DSLR with better performance at high ISO

Bruce Sherman wrote:

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?

D500, hands down!

I was a dyed in the wool crop shooter until a couple years ago. Like you, I was very reluctant to consider full frame because most of my subjects required extreme reach. 

I now regret not trying out full frame earlier, as the image quality is much better - and often thereby more croppable - especially as it deals with low light scenarios. 

MY RECOMMENDATION
The best low light camera in Canon land is the 1dX2, but it costs about the price of five 7D2s. The 5D4 is a fantastic all-rounder, and it has a nice combination of low light shadow raising ability, along with a much higher resolution (30mp) that allows for cropping without loss of resolution. That would be my recommendation. The only thing you'd miss from the 7D2 is the extra 3 frames per second. 

This would allow you to stick the 1.4x teleconverter on the 100-400II you have, and there you go with your reach (with autofocus across the frame). My 1.4x lives on my 100-400 because the 5D4 doesn't appear to notice the difference. 

ANOTHER APPROACH
Another approach here would be to address this on the glass side of things. You could get a used 500mm f/4 IS Mark I for about 1.5x the price of your current zoom. That would be a lot more weight, though, and the full advantage would really only be seen on a full frame rig. 

LITERAL ANSWER
If you're a glutton for crop sensor rigs, I'd probably trade my Canon stuff in for the newest Nikon rig, along with the 200-500 lens that's getting quite good reviews. That would be $3500 or thereabouts. I say that because the 7D2, which I've owned, and with which I've taken more than half a million frames, isn't going to be bested by the canon offerings by very much. The 80D has some improvements, and does allow for f/8 focusing across the frame, allowing you to use the 1.4x teleconverter with your 100-400II. But if you were to stay in Canon land, you'd probably be waiting for the 7D3, which should happen by in the next 6-18 months, and which will probably deliver somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 stops of better ISO performance if precedent holds. 

Hi Bruce,
One of the best bird photographers by the name of Glenn Bartley has been using 7D and now 7D Mark II all the time.
He mostly shoots in South America, similar areas you describe and his pictures are truly amazing.
I just tried to help out someone today who contacted me by email (I don't know him in person) and complained that he gets noisy images at ISO 800
He shoots with Nikon D810 which is rated at ISO 2853.
I shoot at ISO 3200 with Canon 5D Mark IV and have no problem with noise.
I also shoot with Canon 1D Mark IV at ISO 1600 and have no noise problem at all.
I also have a Canon 7D Mark II that I very rarely use but took some images not too long ago at ISO 1600 just to encourage my wife who uses 7D Mark II all the time with 100-400 lens, to go up with ISO if needs to be.
Switching brand can be costly and requires a steep learning curve. (It can be hard when you are old. I'm 75 just like you are.)

The 5D Mark IV is the best camera I have ever had, rated at ISO 2995 and the resolution it gives you at 30 MP is truly amazing.
By the way the Nikon D500 is rated at ISO 1324 only.

Karl Egressy wrote:Hi Bruce,
One of the best bird photographers by the name of Glenn Bartley has been using 7D and now 7D Mark II all the time.
He mostly shoots in South America, similar areas you describe and his pictures are truly amazing.
I just tried to help out someone today who contacted me by email (I don't know him in person) and complained that he gets noisy images at ISO 800
He shoots with Nikon D810 which is rated at ISO 2853.
I shoot at ISO 3200 with Canon 5D Mark IV and have no problem with noise.
I also shoot with Canon 1D Mark IV at ISO 1600 and have no noise problem at all.
I also have a Canon 7D Mark II that I very rarely use but took some images not too long ago at ISO 1600 just to encourage my wife who uses 7D Mark II all the time with 100-400 lens, to go up with ISO if needs to be.
Switching brand can be costly and requires a steep learning curve. (It can be hard when you are old. I'm 75 just like you are.)

The 5D Mark IV is the best camera I have ever had, rated at ISO 2995 and the resolution it gives you at 30 MP is truly amazing.
By the way the Nikon D500 is rated at ISO 1324 only.

Here's DXOmark's comparison between the 7DMarkII, 5DmarkIV, and D500. The D500 holds it's own against the 5D quite nicely, and you get the crop factor to boot.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare ... 6_1061_977

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Hi Bruce,
One of the best bird photographers by the name of Glenn Bartley has been using 7D and now 7D Mark II all the time.
He mostly shoots in South America, similar areas you describe and his pictures are truly amazing.
I just tried to help out someone today who contacted me by email (I don't know him in person) and complained that he gets noisy images at ISO 800
He shoots with Nikon D810 which is rated at ISO 2853.
I shoot at ISO 3200 with Canon 5D Mark IV and have no problem with noise.
I also shoot with Canon 1D Mark IV at ISO 1600 and have no noise problem at all.
I also have a Canon 7D Mark II that I very rarely use but took some images not too long ago at ISO 1600 just to encourage my wife who uses 7D Mark II all the time with 100-400 lens, to go up with ISO if needs to be.
Switching brand can be costly and requires a steep learning curve. (It can be hard when you are old. I'm 75 just like you are.)

The 5D Mark IV is the best camera I have ever had, rated at ISO 2995 and the resolution it gives you at 30 MP is truly amazing.
By the way the Nikon D500 is rated at ISO 1324 only.

Here's DXOmark's comparison between the 7DMarkII, 5DmarkIV, and D500. The D500 holds it's own against the 5D quite nicely, and you get the crop factor to boot.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare ... 6_1061_977

If I had to switch and move to Nikon, my camera choice would be Nikon D850.
Much better IQ, much higher ISO performance, pixel coverage with its 45.7 MP equivalent to crop body coverage of 19.5 MP which is almost identical to that of 20.9 MP of the D500. The battery grip would give you an extra two frames per second, 9 fps altogether.
A dream camera the way I see it.

One thing to remember about noise, no matter what camera is used, is that you SHOULD NOT UNDEREXPOSE the image. Even just a slight underexposure will create noise in the shadows at higher ISO's making it difficult to hold detail in those areas.

signgrap wrote:One thing to remember about noise, no matter what camera is used, is that you SHOULD NOT UNDEREXPOSE the image. Even just a slight underexposure will create noise in the shadows at higher ISO's making it difficult to hold detail in those areas.

Really depends on the sensor...lifting shadows with Sony sensors is no problem.

signgrap wrote:One thing to remember about noise, no matter what camera is used, is that you SHOULD NOT UNDEREXPOSE the image. Even just a slight underexposure will create noise in the shadows at higher ISO's making it difficult to hold detail in those areas.

This was the case in the old days but if you get a camera that has an ISO invariant sensor (the Sony or Toshiba 24 megapixel APS-C sensors for example), it doesn't matter if you shoot an image at ISO 100 which is underexposed by 4 stops and then push it 4 stops in post or if you shoot it at ISO 1600 to begin with - the image will have the same amount of noise and dynamic range.  There are no Canon cameras that are ISO invariant though.

I know its a full-frame camera but where does the original Canon 6D fit in noise-wise among all these cameras?

To further confuse thing, in terms of low light performance the new Canon 6D MkII looks good when compared to Nikon D500 and D850 - according to the DXOmark comparison tool referenced above (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare ... 6_1061_977)
However, the 6D MkII does not appear to be anywhere near the Nikon D500, D850, or Canon 5DMkIV in terms of focusing capabilities.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

signgrap wrote:One thing to remember about noise, no matter what camera is used, is that you SHOULD NOT UNDEREXPOSE the image. Even just a slight underexposure will create noise in the shadows at higher ISO's making it difficult to hold detail in those areas.

This was the case in the old days but if you get a camera that has an ISO invariant sensor (the Sony or Toshiba 24 megapixel APS-C sensors for example), it doesn't matter if you shoot an image at ISO 100 which is underexposed by 4 stops and then push it 4 stops in post or if you shoot it at ISO 1600 to begin with - the image will have the same amount of noise and dynamic range.  There are no Canon cameras that are ISO invariant though.

Sony owns toshiba sensors

Bruce Sherman wrote:To further confuse thing, in terms of low light performance the new Canon 6D MkII looks good when compared to Nikon D500 and D850 - according to the DXOmark comparison tool referenced above (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare ... 6_1061_977)
However, the 6D MkII does not appear to be anywhere near the Nikon D500, D850, or Canon 5DMkIV in terms of focusing capabilities.

In terms of low night performance, Nikon Df and Nikon D3s are still the kings with DxO ratings 3279 ISO and 3253 ISO respectively. I'd say D3s is still a very capable performer these days.

Bruce, if you would like some full size JPG's from a 5Dmk4 at ISO3200 or so drop me an email via PM. I can export some neutral shots so you can see how they look. I will also add that being able to shoot with a tele-converter (tested my 600 f4 with a 2xTC at the weekend and was blown away with the performance of the AF) is a handy advantage.

Shooting birds in the darkness of the forest floor is certainly challenging, I got reasonable results under those circumstances with my 1D4. I have shot in the Asian Rainforest and have been out a few times with Con Foley, who gets superb results. The technique they use there is very slow shutter speeds, at moderate ISO waiting for when birds sit still. Like this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=161182&hilit=pitta Having said that having the ability to use ISO3200 is certainly handy.

I would think your best results would come from full frame, your pushing things just too much with APS-C, you are collecting way more light, but and the big but is you need to get closer if you use the same lens. If you crop back to APS-C you're back where you started from.

I have been patiently waiting for Canon to answer the D500. I have a 1DX but the 1.4 lives on there and slows down AF. I miss having cropped sensor to eliminate the converter and the 7d is great with good light but a piece of junk when it comes to pushing the ISO in low light IMO. The rumor mill is that they will be coming out with something this year, but they are sure taking their time.

Karl Egressy wrote:

Scott Fairbairn wrote:

Karl Egressy wrote:Hi Bruce,

If I had to switch and move to Nikon, my camera choice would be Nikon D850.
Much better IQ, much higher ISO performance, pixel coverage with its 45.7 MP equivalent to crop body coverage of 19.5 MP which is almost identical to that of 20.9 MP of the D500. The battery grip would give you an extra two frames per second, 9 fps altogether.
A dream camera the way I see it.

+1

Bruce Sherman wrote:To further confuse thing, in terms of low light performance the new Canon 6D MkII looks good when compared to Nikon D500 and D850 - according to the DXOmark comparison tool referenced above (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare ... 6_1061_977)
However, the 6D MkII does not appear to be anywhere near the Nikon D500, D850, or Canon 5DMkIV in terms of focusing capabilities.

If you are going to judge by that tool the D500 is about  0.6 stops better than the 7D MkII, so you are looking at ISO800 vs ISO1200 or so.  The 6D is rated at 2862 and the 5D4 at 2995.  So by that data the 5D4 is 1.4 stops better than the 7D II so ISO2200 would be equivalent to the ISO800 on the 7DII. 

The D850 scores a little lower than the 5D4 but there's not a big difference there, the D850 has better dynamic range at low ISO but if you look at the chart of dynamic range vs ISO there's not a big difference at the ISO range we are discussing and are close to equal at ISO3200.

So by the measurements there's not a big case for going to D850 over the 5D4 for your particular need.  The 5D4 won't be ISO invariant so you'll need to be careful with the exposure, but by the numbers I can't see a compelling case  to look at anything beyond the 5D4 if you believe the numbers tell the whole story.  The 5D4 provides a significant improvement over the 7DIIbut I can't see changing systems to get a 1/2 stop advantage with the D500 being a good proposition at least by DXO numbers

Even though it's only 0.6 stops, the look of the noise is very different. The D500 is pretty much a normal looking grain type of noise, while the 7D has a much more difficult to correct pattern type of noise in addition to the grain. Even two cameras with the same S/N, if the noise is a grain type of structure is much more pleasing than any kind of pattern noise.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Even though it's only 0.6 stops, the look of the noise is very different.  The D500 is pretty much a normal looking grain type of noise, while the 7D has a much more difficult to correct pattern type of noise in addition to the grain.  Even two cameras with the same S/N, if the noise is a grain type of structure is much more pleasing than any kind of pattern noise.

I agree with this.  I'd rather shoot the 40D which just has contrast noise and is relatively easy to deal with than the green purple blotches you have to deal with in any dark areas with the 7D  You just wind up with a smeared mess in fine detail areas like feathers no matter how diligent you are in the processing.  Never mind some other nice features the D500 has like being able to enlarge your image and just get a histogram for what is showing on the screen.  A great tool to nail down your exposures for whites and darks for that matter.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Even though it's only 0.6 stops, the look of the noise is very different.  The D500 is pretty much a normal looking grain type of noise, while the 7D has a much more difficult to correct pattern type of noise in addition to the grain.  Even two cameras with the same S/N, if the noise is a grain type of structure is much more pleasing than any kind of pattern noise.

No doubt....  I was careful to stay if you are making a decision based on the numbers.  If it was me I'd definitely go full frame and learn to get closer.