Forum

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: D600 overexposes just like the D7000  (Read 3930 times)
funniq
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



« on: October 13, 2012, 09:26:58 PM »

This a comment for this page on the website
I saw some real life test on the www about the fact that the D600 overexposes. That was the reason why I sold my D7000 and use my 'old' D90.

Can anyone explain me why this D600 with such a bad exposure algorithm gets such a good score on DxOMark ...

I almost wonder if Nikon sponsors this site???? ;-)

Kind regards, André
Logged
Nerval
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2012, 07:42:06 AM »

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D600">this page on the website</a></div>I saw some real life test on the www about the fact that the D600 overexposes. That was the reason why I sold my D7000 and use my 'old' D90.

Can anyone explain me why this D600 with such a bad exposure algorithm gets such a good score on DxOMark ...

I almost wonder if Nikon sponsors this site?Huh ;-)

Kind regards, André

Might be because DXO Tests the sensor raw output and not the camera. And the sensor is indeed very good.

As for your problem with the D7000, it is not really a problem, new sensors are tuned up to be more sensitive.

So using base iso like 200 or 100 is often pulled, and not the real sensor ISO, so it tends to "over expose", but that's the idea getting more photons in order to get more information on the darker areas of the image and so less noise.

Knowing that, if you're shooting raw, you are able to recover about a stop and a half of highlights dynamic range anyway (except if the highlights are really blown up), so it's all right.

If you dislike the output and do not wish to toy with the raw, just use the center weighed average measure, aim at your subject and use AEL to lock the exposure setting and compensate by minus 0.7 ev it should do the trick.
Just a question of getting used to the gear.

Anyway for careful exposure, nothing is more reliable than a spot or an area measure, global average measure are rarely good, either too conservative or to prone to highlights clipping. IMO
Logged
DinoBravo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2012, 10:50:38 PM »

Wow go Nikon go!!! HA HA     Trouble is it's not real world.

How does DXO explain low light performance when the 600 is bad @ iso 3200 and not usable after that??  and they say its basically the best W T F ?     



No good DXO, even your own tests show different to you results and scores.  Oh no Nikon dose not do well no worries we'll post it as the BEST - yeah  Grin

The 800 again noise is worse than others and all that res ? what did they do with it?   Every real world testing and my own tells and shows why Nikon are cheaper and why they are semi pro cameras.     DXO should put the coolpix camera as top dog ! score of 120 ha ha   
Logged
gkanitz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2012, 09:49:37 AM »

1) The tendency to overexpose cannot be judged by some images published on the internet.  Unless the images were taken under controlled conditions the result reflects the knowledge of the user more than the qualities of a camera.  If you want real world tests of the D600 and other cameras I suggest you look at www.dpreview.com

2) Correct exposure is a function of the camera's light meter system not the sensor.  A camera with the worst sensor in the world could have the most accurate metering system and produce perfectly exposed images, albeit of limited quality due to the bad sensor.  The opposite situation is also possible.

3) Regardless of the DXO mark, the only real test for a camera is in the hands of the user.  There is no “bad” camera among current crop of advanced semi-pro and professional DSLR’s  no matter what make you look at.  The decision comes down to which feature sets at a given budget are the best fit for your specific needs.  At any one time there will always be one manufacturer that has just leapfrogged the rest and be at the top of technical ratings like DXO Mark, but the real world implications of this are for 99,9% of the photographers out there, just a curiosity, not relevant in real world terms.

4) Last but not least I'll tell you my personal experience with the D600.  After 4 years using a D300 which is a fantastic camera I switched to a D600 and it is so much better than the D300 as to consider it in a different league.  And BTW it does not overexpose.  It has the most accurate meter I have had to date.  My previous cameras have been D100, D80 and D300.
Logged
Nerval
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2012, 12:24:51 AM »

Wow go Nikon go!!! HA HA     Trouble is it's not real world.

How does DXO explain low light performance when the 600 is bad @ ISO 3200 and not usable after that??  and they say its basically the best W T F ?     



No good DXO, even your own tests show different to you results and scores.  Oh no Nikon dose not do well no worries we'll post it as the BEST - yeah  Grin

The 800 again noise is worse than others and all that res ? what did they do with it?   Every real world testing and my own tells and shows why Nikon are cheaper and why they are semi pro cameras.     DXO should put the coolpix camera as top dog ! score of 120 ha ha   

Right... Sure... Know what? Get the D800 and the D600 in a store, take a couple of shots with your card and then process the raw files... You can print ISO 3200 on 60*40 cm with arguably NO NOISE.

Viewing D800 files on a 24" HD Screen @ 100% is equivalent at looking at an 8.3 x 5.5 feet tall print...

DxO is a company based in France, and if you wanna check their AR is available on infogreffe.fr the French trade registry agency.

Stop raging, seriously. Want to have a proof go shoot full frame. Take D800 and D600 raw file, no noise reduction then take 5DIII 6D raw files no noise reduction, reduce the Nikon files to 21.1 MP (like the canon's) and then watch again at 100%.

You'll see, Nikon SNR is better. Fact. By a margin, but better. Now, instead of raging about something so petty while most of us do not even print bigger than 60*40 cm (24"x16"), people should understand that by today's standard in IQ, at least in FF, there are maybe more relevant issues while evaluating a system than sheer pixel peeping sensor performance...

I use Nikon for instance, and I have criticism about some ergonomics in their cameras or other features, and about the lens line-up as well. If anything should be criticized IMO it's that.

But for that you would have to actually go shoot with one, instead of bashing something that you never ever cared to try...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines