Wedding photography high iso Videos

No noise reduction applied. Straight from camera

Welcome :) I'm also waiting for the a7000

I want compare a7ii with d750

Is it possible with settings to make it write files in 720p in DX mode? What about the size of 1080p in DX mode? Is it smaller for the same scene taken with FX,even though both mode would write 1080p as far as I understood?Does camera have any "jelly"effect in low light conditions from your experience?I can suggest comparing both cameras in moving condition and may b also to see how shaking affects both in video motion, for instance dragging them both on the table, while shooting video.Thx inAdv

Yes, I definitely would. It's much sharper and much better in low light. It also has headphone out, clean HDMI out, and is a way better camera for stills. The Mark II is quite a bit older than the D600. It really depends on what glass you have, if any, though. If you already have canon glass, I would go with a Canon 6D (or Mark III if you can afford it). If you have Nikon glass, I would go with the D600 (even though the glass would work on a Canon too). I'm partial to NIkon so I'd recommend D600

D7000 and D7100 have the same physical sensor size. The megapixel # won't play a huge role in video except for maybe some added sharpness. The lack of an anti-aliasing filter should be interesting, though... Also, the ISO performance may be a bit better. The D600 will probably still be a better choice for video because of the low-light capabilities, wide-angle view, and shallow DoF. Remember, with a D600, you can shoot in DX and FX. With a D7000/7100, you can only go as wide as DX will let you.

It does seem that Nikon is "digitally zooming" in on the FX shot instead of just using the DX portion of the sensor. Of course, you'd end up with a 720p video... yet the camera writes file in full 1080p. Magic? Either way, it's clear that the FX image is MUCH cleaner/sharper (obviously). Why test in DX mode? Because in THEORY, the D600 in DX mode should be the same as the D7000 as both would be using the same 24mm worth of sensor. Not the case, I guess. DX mode is useful for extra reach though.

Thanks Jason! What you should choose really depends on what your needs are. From a video perspective, the only real benefits I can see with the D800 over the D600 is the metal build and bigger size (not worth $1000 IMO). From a stills perspective, I see more megapixels as a downside. 24mp is more than enough. It does have a much better metering and auto-focus system, though. If you're mostly doing stills and have the cash, go for the D800; otherwise, the D600 is a better/equal choice for video.

Great question. Both sides offer slight advantages in different areas. Canon's have the option for a better video codec. Nikon offers clean HDMI out (I hear Canon is making a firmware update for the 5DMII to allow this). Canon also has a clear edge on High ISO performance on the 5DMIII. It's also $3500. 6D and D600 are the same price. I would choose/chose D600. IMO, you can't go wrong buying Nikon lenses (especially the AI-s variants) as they will work on just about any camera with an adapter.

Your friend might either have (1) his white balance settings wrong, (2) a faulty D600. In either case, if he shoots in raw (.NEF), it's trivial to fix in post. The footage I showed in this test was necessarily un-modified footage directly from the cameras. I used the exact same lens on both cameras (not only the same model, but the same exact lens). You can see an examples of the D5100, D7000, and D600 in various conditions on gbvideo.com (check out Will + Sarah Highlight Reel for an example).

Maybe it's just me but the D600 in DX mode still appears to be better than the D7000, both in noise and sharpness. Look at the holes on the utensil container - they appear sharper on the D600 both in DX and FF mode. I'm also seeing slightly more shadow detail from the D600 in DX mode and a LOT less noise at higher ISOs, especially with the cropped comparisons. Look at the noise in the ladel's shadow at 15:00 where you say the two cameras perform the same - the D7000 is quite a bit more noisy!

The lowlight performance of the D800 is almost identical to the lowlight performance of the D600. Both D800 and D600 blow the D7000's lowlight performance out of the water. Check DxOMark and compare all three cameras. I'm not sure why you thought the D800's lowlight performance wasn't good. Checkout the video titled "ISO Test - Nikon D600 D700 D800 D4" You can see the 600 and 800 are almost identical. I have the D7000 and the D800 and the lowlight of the D7000 is nowhere near that of the 800.

Hi, does the D600 focus more accurately and precicely in indoor situations? I am thinking of shooting performers on stage with a prime lens. I had a D5100 with a 35mm 1.8 which was not good. The body/lens combo back-focused when I got it, front-focused badly after Nikon looked at it (for a second time). I don't want to repeat this experience with a camera withuot the focus fine adjust feature, but am not sure which would be the better camera for in-focus low-light photography. D600 or D7000?

The D7000 does have a tighter pixel pitch than the D600 (same as the D800 I believe)--which is probably one reason why the D600 has better low-light performance (and maybe why D7000 is slightly sharper in video?). In the end, though, for video, the megapixel count of the sensor doesn't matter as much because the highest video resolution you'll end up with is 1920x1080. The pixels are interpolated or down-sampled in some way. It's how those pixels are interpolated that matters, it would seem.

Was the testing done with the same type of lens? My friend went from some kind of 10mp camera to the D600 with no experience and his photos all have that yellowing effect. It's either standard for the D600 or the D lighting does this. I'm just trying to see if it's the lenses causing any kind of slight change. He takes pcs of the beach a lot and the sky and water always look yellow tinted. I'm not sure I want that. Can you try getting pictures with blues, greens, pinks etc with both cameras?

You're very welcome! Yes, I have actually experienced those issues, but, generally you can only see the spots when you're shooting very wide angle (20mm and wider) and/or at an f/stop of f/8 or more. I'm usually not shooting like that but I have noticed the spots in some timelapse stuff I"ve done. In either case, it will go away on it's own over time. You can also get a sensor-cleaning kit for pretty cheap and do it yourself--its very easy and something you'll need to do eventually anyways.

Yeah, I actually did have an issue with a rather annoying spot on my sensor that lasted for several hundred shots. It's gone now. I don't know how many photos I've taken so far, but, I'd reckon it's around 1,500-2,000. The spot really only showed up when I went to relatively high apertures like f/8 or f/11 and greater. It was more apparent when I used very wide angle lenses (like 14mm). I usually shoot at f/4 and lower, so, this didn't affect me much during the period that it was happening.

Depends on your shooting needs. I often need something as bright as 1.8 or even 1.4 primes but the 24-120 f/4 is a great all-around lens especially if you're mostly planning on shooting outside. It has VR which is a nice plus as well. The only thing I have bad to say about it is that the focus ring is really small and not as smooth as others. The range is perfect, though.... just wish the had a 2.8 version with a nicer manual focus ring, haha... for photos, though... a great versatile lens!

I would love to see the difference too. Unfortunately I don't have access to any of the addition professional cameras (very much wish I did). Personally, I'd like to see these two compared with the D800 and 5DMIII as well. In any case, I definitely think there are settings that could have made the video look better (namely: proper exposure and color-grading in post). D-lighting was turned off and High ISO NR was set to "Normal" on both cameras. I'm not sure I follow on the "gain" setting.

Does the advantage you get in low light outweigh the change in depth of field that you get with full frame? I want to shoot some video with manual focus but having shallow depth of field makes this difficult, so I want to keep my aperture to at widest 2.8 on DX or f4 on full frame (according to a DOF calculator I used, this should provide the same depth of field). So what I'm asking is "Is the noise less on the d600 at f4 than on the d7000 at f2.8, assuming shutter speed is the same?".

@lemmecomment, Actually, yes! That's really the whole point of the video: Is the D600 worth the extra $1000? In my video, I conclude that it's not necessarily worth it unless you really need that extra 1-2 stops of low-light performance. As a professional videographer, it certainly is. For any other reason, just get the D7000. The D600 is a GREAT camera, but, for the vast majority of people, the D7000 will be more than acceptable--especially for half the price (with a lens!).

@rehotpearl1 Thanks! I would recommend getting some FX glass before moving to the D600. You can use your DX lenses on it, but, that kinda defeats the purpose. Your 35mm will work okay in FX mode (a little vignetting, though). You can get a 50mm (FX) lens for about $100. But, honestly, the D7000 is a GREAT camera and you won't really have any need to upgrade to the D600 unless you have a good range of FX lenses (which you can use on your D7000 in the meantime). Good luck!

Congrats! Great choice! You know, in more-normal lighting conditions I found it to actually be MORE accurate than our other two cameras. But, when necessary, there are two ways to address it: (1) Post production. This is where I handle it, generally. (2) Fine Tune White Balanc. You can see how to customize this on page 117 of the user manual (nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/dslr/D600_EN.pdf). There's also a few guides on YouTube you could watch to help you out. Hope this helps!

Comparing doesn't have to assume that those cameras should be the same or nearly the same, it could mean to find the difference and what it really means in real life. This review was very useful and educating for me and I am thankful to the one who made it. Why don't you consider this before insulting the efforts of this polite man ... btw in my opinion both cars are the same, since they both do not deserve attention. They just look not nice for my taste ..)

its a real shame to spend close to $2,000 on a fx body, and then put a dx lens on it. trust me. just try a d600 in store with a dx lens, and then use an fx lens. use ur own memory card and check the files at home. fx lenses deserve fx bodies. i have the same d7000 as you. but what i did is i bought the sigma 24-70 f2.8 hsm, and now i'll be buying the 70-200 vr2. get the lenses first, which u can still use on ur d7k. and then get the fx later. lenses first!

Yes, thats what i said. On d600 is a fake DX :D. A d600 will make on DX a max size photo of 3936x2624px (10,3 megapixel) and a d7000 4928x3264px (16.2 megapixel). There are cameras with DX sensors that can make bigger pictures with the same sensor size (d7000 vs d90). I dont know the technical explanation but i think that the d7000 sensor has more photodetectors in 23.6 mm × 15.6 mm than d600 in 23.6 mm × 15.6 mm. I hope somebody can explain that :D.

Actually LizardanNet, that, in my opinion would be a perfectly valid comparison for one trying to decide if they want to spend the extra money for features they don't necessarily need. Maybe they didn't know that Hondas come with leather seats or that the tires on the BMW they were looking at cost $800 a piece to replace. There a reason for a comparison of anything. The D600 and D7000 really aren't that different--just a different sensor pretty much.

Goo question! I'm using the D600 and an OLD Nikon 28mm f/2 Ai'd. It's an all-manual beat up lens that just so happens to be one of my favorite for shooting videos--it looks SO much more amazing on the D600 than it did on the D7000 because of the wider angle allowed by full-frame sensors. There's just something about the way this lens paints the image that just gets me all giggly inside. I've added a link to a video of someone showing one off.

Yep, ace206, you have it exactly right. Good lenses are MUCH more important than a better body. While you can use DX lenses on a D600, if it's all you have just stick with the D7000. FX lenses work great on DX bodies. And then, when you have a few good options (something wide, say, a 20mm or 24mm, something in the middle, say, a 50mm, and something for portraits, say, a 85mm or 70-200mm) it's time to jump to FX. It's a real waste otherwise.

+Daniel Aguilar Make sure your exposure is good. If you are underexposing or over exposing you will see more noise.

On youtube of course.

+sackboy3231 Did he confirm that directly to you only? if not, where can I find him confirming that it has over heating issues?

It has been confirmed by one of the directors of sony.

The A7S II hasnt come out yet how could you know?  I doubt Sony publicized that problem.  The A7R II has that problem are you sure you're not confusing it with that camera?  

It does have 4k but like i mention it has overheating issues

+sackboy3231 The A7S II was just announced and I'm almost certain it has internal 4k.

The only problem in the a7s2 is overheating and battery life.

+sackboy3231 They have internal 4K recording in the new a7s2

Okay thank you!!!

+sackboy3231 I bet yes since they now have 4k internal in the a7r2