DSLR with better performance at high ISO

I just returned from a trip to Ecuador. Got a lot of nice shots, but unfortunately did not do very well with some nice subjects in very poor light.

For most of my shots I used a Canon 7D MkII with the new Canon 100-400 zoom. No problem with the lens but the camera does not do very well at ISO's above 800. The photo ops I had with antpitttas, cocks-of-the-rock, and other birds were in very poor light and ISO 800 resulted in very slow shutter speeds.

Among the current CROP SENSOR DSLR's on the market today are there any that would perform better than my 7DII at ISO's in the1600, 3200, or higher range? I would be willing to consider full frame DSLR's if no crop sensor DSLR's are available. If I had to go this route, which of the camera bodies currently available would do the best job?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Hi Bruce,

I shoot with the "ahem" other big brand, but I have had similar results with shooting birds in dark light. However, I have been much happier with the quality of my images since I started using auto iso with manual for my exposures. I found that when I used manual or aperture priority and set the iso manually, I was getting quite a bit of blotchy noise and tonality. I believe I was unintentionally under exposing because I really didn't want to bump the iso up as high as it needed to be. Experimenting with auto iso, I found that i was surprised at how high the iso was when the camera selected it. However the histogram and the images look quite good and the noise is much more easily dealt with. The camera was giving me a better quality exposure than I was selecting. Plus auto iso lets me concentrate on the shutter speed and aperture that I need for a given subjects behavior. So now, I'll let the camera select the iso and I can still apply exposure compensation if needed via a quick glance at the lcd. Anyway, works for me, I'm much more comfortable now in low light environments. Just my $.02.

Richard

Richard B. wrote:Hi Bruce,

I shoot with the "ahem" other big brand, [snip] I found that when I used manual or aperture priority and set the iso manually, I was getting quite a bit of blotchy noise and tonality. I believe I was unintentionally under exposing because I really didn't want to bump the iso up as high as it needed to be. Experimenting with auto iso, I found that i was surprised at how high the iso was when the camera selected it. [snip] The camera was giving me a better quality exposure than I was selecting.[snip]

I'd venture to guess:

1. The camera from the other big brand has good high ISO performance to begin with.
2. You selected the wrong ISO - perhaps because of the worry of noise - and thus under-exposed the photos.

I don't think the result from setting ISO at 3200 myself manually will be different from the one selected by my camera.

Bottom-line:

1. you need a camera that has good high ISO performance.
2. you also need correct exposure settings for the shots.

And Richard is suggesting you to switch brand. Worths a consideration I think (though it could be costly).

If you want to stick with Canon, the FF 5dIV and 1dxII can shoot high ISO. The smaller the sensor, the less you can shoot in the dark.

DChan wrote:

Richard B. wrote:Hi Bruce,

I shoot with the "ahem" other big brand, [snip] I found that when I used manual or aperture priority and set the iso manually, I was getting quite a bit of blotchy noise and tonality. I believe I was unintentionally under exposing because I really didn't want to bump the iso up as high as it needed to be. Experimenting with auto iso, I found that i was surprised at how high the iso was when the camera selected it. [snip] The camera was giving me a better quality exposure than I was selecting.[snip]

I'd venture to guess:

1. The camera from the other big brand has good high ISO performance to begin with.
2. You selected the wrong ISO - perhaps because of the worry of noise - and thus under-exposed the photos.

I don't think the result from setting ISO at 3200 myself manually will be different from the one selected by my camera.

Bottom-line:

1. you need a camera that has good high ISO performance.
2. you also need correct exposure settings for the shots.

And Richard is suggesting you to switch brand. Worths a consideration I think (though it could be costly).

I think Mike understands what I was asking. Regarding what Richard said, using auto ISO would not help a bit. In the situation with the antpittas for example, I set the ISO to produce the shutter speed that I need to freeze any motion the bird might make. Whether I set the ISO to a given value, e.g. 1600, or the camera sets the ISO to the same given value, makes absolutely no difference.
My problem is that my 7DII, set at ISO higher than 1000, produces images that have severe noise. So what I am looking for is a camera, preferably with a crop sensor, that will produce images with a lot less noise at ISO's in the 1600 or 3200 or higher range.

Canon does not currently produce an APS-C sensor camera worth owning (IMO) but I am picky in terms of noise. I am more than happy with my 5Dmk4 and tend to need ISO3200-6400 a fair bit these days. I tend to limit myself to ISO12k if I am struggling with shutter speed. Of course you also need to consider the final usage of the images, are they printed, submitted to stock agencies or just used for web sites?

There is a good chance that the 7DII files will have similar noise to a 5D4 file cropped down, but I would rather have the option of full frame and crop if needed even if I lose some resolution.

The auto-focus of the 5D4 is also, after my experience with the 7DII, superior and works in VERY low light.

You can of course use the DPreview comparison tool but as the images are well lit it is not a "real life" example.

The 7D II and 5DS (R) at this point are among the very worst high ISO DSLR cameras still on the market. Both use the same 2008 era sensor manufacturing technology. The 5D 4 is much better but of course you give up the crop factor. You are either going to have to wait for Canon or switch brands if you want significantly better noise (and dynamic range) in an APS-C camera with the AF performance you require.

Bruce I have friends and clients in your same shoes.  Unfortunately for the moment EJ is right.  Right at this moment the Nikon D500, I feel, is the best DX DSLR at higher iso's.  In Costa Rica I shot this with the D500 at 3200 iso and on my latest trip to the Skagit River area of Washington State I use iso 6400 with the D500.

E.J. Peiker wrote:The 7D II and 5DS (R) at this point are among the very worst high ISO DSLR cameras still on the market.  Both use the same 2008 era sensor manufacturing technology.  The 5D 4 is much better but of course you give up the crop factor.  You are either going to have to wait for Canon or switch brands if you want significantly better noise (and dynamic range) in an APS-C camera with the AF performance you require.

EJ,
Thanks. If I were to switch brands, which crop sensor DSLR's would you suggest and why?

Just a quick look at Dpreview...4 cameras at 3200
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image- ... =1&x=0&y=0

There are no APS-C cameras that are "clean" in terms of ISO above 800 IMO. At the margin, some brands do out-perform the 7DII, but not enough to make much of a noticeable difference. A few options might be: (1) learn to work with premium noise reduction software like DXO Prime; (2) use faster glass like a 400/2.8; (3) learn to use flash.

Bruce - this doesn't address your query on the camera body question, but in the interest of making the most out of your Ecuador shoot, have you tried DPP to process your raw files?  I recall that Arash has some instructional guides out there to diminish the noise issue arising from the Canon files.  Here's link to his website.

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/

Gary Irwin wrote:There are no APS-C cameras that are "clean" in terms of ISO above 800 IMO. At the margin, some brands do out-perform the 7DII, but not enough to make much of a noticeable difference. A few options might be: (1) learn to work with premium noise reduction software like DXO Prime; (2) use faster glass like a 400/2.8; (3) learn to use flash.

Thanks, Gary.

Others seem to disagree with your satement that no APS cameras are "clean" with ISO above 800.

I do know how to use flash, but flash is not permitted at many spots in Ecuador, Costa Rica, etc. where great subjects, such as antpittas, cocks-of-the-rock, tanagers, etc are present.

I am 75 - way too old to be lugging around a 400 f2.8 lens up and down those mountains.

I took a look at DXO Prime. Looks promising.

Bruce Sherman wrote:

Others seem to disagree with your satement that no APS cameras are "clean" with ISO above 800.

Because "clean" is relative, and some of us have higher/lower noise tolerance level than the others do.

Hi Bruce. Unfortunately you are running into the same thing that I get when posting specific questions here; i.e. no one really answering your question(s). EJ, partly answered it, but didn't offer any Nikon models. I can't speak for Canon because I have never shot with Canon, but I suspect the EOS-1D X Mark II and EOS 5D Mark IV would be your best bets with Canon DSLR's. My understanding is that the Nikon D5 would be your best Nikon option and likely better than either of the Canons, where high ISO noise is an issue. EJ would be better qualified to answer that question. With regards to crop sensor bodies, the 7D series are known to be one of the worst in this area. The Nikon D7200 and D500 would both be better, but only to a point. I do not believe you would be happy with any crop sensor at ISO 1600 and up. The D5 would excel in this area! I have seen very nice images from the D5 at ISO 6400. I am a firm believer in having both a crop sensor body (D500 for me) and a full frame body for better noise performance. I have the D810, which is decent, but not even close to the D5 for high ISO performance. I know it is a very costly option, but if money was no object, I think a combo of the D500 (or D850) and D5 would be an awesome choice and very useful for what you were experiencing in Ecuador.

I had the same issue down in Costa Rica a couple of years ago and had to shoot an Agami Heron at ISO 5000 just to get 1/100's from a canoe. It worked, but the files are useless for anything other than posting small images on the web. If had the D5 with me, it would have been a life saver.

If the latest and greatest gears are not necessary and you are willing to try the N-brand, Nikon D3s is another option. As pointed out twice already, D500 will be the one if crop sensor camera is what you prefer.

Charlie Woodrich wrote:Bruce - this doesn't address your query on the camera body question, but in the interest of making the most out of your Ecuador shoot, have you tried DPP to process your raw files?  I recall that Arash has some instructional guides out there to diminish the noise issue arising from the Canon files.  Here's link to his website.

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/

Arash Hazeghi just switched to Nikon as we speak or at least it looks like it by his posting.
DPP is really good much better than Lightroom when it comes to noise.
If you want to stay with Canon, 5D Mark IV is very good. I shoot with ISO 2000 on a regular basis sometimes ISO 3200
and after DPP raw conversion there is barely any noise to deal with.

The biggest question that I haven't seen asked yet,  did you have to crop from the 7d or were you frame filling your shots, or shooting  zoomed out to 300mm.   If you have to crop, full frame gives you nothing without buying a longer lens or moving closer.  The nikon 200-500 and a d500   will give you better noise simply by not having to crop as much.   If you are able to fill the frame and/or have to zoom out, a 5d 4 would be a great option.  

Stuart Clarke wrote:The biggest question that I haven't seen asked yet,  did you have to crop from the 7d or were you frame filling your shots, or shooting  zoomed out to 300mm.   If you have to crop, full frame gives you nothing without buying a longer lens or moving closer.  The nikon 200-500 and a d500   will give you better noise simply by not having to crop as much.   If you are able to fill the frame and/or have to zoom out, a 5d 4 would be a great option.  

Stuart,

Some of each - some full frame, some cropped. I would prefer to stay with a crop sensor camera just to avoid more cropping and to get as many full frame shots as possible.

Thanks for your thoughts.

flygirl wrote:Bruce I have friends and clients in your same shoes.  Unfortunately for the moment EJ is right.  Right at this moment the Nikon D500, I feel, is the best DX DSLR at higher iso's.  In Costa Rica I shot this with the D500 at 3200 iso and on my latest trip to the Skagit River area of Washington State I use iso 6400 with the D500.

Thanks, Nancy. Right now I am leaning toward the D500.