Reviews seem inconsistent, what am I missing?
Maybe I'm misreading something somewhere, but the dcresource review comparisons of the a700 seem inconsistent as to the camera's low light performance.
The Sony a700 review says (in part):
At the highest ISO settings, I think the Canon EOS-40D does slightly better than the A700, though shooting in RAW could negate this.
The Nikon D300 review says (in part):
NIght shots are hard to compare (since conditions are never consistent), but I'm thinking that the D300 did better than the Canon EOS-40D in this test. Both the D300 and the 40D wiped the floor with the Sony Alpha DSLR-A700, which isn't so hot in low light at high sensitivities.
"Slightly better" and "wiped the floor" are not equivalent in my book. Which is it?
Which one? I shutter(-speed) at the thought ...
The fact is that any of the three manufacturers are now a far cry from the earlier releases. The low light capability between the current three is nit-picking free-for-all, so you can get one or the other or the other ... and probably do just fine in your choice.
For argument sake ... you can probably assume its a level playing field, at the moment. They are all REAL good for what they can now do.
What you need to consider is what you are planning on doing with the system you select and what system you may already have legacy hardware to use with it.
Canon and Nikon are huge ... and have a quite a variety of lenses and items to select from.
The SONY has in-the-body-Image-Stability ... and that is the big attraction for low-light shooting, because you can possibly leave the shutter open a bit longer with ANY lens you put on the front of it and not get "shake." Otherwise, with the other two ... you would need a lens equipped with image-stability and that represents added cost.
... is built-in the camera, it is "FREE" from that day on, no matter what lens or whatever moves ya. ;) (Makes perfect sense to me.)
Flip a coin ... then flip again! :cool:
That's a start Jeff, but...
I really have to question the validity of this "test". It seems you're trying to use it as a (at least relatively) scientific test, but there are way too many variables that are different from test to test.
For example, the level of light on a given night can vary greatly (you even mention this in your review), along with air conditions. Second, they are taken at slightly different angles, and finally, there's a huge difference in aperture/shutter speed on these shots.
For the a700, you used iso3200, 0.2s, f5.6, while the d300 was at iso3200, 0.76s, f/13. Can you explain why you'd do this?
What's the point of a test if you have so many variables - you're supposed to keep everything constant, and just change one parameter (the camera in this case).
Not to mention, that no one would actually shoot high ISO for this type of scene - you'd use a low ISO and a long shutter speed, along with a tripod, or something to steady the camera.
Given that the atmospheric conditions are never going to be constant, what's the point of this test? Why not use a controlled room with constant lighting, and photograph something with fine texture, text, etc to really compare low light levels and high ISO? Seems that would be much easier to keep consistent, and be a much more accurate reflection of high ISO capabilities.
I was ok with the wording
Jeff--I was simply confused by the two reviews. Certainly most all of this is subjective and you absolutely have to write what YOU think and see. That's what makes your reviews a great resource.
Originally Posted by Jeff Keller