Originally posted by Rupert None of these have much meaning for me, most all look plenty acceptable from either camera. I just want to see what my photos will look like with the K1, as that is all that will really have a significant affect on my needs. It is interesting to compare, but I somehow never get the feeling we are having legitimate comparisons?
The most interesting thing about this thread was the prospect that some "old light" might have been used? I've heard of lens differences, setting differences, composition differences...but this is the first time I have ever heard of using "old light"????
Regards!
I suspect he meant that at the time those were taken, the "available light" was different, say winter vs spring at the same time of day, or different times of day or cloudy vs sunny outside etc.. . While F-stop and ISO are the same in the iso 50k images, the shutter speeds differ by a whole stop, suggesting that there was more ambient light when the Nikon was shot.
Or then again, it can be "mis-named"/"badly calibrated" iso numbers which isn't uncommon, especially at higher isos...
But either way if all the other issues were correctly handled (tripod used, same focal length, distance, f-stop, angle and we disregard the non-final-firmware question, which I agree can make all the difference in the end), I guess the final image quality at iso X could still be "fairly" represented in the image, even if the ambient light was different, as long as the final exposure was the same and the above statements were true (but I know they were, not, most were different) - shutter speed shouldn't affect the image quality if so.
But I guess we won't know until (if) some more rigorous tests are performed later on...