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

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15479421
If you have to ask why a cheaper camera is better than a more expensive camera, then you’re asking the wrong question.

is that better? happy now.

hyogen wrote in post #15479549
sorry, but this is the most retarded comment in the entire thread. check the details and your spelling and try again

Well if you don't understand what the differences are between the cameras then you don't understand the gear. While sure they all can control shutter speed and aperture and have ISO settings, it's beyond those settings that makes the camera different.

If you just look at AF, the 5Dmk3 will run rings around the AF that's in the D600. That in it's self can be worth the money difference. But even if you look at the other things that makes a difference, even the quality of the images coming from the 5Dmk3 are different than what you get from D600. Understanding your gear is one the most important things as a photographer you need to do. If your not getting the correct exposure out of your camera then you need to understand why.

So perhaps that's why the most retarded question in the post is "How is the <$2000 D600 so much better than 5DmIII"

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15479915
is that better? happy now.

Well if you don't understand what the differences are between the cameras then you don't understand the gear. While sure they all can control shutter speed and aperture and have ISO settings, it's beyond those settings that makes the camera different.

If you just look at AF, the 5Dmk3 will run rings around the AF that's in the D600. That in it's self can be worth the money difference. But even if you look at the other things that makes a difference, even the quality of the images coming from the 5Dmk3 are different than what you get from D600. Understanding your gear is one the most important things as a photographer you need to do. If your not getting the correct exposure out of your camera then you need to understand why.

So perhaps that's why the most retarded question in the post is "How is the <$2000 D600 so much better than 5DmIII"

Harsh in the delivery, but I agree

mystik610 wrote in post #15479984
Harsh in the delivery, but I agree

Thanks, perhaps a should have been added somewhere

sorry mate, didn't sleep last night and read your comment as very snobbish, while most others seemed to be at least somewhat constructive I only took a few hour nap today. I have a question for you--do you watch The flight of the conchords? ;D

It's not. I don't need to expand

It's not better. The end.

hyogen wrote in post #15480334
sorry mate, didn't sleep last night and read your comment as very snobbish, while most others seemed to be at least somewhat constructive I only took a few hour nap today. I have a question for you--do you watch The flight of the conchords? ;D

lol, nope never seen the show shocking I know since they are fellow countrymen but in saying that I haven't seen the hobbit either.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15480519
lol, nope never seen the show shocking I know since they are fellow countrymen but in saying that I haven't seen the hobbit either.

LoL Hobbit and FOTC are both great!

haha if you say so. I might get around to it one day.

Hey, I started the thread about great cameras and lenses and how bad they can still suck here - https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15480818#po​st15480818

Hogloff wrote in post #15479510
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.

I sometimes wonder if you actually bother reading what's posted to you, or just answer according to what you want :/
Read my words again: walls of text are useless to me. I want full res photos to judge by myself. You can write 100 pages of information about how good or bad a sensor/lens is, but without actual photos, it's useless to me, and to many others. And unlike what you think, it's not because we're butt hurt that our cameras didn't score high, but because it really is useless, we want full res photos to see if the sharpness is acceptable, if the DR is enough, if the noise is too high...a wall of text doesn't give us that, a photo will.
If I want to compare how two sensors behave under the same conditions this site is awful. It tells me what a computer program (which unlike what you think, aren't flawless) found out, not what I'm looking for in a review. If that's your thing, well, more power to you.

gh patriot wrote in post #15478489
No but I have never heard a legitimite claim that its better than the 5D3 either.So did I just suddenly get better or did the 5D3 autofocus system make a difference?

The D600 AF is very good. I use it quite a bit along with my 5D3. If you really need to know, the 5D3 made you better bcoz' of it's AF system. If you want to me to kill your curiosity, the D600 DR put a whoopin' on the 5D3.

ohansen wrote in post #15479649
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.

You should see what a D600 is capable of in low light. I've fumbled a few shots and I was able to recover detail that the 5D3 sensor can't. Canon's sensors are way behind in DR.

KhaledA wrote in post #15482522
I sometimes wonder if you actually bother reading what's posted to you, or just answer according to what you want :/
Read my words again: walls of text are useless to me. I want full res photos to judge by myself. You can write 100 pages of information about how good or bad a sensor/lens is, but without actual photos, it's useless to me, and to many others. And unlike what you think, it's not because we're butt hurt that our cameras didn't score high, but because it really is useless, we want full res photos to see if the sharpness is acceptable, if the DR is enough, if the noise is too high...a wall of text doesn't give us that, a photo will.
If I want to compare how two sensors behave under the same conditions this site is awful. It tells me what a computer program (which unlike what you think, aren't flawless) found out, not what I'm looking for in a review. If that's your thing, well, more power to you.

I'm going to have to burst your bubble. If you read into the DR numbers of the D800/D600, it falls in line with DXO. I'm a landscape guy and DR is important to me. My 1Ds III is still the DR king compared to the 1D X and 5D III.

jdizzle wrote in post #15482786
I'm going to have to burst your bubble. If you read into the DR numbers of the D800/D600, it falls in line with DXO. I'm a landscape guy and DR is important to me. My 1Ds III is till the DR king compared to the 1D X and 5D III.

Did you ever get your med format stuff?