Originally Posted by
anrkitec
Scientific methods require changing only one variable at a time [in this case the camera itself] in order to be able to understand just what you are observing.
Between the D300 and the 7D they changed at least three variables that I can see, maybe more.
As I said, the 7D may be a great camera [looks like a smoking deal at the very least] but this test does not support either that generic or comparative claim – IMO of course.
Well, to be pedantic about it. Changing one variable at a time is always a good idea, but certainly not an absolute requirement. Sometimes [not necessarily in this case] changing a single variable is not possible, yet good science can still be done.
In this case, I haven't looked at the referenced website yet. I suspect they made a good faith effort to have comparable setups. I'm sure they failed in places and succeeded in others. Such is the genesis of opinions and disagreements. But saying that what appears to be a fairly involved test does not *support* a claim is perhaps standing too firm on principle and missing the practical. The test almost certainly supports such a claim. Conclusively? That's a different horse entirely...
All the above, of course, said without rancor. Just trying to turn down the gain a bit...
