Low light performance in crop sensor body (Page 3): Those are both fine cameras and very good in low light

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

AndyH wrote:

Check your budget first. I am very happy with our D7100. D 7500 is even better. Can't comment on Canon models, but Sony gets great reviews in this area.

Andy

Those are both fine cameras and very good in low light - but I think I prefer the D7200.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

repleo wrote:

Nice shot Gene. Is that Kilkenny City ??

Thanks!

Good catch - absolutely Kilkenny! My kids live in Tallaght - so when we go there we end up going all around - this was along the way on a day trip down to Waterford.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Bison Bud wrote:

While I understand the importance of a fast lens, the use of a tripod, and that we've discussed many times the advantages of a "Full Frame" sensor when it comes to overall low light performance, I am pretty much stuck in a crop sensor world for my photography hobby. This is primarily because of the price differences, but it is also due to the overall, physical size of the FF, DSLR's that I have had the pleasure to handle personally, with say the Canon 6D being about as big as I would ever care to go. While neither of my DLSR's are noted for their low light performance, I do okay with my Pentax K3 and/or my backup Canon T1i. However, low light performance has always been a big disappointment for me with either camera. While the K3 has a much higher ISO range than the T1i, it also appears to bring in more noise at comparable ISO settings and frankly, neither is really acceptable to me above say ISO 1600. I guess going higher with the ISO is better than not getting a shot, but even after extensive efforts in post processing, the noise levels are bothersome to me and I have to wonder if there isn't a crop sensor DLSR or Mirrorless body out there that could be a real improvement in overall low light performance without having to move up to a FF sensor.

Therefore, I am interested in discussion on which crop sensor body might have the best overall low light performance (not just how high I can set the ISO, but more about the results when I do use a high setting). I'd also be interested in what I should be looking for as I research this area of performance in today's offerings, as well as any other less equipment related tips you might be willing to share. Before you ask, I am on a fixed income and my photography budget is a lot lower than I like it to be. Therefore my personal, yet optomistic, budget would have to be under $1000.00 and I would prefer to find something used and save every dollar I possibly can. I'd be very willing to do without things like GPS and WiFi as long as there is real improvement in the low light performance. Thanks and good shooting to all.

While I understand the importance of a fast lens, ... (show quote)

With such a budget you may find it difficult. I owned a Nikon D500 APS-C camera for a year or more and it was pretty good in low light, but nowhere near as good as my current Sony A7III full frame (though from what I have read the A7III is particulary good in low light). The problem I forsee is that even if you managed to purchase a used copy of a D500, you would also have to purchase new (to you) lenses as well. I feel your only way forward is to look at used full frame offerings from Canon, as I believe used copies of the Pentax K1 will be beyond your budget. The problem is that Canon are not exactly known for their low light performance.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

jcboy3 wrote:

I don't think $1000 is going to get you where you want.

If the OP is looking for good low light performance at high ISO, then $1000 is definitely not out of the question, but only if he will go for a full frame camera -

https://www.adorama.com/us%20%20%201056699.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzNavgcX-3gIVD7nACh1lcgw6EAQYASABEgKsdvD_BwE

And you can get a 50mm F1.8 and a 35mm F1.8 and still be under$1000. You'd have to spend considerably more in a new camera, and the high ISO performance would not be that much better, certainly not $6000-worth of better. The D3S has legendary low light/high ISO performance.

Just one more thing - three pages of responses to the OP's question and not a peep since the first post. I think we have all been trolled.

Archiefamous Loc: Manhattan

Steve perry has a new course in noise reduction. This might help you more than a new camera

royden Loc: Decatur, GA

Gene51 wrote:

If the OP is looking for good low light performanc... (show quote)

You may be right about trolling. The OP has a Pentax K 3 and nothing about the fine image from hangman on page 1.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Bison Bud wrote:

While I understand the importance of a fast lens, the use of a tripod, and that we've discussed many times the advantages of a "Full Frame" sensor when it comes to overall low light performance, I am pretty much stuck in a crop sensor world for my photography hobby. This is primarily because of the price differences, but it is also due to the overall, physical size of the FF, DSLR's that I have had the pleasure to handle personally, with say the Canon 6D being about as big as I would ever care to go. While neither of my DLSR's are noted for their low light performance, I do okay with my Pentax K3 and/or my backup Canon T1i. However, low light performance has always been a big disappointment for me with either camera. While the K3 has a much higher ISO range than the T1i, it also appears to bring in more noise at comparable ISO settings and frankly, neither is really acceptable to me above say ISO 1600. I guess going higher with the ISO is better than not getting a shot, but even after extensive efforts in post processing, the noise levels are bothersome to me and I have to wonder if there isn't a crop sensor DLSR or Mirrorless body out there that could be a real improvement in overall low light performance without having to move up to a FF sensor.

Therefore, I am interested in discussion on which crop sensor body might have the best overall low light performance (not just how high I can set the ISO, but more about the results when I do use a high setting). I'd also be interested in what I should be looking for as I research this area of performance in today's offerings, as well as any other less equipment related tips you might be willing to share. Before you ask, I am on a fixed income and my photography budget is a lot lower than I like it to be. Therefore my personal, yet optomistic, budget would have to be under $1000.00 and I would prefer to find something used and save every dollar I possibly can. I'd be very willing to do without things like GPS and WiFi as long as there is real improvement in the low light performance. Thanks and good shooting to all.

While I understand the importance of a fast lens, ... (show quote)

This was shot at 16000 ISO Nikon D7200.

(Download)

ELNikkor

You already have 2 systems, adding a third would be a tad ridiculous. If you choose 1, it should be Canon; so sell/trade in the Pentax and the T1i for the 80D since you already have Canon lenses. If you become convinced you could get significantly better shots from another system, get rid of both Pentax and Canon systems and start fresh. One thing you might consider is getting the best denoise programs out there and using it on your noisy images. (Luminar and Topaz are 2 that come to mind) There are free trials for some of them, and could save you from having to buy any new cameras at all. Good luck and let us know how it goes...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If low light performance is what you want and you are not shooting RAW you should begin to use that file type and expose more to the right. I do not know what type of subjects you shoot in low light but maybe you also need the help of flash. Finally, a good noise controlling software like the excellent Topaz Denoise could help you even more.

brooklyn-camera I Loc: Brooklyn, NY

7D MKII OK (APS-C) for low light if subject is still or in slow motion. The 7D MKII stinks for night time semi-pro football games where the lighting is very poor, hockey games same thing. What is a good Canon crop camera for low light and movement, fps 5-6 would be alright? Would love the 1DX II but don't want to sell the farm to get it. Don't need a 1 DX III, I do no video at all.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Bison Bud wrote:

While I understand the importance of a fast lens, the use of a tripod, and that we've discussed many times the advantages of a "Full Frame" sensor when it comes to overall low light performance, I am pretty much stuck in a crop sensor world for my photography hobby. This is primarily because of the price differences, but it is also due to the overall, physical size of the FF, DSLR's that I have had the pleasure to handle personally, with say the Canon 6D being about as big as I would ever care to go. While neither of my DLSR's are noted for their low light performance, I do okay with my Pentax K3 and/or my backup Canon T1i. However, low light performance has always been a big disappointment for me with either camera. While the K3 has a much higher ISO range than the T1i, it also appears to bring in more noise at comparable ISO settings and frankly, neither is really acceptable to me above say ISO 1600. I guess going higher with the ISO is better than not getting a shot, but even after extensive efforts in post processing, the noise levels are bothersome to me and I have to wonder if there isn't a crop sensor DLSR or Mirrorless body out there that could be a real improvement in overall low light performance without having to move up to a FF sensor.

Therefore, I am interested in discussion on which crop sensor body might have the best overall low light performance (not just how high I can set the ISO, but more about the results when I do use a high setting). I'd also be interested in what I should be looking for as I research this area of performance in today's offerings, as well as any other less equipment related tips you might be willing to share. Before you ask, I am on a fixed income and my photography budget is a lot lower than I like it to be. Therefore my personal, yet optomistic, budget would have to be under $1000.00 and I would prefer to find something used and save every dollar I possibly can. I'd be very willing to do without things like GPS and WiFi as long as there is real improvement in the low light performance. Thanks and good shooting to all.

While I understand the importance of a fast lens, ... (show quote)

On the Nikon side the D7200 (& D500) have the best low light (high ISO) performance for crop sensors. You can get a 2 lens kit new from Nikon USA for $999.

binsjohn

The Fuji XT-2 is available used, now that the XT-3 has arrived, at prices in the range you're looking for. Ebay is a good source. I have both the above cameras and find their low light noise levels quite good and they are a joy to use. Of course, as mentioned in other posts here, the faster lenses produce the best results since the ISO can be lower at wider apertures.

blackest Loc: Ireland

imagemeister wrote:

Sony's have a proprietary mode for low noise where it takes 6 exposures in very rapid succession and combines them in camera for lower noise ( JPEG only) - It works WELL ! There are many other proprietary things that Sony's can do also

..

For the k3 raw therapy could be a good option for multiple shots for the k1 in pixel shift mode it masks where there is movement, there is also affinity photo that can stack since noise is random it figures out what is noise and what is image best for stationary subjects really.

Briancanon

I am quite satisfied with my Canon 80D. I use a Sigma 50mm Art prime and have taken phenomenal photo's in museums and Art galleries. I would personally recommend something closer to a 35mm though. I do have to stand back for pictures and that cam get tough with the crowds.

mgoldfield

imagemeister wrote:

Sony's have a proprietary mode for low noise where it takes 6 exposures in very rapid succession and combines them in camera for lower noise ( JPEG only) - It works WELL ! There are many other proprietary things that Sony's can do also

..

Canon's 77d has a similar feature; it takes 4 exposures, and the results are quite impressive.

M. Goldfield