Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by unseen
    http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/0.../index_iso.htm
    You get to see noise performance here.
    Check out Pentax's ?ist DS2. It performs as well as Canon's 5D at ISO1600. Perhaps even better.

    sorry but all the Olympus dSLRS are so far behind in ISO performances that I believe some PnS (Fuji's notably) may perform better. I mean, my 350D ISO1600 outperforms the E500 ISO400 at noise cleaniness.
    This I feel is TOTALLY wrong. I had a F11 and I can safely say the F11 is FAR from the E1. Anyway, I believe your conclusion for ISO performance is just the level of noise... you should always LOOK at the amount of detail. I have taken the ISO1600 samples from the site and ran neat image through all of them and cropped a 100% sample where there are details.

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...65#post2192065

    Look at the canon 5D as a reference as it is far better than all the rest. The canon 350D is a close second. The pentax which you say is as good as the 5D, I feel is probably last in details.... maybe nikon D50 (another "low noise" performer) is worse for details.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NTU and Wdls
    Posts
    2,622

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    How about "Goners?"

    Sorry, I guess you did not get my point. The best camera is the one you have. Not because it is technically the best but because T IS THE ONE YOU BOUGHT AND USE!!! I may be wet dreaming about Nikon D200, which you apparently don't call a good camera, but since I have an E-500 that is the worlds best camera. At least for me. All the rest is just hearsaying from more or less reliable sources. Now, since you have a Canon 350D, probably that is the worlds best camera for you. But how many Olympus cameras, and which models did you ever owned? So, if the answer is "none" than you just contribute to even more hearsaying. We all have our prejudice about things, some will admit that, some call them "the truth" some call them facts. With tests you can proof almost anything, depends on what you want to test and how you test it. There is just one very important test that is interesting, and that is: How YOU see on the pictures YOUR camera produces. Regardless if it is a Sony, Minolta, Canon, Nikon or even Olympus, what counts at the end is if you are happy. You don't have to call others "uninformed" just because they don't say every word you say. Others are also entitled to other opinions.

    When I chose my Olympus E-500, I was very open minded, I compared Canon 350D, Nikon D70, Olympus E-330, E-500. All of these were within my budget. I selected E-500 because FOR ME that was the worlds best camera. And if I could make a choise again, I would still select the same one. You may call me "uninformed" (btw, how informed I am is nothing you know anything about) but I did not regret my selection as of today. I may be enlightened tomorrow, but today I am happy with my E-500. However, since I am so "uninformed", if I had the money, I would get a Nikon D200. And if you say Oly owners avoid darkness because of the "bad" noise handling, than sorry mate, but YOU are extreamly uninformed yourself. Or should I say "misinformed"?

    And an other secret: It is not the perfect camera that makes a good photograph, it is the photographer behind the camera.
    heh now that you pointed it out, I'd agree.
    Me, I've use a Oly E500 before, under a low lighting situation, and that created alot of trouble with the photos taken. I had to dig up neat image to use it. (it got retired after I shot with the 350D). True, I've never owned one, but from my uses of it I'd say it's more of a daytime camera than a night time one.
    However what I say still holds. Any of the olympus models so far lag behind any other brand of dSLR in terms of high ISO performance. Low light/high ISO is just something olympus dSLRs can't handle.
    Hmmm IIRC, Sony ranks quite alot higher than Olympus in terms of DIGITAL camera sales. It's in the top 5 even, IIRC, above Nikon.

    From the OTS
    Quote Originally Posted by siaolang22
    hi pple, i need some advice on which dslr gives da best pic quality in high ISO + low light.
    Promoting Olympus models is just about one of the worse advices to give.

    Wind30 => You're right, I didn't notice about Pentax's loss of details.
    As for olympus models comparing to the F11, run neat image on olympus images till they are as clean as the F11, I'm sure you'll see that not much details will be left.

    Edit: No point to run some images and other not through neatimage. point of neat image is to remove noise. Oly e500 images are still as noisy as ever. if you actually cleaned up the noise, doubt much details will be left.
    Last edited by unseen; 30th May 2006 at 02:24 PM.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by unseen
    http://digitalcamera.impress.co.jp/0.../index_iso.htm
    You get to see noise performance here.
    Check out Pentax's *ist DS2. It performs as well as Canon's 5D at ISO1600. Perhaps even better.

    sorry but all the Olympus dSLRS are so far behind in ISO performances that I believe some PnS (Fuji's notably) may perform better. I mean, my 350D ISO1600 outperforms the E500 ISO400 at noise cleaniness.

    D200's noise profile isn't exactly very good either.

    For the uninformed OlyFlyer, Sony took over Konica Minolta's entire camera department. What would you associate Konica or Minolta with?
    As for Anti-shake, it's exactly the case of you saying grapes are sour just because you can't eat them. Being an Olympus user, it's little wonder you don't shoot much in the darker areas. When you're faced with ISO1600, 1/10s, F2.0 no flash with a 50mm, you'll understand why people rave about Anti-Shake. Till then, good for you. Not everyone's limited to brightly lit subjects, and what's sharp enough for some is too blur for others.
    An other point I forgot to mention is the way they did the test. Now, I don't speak Japaneese, maybe you do, so I can not read anything except the few english words on that page. From what I can read, I can not make out how they tested the cameras. I can see the pictures, they seem to be identical. BUT!

    Which settings were used besides ISO?
    How come file size for so called 'Original' varies between 1MB and 8.5 Mb for the same image? My interpretation is that they have used different compression. I think the only way to do the test is to take RAW images, than use the same software to convert to JPEG in a PC (or MAC). This way you exclude the cameras jpeg compression algorithm, which obviously is not the same. Some cameras, typically P&S are optimized for JPEG, while others, like some DSLR are optimized for RAW. Using different compression factor, which is obviosly done here, is definitly wrong and not very scientific.
    It is also wrong to take an image and trying to make it to BW image. CCDs are made for color, and color only. In the examples this conversion worked better with some cameras, worst with others. If I am mistaken, and there was no BW conversion, just a white figure against a black background, than I am sorry to say, but what is the reddish tone in a great many pictures? It seems that some have problems in that case to handle the lack of color.

    If you have an ist DS2 and you are happy with that, that's good for you. And if you are happy with your 350D, well man, that's all that matters. But remember, that is YOUR opinion. Other people have the right to say that THEY belive Nikon D200 is far better than your 350D. Before you say somebody is uninformed, get some information yourself and be more critical to tests, like the one you quote. Testing noise is a science, it can not be done by taking a few pictures and copare these whithout even be able to read how the test was done. Maybe you can help us with the translations from Japaneese to English.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by eow
    U mind show a 'Goners' user any of yr pics taken in lowlight? preferably those in action one at high iso?
    talk is cheap..a pic spoke a thousand word
    The sample images on that Japanees site is not really what I call 'in action'.

    Actually, I did quite a few test pictures with some of the 'goners' before my decision of geting E-500. Must say, I was not happy with the results. So, for me they are definitly 'goners'. My test pictures where more concentrated to 'normal light' pictures, which is 99.99999% of the cases for all cameras in the world. If I would buy a specific camera for ONLY very low light use, it would still not be any of the 'goners', but I would still get Nikon D200 with a real high end lens.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    Actually, as someone pointed out, Sony is VERY strong is the camera business. Currently slightly more so than Nikon in my opinon. Why? Because they design and produce the single most impt piece of hardware inside the camera, the sensor. Do you know nikon uses Sony sensors for many of their DSLRs?...
    I would be the last to deny that Sony is good in sensors. If I would buy a video camera, I would not hesitate geting a Sony. The sensor is however not 'the single most impt piece of hardware inside a DSLR camera'. A good lens is just as equally important. You can never take a good image without a high quality lens, but you can take amazingly good images with a lesser quality CCD and a high quality lens. In fact, I did an experiment two years ago, slaughtering my webcam, fixing a black box with one of my lenses and the CCD. I tell you, I was amazed by the image quality compared to the ones the same camera took with its original lens, even comparing with some of my friends more expensive P&S cameras. Naturally, the image quality was not comparable with any of the cameras we discuss here.

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    Does it has an electronics viewfinder? I certainly hope so but I don't think so. They are keeping the Konica Minolta body...
    Well, if that's what you want, good for you. I would never buy a DSLR with electronic viewfinder. That is like looking at an image already processed on a bad display. CCD pixel quality will alway be higher than display quality, even if you have a 19" display. Electronic viewfinders are good for video cameras, not for photo. A combination like E-330s live view is maybe a good idea for those who need that.

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    Definately not shooting at the moon, the moon is very bright actually if you ever tried shooting at it...
    Yes, I know that moon is bright, and Yes, I did shoot the moon. But, it is nothing you shoot freehand, with or without image stabilizer.

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    Anyway, I know that the sony is not released but it will be very SOON, so my advice is to wait for one week or two to see how good it is...
    You know something we don't? Like release date? Please SHARE SHARE SHARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    BTW, EVERYONE knows it is the photographer behind the camera..... what is the point of saying this...
    Yes, everybody SUPPOSED to know that, but also far too many blames their equipment, or the lack of it, for not being able to take the 'right picture.' Just learn the camera you have, use it and be happy. Look at the Masters, they used simple cameras, low ISO films, in many cases one single lens and still, they managed to became Masters because they had something we (at least most of us) don't. It was not their camera that made them grate photographers, it was the way they saw things. And that is regardless if you take Capa, Adams, Ray or any other photographers worth the stamp 'Master' on. They even used grainy (noisy) and blurred images to their own benefit and made ART of photography.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    The sample images on that Japanees site is not really what I call 'in action'.

    Actually, I did quite a few test pictures with some of the 'goners' before my decision of geting E-500. Must say, I was not happy with the results. So, for me they are definitly 'goners'. My test pictures where more concentrated to 'normal light' pictures, which is 99.99999% of the cases for all cameras in the world. If I would buy a specific camera for ONLY very low light use, it would still not be any of the 'goners', but I would still get Nikon D200 with a real high end lens.
    I will test out this E-500 u so highly held in regards this coming pc show....we shall see...
    头可断,血可流,倩女不可不追求 carpe diem,when in doubt, hoot first,apologise later:p GALLERY

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    270 degree of Singapore
    Posts
    6,741

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by eow
    I will test out this E-500 u so highly held in regards this coming pc show....we shall see...
    Bro, if you want to test for all camera, remember to shoot in RAW, then post with no sharpening/noise reduction. But I afraid later some will say these noise can be post processed away easily.
    Too bad the Sony DSLR Alpha 100 is not out yet, I like to test on that also .
    Sony Alpha 700 hobbyist

  8. #28

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    Sony is not a photo camera, it is a TV, a home theater, a computer display or a video camera. It's like Canon is not a printer BUT a camera, HP is not a camera BUT a printer, Olympus is almost anything optical, Nikon is "only" a camera. At least for me. I know, they have other products also...

    I may be a traditional old fool, but I would never consider Sony as a photo camera, other than for P&S purposes. Isn't this fairy tale new Sony everybody is talking about planned to have an electronic viewfinder? In that case it is just an advanced P&S according to me. What do you need the image stabilizer for otherways? That is even switched off in my video camera, because it just slows down the movement, creating irritating, strange and unwanted effects. Why would you need this magical ANTI SHAKE together with a 50mm? If you would say 200mm, 300mm or 500mm then I would understand. But man, if you need anti shake for a 50mm then I suggest you contact a doctor, unless you are very old, or aiming at the moon during a dark night. In that case no difference what kind of lens you use, you need a tripod.

    Shoot with 50mm 1.8 using ISO1600, I wonder, is there any light left on your subject, since you consider you need anti shake?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    How about "Goners?"

    Sorry, I guess you did not get my point. The best camera is the one you have. Not because it is technically the best but because IT IS THE ONE YOU BOUGHT AND USE!!! I may be wet dreaming about Nikon D200, which you apparently don't call a good camera, but since I have an E-500 that is the worlds best camera. At least for me. All the rest is just hearsaying from more or less reliable sources. Now, since you have a Canon 350D, probably that is the worlds best camera for you. But how many Olympus cameras, and which models did you ever owned? So, if the answer is "none" than you just contribute to even more hearsaying. We all have our prejudice about things, some will admit that, some call them "the truth" some call them facts. With tests you can proof almost anything, depends on what you want to test and how you test it. There is just one very important test that is interesting, and that is: How YOU see on the pictures YOUR camera produces. Regardless if it is a Sony, Minolta, Canon, Nikon or even Olympus, what counts at the end is if you are happy. You don't have to call others "uninformed" just because they don't say every word you say. Others are also entitled to other opinions.

    When I chose my Olympus E-500, I was very open minded, I compared Canon 350D, Nikon D70, Olympus E-330, E-500. All of these were within my budget. I selected E-500 because FOR ME that was the worlds best camera. And if I could make a choise again, I would still select the same one. You may call me "uninformed" (btw, how informed I am is nothing you know anything about) but I did not regret my selection as of today. I may be enlightened tomorrow, but today I am happy with my E-500. However, since I am so "uninformed", if I had the money, I would get a Nikon D200. And if you say Oly owners avoid darkness because of the "bad" noise handling, than sorry mate, but YOU are extreamly uninformed yourself. Or should I say "misinformed"?

    And an other secret: It is not the perfect camera that makes a good photograph, it is the photographer behind the camera.
    Banal Talks....

  9. #29

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by eow
    I will test out this E-500 u so highly held in regards this coming pc show....we shall see...
    Don't test my camera, test D200, which is actually the one I highly recomand here, if you read all my posts, you will see that. Still, you do as you pleased, but what is most important, also mentioned by me, is that YOU MUST BE HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. If you can only be happy with your choises by proofing others made wrong decisions, well, then I am sorry for you. You probably never going to be happy, there are just too many people to convince they are wrong.

    My camera is MY choise, I do not have to proof all the time that I am right and others are wrong. I still have my right to have my views, yours not superior to anybody elses. My views are based on my experience and what I read/hear. Yours are based on yours. Probably none uf us is right, but it seems that you feel insulted by me calling Konica Minolta 'goners'.

    If I had all the money in the world, I would buy all brands, goners, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon and so on. Just to have them, and to play with them. Now, unfortunatly, I don't have the budget, and my choise was E-500 for my own needs and use. That is the worlds best camera for me, because that is what I have. And I am happy with it. But still, the one I recomand for low light, high ISO (remember the subject) is Nikon D200.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    Don't test my camera, test D200, which is actually the one I highly recomand here, if you read all my posts, you will see that. Still, you do as you pleased, but what is most important, also mentioned by me, is that YOU MUST BE HAPPY WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. If you can only be happy with your choises by proofing others made wrong decisions, well, then I am sorry for you. You probably never going to be happy, there are just too many people to convince they are wrong.

    My camera is MY choise, I do not have to proof all the time that I am right and others are wrong. I still have my right to have my views, yours not superior to anybody elses. My views are based on my experience and what I read/hear. Yours are based on yours. Probably none uf us is right, but it seems that you feel insulted by me calling Konica Minolta 'goners'.

    If I had all the money in the world, I would buy all brands, goners, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon and so on. Just to have them, and to play with them. Now, unfortunatly, I don't have the budget, and my choise was E-500 for my own needs and use. That is the worlds best camera for me, because that is what I have. And I am happy with it. But still, the one I recomand for low light, high ISO (remember the subject) is Nikon D200.

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    SG lahhhh
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    how come nobody suggest the new Sony DSLR which is launching soon?

    I REALLY advise you to wait for the new Sony DSLR launch in June if you want low light performance.

    People here recommend D200... The new Sony is rumored to be 10MP, so probably similar performance to D200, with ANTI SHAKE. So you can mount a cheap 50mm f1.8 and have image stabilization and shoot at ISO1600.... The price tag is supposedly below S$2k... some rumors even say got dust removal...

    If you want low light performance, should really wait for the Sony.

    hmmmm......interesting

  12. #32

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by zcf
    Bro, if you want to test for all camera, remember to shoot in RAW, then post with no sharpening/noise reduction. But I afraid later some will say these noise can be post processed away easily.
    Too bad the Sony DSLR Alpha 100 is not out yet, I like to test on that also .
    ...finally, somebody is showing some understanding on, and talking about how to start testing cameras, and not JPEG compressors.

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    SG lahhhh
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    Sony is not a photo camera, it is a TV, a home theater, a computer display or a video camera. It's like Canon is not a printer BUT a camera, HP is not a camera BUT a printer, Olympus is almost anything optical, Nikon is "only" a camera. At least for me. I know, they have other products also...

    I may be a traditional old fool, but I would never consider Sony as a photo camera, other than for P&S purposes. Isn't this fairy tale new Sony everybody is talking about planned to have an electronic viewfinder? In that case it is just an advanced P&S according to me. What do you need the image stabilizer for otherways? That is even switched off in my video camera, because it just slows down the movement, creating irritating, strange and unwanted effects. Why would you need this magical ANTI SHAKE together with a 50mm? If you would say 200mm, 300mm or 500mm then I would understand. But man, if you need anti shake for a 50mm then I suggest you contact a doctor, unless you are very old, or aiming at the moon during a dark night. In that case no difference what kind of lens you use, you need a tripod.

    Shoot with 50mm 1.8 using ISO1600, I wonder, is there any light left on your subject, since you consider you need anti shake?
    oldtimer, u have some points here too.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by tokrot
    Banal Talks....
    Well, you found it interestingly enough to read through my long, and some times philosophycal outbursts. Assuming you read them also.

  15. #35

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by siaolang22
    hi pple, i need some advice on which dslr gives da best pic quality in high ISO + low light.

    i'm using e330 currently, like da cam very much BUT when cum to using it in low light + at least a shutterr speed of 1/50 ( b/c of human movement ) i find theres noise anything above 400 iso. my settings r S mode 1/30- 1/50, ev +0.7, nosie reduction on, SHQ pic. quality, iso range between 800-1250. i tried reducing iso but speed b/c problem or pic too dark, high iso 1600 bright + good speed 1/60= very visible noise. izzit my settings r wrong or e330 doesnt perform well in high iso? any suggestion as in settings or which camera should i buy ? ( canon ? )
    The obvious contender is KM 5D.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    SG lahhhh
    Posts
    108

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    PC show around da corner, will chk out all cams dats mentioned here

    ermmm...a little hot in here, how bout' i buy u guys beers and lets chill out? hehehee..

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    An other point I forgot to mention is the way they did the test. Now, I don't speak Japaneese, maybe you do, so I can not read anything except the few english words on that page. From what I can read, I can not make out how they tested the cameras. I can see the pictures, they seem to be identical. BUT!

    Which settings were used besides ISO?
    How come file size for so called 'Original' varies between 1MB and 8.5 Mb for the same image? My interpretation is that they have used different compression. I think the only way to do the test is to take RAW images, than use the same software to convert to JPEG in a PC (or MAC). This way you exclude the cameras jpeg compression algorithm, which obviously is not the same. Some cameras, typically P&S are optimized for JPEG, while others, like some DSLR are optimized for RAW. Using different compression factor, which is obviosly done here, is definitly wrong and not very scientific.
    It is also wrong to take an image and trying to make it to BW image. CCDs are made for color, and color only. In the examples this conversion worked better with some cameras, worst with others. If I am mistaken, and there was no BW conversion, just a white figure against a black background, than I am sorry to say, but what is the reddish tone in a great many pictures? It seems that some have problems in that case to handle the lack of color.

    different in size between all the pic is becos some pic have very low resolution like D2H which is oni 4MP while some are gaint like the 1Ds which have 16+MP... you can't expect a pic so much bigger to be of the same size as a 4MP photos
    If you have an ist DS2 and you are happy with that, that's good for you. And if you are happy with your 350D, well man, that's all that matters. But remember, that is YOUR opinion. Other people have the right to say that THEY belive Nikon D200 is far better than your 350D. Before you say somebody is uninformed, get some information yourself and be more critical to tests, like the one you quote. Testing noise is a science, it can not be done by taking a few pictures and copare these whithout even be able to read how the test was done. Maybe you can help us with the translations from Japaneese to English.
    the pic are in different size mainly due to the resolution of camera... ranging from a low 4MP to 16MP...

    for me tho im a nikon user, i would say that thru reading reviews, canon is better at low light without flash and nikon is better at low light with flash (in general). for noise control between 350d and d200, i would say that 350d have a slight edge but lack the function ability of d200. juz my POV
    Last edited by ExplorerZ; 30th May 2006 at 07:27 PM.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    I would be the last to deny that Sony is good in sensors. If I would buy a video camera, I would not hesitate geting a Sony. The sensor is however not 'the single most impt piece of hardware inside a DSLR camera'. A good lens is just as equally important. You can never take a good image without a high quality lens, but you can take amazingly good images with a lesser quality CCD and a high quality lens. In fact, I did an experiment two years ago, slaughtering my webcam, fixing a black box with one of my lenses and the CCD. I tell you, I was amazed by the image quality compared to the ones the same camera took with its original lens, even comparing with some of my friends more expensive P&S cameras. Naturally, the image quality was not comparable with any of the cameras we discuss here.
    We are talking about camera bodies. Every system has good lens. KM has some remarkable lens too. So that doesn't really helps in the arguement one way or the other. For the DSLR body, the sensor if probably the most impt thing inside the camera. And Nikon uses errr... what sensor??

    As to the sony release date, they will announce it on 6th June, just one week away. And rumors point to that they will be shipping soon.
    Last edited by wind30; 30th May 2006 at 07:55 PM.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by OlyFlyer
    But still, the one I recomand for low light, high ISO (remember the subject) is Nikon D200.
    duh.... I DON'T get it.... why will you recommend nikon D200 for low light, high ISO performance and put down Sony in the same breath?

    Although I don't agree with you, (I think even the cheapo canon 350D has better ISO performance than the more expensive D200, most people do agree on this), the things you say are just not logical. Sony MADE the sensor for D200. Although a DSLR has many components, high ISO performance is basically determined by the sensor.... unless your extreme experience tell you that the nikkor lens actually help to remove some of the high ISO noise...

  20. #40

    Default Re: Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30
    duh.... I DON'T get it.... why will you recommend nikon D200 for low light, high ISO performance and put down Sony in the same breath?

    Although I don't agree with you, (I think even the cheapo canon 350D has better ISO performance than the more expensive D200, most people do agree on this), the things you say are just not logical. Sony MADE the sensor for D200. Although a DSLR has many components, high ISO performance is basically determined by the sensor.... unless your extreme experience tell you that the nikkor lens actually help to remove some of the high ISO noise...
    He didn't do his homework and obviously biased against KM/Sony. Period.


    My recommendation for KM 5d is as follows:

    The Anti Shake helps 2 or 3 stops in shutter speed which is good for low light shooting. Moreover, with the AS in use, a low ISO is needed which means lesser noise and higher quality picture. That's also almost eliminate the use of direct harsh flash at night.

    Combining with AS, ambient light and a large aperture lens with a low ISO noise, you can provide a high quality picture at night without the need of use of a tripod and handheld is possible too. Moreover KM 5D provides very vivid colors too, that's why I recommend that.

    But the most important is KM 5D suits what the threadstarter wanted is a budget low light shooting camera with low ISO noise in the first place.

    note: KM 5D has ISO 3200 which most budget cameras do not have. Most importantly, the Luminance (Shadow) noise level is lowest in its class.

    If you guys do your homework, you will know what I meant above.
    Last edited by tokrot; 30th May 2006 at 08:41 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •