Quote: hangu: You need to shoot identical targets under identical lighting conditions with similar lenses for this to be in any way useful.
I disagree: every post here, every opinion, is useful to me. They may not be acceptable data for a scientific journal, but that does not undermine their utility. I have compared so-called "identical" conditions at places like the Image Resource. That information too was useful, but not absolute. For me, real world performance is a much better indicator of success than are laboratory results. Moreover, only indoor lighting conditions can be controlled with any degree of accuracy. For outdoor shooting, there is not such thing as"identical lighting conditions." Something may not be scientific, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful.
Quote: hangu: Fair enough, you're the master of this thread. I just want to reiterate that comparing 2 images with identical ISO under different lighting conditions, different colors/subjects and from different lenses is probably not a great idea.
Repetition does not equal revelation: everyone here at the forum understands the
Apples to Apples Equation. But, let us not equate Apples to Apples with Reality. I am not the master of anything, but I do have a love for learning. Even in my post-graduate studies, the best teachers were never the ones who adhered to strict dogma.
Quote: hangu: Best of luck in your selection of camera bodies.
Thank you very much, I appreciate that. Nice meeting you, and best of luck to you here at this awesome forum!!!
Quote: er1kksen: I don't think he's trying to put together a quantitative comparison for the two cameras, just a qualititative idea of the noise characteristics of each the way he normally processes files. In which case a small collection of dissimilar examples is perfectly appropriate.
Yes, precisely what I am trying to achieve here--thanks