I'll let rNeil weigh in on the technical comparison. The point is still valid, if a photographer shoots his work to be printed, if even using the lowest tech printing technology, then that is how he wants it viewed and though.

I do not understand that is "shoots his work to be printed". I can understand color accuracy requirement, even requirement of monitor/paper size (it is more debatable, but still). But not understand idea of shooting anything so it'll be only printed on paper.

Also, Vitaliy, you're not really thinking about what I'm saying. Are you looking to argue? Prints reflect color/luma, monitors shine it at you. You can't get around that ;)

:-) Btw, it is partly because reflection color/DR is always inferior :-)

Quite the other way around. No monitor can come close to a silver print on chemical processed photo paper. Also, a monitor is shining colors at you, a printed photo reflects colors.

You are incorrect as use emotions instead of data. Printed photos parameters are easy to measure - they have inferior and limited gamut and limited DR. You can just go any check test of photo printers (used for most exhibitions now) or photo papers.

As a portrait photog, the main image quality I've been concerned with is how prints and especially large ones appear to the viewer. Haven't figured out anyway to get that on the 'net, even if you post a connection to a digital file of that size, now ... pixel peepers tend to love that.

Sorry, I not completely understand. Good photo is good photo.

Plus all printed photos are by default inferior by gamut and DR just due to tech limitations.

Why bother taking up bandwidth though ... the small files one uses on the 'net do not really show how they look when large prints are made, so ... if someone wants to see the kind of things we do with them, they can go to our websites. :)

Just show here smaller images with link to full size ones.

The D600/610 cameras are really quite nice rigs. Using them in professional portrait work, studio & environmental, with needs for images to 40x60 inches, they're fast to set and work with, easy to adjust, and the image quality is a joy.

Do you have some stills to show?

The power and performance of the D610 is enough to satisfy just about any photographer. It still offers the same smaller and lighter body of the D600, but keeps the performance and image capabilities of a full-frame camera. The lightning fast AF system features 39 points and works all the way down to f/8, giving you more capabilities with long lenses and converters.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/nikon/d610-dslr/nikon-d610-dslr-review.html

Question ... I'm used to my D3, where they didn't even HAVE a screen for the LCD on the back. On the D600/610, how many folks use the little plastic screen and how many don't? Is it really ... needed?

Neil

@rNeil. Absolutely! If I was shooting a concert or wedding, or some kind of event, sweat would pour down my head shooting 4GB/min RAW :)

@maxotics

" As a photographer, I'm sure you know what that ultimately means."

Yes ... MASSIVE files! :)

Having gone from RB67 medium-format film through digital up through D3/D600/Panny GH3) yea, I'm a total raw-shooter in stills. And if one needs real top quality, in cine one would choose that also. Mostly.

There are situations where both my wife and I do shoot in-cam jpeg's for portrait clients, IF on some special promotions where 1- chance of 30"+ prints are absurd 2- we have total control over the exposure situation and 3- we'll be handing off the card to an employee for immediate sales. ALL other images are RAW.

The raw files for stills aren't really much bigger than the biggest possible jpeg's (the only acceptable jpeg-incam setting for us). However, video files ... even a minute of the .mov H.264 stuff out of the D600 and GH3 ... are HUGE compared to a whole session of pro-size RAW files. I really gasped when I started video ... the number of big FAST drives I suddenly needed for simple operational use, couple with of course BIG drives for backup. Wow, this blows out a stills-studio photog's needs! :)

So ... yea, I shoot with righteous exposure/wb to get the best post possible. I'm sure that soon enough I'll be getting the itch to get raw video. But the cost ... both in cameras and drives ... will be noted!

Neil

So what experience are folks having with their D6x0 in grading, and what are you editing and grading in? Coming out of 35+ years of professional stills/portraits, we're an "Adobe house" ... but I really prefer to hear of all things out there and all techniques/preferences ...

Neil

The D610 will let you record for a second short of 30 minutes. Files are encoded with the H.264 codec at one of two quality settings, the higher of which encodes at an average bit rate of 24Mbps for the 1080p and higher frame rate 720p modes.

It's interesting to note the D610 provides more or less the exact same movie modes as the Canon EOS 6D which also offers 24, 25 and 30 fps recording at 1080p resolutions with 720p at 50 and 60 fps, all encoded using H.264, although the 6D also offers the choice of inter or intra-frame compression. The 6D has a socket for an external microphone, but no headphone socket. On balance I think that with its DX crop mode, uncompressed HDMI output and headphone socket, the D610 is a more capable movie camera then the 6D. At this level at least, Nikon has reversed Canon's long held dominance in this area.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D610/

The D610 stays among the best of cameras when it comes to image-quality. Image-noise is very low and dynamic-range is the best there is. It is also one of the most affordable full-frame DSLR cameras on the market, pushing the D600 towards unseen territory.

http://www.neocamera.com/camera/nikon/d610/review

Just received D610. After a couple of shots (camera is superb), I tried also the video quality using the Century Optics 1.33x: Okay, this in not a special job, just a single/simple anamorphic test. No post editing, as came out of camera (no special settings on camera concerning sharpness/contrast/etc, @ f/f2.5, shutter@50, & iso1000 as it is a low light shot). No diopter or anything else. At this f/2.5 aperture, lens+anamorphic are responding fine. (password: test1)