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

How about you just go and shoot? I have never looked at a photo and said, "I bet that was taken with a Canon" or "That has to be a Nikon camera that took that"

I do.. All the time

And that's not what I do..I'm saying it's not hard to tell whether especially a portrait was shot with a full frame or crop sensor... Unless I guess in the realm of nikons, their crop sensors like D300s rival the color depth of canon full frames...

Someone said something about color noise? I don't think that's what they're testing...


From their site: Portrait Score
The Portrait Score is defined as the color depth performance and its unit is a number of bits.
A color depth of 22bits is excellent, differences below 1 bit are barely noticeable.
This score is named "Portrait" because generally what matters most when shooting portraits is to aim for the richest color rendition.
Read more about Portrait Score.

This is what I think is the telltale difference in portraits. (Skin tones especially)

Hogloff wrote in post #15478465
Maybe for you, but I would rather have scientific repeatable tests that are duplicated on different cameras so we can compare apples to apples. Taking a picture of a cat is not reproducible, repeatable between cameras or in fact with the same camera. Also, sharpness is but just one attribute of a camera that needs to be tested and in fact the sharpness of your cat is more dependent on the lens and not the camera.

I never said sharpness is the only attribute to judge a photo. You're the one who started talking about sharpness, and I just used it as an example. And I didn't say sharpness is a camera thing, so please don't put words into my mouth.

Repeatable tests are one thing, but numbers only are a whole other thing. Yes, it's not ideal, but a picture of a cat in a dark ally for example (full res obviously) would tell me a whole lot more about the camera and lens' abilities than just some random numbers and a wall of text without any single photo to prove the point.

hyogen wrote in post #15478906
Oh, i didn't think thats what you said. besides, those are pretty much my best shots, but it has been frustrating since i feel I've reached the ceiling and its not high enough for me when it comes to portraits. Im sure i could improve in general even with this rebel, but what more can i do than use pretty quality lenses in raw and iso100? I'll rent a FF soon I guess. I haven't really played around with flash at all yet...just fast primes so far. I'm trying to figure out what the best light modifier for my needs would be. So far, bounced flash and black foamie thing are just ok.


If the Overlord aka government/wife would just say the word, I'd in a heartbeat trade my stuff for a FF and less lenses.

Haha! Dont leave out your post processing skills too. Theyre probably equally as important as shooting skills. What is it exactly that youre not liking about your shots. I particularly like the two of the woman in the field. They look like off camera flash. This one - http://500px.com/photo​/22777183

JakAHearts wrote in post #15478954
Haha! Dont leave out your post processing skills too. Theyre probably equally as important as shooting skills. What is it exactly that youre not liking about your shots. I particularly like the two of the woman in the field. They look like off camera flash. This one - http://500px.com/photo​/22777183

Believe me, I spend a lot of time in Lightroom as for photoshop I don't know what all there is to do..

I read people use the dodge and burn...but I dunno where I should do that (for portraits).

I tried the liquify tool to try to shave off some pounds off my face....didn't work like the tutorial site!

The picture you linked to is a recent one of mine with no flash...it is a better one shot at iso100 which helped. I added light leaks in PS Someone also recently taught me how to paint a glow effect in PS also which I used in a different photo. http://500px.com/photo​/22122681

And here's one like the one you linked to without the light leaks. http://500px.com/photo​/21462265

By the way, that's the stone-hearted Overlord, who demands that I learn patience and discipline :'(

I did these modifications to these particular photos because I wasn't happy with the tone I got after much playing around in Lightroom -.-

I'm recently trying to push my limits with this rebel. As far as composition goes, I'm sure there's always room to improve, but skin tones are something I wish I could improve somehow. Perhaps you answered the question with off-camera lighting. I just ordered a ttl cable and will probably get a wireless transmitter such as yongnuo rf-603.......later, yn-622c

Its not a bad photo by any means.

Check out some of this guys earlier portrait work. The skin tones look good to me! http://500px.com/photo​/7728422

I noticed youre shooting wide open on a lot of your portraits as well. Try stopping down and shooting at ISO200, 400, 800 and even 1600. I had a T1i, its capable of nice clean iso1600 images.

JakAHearts wrote in post #15479028
Its not a bad photo by any means.

Check out some of this guys earlier portrait work. The skin tones look good to me! http://500px.com/photo​/7728422

I noticed youre shooting wide open on a lot of your portraits as well. Try stopping down and shooting at ISO200, 400, 800 and even 1600. I had a T1i, its capable of nice clean iso1600 images.

Hmm thanks..you're right his pics are pretty nice.. looks like he's using a nice diffused light. I try to shoot at low ISO not for less noise, but for better color and dynamic range.

Stop down to make the photo more sharp in general?

hyogen wrote in post #15479052
Hmm thanks..you're right his pics are pretty nice.. looks like he's using a nice diffused light. I try to shoot at low ISO not for less noise, but for better color and dynamic range.

Stop down to make the photo more sharp in general?

Correct. Stopping down will give you more depth of field AND sharper images within that area. I wouldnt worry about the limited dynamic range by using higher ISOs, I doubt youd notice until 6400 on your body.

JakAHearts wrote in post #15479065
Correct. Stopping down will give you more depth of field AND sharper images within that area. I wouldnt worry about the limited dynamic range by using higher ISOs, I doubt youd notice until 6400 on your body.

I can definitely start to tell color loss at iso1600

I'm no pro so take this for what it's worth. If your main concern is the quality of light and color, and skin tones in portraits the camera isn't the issue - it's lighting. All the good portrait shooters I've seen are masters of controlling light, usually with a variety of methods including multiple off camera flashes, fixed lights and reflectors. I think any modern DSLR is capable of fantastic results for portrait work, and any differences (beyond resolution) at any normal portrait ISO's is going to be subtle to the point of nearly invisible.

Brings up an interesting sidebar: anyone know good references for lighting for us amateurs? I'm thinking "quick and dirty" secrets type of info for those who want to go beyond on-camera bounced flash but don't have interest in setting up a full studio situation. Thinking of simple fill flash scenarios, maybe one or two off camera flashes (esp if you have a 7D that can control them easily), simple reflector use.

lungdoc wrote in post #15479309
Brings up an interesting sidebar: anyone know good references for lighting for us amateurs? I'm thinking "quick and dirty" secrets type of info for those who want to go beyond on-camera bounced flash but don't have interest in setting up a full studio situation. Thinking of simple fill flash scenarios, maybe one or two off camera flashes (esp if you have a 7D that can control them easily), simple reflector use.

The strobist blog is the closest thing to what you are looking for I think.

If you have to ask why a cheaper camera may be better than the a more expensive camera then your asking the wrong question.

KhaledA wrote in post #15478940
I never said sharpness is the only attribute to judge a photo. You're the one who started talking about sharpness, and I just used it as an example. And I didn't say sharpness is a camera thing, so please don't put words into my mouth.

Repeatable tests are one thing, but numbers only are a whole other thing. Yes, it's not ideal, but a picture of a cat in a dark ally for example (full res obviously) would tell me a whole lot more about the camera and lens' abilities than just some random numbers and a wall of text without any single photo to prove the point.

That's your problem. You take their scoring system to heart. Throw that away and actually read how they do their testing and exactly what they are testing and you might just get a better opinion about DXO. If you actually want to compare apples to apples how two different sensors will behave under certain conditions, this site is great. If all you do is see where your camera lines up in their final grade...then this site will disappoint. Too many people just want the executive summary without understanding the detail.

Huh...my camera scored an 85 and yours only got a 79. Mine is better than yours mentality.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15479421
If you have to ask why a cheaper camera may be better than the a more expensive camera then your asking the wrong question.

sorry, but this is the most retarded comment in the entire thread. check the details and your spelling and try again

I don't understand why we have to get into a hissy fit about these numbers, or try to discredit them. Click the "Measurements" tab and inspect the results a bit closer. The D600 mostly wins by having (according to DXO) better dynamic range at low ISO. Go to higher ISOs and the lead becomes much smaller.

I've played with the D600. We here should actually take our hats off for what Nikon has achieved with the D600, at that price point, and be grateful for competition that keeps Canon on its toes. But for the overwhelming majority of us other things than the difference in the DXO scores between these particular bodies will be of importance.