The best camera on the market right now is the Nikon D700 and the models above that. You will barely need to use a tripod again the low light performance is outstanding.
You can do great camera comparisons here...
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php
Yani said:The best camera on the market right now is the Nikon D700 and the models above that. You will barely need to use a tripod again the low light performance is outstanding.
Yep.
Also check www.kenrockwell.com for everything Nikon. I have a D50 and I love it. If you care, add a 50mm 1.8f lens, but the kit lenses at 18-55 are great.
And Sigma lenses test really well. In some cases better than the Nikons.
The Tamron ones are still awful. Not so with the Sigma they have come a long way.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/329/%28lens2%29/244/%28lens3%29/322/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Zeiss/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28brand3%29/Sigma
You need to match the sensor size between cameras to compare accurately and I don't know squat about Canon models verses sensor size.
This should give a a good idea that Sigma are not the junk they once were.
I've had a pretty close look at this in relation to the Nikon and I'd buy any quality Sigma lens.
It looks like we have some Nikon fans on this site, lol. I'll stick to Canon thanks....and I would take the Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII (21.1MP) any day! I don't think you can blatantly state that the Nikon D700 is the best camera on the market, that is simply not true. You could state it is the best value and you wouldn't get many arguments on that one!
Best regards,Brian.
"Nikon D700 and the models above that"
It only gets better as you go to the higher levels. They are all pretty good, it's just that you can prove in a unequivocal manner that the Nikon sensor is the best yet.
I do have compassion with Canon owners and have some sympathy for them and their poor choice. Perhaps if you had purchased Sigma lenses you could get the mount changed so you can be part of the 21 century.
Hi Yani,
I was trying to explain to you in our private message that you should not be drawn in by all the hype and also don't look at the "big numbers" in ISO; remember that 6400 (for example) is only one stop faster than 3200 and 12800 one stop faster than 6400. The big numbers sound so much more.
Below is a sample image comparison. The image on the right (below) is a screen capture of a sample image off the Nikon D700 shot at ISO6400 viewed at 100% in Internet Explorer. The left image is off a 5 year old Canon EOS 20D set at ISO3200. As you can see, there is no HUGE advance in technology. You are kidding yourself believing you wouldn't need a tripod too often with the Nikon. Unless you want el cheapo compact camera quality you certainly will be carrying your tripod and shooting at a far lower ISO.
The higher ISO capability is still a big advantage, of course, it allows you to grab an image free of movement blur which simply would not be possible on a camera of inferior ISO capabilities. Now take a 21.1MP camera, shoot at high ISO and then resmaple the image down to 12.1MP to match the Nikon and you would most likely see a lot less noise! If I shoot at ISO3200 and then resample an 8.2MP image to say 4MP - the grain has gone! Get my point?
Keep in mind the EOS 5D II gives the best of both worlds: can shoot up to ISO25,600 like the Nikon and has a 21MP sensor. The D700 has slightly lower noise at the higher ISOs, but as I said, shrinking the image down from the 5D would more than make up for that. Conversely, if you had to upsample the D700 image to a 21MP image it would exhibit way more noise.
Oops, here is the attachment:
I cannot agree with you at all Yani. I have to laugh, you are like an Adobe user. Adobe products lacked a lot of features at one stage and the second they finally add something better than the Corel equivalent Adobe fans start boasting how much better PS is, Illy is, etc. They forget to mention that Corel had the feature for YEARS and Adobe just got it. Nikon has been behind Canon for YEARS and finally started lifting their game, which is fantastic. As far as technology and features go this is going to be a see-saw ride all the way. It will switch places over and over as time goes by. Nikon and Canon both make great lenses, so I have no idea what your Sigma nonsense statement was all about.
Seriously though, there is only one way to truly compare the 2, in the field and look at the images. Even going back to your and my old cameras - devise a real world test to compare our cameras (not interested in DxO's or anyone else's benchmarks) and I will be there!
It's not the highest ISO that matters but the highest ISO where quality is reasonably maintained.
But I'm just stirring you up, I know you have too many lenses to change.
I'll be very surprised if Sony don't end up with the best product within a few years. They aren't far off and have only just started.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp
DxOMark gives the above a great rap too.
DxOMark is the only benchmark I'd trust and I certainly wouldn't trust some other process except an in studio test and even then there are so many variables that it is impossible to eliminate all unless you has masses of equipment. You have to trust some sort of authority on this.