I've used a Nikon D7000 for the last 4 years but have recently acquired a Canon 1100D from Gumtree after seeing so many decent images from this over achiever.
I did a couple of comparison shots of the moon and the entry level Canon seemed to be better than the prosumer Nikon.
That couldn't be right, could it??
So I set up a proper test, taking a similar number of images with the exact same settings and told Registax to select the best 50%. Did exactly the same in wavelets and de-saturated to get rid of any colour (The Nikon looked warmer, as expected) The sensors are obviously different so I adjusted the Nikon brightness slightly to match the Canon.
I'm not sure the Canon is the clear winner but its pretty close.
I'm super impressed with it so far, but I'm worried that it's going to cost me a lot of money in the near future, as I detect I move to the dark side!!
Cheers
I'm not very familiar with Nikons but I'd be surprised if the 1100D would give it a bruised ego. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of my 1100D. How are you defining better?
Thanks Dunk
In other comparison shots, it appeared that the Canon brought out more detail, with less noise, than the Nikon.
This is what surprised me the most due to being in supposedly different levels.
These comparisons were more even I think.
Cheers
