Low light performance in crop sensor body (Page 2): Not significantly if you post-process raw files...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Weddingguy wrote:

Thanks . . . would the difference in processors affect the low light noise?

Not significantly if you post-process raw files...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Weddingguy wrote:

Can you tell me if the 80D and the 77D have the same sensors?

No, they do not. They are similar but the 80D uses slightly older sensor technology.

repleo Loc: Boston

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)

Got o DxOMark' sensor database and filter the cameras for APS-C (or 4/3) and click on the 'Sports' column to sort by ISO performance. DxO claims to rate the ISO by 'highest ISO a photographer could use without compromise of image quality'.
DxO hasn't reviewed many cameras lately (seems to be all cell phones now) but there are a lot of cameras on the list that should be readily available used or in 'Black Friday' sales. However, note that DxO does not review Fuji cameras for some reason and they should definitely not be overlooked.

BebuLamar

dsmeltz wrote:

Keep in mind that there are two parts to low light performance. The ability to capture the light and the ability to focus on the subject.

I am quite sure the OP was talking about image quality with high ISO which as you said the ability to capture the light and not focusing.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

repleo wrote:

Got o DxOMark' sensor database and filter the came... (show quote)

Here’s another site with data derived from DXOMark that does include Fuji - see the chart under the DR/ISO graph. The X-E3 and the XT-20 are pretty respectable at a reasonable price. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

SteveR Loc: Michigan

BebuLamar wrote:

I am quite sure the OP was talking about image quality with high ISO which as you said the ability to capture the light and not focusing.

While the D7500 does not have the same AF focusing system as the D500 and D5, it's still and outstanding camera with the best low-light capability in Nikon's lineup, along with the D500, except for the D5. It's an outstanding camera. Bought one recently for my daughter.

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

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 at ISO 3200, 1" sensor (Sony RX10M4), uncropped. Newer cameras totally blow away the older ones - even an APSC that is 3 yrs old doesn't do any better. I would go Sony A6500, or wait for it's replacement which is due soon.

Oh, and as Bill said - shoot raw and post process to get the best results.

(Download)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Gene51 wrote:

This was at ISO 3200, 1" sensor (Sony RX10M4), uncropped. Newer cameras totally blow away the older ones - even an APSC that is 3 yrs old doesn't do any better. I would go Sony A6500, or wait for it's replacement which is due soon.

Oh, and as Bill said - shoot raw and post process to get the best results.

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

repleo Loc: Boston

Gene51 wrote:

This was at ISO 3200, 1" sensor (Sony RX10M4), uncropped. Newer cameras totally blow away the older ones - even an APSC that is 3 yrs old doesn't do any better. I would go Sony A6500, or wait for it's replacement which is due soon.

Oh, and as Bill said - shoot raw and post process to get the best results.

Nice shot Gene. Is that Kilkenny City ??

jcboy3

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)

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

jim quist Loc: Missouri

My Canon 1Dmk4 does fine.

miked46 Loc: Winter Springs, Florida

My Canon 80D has very good success, as does my new M50. I use tripod, and f/2.8 on the 80D, and 22mm, f/2 on the M50.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

As far as that goes, we were driving past Donner Lake several years ago on our way home from San Diego. The sun had set and it was getting quite dark, but I decided to try for the shot since it was quite nice. I was using my D7000 and set it at ISO 2100. I had to handhold the shot since the ground was quite uneven, but it came out quite nicely and not dark at all. Even the D7000 is a nice low light camera, but it can't go as high as some of the newer cameras that are out.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Rab-Eye wrote:

I am very pleased with the performance of my D500 in low light.

I second that, it performs much better than my D7000 or D300.

wildweasel

your budget is a little low for what you are trying to do, but a used or refurbished Nikon D750 can be had for just a little more than what you want to spend and is a great FF low noise camera (and small for a FF), I have shot my D750 at 4000 or 5000 iso with very acceptable results. My main goto camera these days is my Olympus EM 1 Mark II, but in low light I always opt for the D750.