Originally posted by Darley My question is therefore two-fold: do people agree that fewer pixels gives better low-light performance, and if so which is the best of the 6MP bodies to go for? I'm also looking at Samsung (dunno if I'm allowed to use that word here!) seeing as they were basically the same.
So far I'm looking at cheapish bodies on feebay and have spotted a K110D, and *ist DS and a SS GX 1L. Any one of these better than another or is there something else I should be looking to get? Or am I deluded about the low-light performance of older cameras?
Thanks in anticipation
Well, lower pixel count means larger pixels, which usually leads to a better signal/noise ratio, which is good for low noise.
However, technology improves fast, so fast that today's sensors with larger pixel count actually produce better images than sensors with bigger pixels, unless these sensors with bigger pixels are those of recent cameras (like the sensors found in the D4 or 1DX, which have big pixels compared to the APS-C D7100 or 70D).
I have the K10D, K-7 and K-5, and I can say the noise per pixel (not the overall noise, but the noise when looked at 100% magnification) of the K-5 beats hands down the noise per pixel of the K-7, which in turns beats the K10D hands down too, LoL.
I even used to have a K100D, but I sold it shortly after I had bought it used, because the shutter was much louder than that of the K10D (thanks to the K10D's weather seals, most probably). Was the K100D better than the K10D? Yes, the K100D was as good at ISO 3200 as the K10D was at ISO 1600, which proves the lower pixel count does matter to some point. But the lower pixel count of the K100D meant the noise became visible much sooner as I enlarged prints, and the K10D would beat the K100D as soon as I produced to anything equal or above the 8x12 inches size print. And when I print, I print
at least 8x12 inches, so... I sold the louder K100D.
Most important, keep in mind that both cameras were released pretty much at the same time, so they had similar technology in them. But newer technology means better pictures (noise levels-wise), and pics of my K-7 at ISO 1600 still look better than those of the K100D at the same ISO.
In fact, while I used my K10D at ISO 1600 with mixed feelings (I often had no choice, being a stage performance photographer), I did use the K-7 at ISO 1600 without too much worry and I can now use my K-5 at ISO 6400 with pleasure and make poster size prints from these files (but then, I shoot RAW and process my images to remove the unwanted noise, and with the best software for that IMHO).
Even better, more pixels means the noise, if any, will look finer on prints (and on almost all LCD monitors), except when reaching the limits of the sensor's resolution potential.
If you want a camera that has a very good noise control and not too many pixels, look for some used D700s. They're much cheaper now (for FF DSLR cameras), and they have "only" 12 Mpix. But they're Nikons, so you'll need new lenses...
Bottom line, used K100Ds are so cheap, I'd recommend you go for it if you want less pixels. Worse case scenario, you'll be left with a backup camera that doesn't perform as well as you thought. Best case scenario, you'll have the resolution / file size compromise you're looking for.