Ornithopter wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, "Bright Spark" said something silly:

"Manzoorul Hassan" wrote in message
ups.com...
I am currently using a Nikon D50 with a 24-85mm f/2.8-4D AF Nikkor
Lens. One of my complains about this combination is the high ISO
(1600) pictures - they're too grainy.

If I had enough $$$ I would replace both, but since I have only
limited resource - I am trying to figure out which would give me more
bang-for-buck.

I'm looking at the 24-70mm AF-S Nikkor and also the D300 as
prospective candidates. Each run about $1,700-$1,800.
Unfortunately your pictures will still be too grainy at ISO 1600 regardless
of what lens is on your camera. It is the camera that determines how noisy
the image is.



Huh .... interesting ...

A $1,300 DSLR body plus $1,800 lens = $3,100

And it doesn't even match the phenomenal range of the new Superzoom P&S cameras
for under $400. The 800 ISO being quite usable in most of them with a little PP
noise reduction. So you get 1-stop more ISO on a DSLR for $2,700 extra, that's
unusable. Minus, of course, the ~28 to ~500mm (35mm eq.) focal length ranges
with just one lens that's already included on the P&S, permanently affixed to
keep dust off your sensor.

Huh ....

How about that.

This is the common and totally incorrect post from the
P&S troll that we see often. Ignore it.

It is basic physics. Given two cameras with equal megapixels,
one with a large sensor, the large sensor has larger pixels
and collects more light, even with the same f/ratio lens.
Basically, the performance scales linearly with pixel
width (light collection increases with the area of the pixel,
but the signal to noise ratio increases with the square root
of the area).
(Note I'm not making any distinction on P&S versus any other
camera.)

So, for low light performance choose the camera that has the
largest pixels. See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Roger