Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?

[jbma]

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 handheld. 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.

Here here! I'll drink to that.:cheers:

 

[eow]

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.

Dun get so work up/defensive....ex-konica minolta and now sony doesn't paid me a dime to spoke up for their product ....so i won't be arguing with u over that kind of trivial stuff

 

[wind30]

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.

But the low noise is at the expense of details for KM 5D. I think the KM 5D, nikon D70/D50 uses very similar sensor (ALSO from SONY) so the performance will be similar.

But the new sony DSLR will be different. Sony will reserve the very best sensor for their entry to DSLR as they must succeed.

 

[OlyFlyer]

the pic are in different size mainly due to the resolution of camera... ranging from a low 4MP to 16MP...

What?.....

D50/70 are 6 Megapixels cameras producing 2.3-2.5 MB image at ISO1600
E-500 is 8 Megapixels producing 5 MB image at ISO1600
D200 is 10 Megapixels producing 2,8 MB at ISO1600 (something wrong in that logic here)

For me that is not logical. Just shows how the compressor works differently. Logically, if compressed the same way, same image should at least show largest file size for D200 in my examples.

I am still waiting for someone to interpret what is on that page. How the test is done. The page suddenly regarded as a reference by many. How come so many people accepts something they are unable to read?

 

[OlyFlyer]

He didn't do his homework and obviously biased against KM/Sony. Period.

Which homework? :dunno: I never said Sony does not make good sensors. Actually, if you read my posts, I say quite the opposite. But, that does not make every user of Sony CCD into a Sony camera.

 

[OlyFlyer]

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.

The end result definitly depends on the lens and the rest of the camera. You can not take any image with just the sensor, regardless how good that is. Alone, it is a worthless piece of garbage for a photographer. And I never said Sony is not making very good sensors, so what is there to argue? I just say I would not buy a Sony camera other than video cam. What is wrong with that? The fact that Nikon uses Sony CCD (I have to take your word on that, without checking) does not make it into a Sony camera. Just like Olys use of Kodak sensors does not make it into a Kodak camera.

And why doesn't make my recomandation of Nikon D200 any sense? For me a camera is the whole thing, body, lens, functions, handling, user friendlyness and CCD and so on. Can you not imagine somebody recomanding a brand different to what one has? I seem not to be that attached to my camera emotionally as others, so I don't have any problems with that. As I said, Sony sensor and Sony camera are two differnt things.

 

[wind30]

And why doesn't make my recomandation of Nikon D200 any sense? For me a camera is the whole thing, body, lens, functions, handling, user friendlyness and CCD and so on. Can you not imagine somebody recomanding a brand different to what one has? I seem not to be that attached to my camera emotionally as others, so I don't have any problems with that. As I said, Sony sensor and Sony camera are two differnt things.

you should not change your words so fast. you SAID

But still, the one I recomand for low light, high ISO (remember the subject) is Nikon D200.

The recommendation was from the BEGINNING for low light, high ISO. Not handling, not user friendlyness. Although I am getting older but I am not that forgetful yet. That is why I find that your recommendation of D200 for low light, high ISO performance doesn't make sense at all.

Although a good arguement is quite fun, but only if the people argueing have good memories else it is quite pointless as we will be going in circles.

Let's face it, you made your D200 recommendation for high ISO performance and bashed Sony, without even knowing that D200 owns its supposedly good high ISO performance to Sony who made the sensor. This is the "homework" tokrot was talking about.

 

[OlyFlyer]

you should not change your words so fast. you SAID



The recommendation was from the BEGINNING for low light, high ISO. Not handling, not user friendlyness. Although I am getting older but I am not that forgetful yet. That is why I find that your recommendation of D200 for low light, high ISO performance doesn't make sense at all.

Although a good arguement is quite fun, but only if the people argueing have good memories else it is quite pointless as we will be going in circles.

Let's face it, you made your D200 recommendation for high ISO performance and bashed Sony, without even knowing that D200 owns its supposedly good high ISO performance to Sony who made the sensor. This is the "homework" tokrot was talking about.

And? I never made any secret of that, did I? I said already in #4 "D200". Which words did I change? Knowing that Nikon is using Sony CCD did not change me in my recomandation of D200, or did you understood that way? Or is it you looking for a fight? I really don't give a damn about who manufactures the CCD. When I buy a camera I buy a camera with all the things I mentioned, not careing at all which factory is manufacturing each part. I think almost everybody selects a camera without selecting the CCD manufacturer. Looking at functions, handling, the image produced by the camera and the whole kit is what ordinary people are interested in, except maybe you, the expert. Once again, I don't understand where you are getting. I never denied Sony is a good CCD manufacturer. Just not managed to make a camera to my taste yet.

And offending people by saying they don't do their homework just because they don't know who manufactures the Nikon D200 CCD does not add anything to the debate eigther. Remember, do your homework, read the title, which says: "Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?" and not "Who is manufacturing the best CCD" In which case even I would have answered Sony, even without knowing D200 has Sony CCD.

Yes, we are going around in circles, me keep repeating Sony is a good CCD manufacturer and D200 is a good camera, but you don't understand what I write and want me to say something else, but I don't know what. So, have a nice day, be happy with the camera you have. I am definitly happy with my lousy E-500, and I don't have to proof that to you or anybody else. For me, photography is fun and a hobby, not a competiotion. And once I'll have the money, I'll buy my D200, or similar, with whatever CCD it has that satisfy me. BTW, I hade no idea that Kodak makes the E-500 CCD before I bought my camera, so uninformed I was, just because I was looking at the whole camera, not just a component. For all I cared it could have been Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

 

[wind30]

And? I never made any secret of that, did I? I said already in #4 "D200". Which words did I change? Knowing that Nikon is using Sony CCD did not change me in my recomandation of D200, or did you understood that way? Or is it you looking for a fight? I really don't give a damn about who manufactures the CCD. When I buy a camera I buy a camera with all the things I mentioned, not careing at all which factory is manufacturing each part. I think almost everybody selects a camera without selecting the CCD manufacturer. Looking at functions, handling, the image produced by the camera and the whole kit is what ordinary people are interested in, except maybe you, the expert. Once again, I don't understand where you are getting. I never denied Sony is a good CCD manufacturer. Just not managed to make a camera to my taste yet.

The words you changed was what the D200 recommendations was for. In the beginning the recommendation was solely for high ISO performance as dictated by the thread. Later you added on other factors (lens, handling) which really doesn't has any bearing on high ISO performance. Because most probably you realised if you based your recommendation solely on high ISO performance like in the beginning, your statement of D200 good, sony bad doesn't make any sense.

And offending people by saying they don't do their homework just because they don't know who manufactures the Nikon D200 CCD does not add anything to the debate eigther. Remember, do your homework, read the title, which says: "Which DSLR performs best in low light and high ISO?" and not "Who is manufacturing the best CCD" In which case even I would have answered Sony, even without knowing D200 has Sony CCD.

Yes, we are going around in circles, me keep repeating Sony is a good CCD manufacturer and D200 is a good camera, but you don't understand what I write and want me to say something else, but I don't know what. So, have a nice day, be happy with the camera you have. I am definitly happy with my lousy E-500, and I don't have to proof that to you or anybody else. For me, photography is fun and a hobby, not a competiotion. And once I'll have the money, I'll buy my D200, or similar, with whatever CCD it has that satisfy me. BTW, I hade no idea that Kodak makes the E-500 CCD before I bought my camera, so uninformed I was, just because I was looking at the whole camera, not just a component. For all I cared it could have been Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

sigh...

I think I know why there is an arguement. I am thinking solely on high ISO performance (which this thread title suggests) while you keep repeatedly basing your comments on the camera as a whole (that is why you bashed sony for factors other than the high ISO).

If you stopped and limit your recommendations based solely on high ISO, you will understand why I feel you recommendation for D200 for high ISO performance, and bashing of sony on the same breath is not logical. Why? Because the high ISO performance is determined mainly by the sensor. Unless you know something else more impt in the DSLR for high ISO performance.

Of course I agree there are other things to a camera more impt that high ISO performance but this thread is discussing which camera has high ISO performance. It is will get real messy if you bring in lens, AF, handling..

Sorry if I sounded rude. I was not the one who brought up the "homework" thing. You were fairly outspoken yourself and this is just an online arguement to prove a point. Nothing more.

 

[southernoise]

how about the cheapo Pentax *ist DL with a FA50 f1.4 with ISO3200 options for less than $1500?

Autofocusing with the FA50 at lowlight hunts quite a bit but for that price....

oh oh... and the sensor is made by SONY! hahaha.... *sighs*