# Comparison. Same lens, D100 vs. D90 your thoughts?



## Vicelord John (Dec 13, 2009)

I took this picture back in May with my D100, using a Sigma 70-300 and really liked it. It has been one of my favorite pictures I've taken since I started this hobby.







Went back today (not in optimal conditions) and stood in the same spot with my D90. Same lens, waited for a train, and reproduced nearly the same shot. 






I'm wondering which shot looks better quality to everyone. I know which one I think, but I don't want to sway anyone. LOL!


----------



## vh5150 (Dec 13, 2009)

I vote for the second shot.  And that place looks very familiar.


----------



## chip (Dec 13, 2009)

I have a D100 also. For being such an old camera it really is still an excellent camera. It proves that 6MP is plenty for most applications and you really gain high ISO performance. Between the two pictures I like the first one better because of the plane in the sky.


----------



## Atlas77 (Dec 13, 2009)

My vote is for the second image, its much clearer and sharper, not to mention the lighting is way better.

Should we go down to EXIF data comparison?


----------



## Pugs (Dec 13, 2009)

Second one is a wee-bit over-exposed on my monitor. I really can't say which body is "better" from the two pics because the lighting is different (three hours later in day, six months apart, etc...), the shutter speed/aperture completely different. The older pic didn't show the ISO rating, but I'd bet that's different, too.


----------



## DScience (Dec 13, 2009)

Second is sharper, but a little blown out


----------



## im_jacobf (Dec 13, 2009)

I personally prefer the second image, mostly because it is sharper and more concise. I would have toned the exposure down some, however.


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 14, 2009)

Pugs said:


> Second one is a wee-bit over-exposed on my monitor. I really can't say which body is "better" from the two pics because the lighting is different (three hours later in day, six months apart, etc...), the shutter speed/aperture completely different. The older pic didn't show the ISO rating, but I'd bet that's different, too.


 
well it would be impossible to use the exact same settings on a different day. Short of buying another D100 and waiting until the same day next summer, this is the best it is going to get. I just wanted to get a feel for clarity of images. I'm sorry you read too much into it.


----------



## Pugs (Dec 14, 2009)

Vicelord John said:


> Pugs said:
> 
> 
> > Second one is a wee-bit over-exposed on my monitor. I really can't say which body is "better" from the two pics because the lighting is different (three hours later in day, six months apart, etc...), the shutter speed/aperture completely different. The older pic didn't show the ISO rating, but I'd bet that's different, too.
> ...


Not reading too much into it.  I'm just saying that this comparison is invalid in terms of comparing the two bodies.  

It's hard to read a person's "tone" over the Internet, but the "sorry you read too much into it" makes your response sound defensive.  My intent wasn't to dig at you or put on the defense at all.  I was merely pointing out something that I didn't know if you were aware of or not.  I truly apologize if you felt that I was attacking you, or condescending to you, or anything else negative.  I was trying to help not hinder.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 14, 2009)

first one, the airplane makes it.


----------



## IgsEMT (Dec 14, 2009)

Both images are different
Other then 300mm, and same place, nothing else is similar - different settings, different ambient light.
#1 I like the colors and general feel of the image more BUT it is very soft.
#2 seems a bit more flat in terms of lighting but sharper.
Hard to make an objective call here.
Sorry.




> It proves that 6MP is plenty for most applications


Amen! Many folks feel that MORE is better but as many who been shooting digital know that is isn't true.


----------



## Vicelord John (Dec 14, 2009)

Pugs said:


> It's hard to read a person's "tone" over the Internet, but the "sorry you read too much into it" makes your response sound defensive. My intent wasn't to dig at you or put on the defense at all. I was merely pointing out something that I didn't know if you were aware of or not. I truly apologize if you felt that I was attacking you, or condescending to you, or anything else negative. I was trying to help not hinder.


 
I didn't really feel you were attacking me, but more so felt like you were hinting that I should go back and take the same exact picture. I can't just do that.:hug::


----------



## Pugs (Dec 14, 2009)

Vicelord John said:


> I didn't really feel you were attacking me, but more so felt like you were hinting that I should go back and take the same exact picture. I can't just do that.:hug::


 
Right on.  We're good in my book, Brother.  :thumbup:


----------

