rumor: D600 gets 16 Bit processing

[RLPhoto]

So, this is the 5dMKIII competitor, not the D800. If the rumor about the price, $1500 is correct, then it is a 5DMKIII at half the price. Canon should be afraid.

it´s an entry level fullframe.
not really a competition to the 5D MK3 other then sensor size and MP.

+1 for Freelancer

Why is it an entry level camera?
The size of the body (which seems large enough at pictures) or is it that it has magnesium alloy on top and back only?

These are still rumors, so we can only speculate, but to me the D600 is the 5D3 competitor, since the specs are so similar. And as long as it is half the price, I maintain my initial statement, Canon should be afraid. They are the King of the hill now, but situations can change if the company gets arrogant. And no, I´m not leaving Canon due to their great lenses, but I´m just saying.

It wont be in the same league in AF performance, Not until Nikon revamps its entire line-up will it even touch the beauty of the 61 Point AF on the 5D3.

It doesn´t need to have the same AF performance to be the closest competitor. 5D2 did well with 9 point AF, so 41 should do. And, if so, the D800 is not the 5D3 competitor, with nearly 50% more pixels. That is a bigger difference than 41pt. AF vs. 61pt.

I really hope Canon are getting nervous, that mean they have to adjust the prices to meet the competition. I like the Canon lenses and camera layout (buttons etc.), and are gonna stick to them, but their prices are insane.

41 cross type points vs 15 on Nikon. No competition.

5 double cross type points vs 0 on Nikon. No competition.

I didn't pay full price for the 5d3. Its not worth 3500+tax. I snagged it for 3099$.

Canon has nothing to sweat about when it releases its d600 competitor. 

[Rienzphotoz]

It doesn´t need to have the same AF performance to be the closest competitor. 5D2 did well with 9 point AF, so 41 should do. And, if so, the D800 is not the 5D3 competitor, with nearly 50% more pixels. That is a bigger difference than 41pt. AF vs. 61pt.

I really hope Canon are getting nervous, that mean they have to adjust the prices to meet the competition. I like the Canon lenses and camera layout (buttons etc.), and are gonna stick to them, but their prices are insane.

5D2 was revolutionary and it is the 2nd most popular camera of all time (since the AF era) ... besides it was capable of amazing video ... and yet D700 with only 12 megapixel and no video capability sold very well with 51 AF points and stood its ground against the mighty 5D MK II.
By the way, your math is pretty bad, coz "41pt" AF vs "61pt" is approx 33% difference ... between Canon's 22MP vs Nikon's 36MP is only 38% difference (not 50% difference as you claim ... 50% of 36 is 18, NOT 22)
Till recently I owned/used Nikon D700 (I sold it to fund 5D MK III) so I am speaking from my personal experience ... you may stop hoping coz Canon will NOT get "nervous". Each of these cameras, (that will be released sometime in the near future), will have their place and people will continue to buy both D800 and 5D MK III, despite new cheaper FF DSLRs, as both brands have very loyal customers who like their products.

[Pitbullo]

5D2 was revolutionary and it is the 2nd most popular camera of all time (since the AF era) ... besides it was capable of amazing video ... and yet D700 with only 12 megapixel and no video capability sold very well with 51 AF points and stood its ground against the mighty 5D MK II.
By the way, your math pretty bad, coz "41pt" AF vs "61pt" is approx 33% difference ... between Canon's 22MP vs Nikon's 36MP is only 38%
Till recently I owned/used Nikon D700 (I sold it to fund 5D MK III) so I am speaking from my personal experience ... you may stop hoping coz Canon will NOT get "nervous". Each of these cameras, (that will be released sometime in the near future), will have their place and people will continue to buy both D800 and 5D MK III, despite new cheaper FF DSLRs, as both brands have very loyal customers who like their products.

I can see what I wrote was unclear. What I meant was that the differnece in resolution between 5D3 and D800; 22MP and 36MP  (ok, "nearly 50%" is a bit off, thanx for doing the math for me here), has bigger impact, or is a more important difference, than the AF differences.

Edit: And the 41pt. AF does not make the D600 an entry level, just because it has an inferior AF system to its closest competitor. 

[Rienzphotoz]

5D2 was revolutionary and it is the 2nd most popular camera of all time (since the AF era) ... besides it was capable of amazing video ... and yet D700 with only 12 megapixel and no video capability sold very well with 51 AF points and stood its ground against the mighty 5D MK II.
By the way, your math pretty bad, coz "41pt" AF vs "61pt" is approx 33% difference ... between Canon's 22MP vs Nikon's 36MP is only 38%
Till recently I owned/used Nikon D700 (I sold it to fund 5D MK III) so I am speaking from my personal experience ... you may stop hoping coz Canon will NOT get "nervous". Each of these cameras, (that will be released sometime in the near future), will have their place and people will continue to buy both D800 and 5D MK III, despite new cheaper FF DSLRs, as both brands have very loyal customers who like their products.

I can see what I wrote was unclear. What I meant was that the differnece between 22MP and 36MP (ok, "nearly 50%" is a bit off, thanx for doing the math for me here), has bigger impact, or is a more important difference, than the AF differences.

The "bigger impact" that you are speaking of, only exists in our heads ... generally the people who actually buy these cameras are those who can only buy that specific camera at that price point (there might be some exceptions but very few) ... people don't go for a cheaper camera when they can afford a better one.
Let me give you a recent example, for a very long time in India Suzuki has been making small cars which cost around $5000, a couple of years ago another very popular Indian car maker launched a very "similar" sized car for only $2000 ... but the $2000 did not beat the "similar" sized $5000 car, in fact most people looked down on it $2000 car and it made the $5000 car even more popular ... because it was no longer the "cheapest" car around instead it had become something of an upgrade from a "very cheap" $2000 car.
If anything the perception of "bigger impact" could actually work in favour of D800 & 5D MK III.
Many people thought the same thing about Canon 1100D/Nikon D3100 vs Canon 550D/Nikon D5100 ... but the fact of the matter most people did not chose the entry level DLSRs if they could afford one level higher DSLRs like the 500D or the D5000 etc, despite both having the same sensor. 

[Pitbullo]

The "bigger impact" that you are speaking of, only exists in our heads ... generally the people who actually buy these cameras are those who can only buy that specific camera at that price point (there might be some exceptions but very few) ... people don't go for a cheaper camera when they can afford a better one.
Let me give you a recent example, for a very long time in India Suzuki has been making small cars which cost around $5000, a couple of years ago another very popular Indian car maker launched a very "similar" sized car for only $2000 ... but the $2000 did not beat the "similar" sized $5000 car, in fact most people looked down on it $2000 car and it made the $5000 car even more popular ... because it was no longer the "cheapest" car around instead it had become something of an upgrade from a "very cheap" $2000 car.
If anything the perception of "bigger impact" could actually work in favour of D800 & 5D MK III.
Many people thought the same thing about Canon 1100D/Nikon D3100 vs Canon 550D/Nikon D5100 ... but the fact of the matter most people did not chose the entry level DLSRs if they could afford one level higher DSLRs like the 500D or the D5000 etc, despite both having the same sensor.

I do get your point, and it is true in most cases. There are one other example, though a bit different. Nokia, once king of the mobile phone world, now in big big trouble, beacause of arrogance and not taking the competition seriously.

Canon needs the competition, and should take them seriously. The worst that can happen from that is that we get better and cheaper Canon products, and the best is that we get better and cheaper Canon products.

[Rienzphotoz]

I do get your point, and it is true in most cases. There are one other example, though a bit different. Nokia, once king of the mobile phone world, now in big big trouble, beacause of arrogance and not taking the competition seriously.

Canon needs the competition, and should take them seriously. The worst that can happen from that is that we get better and cheaper Canon products, and the best is that we get better and cheaper Canon products.

Well, in Nokia's case, they did not have anything that could keep its customers hooked onto Nokia phones like the lenses of Canon & Nikon. But I do agree that arrogance of not taking competition seriously will cost them dearly ... in the 80's Nikon (who was the supreme leader of SLR cameras) did not take Canon AF lenses seriously and it paid very dearly by losing its top position to Canon and has not caught up ever since. Having said that, with the current lens reliant cameras I do not see any problem with either Canon or Nikon losing out to anyone ... at least not until the competition comes up with some incredibly compelling lenses to match the capabilities of the sensors.

[Bruce Photography]

I find it interesting how some people are talking about jumping ship for the rumored D600 when the D800 isn't even as good as the 5D Mk III, outside of its amazing sensor. And even that starts to lose its advantage at ISO 800.

Speed, AF, video quality, high ISO performance, wireless flash system, build quality and hell, quality control during manufacture are all advantages for the Canon. Strong advantages. Plus, we get some pretty awesome lenses to play with.

Let's put it this way: if both cameras had the exact same sensor, which one would you pick?

That last question "Which one would you pick" is an interesting question.  I'm going to assume that when you say "Exact same sensor" you also mean exact same supporting chips and processing engines so signal to noise ratios in the dark areas are the same and that dynamic range is also the same.  Then I would pick Canon because I really like the Canon TS-E lenses (the 24 and 17, not the older ones with a single axis) and some of my other Canon favorites like the 135 f2, 85 F1.2, 50 1.2, 35 1.4.  But I would miss the Nikon 14-24 that I enjoy now on my Nikon D800/E. 

I really intend on staying with Canon but right now, I'm not shooting any of my primary landscapes with Canon.  I'm waiting for Canon to catch up with a full frame 40+ mp body that I"m hoping will compete with the Nikon D800E.  I'm sure Canon can do it, it is only a matter of deciding to do it - timing is everything.  Next year I will probably buy the Nikon 200-400 F4 if Canon doesn't come out first.  But I won't buy any more Canon lenses until Canon comes up with a better Nikon D800E competitor.  But I'm patient....

[Danielle]

in the 80's Nikon (who was the supreme leader of SLR cameras) did not take Canon AF lenses seriously and it paid very dearly by losing its top position to Canon and has not caught up ever since.

Oh, don't know about hasn't caught up since. I used nikons in the early 2000's, didn't care then but oh yeah, they were loosing badly. Now? Well they've already lost a chunk of the market which hasn't as of yet returned (if ever) but yes they HAVE caught up.

Damn, I just defended nikon! Sorry about that, but I thought it needed to be said. Doesn't matter what you shoot on nowdays, either make fantastic images, particularly in capable hands.

[Pitbullo]

Well, in Nokia's case, they did not have anything that could keep its customers hooked onto Nokia phones like the lenses of Canon & Nikon. But I do agree that arrogance of not taking competition seriously will cost them dearly ... in the 80's Nikon (who was the supreme leader of SLR cameras) did not take Canon AF lenses seriously and it paid very dearly by losing its top position to Canon and has not caught up ever since. Having said that, with the current lens reliant cameras I do not see any problem with either Canon or Nikon losing out to anyone ... at least not until the competition comes up with some incredibly compelling lenses to match the capabilities of the sensors.

A good nights sleep has made me think that my argument is not accurate. Perhaps Canon is taking it´s competition very seriously (ofcourse they are), because Canons cameras are very very capable, perhaps the best, if we see them as a complete package. The arrogance is perhaps against their customers, since many of them are heavily invested in lenses, and jumping ship is first of all very expensive, and sencond, Canon have the best lens lineup of all. That is why they can charge sky high prices for cameras that are not revolutionary, but a carefull evolution of it´s predecessor.

Sorry to have pulled this thread a bit off topic. I look forward to see Canons answer if Nikon is surpassing them on key specifications, like the 16 bit procesing. This is directly linked to the IQ, and therefore more important than AF for me (hobbyist). (And, to be clear, I do want a good AF, but IQ > AF, as AF, light meter and so on are all aids for the sensor to do its job. Crap sensor is still crap even if you have the best AF in the world. AF with some drawbacks can be overcome with technique.)

[Aglet]

I can understand keeping the data until you make the conversion to JPEG, but if you already have all that data why would you throw it out in the RAW at all? My understanding is that building ADCs good enough to get that kind of quantization resolution is much more difficult (and expensive) than moving the data around. Having the extra 2 bits per channel would allow a lot more manipulation with minimal destruction in post, and you could always throw them out when you're ready to export.

I agree.
We'll have to wait and see if alleged camera does indeed use 16b processing and whether that will also result in them providing 16b raw files.
Considering how clean the D800 output is (it's noisier than a 5D2 but it's random noise) then a larger pixel sensor with similar abilities could provide around 15b worth of real data and, while the 16th bit may be buried in noise, it could still be provided in the raw file and a good NR algorithm could extract useful tonality from it in some situations.

Photokina 2012 is shaping up to be a nail-biter for us rumor-mongers.

[Rienzphotoz]

A good nights sleep has made me think that my argument is not accurate. Perhaps Canon is taking it´s competition very seriously (ofcourse they are), because Canons cameras are very very capable, perhaps the best, if we see them as a complete package. The arrogance is perhaps against their customers, since many of them are heavily invested in lenses, and jumping ship is first of all very expensive, and sencond, Canon have the best lens lineup of all. That is why they can charge sky high prices for cameras that are not revolutionary, but a carefull evolution of it´s predecessor.

Sorry to have pulled this thread a bit off topic. I look forward to see Canons answer if Nikon is surpassing them on key specifications, like the 16 bit procesing. This is directly linked to the IQ, and therefore more important than AF for me (hobbyist). (And, to be clear, I do want a good AF, but IQ > AF, as AF, light meter and so on are all aids for the sensor to do its job. Crap sensor is still crap even if you have the best AF in the world. AF with some drawbacks can be overcome with technique.)

To be fair and IMHO one cannot go wrong with either Canon or Nikon Cameras / lenses ... for the past few decades, both these cameras have and continue to have certain features and lenses that are only exclusive to either Canon or Nikon. IMHO there is no such thing as as perfect camera that will please everyone ... I know a few friends, (heavily invested in L glass), that hate 5D MK III having "only" 22 mega "pickles" (especially one guy who is into landscape photography ... and his Nikon D800 user buddy keeps taunting him with the awesome landscape photos taken with D800 set at ISO 100 with a 14-24 lens) ... and I also have a few friends that invested heavily in Nikon glass and hate D800 that it has "too many" mega "pickles" (these folks shoot in RAW, so the files sizes are plain massive for their aging laptops that are taking ages to load and post process .... so they are having to shell out another $2000 for a new laptop). One can never please everyone. For years I have been happy with Nikon cameras and now I am equally happy with Canon cameras ... both have strengths and weakness ... it depends on which strengths meet your needs and which weaknesses you can live with.

[Lawliet]

(these folks shoot in RAW, so the files sizes are plain massive for their aging laptops that are taking ages to load and post process ....

Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.

[Rienzphotoz]

Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.

I've never used DPP to apply lens correction to raw files ... but I'll give it a try to check out the file sizes.

[drjlo]

Ironically Canons raw files grow to similar size once you apply the lens corrections of newer DPP versions - and some lenses really benefit from it, the 16-35's borders come to mind.

I've never used DPP to apply lens correction to raw files ... but I'll give it a try to check out the file sizes.

If Digital Lens Optimizer is used, which is great, RAW file size almost doubles (!).  I get around this by applying DLO, convert from RAW to JPEG, then undoing the DLO (which gives you original file size) before closing/saving the RAW.