First Night Shot D600

M

Moab Man

Senior Member
Leaving for Yellowstone and had planned on shooting some Milky Way photos. However, the weather does not look like it will be cooperating. I did rent a Tokina 16-28 for the purpose of shooting the stars and figured since I had a clear night for the first time in a long while I might as well try it out since Yellowstone stars doesn't look likely.

Right off the bat I can say the difference in long exposure and high ISO noise to my D7100 is nothing short of astounding. So here is a quick shot in the highly light polluted suburbs. I did adjust for the horrible lights but did no noise reduction.

D600; 25.0 sec; f/4.0; ISO 1250; Focal length 16mm (but the exif says 28mm?)

StarsD600.jpg
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
I've only shot the FX version once, tonight. I can't make a decision yet. One negative right off the bat is the bulbous end of the lens will catch any light nearby and flare.

So far I am impressed with the D600 low light. The only reason I bought it was for Milky Way photography.
 
F

FastGlass

Senior Member
Very nice. I have the same problem shooting the heavens here at my home. To much stray light so I need to travel a little bit to get away from it. Curious, why the high ISO?
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Nice shot. The D600 is a great camera for this - and I suspect you might just wind up using it for other things as well. ;)

As for the high ISO, the higher the ISO the more light you'll allow in during the exposure, so there will be details you'll get in a 30 second exposure at ISO 1250 that you'll never see at ISO 400. The low noise of the D600 sensor means that you can shoot at higher levels and not have high ISO noise interfere with your star shots. That's something I could never do with my D7000, which became too noisy after about ISO 800, for me at least.
 
P

Pretzel

Senior Member
Please stop discussing the D6xx series, especially you Jake, and how much better it is than the D7xxx series, as I'm finding it hard enough to save for the D7100!!!

BTW, for all the suburban light pollution, that's a fairly nice star shot! Love the D600 low light performance from the pics I've seen, just wish the 610 wasn't at that "just out of reach" range!
 
Last edited:
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
FastGlass said:
. Curious, why the high ISO?
Click to expand...

I only shot the camera three times at the stars and haven't got familiar with the camera shooting the Milky Way so I solely went off of experience. It takes time to get the not so visible stars to burn through the light pollution. And I was trying to avoid star trails. That combination is what pushed me to such a high ISO.
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
I suspect you might just wind up using it for other things as well. ;)
Click to expand...
It's a great point that has really had me pondering DX vs FX. Much of what I shoot here in the west I have to pull in. The crop factor of a DX really gives me the reach I need that I lose on an FX and the D7100 shoots amazing. However, on the FX side the lower light periods at dusk and dawn really extend what is shootable light. I'm not going to say I won't gravitate more towards my D600, but right now I can't see it happening.

As for all the Milky Way photography I do, there is no dispute the D600 is king. Best part between the D7100 and the D600 is they are darn near clones.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Pretzel said:
Please stop discussing the D6xx series, especially you Jake, and how much better it is than the D7xxx series, as I'm finding it hard enough to save for the D7100!!!
Click to expand...

The D600/610 is just that good that you can't not mention it. I compare it to the D7000, but not the D7100. They're different beasts, and the D7100's sensor is a good step up from the 7000's. While it's not the low light monster that the D600/610 is, if I combine my take, which says that the D600 is about one stop better than the D800, and Geoff's take, which says the D800 is about one stop better than the D7100, then you've still going to get great performance in low light with the camera. I can shoot at ISO 6400 and almost not think about it, so I suspect that you'll be the same at ISO 1600 and higher. I wouldn't waste any time worrying that it won't be quiet enough.
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
Pretzel said:
Please stop discussing the D6xx series, especially you Jake, and how much better it is than the D7xxx series, as I'm finding it hard enough to save for the D7100!!!

BTW, for all the suburban light pollution, that's a fairly nice star shot! Love the D600 low light performance from the pics I've seen, just wish the 610 wasn't at that "just out of reach" range!
Click to expand...

Thanks Pretzel. The D7100 does really well in low light and I have been very happy with it. In my Milky Way Photography I just reached a point that I just wanted more (sounding like an addiction). Both of these Milky Way shots were with the D7100 and noise reduction done in CS6. The other two had no noise reduction.

Long exposure in Goblin Valley, Utah.
Day224GoblinMilkyWay.jpg

Long exposure 20 miles south of Wendover, Nevada.
Day223MilkyWay.jpg

Night shot of a second or two. No noise.
Day314_25thStreet.jpg

This was a night shot. Very clean with proper exposure making the grain really disappear.
Day343Winter.jpg

The D7100, as a crop sensor, does an amazing job in low light. Where I see the substantial difference, regarding noise, is long exposure in absolute minimal light - stars.
 
D

dlmvegas

New member
I am using a D800 and am not very satisfied with the camera. I recently was out in the desert north of Las Vegas. To insure that I wouldn't get star movement I used ISO 3200 and 6400. Exposures were 6-10 seconds. Lens 14-24mm at f/2.8. High ISO Noise Reduction set to "High". Got home that evening and looked at my shots. What a huge disappointment. Although the camera noise reduction was turned on I might as well just left it off. Post processing in Camera Raw got rid of the noise but has now softened everything. I have added sharpness to the shot once I did the noise reduction. Still soft and ugly. I probably wouldn't blow this up larger than a 3" X 5" print at this point. ISO 3200 was better but still not great. I know people have been shooting star shots and getting large prints out of them and they are sharp as well. Been looking at stacking shots but that doesn't even look viable either especially if you have something in the foreground.

Any ideas would be welcome.
 
M

Moab Man

Senior Member
dlmvegas said:
I am using a D800 and am not very satisfied with the camera. I recently was out in the desert north of Las Vegas. To insure that I wouldn't get star movement I used ISO 3200 and 6400. Exposures were 6-10 seconds. Lens 14-24mm at f/2.8. High ISO Noise Reduction set to "High". Got home that evening and looked at my shots. What a huge disappointment. Although the camera noise reduction was turned on I might as well just left it off. Post processing in Camera Raw got rid of the noise but has now softened everything. I have added sharpness to the shot once I did the noise reduction. Still soft and ugly. I probably wouldn't blow this up larger than a 3" X 5" print at this point. ISO 3200 was better but still not great. I know people have been shooting star shots and getting large prints out of them and they are sharp as well. Been looking at stacking shots but that doesn't even look viable either especially if you have something in the foreground.

Any ideas would be welcome.
Click to expand...

Star photography and Milky Way stuff are equally about the editing as well as the photo. Lets see an image along with the exif data as the camera is plenty capable but it is a skill that takes a lot of practice.
 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
dlmvegas said:
I am using a D800 and am not very satisfied with the camera. I recently was out in the desert north of Las Vegas. To insure that I wouldn't get star movement I used ISO 3200 and 6400. Exposures were 6-10 seconds. Lens 14-24mm at f/2.8. High ISO Noise Reduction set to "High". Got home that evening and looked at my shots. What a huge disappointment. Although the camera noise reduction was turned on I might as well just left it off. Post processing in Camera Raw got rid of the noise but has now softened everything. I have added sharpness to the shot once I did the noise reduction. Still soft and ugly. I probably wouldn't blow this up larger than a 3" X 5" print at this point. ISO 3200 was better but still not great. I know people have been shooting star shots and getting large prints out of them and they are sharp as well. Been looking at stacking shots but that doesn't even look viable either especially if you have something in the foreground.

Any ideas would be welcome.
Click to expand...

I think you should not use noise reduction for night pictures unless you want to use jpegs and you have to send them right away without post processing. Raw images with post-treatment noise reduction will always look better IMHO.
 
Top