Nikon D600 Review Part 4 - Dynamic Range Testing...WOW! 

+Adrian Wee So the Canon 6d wasn't out yet when I was testing the D600 so the only camera I had along close in price was the 7D. Keep in mind that full frame vs crop isn't everything...the Nikon D7200 scores better on DXOMark's sensor test than the D600 for landscape dynamic range and the D7200 is a crop camera like the 7D. Pixels per inch can also be a big factor and technically each pixel on the 7D is almost the same size as the D600. But yes, a more fair test would have been the D600 vs the 6D or maybe the 5D3 but that camera is further in price from the D600 than the 7D was

Dan Watson as far as i have read or heard there are more opinions stating that nikon is superior when both cameras are in the same class. Honestly i doubt when 5d family cams are confronted with any nikon fx cams they would perform better. The 7d isnt even better than the 5d in my opinion in terms of both image quality or dynamic range, so putting it in a confrontation agains the new fx warrior is somehow feels unfair. But then if thats your reason then i can understand.

+Adrian Wee I'm in full agreement with you. The only reason I included the 7d is that it was the closest Canon camera in price to the D600 since the Canon 6D was not out at the time. Most people back then were picking between the Canon 7D and the Nikon D600 as a result. The Canon 5D3 was in a price class way above and most people were considering the 5D3 vs the D800 as a result. I'm in full agreement that the sensor size affects dynamic range and that a more fair test from a sensor side of things would be two full frame cameras. But as far as price and market competition were concerned, the Canon 7D was the closest competitor to the Nikon D600 in September 2012. In fact, that was what made the D600 so amazing...it was the first full frame camera under $2000 so it placed a powerful full frame camera in direct competition (only $400 more) with high end APS-C cameras like the 7D. Even right now, the Nikon D610 is the exact same price as the Canon 7D Mark II on B&H.

Ya but regardless, the test is flawed. You could have picked up a used 5D mark II for even cheaper and it would have done better because its full frame. So you cannot compare price. You have to compare like products. In this case - full frames.

It's not about what camera is better it's about how much of a difference is there to justify the price or difference. Not everything is about winning

No Saturation boost. All that color information is already there in the highlights and shadows so when I dropped the highlights and boosted the shadows, the sky especially just popped. I posted the RAW files on my site (link is in the description) so you can download the files and compare yourself. Don't take my word for it. It's no secret that Nikon RAW files offer some of the best DR of any DSLR. That doesn't make it a great camera but the sensor is definitely one of the best you can find.

LearningCameras.com drive.google.com/open?id=0B4uJ0spNbeoiWWJYc1lsMDQ3MmM&authuser=0

I really could care less about the MP's and I don't know if this video is biased or not; but it is inline with everything from DXO to every other test I've seen including SLR Lounge. The Nikon cameras (Sony sensors is really what we are talking about) is upwards of 2~3 stops better than the Canon. I think the Canon people are getting jipped.

Albert Yang I'm with you on MP's. I use a Fuji x100s & a Canon 5D Mark II for primary shooting, but there are plenty of situations where a 20x30 print is ordered for a client, that I had taken with my 8MP iPhone. The truth of the matter regarding dynamic range vs canon/nikon though, is in the real world results; there are numerous factors at play in the equation this way, and the favor can really be tossed either direction. Assuming we are only talking about dynamic range for these two cameras reviewed, my point was to disprove the dramatic difference that's shown in this video. The OP provided the original RAW files, and in retracing the same steps, the results I posted in the screen shot, did indeed show a more practical result, closer again to real world results. In the end though, I think the consumer will have done his or her homework in considering ALL factors and differences between the body's. I don't feel jipped at all, because I knew which camera would work better for me, and that's where doing tyour homework will benefit most for the higher spending consumer. Have a read here, if you are interested in other's who say the same. In the end, when the photograph is out there for the world to see, nobody is going to be able to look at your photo, in its tangible form even, and say, "oh that came from a canon or that came from a nikon," based on the dynamic range. Thanks for replying. photo.stackexchange.com/questions/53998/are-nikon-dslr-sensors-actually-better-than-canons

One of my daughter's classmate's mother asked how I got such incredibly sharp images; sharpest she's ever seen. "What is the name of the lens??" she asked. "TRIPOD" I replied. A modern lens @F8 with mirror up and on a $1500 tripod will yield amazing results regardless of camera nowadays. That said; I find that mostly scenery to be the one that I really need DR. Portraits etc.. I generally don't need that much shadows unless I'm shooting BW's. That said; I wanted to also state that most women (yes WOMEN) aren't all that keen on too sharp of a lens for portraits.. Photography is 50% Art 50% Science. Generally no right answer. But if I had to start new with a new system and I wanted to do mainly landscape; I'd look long and hard at Sony or Nikon instead of Canon. If you have lenses though; then that's a different beast altogether.

I would argue you a bit there because my workflow IS shooting RAW, making some adjustments in ACR and then moving to photoshop and sometimes other software where it is converted to a tiff file. If you want a more 'real life test' RAW to Tiff is way truer for me than flat jpegs. I never shoot jpeg so I could care less how many stops I see in the flat jpeg. I care about how the RAW file responds to processing because that's how I will be using it.

I thought about what I said and realize that either ways wouldn't work. I'm sorry. When you shoot a JPG, the camera apply a profile to create it. However, 32Bit RAW images can't be displayed even in 10bit monitors. I always shoot RAW too. It's very good to have some room in post. Maybe looking at the white clip point and black clip point maybe? What you think?