I preordered my Nikon D600 on Monday, and was amazed to find that Nikon actually shipped the camera on time, and I was able to pick it up on Tuesday night! I was very impressed with this, especially considering that a lot of D800 preorders are only now being filled...

I thought that it would be worth it for me to post my thoughts on the camera so far along with a few sample images. I realise that the camera's been out for almost a week now, so the hype is probably starting to die down, but I wanted to give myself a few days to familiarise myself with the camera before posting anything about it...

This is not a comprehensive or empirical review, I'll leave that to DP Review, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

Here is the D600 (right) beside the D7000 (left) for a direct size comparison (I apologise for the mobile phone shots):

And the Nikon D600 mirror (the sensor being the same size) compared with the D7000 mirror, to give an idea of the difference between DX and FX if you are unfamiliar:

Build Quality & Ergonomics

As you can see, I was upgrading from the D7000, and I was expecting the build quality to be practically the same. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the camera does feel a little bit more substantial and well built than the D7000 (which was already quite well built) while still being small enough to be quite portable. While it's not a D800 or a D4, it still definitely feels very nice.

Ergonomically, the button placement and dials are very similar to the D7000. One of the biggest things that I thoroughly appreciate compared with the D7000, however, is that the mode dial now has a lock button (see the top view below). I've heard that some people don't like this, but the number of times I've accidentally nudged the D7000 into the wrong mode is just ridiculous. This is a small but great new feature for me.

Like the D7000, there are fewer external controls compared with the higher end D800 and D4, such as physical selectors for focus and metering modes. Instead there is the Exposure mode button (as can be seen in the above photo next to the record button), and the focus select button as shown below, both of which require a button hold + dial turn. No big deal (unless you're working super fast or wearing gloves, I guess...).

The rear of the camera is very similar to the D7000, with buttons for White Balance, Quality, ISO as well as the standard menu, playback, delete buttons, an 8-way selector, focus lock switch, AE-L/AF-L button (sadly no AF-On button, but I just set my AE-L/AF-L button to be used for focus in the menus).

The only real difference over the D7000 is that there is now a Live View selector now has a switch to switch between stills and video, and the record button is now on the top next to the shutter.

There is a DoF Preview button and a Function button on the front, both of which are programmable and useful.

The camera also has a pop-up flash, which I'll never use, and a lovely FX badge to make all of your friends jealous and show off how professional you are.

The only real issue that I have with the design is that the hinge for the door covering the card slots (dual card slots, though, which is nice...) is very flimsy. I feel like it could easily snap off if someone bumped into it while it was open...

Shooting with the camera

The camera is fast, responsive and pleasant to shoot with, especially as an upgrade from DX. It's a pleasant experience to finally be able to get the most out of my FX lenses.

The focus is fast and accurate with both my 50mm f/1.4 G and my 85mm f/1.4 G, although the focus points are all concentrated in the middle of the frame. In fact, everything about the camera feels very swift and responsive.

I haven't tried any of the scene modes, but I have been shooting a bit on Aperture Priority, and I've found the metering to be pretty spot on on the full scene metering modes. In fact, in the short time I've had with it, I've found the metering to be more accurate than most cameras I've used in the past. This might just be my perception, though...

There's also a surprisingly useful DX crop mode, which still spits out 10.5 megapixel images. I've got a couple of DX lenses that I haven't replaced yet, so this is nice to have, but it's also useful to get a bit of extra reach out of FX lenses, AND it can be assigned to a function button.

The ISO range also goes all the way down to ISO 50, which is great if you ever shoot in the studio like I do! (It also goes up to 6400 in the recommended range, and to 25,600 as a High 2 option)

Overall, I'm thoroughly enjoying shooting with the camera so far. With the D7000, I was always acutely aware that it was a crop frame whenever I picked it up, and it ultimately became quite annoying. I feel like the D600, though, is going to be a camera that I will enjoy using for a long while.

Image Quality

With its 24 megapixels, the D600 is certainly not a low-end medium format killer like the D800/E, though it is on par with all other DSLR's currently on the market as far as resolution, and it's definitely no slouch, especially at its price point.

I haven't had a chance to shoot in the studio with the camera yet, but I've been taking it around with me, so here are some sample images, alongside some 100% crops for the pixel peepers.

100% crop:

---

100% crop:

Now mind you, the above image was shot at ISO 3200. I'll get back to ISO performance later...

---

100% crop:

---

As you can see, the 24 megapixel files are quite nice and detailed, and probably equivalent to most other full frame DSLR's on the market around the 20ish megapixel mark. 

Frustratingly, there's no third party camera raw support yet, so the only options are to either shoot JPEG, or to use Nikon's ViewNX software (which is bundled with the camera, and is admittedly not too bad). Of course, this will come soon in software updates...

ISO Performance

I've taken some sample shots throughout the ISO range and uploaded them to flickr at original size, if you're interested. Otherwise, just take a look through the slideshows, and then the 100% crops below.

I'm very impressed with the ISO performance of this camera. Unless I was shooting in the studio, I would be quite happy to shoot at ISO 3200 or even 6400 on this camera, as it gives surprisingly good results. In fact, I had a look at some Nikon D4 samples at similar ISO speeds earlier, and I had a hard time picking the difference.

The High modes are a bit too noisy for my liking, but at least they're there if you need them.

ISO performance wasn't really a deciding factor for me in buying the camera, but I've been very impressed, to the point that it makes me want to shoot in natural light more! haha

Video

For me, the video modes are a bit hit and miss, unfortunately. The footage at 1080p is nice and sharp, with only very slight moire and very minimal rolling shutter, and this is a big positive. The footage also holds up well at higher ISO's.

The footage also has a fairly good amount of dynamic range when shot on a Neutral picture profile with contrast turned down. I would guess that Canon probably still has a bit of an edge since they have the Cinestyle log format, but I don't have a 5D MkIII to test (If anyone would like to see that comparison, I know a few people who have MkIII's; post a comment and I'll ask see if I can get my hands on one)...

Unfortunately, there are some nuances, and in my mind also a few missed opportunities.

Nikon have greatly improved their video modes since the D90 was released, but it seems almost like they've stopped trying to push the envelope since the D800 was released.

Admittedly, this is a lower end camera than the D800, but on the other hand, this camera could have been a big opportunity for Nikon to win cinematographers back from Canon.

Unlike Canon, Nikon does not have to worry about making its video functions in its DSLR's better than the video functions in its cinema cameras, because it doesn't make cinema cameras..! If Nikon had really gone all out on the video modes of this camera, then they could easily have won a lot of market share back from Canon.

Unfortunately, cinematographers already shooting Canon are likely to be disappointed with this camera. Yes, there are manual levels and headphone monitoring, but it is not possible to change levels while recording. Unlike the D800 and D4, it's also impossible to change aperture while in live view. 

Lack of variable aperture is a huge disappointment for anyone hoping to really get into shooting video. It's also something that can't be fixed through a firmware update. Really, the only way to get around this would be to either buy older manual focus Nikon lenses and modify them to have a smooth aperture, or to buy Zeiss Compact Primes (although the new Samyang cinema lenses look promising...).

I haven't yet been able to test the HDMI output, so I can't confirm whether uncompressed video is available, but I'm slightly worried about this, as the highest quality HDMI output option that I could find in the menu was 1080i (see below).

I don't have a D800 to compare this to, but I think that if you set this to Auto, it should default to 1080p... If anyone knows what options the D800 has for HDMI output, and if this is even the setting to be looking at for uncompressed HDMI recording, please let me know in a comment. Or if anyone wants to send me an HDMI recorder, I can test this...! *hint hint*

The camera can do 60fps at 720p, and that's nice, but no longer groundbreaking, either.

Conclusion

So far, I'm very impressed with the image quality and ISO performance of this camera, especially for its price point. It's definitely great value, and a great upgrade to the D7000 or any DX body.

I would also imagine that this would also be a nice upgrade for anyone shooting with an older FX body.

The camera has good video functionality, but is let down by some quirks and missed opportunities, such as the inability to change audio levels while recording, and the inability to change the aperture at all while in live view. If you are seriously interested in shooting video, you would be better of with a D800 if you can afford it (or a Canon, as sad as I am to say......).

This is an excellent (and excellent value) still camera, and despite a few missed opportunities and annoying quirks when it comes to video, I feel like this is a camera that I will enjoy using and one that I would very easily recommend to others.

Introduction

Since Nikon announced the D800 back in February, many people jumped all over it, claiming it to be a medium format killer, and a lot of non-empirical comparisons (for example the Nikon D800 vs Hasselblad H4D-40 video that's been circulating on Youtube) have been circulating online.

In addition to existing comparisons, DXOmark has also tested the D800 extensively, and found that it is currently a very high performer as far as ISO performance, bit depth and dynamic range are concerned.

However, I have not yet seen any direct comparisons between the D800 and medium format digital as far as resolution is concerned. This was a big question on my mind considering the huge price difference between the D800 and even the low end medium format cameras...

When shooting film, the size of the film grains in a stock are the same whether shooting medium format or 35mm; medium format simply has more grains over a greater area. Thus, a larger frame (given similar quality optics and the same film stock) would always yield a higher resolution image.

While this same principle applies in the world of digital, there is now another variable in the number of pixels on the sensor.

Clearly, at some point, the number of pixels in a 35mm digital sensor will exceed the potential resolving power of 35mm lenses. I wondered if this point had been reached at 36 megapixels with the Nikon D800, and whether there is an advantage in resolution to be gained by shooting with a larger sensor with a similar number of pixels.

I was very interested, then, when given the opportunity to directly compare a Nikon D800 and a Sinar Hy6 with a 33 megapixel eMotion 75 back...

Note: I wanted to include the test methodology and analysis for those interested, but for the tl;dr version, just scroll straight to the conclusion.

Test methodology

I photographed a Siemens star chart at a distance of 100x the focal length of the lens being used. This allows a direct calculation of camera resolution in lines per millimeter, which can then be multiplied into the physical size of the sensor to calculate the actual resolution of the sensor.

I shot the Nikon with a 50mm f/1.4G and the Sinar with a Rollei 80mm lens, bracketing through every f/stop to find the aperture which achieved maximum sharpness.

I used a 1 second shutter delay with the D800, and shot with the self timer to minimize camera shake. I used autofocus, and shot two shots in a row, as the autofocus for some reason was less accurate on the first frame.

While the Sinar Hy6 has autofocus, I found that it was so awful that I had to use manual focus. I was as accurate as possible with my manual focussing, and moved the focus back and forth and checked at 100% until I achieved the most accurate focus that I could.

I shot in the studio to achieve the maximum sharpness that I could.

I then compared the images at every aperture to find the aperture which yielded maximum resolution, calculated the resolution in lines per millimetre, and then multiplied this by the height and width of the sensor for each camera.

Notes and caveats

There are probably other ways to test camera resolution, but this is a method which I was taught a while ago, and something that was easy for me to repeat in the short amount of time that I had with these cameras.

While I would have loved to shoot a full resolution chart, all I had access to was a simple Siemens Star Chart. This meant that I was only able to test centre sharpness, but as I was primarily interested in seeing what each camera's resolving power is in optimal conditions anyway, and the highest resolution point of most lenses is in the middle of the frame, I did not consider this an issue.

As you will see, using this method, the target appears a different size in each frame. However, the projected image of the target will have been the exact same physical size on the sensor for each camera, and this is what the comparison will be based off.

What this does mean, though, is that there is a bit of maths required to actual come up with a final conclusion and comparison.

Nikon D800 test:

Sinar Hy6 with eMotion 75 test:

Crunching the results

Sinar Hy6

I found that the Sinar achieved its highest resolution at f/5.6.

In order to calculate the resolution in lines per millimeter, we need to figure out the physical size of the pixels in each sensor. The physical dimension of the eMotion 75 back is 48mm x 36mm and the pixel resolution is 6668 x 4992. Taking the horizontal axis, by dividing 48 by 6668, we find that each pixel is 0.007198mm (which is also confirmed in the datasheet for this back). On the vertical axis, 36mm divided by 4992 is 0.007211.

Therefore, the size of each pixel is 0.007198mm x 0.007211mm, which we can round to 0.0072²mm.

Knowing this, the images can then be analysed in Photoshop to find the circumference of what I'll call the "mush circle" - the circle of unresolved detail when zoomed to 100+%

This "mush circle" was found to be 18 pixels in diameter.

knowing that each pixel is 0.0072²mm, we can find the diameter of the "mush circle" in mm by multiplying 0.0072mm by 18, which yields a diameter of 0.1296mm.

If we multiply the diameter by pi, we can find the circumference of the "mush circle" - 0.1296 x 3.141592654 = 0.40715mm

Knowing that this is a 30 line star chart, we can divide 30 by 0.40715 to find the resolution in lines per millimeter to be 73.682 lines per millimeter.

This metric does not tell the whole story, however, as we still need to take into account the size of the sensor. Knowing how many lines per millimeter the sensor is able to resolve, we can multiply the height and the width respectively by the resolution in lines per millimeter, to find the maximum number of lines which the sensor is able to resolve.

The sensor is 48mm wide by 36mm high, so the sensor would be able to resolve 3536.73 lines on the horizontal axis, and 2652.522 lines on the vertical axis.

Since each camera has a different aspect ration, we can multiply the horizontal resolution by the vertical resolution to find the total resolution of the camera in an arbitrary unit which we can call "lines per square millimeter" - 3536.73 x 2652.522 = 9378601.61 "lines per square millimeter"

---

Perhaps a more reasonable metric for comparison is maximum print size at an arbitrary, standard viewing distance at which the eye could resolve 5 lines per millimeter. If we divide the lines per millimeter by 5, we can find the amount of enlargement which we could make to a print, and from there find the print size in centimetres; a much more approachable metric.

73.682 / 5 = 14.7364, so the image could be enlarged for print by 14.7364 times. This means that the maximum print size for an arbitrarily standard viewing distance would be (48mm x 14.7364) x (36mm x 14.7364) or 707.3472mm x 530.5104mm or 70.73cm x 53.51cm

This information could also be used to find the maximum print size, assuming a standard viewing distance, for example...

Nikon D800

The process is repeated for the Nikon D800 file.

The Nikon D800 sensor is 35.9 x 24mm, with a pixel resolution of 7360 x 4912. Highest resolution was achieved at f/8.

35.9 / 7360 = 0.0048777mm and 22 / 4912 = 0.0048859mm. These are close enough to square pixels that we can round these to 0.00488²mm

The diameter of the "mush circle" for the Nikon D800 is 20 pixels.

20 pixels multiplied by 0.00488mm = 0.0976mm diameter

0.0976 multiplied by pi = 0.306619mm circumference of "mush circle"

Again, as this is a 30 line star chart, 30 divided by 0.306619 = 97.8412 lines per millimetre

Factoring in sensor size, 97.8412 x 35.9 = 3512.502 lines horizontal resolution and 97.8412 x 24 = 2348.1888 lines vertical resolution.

Since each camera has a different aspect ration, we can multiply the horizontal resolution by the vertical resolution to find the total resolution of the camera in an arbitrary unit which we can call "lines per square millimeter" - 3512.502 x 2348.1888 = 8248017.85 "lines per square millimeter"

---

Again, to come up with a more reasonable metric for comparison, we can calculate maximum print size at 5 lines per millimeter. 

97.8412 / 5 = 19.56824, so the image could be enlarged for print by 19.56824 times. This means that the maximum print size for an arbitrarily standard viewing distance would be (35.9mm x 19.56824) x (24mm x 19.56824) or 702.499816mm x 469.63776 or 70.25cm x 46.96cm

Conclusions and Discussion (or "the tl;dr version")

I expect that this is what most people will read...

To summarise the above, the resolution in lines per millimeter of the Sinar with 80mm lens was 73.682 lines per millimeter, and the resolution in lines per millimeter of the Nikon with 50mm f/1.4G lens was 97.8412 lines per millimetre.

When factored into sensor size, the Sinar gained a very, very slight overall lead against the Nikon thanks to its larger sensor (48mm x 36mm), with a horizontal resolution of 3536.73 lines and a vertical resolution of 2652.522 lines compared with the Nikon D800's horizontal resolution of 3512.502 lines and vertical resolution of 2348.1888 lines.

Though both cameras have different aspect ratios, it can be seen that, despite the Sinar's 3 million fewer pixels, it achieves a negligibly higher horizontal resolution, and a very slightly higher vertical resolution.

To put this in the context of maximum printable size at an arbitrarily standard viewing distance at which the eye could resolve 5 lines per millimeter, this is the difference between making a 70.73cm x 53.51cm print with the Sinar and a 70.25cm x 46.96cm print with the Nikon D800. 

To put this in perspective, last year I conducted the same test with a Nikon D7000 and found that the maximum print size (again assuming the same standard viewing distance) would be 42.79cm x 28.29cm...

Final Thoughts

My primary motivation in shooting this comparison was to determine if the Nikon D800 can really keep up with lower end medium format digital cameras, as many have claimed and argued. Interestingly, it seems that, yes, the Nikon D800 can in fact hold its own when compared with a 33 megapixel medium format back.

It also seems that, with the 36 megapixel D800, 35mm cameras may in fact have reached a point where lens resolution is now the limiting factor.

The fact that the Sinar, with its 3 fewer megapixels, was able to achieve very slightly higher resolution than the D800 is indicative that packing more megapixels into a 35mm sensor beyond this point may be fruitless with diffraction limited lenses, especially considering that the 50mm f/1.4 G is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses between f/4 and f/8. 

It will be interesting to see whether there is any advantage gained by packing even more megapixels into a 35mm sensor, as Canon is rumoured to be doing... My suspicion is that 36 megapixels may be approaching the threshold of potential resolution for 35mm sensors with current lens technology and traditional glass optics (metamaterials, anyone...?)...

It would have been interesting to also include a D800E in this comparison, as everything that I have read so far has indicated that it is able to achieve very slightly higher resolution than the D800; without an AA filter, perhaps 35mm resolution might be able to be pushed slightly further still...

Ultimately, I would find it very difficult to justify purchasing a medium format camera with 40 megapixels or less at this point. Admittedly, to achieve these results with the D800, a "medium format" approach must be taken; perfect focus must be achieved, and studio lighting also gives an advantage.

Still, this ultimately confirms what I had previously been uncertain about; when used correctly, this camera is in fact a direct competitor to the low end medium format digital backs. I imagine that Hasselblad would not be very happy with Nikon at this point... 

On the flip side, however, it is clear that there absolutely is still an advantage to be gained by shooting medium format digital when the number of pixels is greater than about 40 megapixels, and this is not going to change as long as lens diffraction is a factor within imaging systems.

If you would like to download the original raw files to compare for yourself, they are available here.

If you have questions or comments about the way I conducted this comparison, please leave a (sensible) comment, and I will respond when I can.