like the canon FanBOYs you mean, werent you the ones jumping up and down a couple of years back yelling at nikon owners about their miserable high iso perfomance?

Look, three years ago I needed to do a night shot of the Milky Way for National Geographic, so I went out and bought a Canon 5D and a 35mm f1.4. Easily the best performing camera in low light at that time. That camera made great images. The 35mm f1.4 is sharp if you got it in focus (sort of an oxymoron there , right?)

Two years later and I’m doing a story on light pollution requiring a lot of low light photography and another shot at the Milky Way. So I went out and bought a Nikon D3 and a 14-24mm f2.8. Easy choice. Easily the best low light camera available at the time.

Now, if I were doing that again the answer would be simple. The best low light camera available today is the Nikon D3S.

But high ISO performance matters for more than just low light shooting. It is also a measure of how much you can open up the shadows in post processing before noise becomes objectionable. Better high ISO performance equals cleaner shadows.

As far as megapixels go I really don’t want more megapixels. At least not in the pages of National Geographic and certainly not for the 27″x40″ prints we do in our gallery all the time. I do like the files that come out of my D3X, I must say, but it’s not the extra megapixels that draws me to that camera, it’s be beautiful look of the files that comes from the color depth and dynamic range. They’re pretty. But so are the files that come out of a Canon 1Ds MkIII. They’re just really pretty.

Sorry to jump in here as an outsider and I don’t mean to rain on anybody’s parade.

Jim

Canon eats dirt ONCE AGAIN!