Here is the DxO mark just released: http://94.23.12.156/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/All-tested-sensors/Nikon/D3100#measurement w.r.t. ISO performance score: D700 2303 D90 977 D3100 919 D5000 868 D700 is more than 1 stop ahead of D3100, not "very close". That's much more than the difference of D90 & D70. D3100 matches the ISO performance of D90 at slightly high resolution. That's very good, but your assessment is WAY OFF! Not sure what you & OP were smoking that day.
You are very presistent in this argument. I still believe, based on my actual testing of both cameras, that the D3100 comes quite close in many situations. Yes, the D700 has the overall advantage, especially at lower ISOs. However, when I printed some test images between both cameras, it was hard to distinguish between the cameras, even at ISO 3200. You can research and look at stats all day long, but in the end, go shoot!
baumgarten0712 wrote:
You are very presistent in this argument. I still believe, based on my actual testing of both cameras, that the D3100 comes quite close in many situations. Yes, the D700 has the overall advantage, especially at lower ISOs. However, when I printed some test images between both cameras, it was hard to distinguish between the cameras, even at ISO 3200. You can research and look at stats all day long, but in the end, go shoot!
Cheers!
Yes, any camera in the right hands can take amazing pictures. But we were discussing about the ISO performance, which many people would consider as an indicator for upgrade.
In terms of ISO performance, D90 is less than 1 stop better than D70, but
D700 is MORE than 2 stops better than D70. Is D70 very close to D90?
D3100 is a wonderful small camera for sure, but it's not comparable to D700 and not much an upgrade to D90/D500/D300.
It's not that I'm persistent in this old argument. I just feel that it's misleading to say D3100 is comparable to D700. Your pictures are so nice. I almost decided to sell off the D300 etc to upgrade to a D3100. We'll see how D7000 will do in that regard.
