How is the <$2000 D600 so much better than 5DmIII ???

Tmuussoni wrote in post #15486813
ok, thanks for the tip. For some reason I thought 5D3 has the same banding issue as 5D2, but if it's atleast reduced, that is very good news indeed. Bad news is I am wanting the 5D3 even more now

I was a bit worried when I first got it but my fears have been alleviated. Sorry for making you want one more.

gh patriot wrote in post #15486921
Ok... I'm happy for you that you dont have an issue with the 5D3 in low light. I posted the photo for tmuussoni and his concerns with banding which was bad at low ISO and terrible at high ISO - which is why I quoted him. I will however add that at 1600 and up (where I shoot alot) the dynamic range is roughly the same as the D600.

Yes, they're very close.
From 5D3
ISO 10000 with 70-200 2.8 IS MK II.

Having owned neither but used both i would say both lovely cameras. If it was purely down to IQ the sony made sensors as previously said seem to be well on top at the moment. This would point at DxO being right in their mark. t the end of the day it is normal for someone to defend their choice of equipment and to be fair both these models are top class in their price range.

I did find it amusing earlier though when it was said the 5D af is better (due its 61 points etc) but the image quality from the sensor is different. I dont particularly like DxO and maintain what i said earlier about in real life images it would be hard to see a difference,BUT in tests the d600 is better in IQ. If you only need a "very good" af system (and the af in the d600 is excellent, no 2 ways about it) and are not bound by lenses the d600 would probably be a more sensible choice, however if you need the superior af of the 5d or have lenses then it is a different story. I would be happy with either, both would work for me

jaomul wrote in post #15487092
I did find it amusing earlier though when it was said the 5D af is better (due its 61 points etc) but the image quality from the sensor is different.

What?

Well the AF is better due all the customization possiblities and speed etc etc, all agreed, but the dynamic range and IQ has been proved to be better than on the canon model but yet this is then described as DIFFERENT. If scientific testing is to be believed the af in the 5d is better than the d600 (not different) and the IQ on the nikon is better than the 5d (not different). Thats all i meant

jaomul wrote in post #15487244
Well the AF is better due all the customization possiblities and speed etc etc, all agreed, but the dynamic range and IQ has been proved to be better than on the canon model but yet this is then described as DIFFERENT. If scientific testing is to be believed the af in the 5d is better than the d600 (not different) and the IQ on the nikon is better than the 5d (not different). Thats all i meant

Oh thanks I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but now I see your point and agree as well.

hyogen wrote in post #15484381
Qft

I thought qft meant quit ****ing talking, and it made me lol.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15486847
I am in the process of switching from Canon to Leica M. I picked up a Leica MM and I am sold. It out performs the 5DIII in low light and the glass is like no other period. I am anxiously waiting to see the new M in the spring. Its going to take a few years but I am I will eventually have a couple of Ms or maybe an M-E which I actually prefer if the new CMOS works out and finds its way to the M-E.

You are spending SO much money...only to still be shooting...a crop sensor
(but i wont deny that the package its wrapped in isnt terrible)

I have both and like both of them. Of course there are the nit-pick things about both. I wish the Canon implemented auto iso as well as the Nikon and I wish the Nikon sensor didn't need daily sensor cleanings.

Once you get into the higher DXO scores when comparing sensors your skill will hinder or help you more than a specific camera body.

Every time I see a thread like this started I wonder why people think every other photographer on the planet has the exact same needs as one.
Some people seem to think if a camera has a lower DR, it's just garbage and shouldn't even be on the market in first place.

Well...I have some news for you, guys: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS AS MUCH DR AS YOU DO!

I myself don't need that much DR and am ÜBER happy with my "crappy 5D3".
It gives me the super fast, super precise, super consistent AF I need.
It gives me the per pixel sharpness I want.
It gives me the low noise at high ISOs that I wished for coming from a crop body.

Would it be nice if it had 1 gazzilion stops of DR? Of course it would!
But it doesn't. And is still an AWESOME camera. Love it.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15488048
Every time I see a thread like this started I wonder why people think every other photographer on the planet has the exact same needs as one.
Some people seem to think if a camera has a lower DR, it's just garbage and shouldn't even be on the market in first place.

Well...I have some news for you, guys: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS AS MUCH DR AS YOU DO!

I myself don't need that much DR and am ÜBER happy with my "crappy 5D3".
It gives me the super fast, super precise, super consistent AF I need.
It gives me the per pixel sharpness I want.
It gives me the low noise at high ISOs that I wished for coming from a crop body.

Would it be nice if it had 1 gazzilion stops of DR? Of course it would!
But it doesn't. And is still an AWESOME camera. Love it.

Waaah?

All joking aside, I love shooting both brands. It's the only way to win.

jdizzle wrote in post #15488054
Waaah?

All joking aside, I love shooting both brands. It's the only way to win.

Until you find a Leica guy and, man, get ready to listen about how bad your lenses are! :P

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15488660
Until you find a Leica guy and, man, get ready to listen about how bad your lenses are! :P

Hehe! My time will come again to own a Leica M.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #15488660
Until you find a Leica guy and, man, get ready to listen about how bad your lenses are! :P

Well the newest version of the 35 lux FLE is sharper at the corners than the 35 L is in the center and the new 50 cron is the sharpest 50 on the market but thats not everything as we all know. Doesn't mean Canon lenses are bad. Not at all. Rangefinder and DSLRs are just very different shooting experiences and what is good for one isn't for someone else. Now ya really want to see IQ and DR wait till ya see the landscapes from medium format and IIRC JD is getting a camera that also control perspective and has rise falls and tilts and shifts.

jdizzle wrote in post #15488680
Hehe! My time will come again to own a Leica M.

Nothin like it for the street and I am waiting to see the new M. In the meantime the MM is rocking my world. JD you gonna be in Chicago in April? Gotta one man show of the new work, most of it shot with the MM, opening in April. Will let you know the exact date and time of the opening and how long it will be up. Would be great to meet you.

pyrojim wrote in post #15487505
You are spending SO much money...only to still be shooting...a crop sensor
(but i wont deny that the package its wrapped in isnt terrible)

FYI, the Leica M9 and MM both have 24mm x 36mm sensors.