Adorama Ranks Nikon Tops in Low Light Photography

rbrylawski

Thought this link was interesting from Adorama who ranks the top 20 cameras for low light abilities. Nikon did extremely well at the top for sure. Surprisingly, they ranked the D5300 above the D7100 in this regard.

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?googleid=0012810&alias=15-Low-Light-High-ISO-All-Stars&utm_source=RSYS&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email012414ALC&j=Email012414ALC

manhattanboy

Thought this link was interesting from Adorama who ranks the top 20 cameras for low light abilities. Nikon did extremely well at the top for sure. Surprisingly, they ranked the D5300 above the D7100 in this regard.

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?googleid=0012810&alias=15-Low-Light-High-ISO-All-Stars&utm_source=RSYS&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Email012414ALC&j=Email012414ALC

Their ranking just mirror the ISO measurements from DXO.
Take what they say with a grain of salt. For example, they recommend the Df as "the camera to get" for sports and wildlife photography.

On a side note, I now understand what the Df stands for..."Dark field" photography
:P

rbrylawski

I take all rankings a reviews with a grain of salt.........

heartyfisher

I have always been "annoyed" (the tech in me not me personally :-) ) that the Xtrans is not testable by DXO. From reading reviews and looking at samples some say its close to the FX sensors some say it beats teh FX sensors yet some say its not much better than the best DX sensors... my own impression from looking at sample images put it at about 1 stop or more above the D7000 and about 2/3 stop worse than the D4.. still would like to see some lab tests :-(

that still makes it the best DX sensor for low light ..:-)

TaoTeJared

I agree with the X-trans sensor of the Fuji. I haven't made it in to take some test shots with the X-E2 yet and really want to re-test the x100s since I'm coming up to the point of selling that one. The new Fujifilm X-T1 is really catching my eye and would like to see the performance from that. From what I have seen, the D4 is still 3-4 stops ahead of the Fuji. Even my D800 is at least 2-3 stops depending on what you are looking at. (If it is the retention of fine details, FX still blows it away.)

I look at the "degrade point" of the images. D800 that is 640. 100-640 the files are basically the same, color depth, sharpness, etc. Above 640 I see it start to fall, and 3200 is as high as I like to go for work stuff. Personal stuff, 12,800 easily is acceptable. On my D300, 640 was the max I would ever have shot for work. DX from what I have seen 800 is the max I would want to ever use for work but up to 6400 is usable. The thing that really differs from DX and M4/3rds sensors and camera's is the amount of detail, and the amount of noise reduction applied along with the color depth that is lost with each ISO bump. Then it is how much "Smush" of details you can accept or that is acceptable to the subject that you are shooting.

I do have to say Canon got the short stick on adorama's list. I take that as they need to move Nikon, Olympus and Sony camera's.

Juergen

I am still puzzled with the high ISO performance of the D4. Would be interesting to see how much the DF (or the D4S) is doing better in real life.

This one I shot last night.
ISO 16000, applied some noise reduction in Lightroom.

mikep

superb @ 16000