DxO Mark scores D600 vs D610

I was comparing Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 vrii with Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM lens on a D610. When I checked out the results of the Nikon lens on a D600, the overall score increased from 27 (D600) to 28 (D610). Why would it be different if nothing pertinent was changed in the D610? Scroll partway down the page to see the comparison of all 3 lenses.

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM Nikon on Nikon D610 versus Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II on Nikon D600 versus Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II on Nikon D610 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

But if you look carefully, you'll also notice that the apertures and focal length are different. The best was at f5 with the D610. So, all in all, the difference in real life could very well be difficult to measure.

Interesting that the D600 ISO score is better than the D610.

less dust...

i keed i keed, sorry couldn't resist.

Even more interesting is that the lense is sharper on D610. Will have to try out various primes on DXO site to see whether it is the zoom or the camera.
Did not work with my favourite prime
Nikkor AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D on Nikon D610 versus Nikkor AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D on Nikon D610 versus Nikkor AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D on Nikon D600 - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

I think I heard somewhere that they may have tweaked the filter stack in the camera some when they redesigned the shutter. Other than that....I got nuttin....

So, 1% quality increase with select lenses for $600 more. Seems legit.

With at least a 100 dollars less price, marginally faster burst rate and a few more enhancements the D610 wins over the D600 hands down.

Rick M said:

Interesting that the D600 ISO score is better than the D610.

Click to expand...

I didn't check out the camera comparisons until just now, but I will say that in a comparison of the low light theater shots (jpegs as I don't have RAW from the D600), I did notice the jpegs at ISO 1250 straight out of camera had slightly less noise on the D600 images.

Another thing I noticed is the D600 focused faster and locked focus better in low light than the D610. At first I didn't know why the D610 would refocus when I held down the shutter button then recomposed, but then I noticed that the little focus dot inside the viewfinder wasn't lit up because the camera hadn't achieved focus (AF-S single point for both cameras). This happened numerous times during the theater performances and even here in the house without any additional lighting used.

I think someone once mentioned a possible compatibility problem with non-Nikon lenses, and since my 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are both made by Sigma, I do question whether that is a factor. So...I am opting to rent a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 for the theater performance this week to see if there is any improvement (I don't get paid for the theater photos, but I really want to sort out whether it is a compatibility issue or a low light issue). Of course, the stage lighting is minimal...only a couple of spot lights. I've been using ISO 1250 trying to keep my shutter speed at 1/30 or faster with an aperture of 5.6 whenever possible; however, periodically I do have to use a wider aperture when my shutter speed falls below 1/30. Yes, I know I can switch to a higher ISO, but it's because of the noise that I choose not to. The curtains are black, and since the lights tend to be limited to two spot lights, I meter for their faces. That means the surrounding areas are darker, and when raising the shadows, the noise increases. I used RAW for their March performance and had to tweak the overall exposure to bring up the shadows, but it also increased the noise. For a few photos, I used my D90 with my 24-70mm lens as I can't quite fit the entire stage in the viewfinder with the 70-200mm lens (beats having to switch lenses so frequently). I can definitely see an improvement with the low light capabilities using the D610 over the D90 though.

Marcel said:

But if you look carefully, you'll also notice that the apertures and focal length are different. The best was at f5 with the D610. So, all in all, the difference in real life could very well be difficult to measure.

View attachment 82461

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out, Marcel! I hadn't noticed the f/stop difference, but I'm very surprised that the D600 was best at f/2.8. What's up with that? Usually wide open doesn't yield the sharpest photos!

PapaST said:

less dust...

i keed i keed, sorry couldn't resist.

Click to expand...

Boo!

I thought they made some firmware changes for WB, which I'm guessing could impact other aspects of image sharpness.

Differences like this are completely ignorable, in my opinion. I know people love to fawn over what these numbers are when weighing the "better" question, but having done side-by-side comparisons almost daily on real world shots with both a D600 and D800 I can conclusively tell you that they're both great cameras and some days I prefer one over the other, and some days I don't care which I shoot with. But if you need to know, they compare 72.5 vs. 72.7 on the JakeMark, which no one has bothered to subscribe to because I charge too much. And you'll have to pay up before I tell you which is which.

BackdoorHippie said:

But if you need to know, they compare 72.5 vs. 72.7 on the JakeMark, which no one has bothered to subscribe to because I charge too much. And you'll have to pay up before I tell you which is which.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.........:eyetwitch: So how much do you charge and what kind of payment do you accept? Nikonites points?

Okay...so here's the reason why I searched for the info: the DOF I am getting during the theater productions stinks. :eek-new: Below is a link using the DoF calculator--which by the way I OVER estimated the distance of being 100 feet away AND plugged in 200mm although I don't always shoot at that focal length. I even calculated with f/4.5 although I try to stay around f/5 to f/5.6.




Here's the problem...a decent depth of field really comes in to be less than 1 foot in front/behind the focus point. There is a noticeable difference in sharpness outside of that one foot area. It's frustrating. Sure I can bump up my ISO and change to f/8, but I don't want to introduce any additional noise because there is enough already. The noise part comes from not having enough light. The cast who aren't in the lighted areas tend to be thrown into the shadows, and when adjusting the exposure on them, it adds even more noise.

So I am curious as to how the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 vrii will work in comparison to my Sigma lens. I always use a tripod so the VR doesn't factor into the equation. I was curious as to why the D600's sharpness was different than the D610's, but after Marcel pointed out it was for specific apertures, it makes sense. I thought it was an overall sharpness score.

The down side will be if there is a noticeable improvement with the Nikon lens. I'm already wondering if I'm going to have NAS attack!
→insert *envy* smilie here←

hark said:

Hmmmm.........:eyetwitch: So how much do you charge and what kind of payment do you accept? Nikonites points?

Okay...so here's the reason why I searched for the info: the DOF I am getting during the theater productions stinks. :eek-new: Below is a link using the DoF calculator--which by the way I OVER estimated the distance of being 100 feet away AND plugged in 200mm although I don't always shoot at that focal length. I even calculated with f/4.5 although I try to stay around f/5 to f/5.6.

The down side will be if there is a noticeable improvement with the Nikon lens. I'm already wondering if I'm going to have NAS attack!
→insert *envy* smilie here←

Click to expand...

My advice, even not knowing all the variables, would be to get closer (using a shorter focal length) so you increase DoF, don't be afraid of raising the iso (unless you plan to print poster size). The noise can always be reduced in post and then some sharpening re-introduced. I'd use the 85 if you have one and crop, or even the 50 if you can get any closer. If there are a few performances, you could do some with the 50 for one and then go with a longer lens for the second one...

Just trying to give you food for thoughts.

hark said:

Hmmmm.........:eyetwitch: So how much do you charge and what kind of payment do you accept? Nikonites points?

Okay...so here's the reason why I searched for the info: the DOF I am getting during the theater productions stinks. :eek-new: Below is a link using the DoF calculator--which by the way I OVER estimated the distance of being 100 feet away AND plugged in 200mm although I don't always shoot at that focal length. I even calculated with f/4.5 although I try to stay around f/5 to f/5.6.

Click to expand...

If nothing else you want to underestimate distance as your total depth of field length will increase with distance, exponentially. So if you're at 20 feet DoF with 100' distances, you're going to be at around 5 feet if you cut the distance in half. So depending just how much you were overestimating can have a lot to do with why you didn't get what you'd expect. Unless I'm not understanding you correctly.

Marcel said:

My advice, even not knowing all the variables, would be to get closer (using a shorter focal length) so you increase DoF, don't be afraid of raising the iso (unless you plan to print poster size). The noise can always be reduced in post and then some sharpening re-introduced. I'd use the 85 if you have one and crop, or even the 50 if you can get any closer. If there are a few performances, you could do some with the 50 for one and then go with a longer lens for the second one...

Just trying to give you food for thoughts.

Click to expand...

Actually they don't allow photography, but since I do this for them, I am allowed. That said...I am relegated to the balcony but am not allowed to be on the floor of the auditorium. Would be nice though!

BackdoorHippie said:

If nothing else you want to underestimate distance as your total depth of field length will increase with distance, exponentially. So if you're at 20 feet DoF with 100' distances, you're going to be at around 5 feet if you cut the distance in half. So depending just how much you were overestimating can have a lot to do with why you didn't get what you'd expect. Unless I'm not understanding you correctly.

Click to expand...

Ok...my geometry isn't all too hot. I am up in the balcony. So I just used an online calculator to figure out the hypotenuse of a triangle! I am probably 65-70 feet from the stage, but even so, the depth of field *should* be greater than 1 foot.

Although I was going to rent the lens for Saturday's performance, my curiosity got the best of me. I was able to rent it for tonight's performance instead.

So far my initial impression is that this Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 vrii lens is awesome!!!

Here is Abigal. She just ate--I should have washed off her face first! Normally I wouldn't handhold such a long lens as this especially with the tendonitis in my forearms, but the VRii worked perfectly. The high ISO is because I have the camera set for tonight's performance plus the underexposure was set for it, too. In both of the following photos, I tweaked the lighting, cropped, and resized for the forum. I didn't apply any sharpening or saturation for either.




And this is Cali. Today marks the 10-year anniversary of adopting her. Sadly she is in heart failure due to an abnormal heart that isn't usually seen in pets that aren't feral. She is resting as comfortably as possible.

Looking forward seeing tonight's photos!

hark said:

The high ISO is because I have the camera set for tonight's performance plus the underexposure was set for it, too.

Click to expand...

Come on, take your iso higher for your play shots. You can go up to 3200 and IF YOU EXPOSE CORRECTLY, you'll have great shots. Don't be afraid of a bit of grain. It's better to have a bit of noise than motion blur or not enough DoF... Think fast.

Marcel said:

Come on, take your iso higher for your play shots. You can go up to 3200 and IF YOU EXPOSE CORRECTLY, you'll have great shots. Don't be afraid of a bit of grain. It's better to have a bit of noise than motion blur or not enough DoF... Think fast.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know, Marcel. But I expose for their faces--the curtains and stage floor are black, and with no extra light except for 2 spotlights, the rest of the photo is very dark. I also used my D90 but blew out their faces a little too much and wasn't able to recover enough detail. I'm hesitant to overexpose their faces too much because I've run into that problem before. If push comes to shove, it will be the ISO that goes higher though! In the past I've used both ISO 1600 and 3200. I've also had some photos with motion blur so I am well aware of that happening. And there have been times when I've lowered my aperture to f/2.8 simply because of the lighting and shutter speed. I shall see how it goes tonight!

Have I mentioned I am REALLY stoked to try this Nikon lens?!!