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

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16633511
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.

Except when you downsample the D800 RAW-file to match 6D (20mpix) it's essentially a tie. Downsampling a larger number of pixels lowers noise levels and the D800 file still has more details. So I can already say this based on experience also with my A7R. So there is no doubt that Nikon/Sony has the superior sensor. But no need to argue with here, we are only talking about theoretical performance so it doesn't matter in the real world. It's up to everyone's personal preference which camera they will use. It's the man behind the camera that matters. But it is nice to have many options

Tmuussoni wrote in post #16634023
Except when you downsample the D800 RAW-file to match 6D (20mpix) it's essentially a tie. Downsampling a larger number of pixels lowers noise levels and the D800 file still has more details. So I can already say this based on experience also with my A7R. So there is no doubt that Nikon/Sony has the superior sensor. But no need to argue with here, we are only talking about theoretical performance so it doesn't matter in the real world. It's up to everyone's personal preference which camera they will use. It's the man behind the camera that matters. But it is nice to have many options

That was always the argument of the 5D2 vs the D700. D700 was cleaner at higher ISOs, but the 5D2 had more megapickles so if you cropped 100% on the D700, you would only have to crop to 50% on the 5D2 and it would look cleaner.

It figures. It was the dxo review of the nikon D600 which lead many to buy that troublesome camera, I was one. In addition to oil and dust on the sensor issues that many experienced, mine had many hot pixels. Now that I invested in a Canon 6D the differences are apparent. No sensor problems on either of my Canon bodies. The 6d focus better in low light, by far. It has much better color rendition in jpeg's. And the L lenses are superb. The cameras ergonomics are also a light year ahead of Nikon.

But many will buy these 20 cameras based on a myoptic review.

Well, can everybody go here and check.
DPreview's studio comparison page. This is the new scene, where you can actually compare cameras at the same output size (PRINT viewing mode). In this Print mode all cameras are downsized (by various amounts depending on the camera's megapixel count) to display them at one common size, leveling the playing field.

Select 6D on left, D800 (or whatever camera) on the right. Select jpeg or RAW and the desired ISO. Up, you can see FULL (100% crop) PRINT (smaller but common size for all cameras) and WEB (even smaller, but same principle as PRINT).

So if you look at them in PRINT, it's the same playing field.

Check them in DAYLIGHT, or LOW LIGHT.
To my eyes, the 6D does very slightly better than D800 in DAYLIGHT, and a bit more visibly better in the LOW LIGHT mode, even when choosing PRINT (same output size).
The 6D is beating the D610 by a bit larger margin.
But of course these are such small differences that they aren't even worth much discussion, these differences will not make or break an image.
Still, I just found it weird that the 6D isn't even mentioned on the list.

Tmuussoni wrote in post #16634023
Except when you downsample the D800 RAW-file to match 6D (20mpix) it's essentially a tie. Downsampling a larger number of pixels lowers noise levels and the D800 file still has more details. So I can already say this based on experience also with my A7R. So there is no doubt that Nikon/Sony has the superior sensor. But no need to argue with here, we are only talking about theoretical performance so it doesn't matter in the real world. It's up to everyone's personal preference which camera they will use. It's the man behind the camera that matters. But it is nice to have many options

We viewed the images natively on his 32" IPS monitor and without zooming in at all the difference was fairly obvious. The D800 was still great, but the noise pattern on the 6D was/is far more pleasing to the eye without NR. He loves his D800 and I love my 6D, that's really all that matters (see, Nikon and Canon owners can get along! :lol.

I'm just saying, even my friend (who's an absolute Nikon fanboy, couldn't coax him into an A7r even though all he wanted was the high MP sensor for use mostly with MF glass) noted before I could that the 6D files looked more pleasing SOOC. I believe we compared ISO1600, 6400 and 12800. At 1600 they both look pretty much the same, though as I've said before I think Canon's AWB is much more accurate (though my X-E1 is even more accurate).

hmm so the new Df has better high iso performance than either 1DX and D4?

It still surprises me that there are members in this forum who actually believe those so called test results from DxO when there have been numerous threads over the years which have questioned them

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1116475

Hahaha, Adorama time to fire your marketing guy. Great way to piss off a large portion of your customers.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #16634912
It still surprises me that there are members in this forum who actually believe those so called test results from DxO when there have been numerous threads over the years which have questioned them

They are questioned because they are not understood. DxOs measurements are very specific and even they state that they are not indicative of overall image quality. But, if you are speaking S/N, then the Nikon outperforms the Canon sensor.

blasphemy, how can that be possible. Canon is of course better because we know how to expose properly.

I love reading about the differences and how they play out in the real world but having to read through fanboyism and hurt feelings is a bit tedious.

Also this was NOT the 20 best low light cameras. This was the 3 best full frame, 3 best Aps-c 3 best 4/3rd etc ect.

SNR when it comes to cameras is only half the story. Equally important is what the noise looks like. Put any sort of patterning in the noise, in an area with very low spatial frequencies and the noise will LOOK really bad. Not only that but it's harder to get rid of. Put truly random noise in an area with high spatial frequencies, as long as you do not exceed the Nyquist limit, and the noise will not be so apparent, and is easier to remove. Unfortunately these tests tell us very little about the nature of the noise signal, and the ease with which it can be dealt with, without affecting the image quality.

DxO suggest that the noise should be 10000 times smaller than the signal (SNR = 40dB), but it is perfectly possible to remove the noise from a digital signal where the SNR is -40dB, in other words the noise is 10000 times bigger than the signal. However for this to work well on a photograph you need one where there is lots of detail and no areas of constant or near constant colour, along with a truly random noise distribution across the whole image.

gjl711 wrote in post #16635314
They are questioned because they are not understood. DxOs measurements are very specific and even they state that they are not indicative of overall image quality. But, if you are speaking S/N, then the Nikon outperforms the Canon sensor.

The measurements are indeed very specific - and they describe their methods in quite some detail. With enough motivation and education, one can glean useful technical information from them. However, they are often not presented as such, but rather normalized and weighted in ways that are far from transparent and in ways individual users may not weight the same. So they come out with "metrics" or "conclusions" based on those weightings/normalizati​ons that seem contrary to people's experience (because those people assess the world with different "methods") so the overall ratings are not understood and therefore are dismissed. Many of those people then throw out everything DxO does because they don't agree with those conclusions.

(They also do "lens reviews" which should actually be called "lens/camera combination reviews'" - for good lenses, the value reported is frequently a reflection of the limit of the sensor in the camera, rather than just lens performance That's why the top "lenses" are all using Nikon mounts tested on the camera wth a 36 MP sensor).

"Based on independent DxOMark lab test results..."

Garbage in, garbage out.

El Pedro wrote in post #16634932
Hahaha, Adorama time to fire your marketing guy. Great way to piss off a large portion of your customers.

That was my first thought as well! Am going to get another 6D body on the next round of rebates/discounts. Have purchased two Nikon bodies and some lenses from Adorama in the past. Sold all that off and then purchased all of my Canon stuff if from B&H Photo. B&H will get my purchases from now on.

AJSJones wrote in post #16635754
So they come out with "metrics" or "conclusions" based on those weightings/normalizati​ons that seem contrary to people's experience (because those people assess the world with different "methods") so the overall ratings are not understood and therefore are dismissed. Many of those people then throw out everything DxO does because they don't agree with those conclusions.

RTPVid wrote in post #16635790
"Based on independent DxOMark lab test results..."

Garbage in, garbage out.

Nice example

Once it was shown that Adorama got their ratings from DXO, everyone should have taken the results with a grain on salt. Heck, everyone should have taken the ratings with a grain of salt no matter what they were.
Just like Scott Kelby switching from Nikon to Canon, who cares?!? I suppose it evens things out if you consider that a "win" for Canon, this Adorama article is a "win" for Nikon. If you're a novice and know nothing about cameras I guess this article means more to you....but Canon is still #1 in sales despite all of the negatives about sensor performance you read about.