i do make some income off my photography. The 5d MkIII isnt a perfect camera... i think its priced about 500.00 too high.. but i offset that 500.00 with credit card reward points. Nikon might have more mega-pixels. and higher dynamic range. All those specs sound amazing.. but in the end, i have a huge investment in canon lenses.. yes i could have sold them.. but that would take time.. lots of time. I also am very familiar with the canon interface and menu system.. dropping everything and moving to nikon is doable.. but is it worth the time? in my case i dont think so.. 

The nikon is probably a better camera.. but we're talking the difference between a porche and a ferrari.. and i'm honestly just driving around town. Looking at 500px and flickr.. there are plenty of truly breathtaking images coming out of both cameras. i will be happy to admit this camera is far more than i need.. and far more capable than i am. It does all i need, i see a CLEAR improvement over my 7D in low light situations. Its a far less noisy camera around ISO 2000 and above. 

The tools any artist uses is very personal.. and important.. but at some point you have to stop worrying about which tool is just a little bit better.. and start doing the actual art.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 1, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> 5dmk2 and d800 same exposure time, f-stop base iso
> 5dmk2 developed in camera raw and DPP and d800 in camera raw so that details/information can be seen equally in the white house wall and in the white towel in front of the garden house =high lights reproduction.
> Then we look in the shadows, low levels , an area is selected in the low levels and auto contrast is laid, auto contrast are showing levels , details, noise in the selected area , no personal influence , photoshop is calculating the signal level from the pixels values. This is the results of 2-3 extra stops DR in low levels. And how to use it- it is up to the photographer and the skills to use photoshop
> PS
> I have lent the raw files to a number of talented members at dpreview , they have all checked and verified the results by them selves.



Great comparison of noise at 100% scale vs. 66.7%!


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 1, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > 5dmk2 and d800 same exposure time, f-stop base iso
> ...



Well, on this he's right. A fair comparison requires the same resolution.


----------



## lucuias (Oct 2, 2012)

What is the point of comparison here.Canon 5D mark III is design with wedding photographer in mind where a body at half of 1dx price yet able to shoot in decent fast movements and high ISO capability.
In terms of high ISO,focusing tracking,focus point spread area and shooting at high speed(1/8000).Canon 5Dmark III beat Nikon D600.
As an experience photographer,I never had an image under expose more than 2 stop.In fact,I do sometimes over expose by 1 stop if I wanted to extract the shadow details via post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> nikon has the better sensors for pushing the shadows.
> there is no fanboy blahblah that can change that.
> 
> canon is lucky that a camera is more then the sensor.



Is it luck? Nikon has had 'the better sensors' for several years now...years during which Canon gained dSLR market share while Nikon lost dSLR market share. Doesn't sound like luck to me, sounds like Canon knows better where to spend their R&D yen in terms of what consumers really want, or at least their advertising yen...


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Oct 2, 2012)

Gadger said:


> I've got both the Canon 5D mk lll and the Nikon D600. Without the analysing between them, for me I bought the Nikon D600 to use while travelling, being ideal for lighter, smaller and reduced the lens weight.
> 
> My Canon lens 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L, 100-400 4/5.6L (also used to take the 70-200 2.8L IS, but stopped this lens a while ago due to the weight) to the Nikon lens setup of 16-35 F4 VR and 28-300 VR.
> 
> ...



Tip for travelling on airlines. Take your camera out of your bag and wear it on the shoulder straps. Pack it when you get on the plane (you can repack it after security if you like and then unpack it again if they check at the gate). I fly *a lot* i.e. 80 flights a year mix of short and long haul and I'm often carrying a lot of gear in carryon although I pick airlines like BA who have a 23kg carryon limit (provided you can lift it yourself with no assistance). I've never been asked to add the camera to the pack at check in.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I think that it has just taken time for the better sensors to get into camera models that actually get attention: D800 & D600.



Three years ago, the D7000's APS-C sensor was way 'better' than it's competitor, the 7D (in DxOMark-land). Which was more popular?


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 2, 2012)

Then Canon will bring out a new sensor and in turn Nikon will up their AF and ISO. Back and forth, this is how the game is played.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I think that it has just taken time for the better sensors to get into camera models that actually get attention: D800 & D600.
> ...



And while the geeks are yapping about miniscule differences in sensors, Canon is scooping up even more market share by discounting a four-year camera to undercut sales of the D600 and lock buyers into their system.


----------



## Albi86 (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > nikon has the better sensors for pushing the shadows.
> ...



Sure, and why would we care about that? Are we supposed to buy the better performing camera or the better marketed one? Nikon seems to be better addressing enthusiasts whereas Canon seems to better address consumers. Now, which ones are we?

And anyway I think I see more and more Nikon cameras around. Just an impression of course, can't quantify it or give it a wordwide validity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Are we supposed to buy the better performing camera or the better marketed one?



IMO, we should buy the better performing camera. But.....DxO does *not* test _cameras_.


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 2, 2012)

I just watched that D600 video making another point it's entry level...crippling it with 2 SD slots.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 2, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I have lent the raw files to a number of talented members at dpreview , they have all checked and verified the results by them selves.



you have lent those raw files in the past... why not again?


----------



## Mooose (Oct 2, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> 5dmk2 and d800 same exposure time, f-stop base iso
> 5dmk2 developed in camera raw and DPP and d800 in camera raw so that details/information can be seen equally in the white house wall and in the white towel in front of the garden house =high lights reproduction.
> Then we look in the shadows, low levels , an area is selected in the low levels and auto contrast is laid, auto contrast are showing levels , details, noise in the selected area , no personal influence , photoshop is calculating the signal level from the pixels values. This is the results of 2-3 extra stops DR in low levels. And how to use it- it is up to the photographer and the skills to use photoshop...



how did this thread go from comparing the 5D3 & D600 to comparing the 5D2 & D800? How about a Rebel xti versus a D4?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 3, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Freelancer said:
> ...



Sorry, I know neuro already did this, but I have to do it again:

DXO DOES NOT TEST CAMERAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 3, 2012)

Mooose said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > 5dmk2 and d800 same exposure time, f-stop base iso
> ...



Lol we might as well compare the 1DX to the D600. :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 3, 2012)

Don't laugh. There will be those who say the D600 is much better.


----------



## Cptn Rigo (Oct 3, 2012)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



+1000


----------



## Razor2012 (Oct 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Don't laugh. There will be those who say the D600 is much better.



Yes unfortunately there will be...still funny though.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 3, 2012)

can d600 have this kinda image quality LOL (shot with canon sd1300 out of camera jpeg). anyways, stop comparing brand please, it is just matter of taste. both brands are gooddddd....


----------



## No Worries (Oct 3, 2012)

Obviously the 5D Mark III is a great camera. But the Sony D600 is no slouch either.


----------



## generalstuff (Oct 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I think that it has just taken time for the better sensors to get into camera models that actually get attention: D800 & D600.
> ...



Yes, which one was it , I have not seen any soner SRL figures then this.
Photoscala has posted an interesting Gain & Loss analysis of the worldwide DSLR market, for the period 2006-2008. According to their findings Canon, who were the undisputed worldwide leaders in 2006, have lost 9 percentage points and barely managed to keep their number one position against Nikon, who have gained 4 percentage points in the meantime. The biggest winner is Sony, who managed to more than double their market share, and took the third position from Olympus with ease. The rest of the market is devoid of any major changes, although Panasonic has managed to double its share, partially owing to its introduction of the DMC-G1 (which is, technically speaking, not a DSLR, but is nevertheless included in the figures). Nota bene: Photoscala warns that these numbers, which were derived from multiple sources, are to be taken with a grain of salt, but allegedly “the tendencies have been captured quite accurately”.


----------



## jrista (Oct 3, 2012)

generalstuff said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Do you have actual numbers? Last I heard (and this is for 2011-2012, a *far more relevant timeframe than 2006-2008*), Canon held around 45% of the digital camera market, Nikon held about 28-29% of the market, and Sony around 10%. It is easy to grow, relatively speaking, by a huge amount when your market share is still only a fraction of what your main competitors have. Sony doubling their market share would mean going from 5% to 10% market share...which is still 1/5th of Canon's market share. (Ironically, I think Sony actually had a far greater percentage of market share in the past than they do now...on the order of 30%. Goes to show that as Nikon grows, it's Sony, not Canon, who is losing out. Makes for strange bedfellows.) And how does Canon having a 17% lead on Nikon mean they are "barely managed to keep their number one position against Nikon"? If the race was neck and neck, 30% vs. 29%, I'd call that "barely holding the lead"...but Canon is solidly in the lead right now. In 2010, Canon still had almost 45% of the market, and Nikon still had around 28-29%, so things have not really changed all that much lately.


----------

