Thanks for catching this. The summary info in the review was a little
short on info. The photos were not a fair comparison. By the way the
site where those photo's come from (Steves Digicam) highly favors the
Nikon D200.

But I think it is true that the Canon is at least 1 stop better, and I
keep reading excuses.

One is (only if you shoot high ISO). But if you can shoot one stop
better which often happens for what ever reason, that seems huge. Other
folks have said the Nikon is more conservative on in camera noise
reduction, but I've seen reviews do everything raw and still have
higher noise.

Build no question, the D200 is more solid. How it operates is purely a
matter of taste.
But I just can't get paste this ISO thing and I have not typically shot
high ISO because it was so bad on my 5700.

That's why I asked is there other reasons to keep your ISO low.

wrote:
mswlogo wrote:
Ok, I'm in the market for my first DSLR (upgrade from 35 mm SLR and
Nikon 5700).

I've been looking at reviews on the Sony A100, Nikon D80/D200 and Canon
30D.

These are both 1600 ISO (see reviews for more detailed information
about conditions etc).

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/IMG_8337.JPG

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_...s/DSC_3490.JPG

What a HUGE difference !!!


Did you look at the exif? The Canon photo is at 1/250s f/2.8 while the
Nikon at 1/100s f/7.1. (There is no ISO in the Nikon's exif data). Also
the sharpness in the Nikon is set to "hard", which seems a less than
intelligent thing to do when shooting at ISO 1600.

There is a difference between the two cameras in terms of noise (I
spent some time trying the 20D and the D200 when I was deciding), but
it's by no means as much as you'd think from these two samples.