Adorama's 20 Best Cameras For Digital Low-Light Photography

Here's the link:http://www.adorama.com …12414ALC&j=Emai​l012414ALC
Canon didn't even make the list????? I love my 5D MkIII in low light and hear the 6D is even slightly better, so was very surprised.

Poking around DxOs site, if you are looking a S/N only, it seems to be the case. Nikon's new DX seems to be the clear market leader at this time. However if you look at the charts, the difference is very small except for DR

I thought Nikons had better DR but Canons had the better clean High ISO?

You know they're just trying to sell products, the Nikons are good because they have Sony sensors. A couple months back I got to shoot side by side with a Sony FS100 in horrible low light, I mean horrible. Not to mention they were shooting at a slow 5.6.

but the footage that came from it was SO CLEAN. It was insane, it just looked so beautiful. Nothing like the one I shot with my Canon.

If your low light shots look good who cares though, remember just a few years back if you could get 1600 clean you were happy.

Strange that Canon didn't make it, however, maybe they'll want to be on the list the next time

Wow the 6d didnt even make the top 3. I guess for low light stuff i know where to go.

Yeah, that's funny. they should go to DPreview's website (studio comparison) and compare the 6D with D610 and D800, both in 100% and in the same output size (DPreview's PRINT mode), and they'd see that the 6D has less noise than they do (both in RAW and jpeg)
Perhaps the pure numbers are going for the Nikons, but photography is a visual art afterall, and if I see less noise from the 6D than the others, the 6D to me is better. And this time we're not talking about DR, so the usual (and valid) Nikon argument: "but DR is higher" doesn't apply here
So it's odd, that it's nowhere to be found in the article.

I've shot side by side with my friend's d800 using the same settings, even the same lens and even he noted that the 6D was considerably better at ISO's above 3200... so I'm not buying it.

Its on the internet so it must be true.

Everybody has an opinion. Probably it's true. But I have what I wanted and will not switch

maverick75 wrote in post #16632722
You know they're just trying to sell products, the Nikons are good because they have Sony sensors.
.

The D4 and the new Df use Nikon sensors. The D800 is a Sony sensor.

No LX7 in the compacts? Crazyness

DxoMark bullsh*t as usual....

Hrm,

I'm confused. Reading that, the ISO numbers they're tossing around are .... low numbers. Did I miss something? How is a review of 3200 ISO performance even an issue? Also, no visual examples. I looked at a few reviews showing performance of different bodies doing high ISO imaging, and some of them where absolutely stunning at 25600 ISO, it made a lesser model at ISO 1600 look like a chump not even performing well enough at that. I consider that high ISO, those 5+ digit numbers. High ISO being called 3200 is not high in my book. It's higher, but the scale of "high" seems to have moved way past the 4 digit mark.

Not being any kind of brand loyalist (I honestly have Canon because it was recommended by a friend and had a good start-up price for me at the time; I continue because I have not wanted to re-buy everything); I looked at images in ISO performance reviews, and hands down, the images I saw (real world images) from the Canon 6D were stellar.

I'm confused how a mirrorless and some other lower stuff is on this so called list, but the 6D isn't popping up left and right.

And again, no visual examples to show real world proof of ISO handling.

Looks like website "filler" to me. But what do I know...

Very best,

With their numbers, a higher number for ISO is better.

If one camera rates 3200 on ISO and one rates 1600 on ISO, it means the same noise will be present at those two ISO for those two cameras, making one camera one stop better.

At least that is my understanding of it, I could very well be wrong.