Full Frame low light performance trade offs?

[DugT]

I have a 7d and was going to buy a 6D for its low light performance but now I have reservations because of the DOF. I believe the 6d's low light performance is two stops better than the 7d's but the DOF is worse by about one stop. Since I usually need deep DOF for landscapes and close ups, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the two stops improvement and I don't think one stop is worth it for me. If I shot portraits indoors I would get a 6d for the two stops and for the decreased DOF.

I was going to keep my 7d for action, sports and bif, and for its reach. Now I think I will keep using my 7d for landscapes too. The 6d has other nice features too but I can live without them.

Am I missing anything or flat out wrong about any of this? Thanks for any input.

dt

 

[MASTERPPA]

"DOF worse" I can tell you shoot landscapes.. LOL..

The IQ of the 6D and 5D3 are higher in many ways, worth it. You need more F to get the same DOF, but the image DR and noise are better.. So 6D

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

I have a 7d and was going to buy a 6D for its low light performance but now I have reservations because of the DOF. I believe the 6d's low light performance is two stops better than the 7d's but the DOF is worse by about one stop. Since I usually need deep DOF for landscapes and close ups, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the two stops improvement and I don't think one stop is worth it for me. If I shot portraits indoors I would get a 6d for the two stops and for the decreased DOF.

I was going to keep my 7d for action, sports and bif, and for its reach. Now I think I will keep using my 7d for landscapes too. The 6d has other nice features too but I can live without them.

Am I missing anything or flat out wrong about any of this? Thanks for any input.

dt

 

[The Davinator]

MASTERPPA wrote:

"DOF worse" I can tell you shoot landscapes.. LOL..

The IQ of the 6D and 5D3 are higher in many ways, worth it. You need more F to get the same DOF, but the image DR and noise are better.. So 6D

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

I have a 7d and was going to buy a 6D for its low light performance but now I have reservations because of the DOF. I believe the 6d's low light performance is two stops better than the 7d's but the DOF is worse by about one stop. Since I usually need deep DOF for landscapes and close ups, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the two stops improvement and I don't think one stop is worth it for me. If I shot portraits indoors I would get a 6d for the two stops and for the decreased DOF.

I was going to keep my 7d for action, sports and bif, and for its reach. Now I think I will keep using my 7d for landscapes too. The 6d has other nice features too but I can live without them.

Am I missing anything or flat out wrong about any of this? Thanks for any input.

dt

DR is about the same. The difference is 1.6 stops of DOF. So yes, to match DOF and shutter speed, you need to jacj up the iso by 1.6 stops on the 6D...negating most of the difference.

 

[Donald Duck]

If you are not shutter speed limited, as it is the case with landscapes very often, then you do get the lower noise at base ISO with no DOF loss.

If you must shoot with the same SS, then at equivalent settings, the 6D will be slightly better because it is slightly more efficient. You still get better resolution.

 

[DugT]

Thanks for the reply's.

After reading the first reply I googled "Dynamic Range 6d 7d" and found a comparison by DXO. They rated the 6d at 12.1 and the 7d at 11.7. The difference is a little less than 4%. Using LR I think I can get about 20% more DR and then there is always HDR.

However, DXO rated the 6d IQ as 82 vs 66 for the 7d. The only significant difference the specify is "Low Light". The 6d rated 2340 ISO and the 7d 854. That is almost three times the difference.

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

I forgot to mention that I plan to get into more night photography with stars in the background. That would make good use of the 6d's low light performance.


dt

 

[Donald Duck]

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution but if you take it to extreme, like f/22, etc., then they become almost equal. There is still enough resolution advantage at f/11 to matter.

 

[DugT]

Donald Duck wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution but if you take it to extreme, like f/22, etc., then they become almost equal. There is still enough resolution advantage at f/11 to matter.

Obviously I didn't realize that the diffraction blur is the same at equivalent apertures. Thanks for that info.

dt

 

[schmegg]

Donald Duck wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution ....

The OP talks about landscapes and "close ups".

If by "close ups" the OP means shooting small subjects at or near the lenses maximum magnification, such as macro style shots, then the crop offers better resolution. ;-)

 

[The Davinator]

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Thanks for the reply's.

After reading the first reply I googled "Dynamic Range 6d 7d" and found a comparison by DXO. They rated the 6d at 12.1 and the 7d at 11.7. The difference is a little less than 4%. Using LR I think I can get about 20% more DR and then there is always HDR.

However, DXO rated the 6d IQ as 82 vs 66 for the 7d. The only significant difference the specify is "Low Light". The 6d rated 2340 ISO and the 7d 854. That is almost three times the difference.

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

I forgot to mention that I plan to get into more night photography with stars in the background. That would make good use of the 6d's low light performance.

dt

I wouldnt bother with dxo. That said, if you do trust them.....look all the way to the number one camera and you'll have your answer. ;-)

 

[DugT]

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution ....

The OP talks about landscapes and "close ups".

If by "close ups" the OP means shooting small subjects at or near the lenses maximum magnification, such as macro style shots, then the crop offers better resolution. ;-)

By "Close ups" I don't mean macro or maximum magnification. I mean getting close with a 20mm lens on a crop camera to emphasize the depth of the subject. For example, lately I've taking photos of sections of the roots of a fallen tree. I try to make the photo look as 3d as possible by using a wider lens and I need good DOF too. To avoid deep shadows I have been shooting in flat light and that is why I would like better low light performance. I should probably use my tripod. I haven't used a tripod yet because the subject is on someone elses property so I'm trying to keep a low profile even though I've been going there almost daily like an obsessed zealot.

 

[Forrest41926]

Photography is an art, not a branch of mathematics. Forget the weird alchemy people bring up in here about "equivalent" apertures and pay no mind to things like DXO. Do you want to make pictures, or spreadsheets?

Big sensors are great for landscapes. A lot of people who shoot 'scapes think 24x36 mm is too small the task. Ansel Adams wasn't worried about diffraction when he shot f/64, and by all accounts he made better photos than most, certainly better than the obsessive gear collectors, showing at least that it can be done.

Your best bet is to rent or borrow the body you're considering, then go out and try it. See if the pictures are to your liking, and what you think of the way they compare to the body you have now.

Since you said you're specifically interested in landscapes that have stars in them, let me share a few of mine. These I shot with a 5D v3 and a 24 mm f/1.4 v2, most of them wide-open or very close to it.

 

[Ross Murphy]

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

I have a 7d and was going to buy a 6D for its low light performance but now I have reservations because of the DOF. I believe the 6d's low light performance is two stops better than the 7d's but the DOF is worse by about one stop. Since I usually need deep DOF for landscapes and close ups, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the two stops improvement and I don't think one stop is worth it for me. If I shot portraits indoors I would get a 6d for the two stops and for the decreased DOF.

I was going to keep my 7d for action, sports and bif, and for its reach. Now I think I will keep using my 7d for landscapes too. The 6d has other nice features too but I can live without them.

Am I missing anything or flat out wrong about any of this? Thanks for any input.

dt

the 6D/5D will do far better for landscape and portrait than the 7D will, go for it and dont look back, use good glass, the better the glass the smaller the aperture you can use, so stay with L glass. Best really if you shoot sports also to go with the 5D3.




Ross

 

[schmegg]

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution ....

The OP talks about landscapes and "close ups".

If by "close ups" the OP means shooting small subjects at or near the lenses maximum magnification, such as macro style shots, then the crop offers better resolution. ;-)

By "Close ups" I don't mean macro or maximum magnification. I mean getting close with a 20mm lens on a crop camera to emphasize the depth of the subject. For example, lately I've taking photos of sections of the roots of a fallen tree. I try to make the photo look as 3d as possible by using a wider lens and I need good DOF too. To avoid deep shadows I have been shooting in flat light and that is why I would like better low light performance. I should probably use my tripod. I haven't used a tripod yet because the subject is on someone elses property so I'm trying to keep a low profile even though I've been going there almost daily like an obsessed zealot.

Well, in that case I see no reason why the 6D wouldn't be a great choice.

Keep in mind though that no matter which camera you choose, using a tripod for low light will give you better results when shooting static subjects. Plus, a decent tripod is much cheaper than a full frame DSLR body! ;-)

 

[DugT]

Dave Luttmann wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Thanks for the reply's.

After reading the first reply I googled "Dynamic Range 6d 7d" and found a comparison by DXO. They rated the 6d at 12.1 and the 7d at 11.7. The difference is a little less than 4%. Using LR I think I can get about 20% more DR and then there is always HDR.

However, DXO rated the 6d IQ as 82 vs 66 for the 7d. The only significant difference the specify is "Low Light". The 6d rated 2340 ISO and the 7d 854. That is almost three times the difference.

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

I forgot to mention that I plan to get into more night photography with stars in the background. That would make good use of the 6d's low light performance.

dt

I wouldnt bother with dxo. That said, if you do trust them.....look all the way to the number one camera and you'll have your answer. ;-)

It looks to me that DXO rates the Nikon D4 as the best camera but that doesn't explain why they would score the 6d so much higher than the 7d. What am I missing?

Thanks,

dt

 

[DugT]

Ross Murphy wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

I have a 7d and was going to buy a 6D for its low light performance but now I have reservations because of the DOF. I believe the 6d's low light performance is two stops better than the 7d's but the DOF is worse by about one stop. Since I usually need deep DOF for landscapes and close ups, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the two stops improvement and I don't think one stop is worth it for me. If I shot portraits indoors I would get a 6d for the two stops and for the decreased DOF.

I was going to keep my 7d for action, sports and bif, and for its reach. Now I think I will keep using my 7d for landscapes too. The 6d has other nice features too but I can live without them.

Am I missing anything or flat out wrong about any of this? Thanks for any input.

dt

the 6D/5D will do far better for landscape and portrait than the 7D will, go for it and dont look back, use good glass, the better the glass the smaller the aperture you can use, so stay with L glass. Best really if you shoot sports also to go with the 5D3.

Ross

 

[Donald Duck]

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution ....

The OP talks about landscapes and "close ups".

If by "close ups" the OP means shooting small subjects at or near the lenses maximum magnification, such as macro style shots, then the crop offers better resolution. ;-)

Completely unrelated.

 

[The Davinator]

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Thanks for the reply's.

After reading the first reply I googled "Dynamic Range 6d 7d" and found a comparison by DXO. They rated the 6d at 12.1 and the 7d at 11.7. The difference is a little less than 4%. Using LR I think I can get about 20% more DR and then there is always HDR.

However, DXO rated the 6d IQ as 82 vs 66 for the 7d. The only significant difference the specify is "Low Light". The 6d rated 2340 ISO and the 7d 854. That is almost three times the difference.

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

I forgot to mention that I plan to get into more night photography with stars in the background. That would make good use of the 6d's low light performance.

dt

I wouldnt bother with dxo. That said, if you do trust them.....look all the way to the number one camera and you'll have your answer. ;-)

It looks to me that DXO rates the Nikon D4 as the best camera but that doesn't explain why they would score the 6d so much higher than the 7d. What am I missing?

Thanks,
dt

Nope. The D800 and D600 bodies are rated at the top.

Dxo places huge importance on noise rating. A lot of that difference can be reduced to the point of not mattering through using NR. That said, I did a comparison a while back at 3200 iso using a 7D and 5D2 and a 16x24 print. The difference was reduced to being invisible with a few seconds in Lightroom.

 

[DugT]

Dave Luttmann wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Dave Luttmann wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Thanks for the reply's.

After reading the first reply I googled "Dynamic Range 6d 7d" and found a comparison by DXO. They rated the 6d at 12.1 and the 7d at 11.7. The difference is a little less than 4%. Using LR I think I can get about 20% more DR and then there is always HDR.

However, DXO rated the 6d IQ as 82 vs 66 for the 7d. The only significant difference the specify is "Low Light". The 6d rated 2340 ISO and the 7d 854. That is almost three times the difference.

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

I forgot to mention that I plan to get into more night photography with stars in the background. That would make good use of the 6d's low light performance.

dt

I wouldnt bother with dxo. That said, if you do trust them.....look all the way to the number one camera and you'll have your answer. ;-)

It looks to me that DXO rates the Nikon D4 as the best camera but that doesn't explain why they would score the 6d so much higher than the 7d. What am I missing?

Thanks,
dt

Nope. The D800 and D600 bodies are rated at the top.

Dxo places huge importance on noise rating. A lot of that difference can be reduced to the point of not mattering through using NR. That said, I did a comparison a while back at 3200 iso using a 7D and 5D2 and a 16x24 print. The difference was reduced to being invisible with a few seconds in Lightroom.

Thanks for explaining about DXO's preference for low noise.

That is a really good point that LR has become very good at noise reduction. I used to be reluctant to use ISO 800 because of noise paranoia but now, if I expose to the right, iso 1600 isn't a problem with my 7d. Using more noise reduction is more acceptable than motion blur or insufficient DOF.

dt

 

[schmegg]

Donald Duck wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

Another concern with having to set the aperture two stops down with a 6d is lens performance. I think most lenses are sharpest at f/8. If I have to use f/11 to get the same DOF that will also remove some performance gain.

Start thinking about equivalent apertures, and life becomes easier and simpler. At equivalent apertures, diffraction blur is the same. FF still offers better resolution ....

The OP talks about landscapes and "close ups".

If by "close ups" the OP means shooting small subjects at or near the lenses maximum magnification, such as macro style shots, then the crop offers better resolution. ;-)

Completely unrelated.

LOL! Not at all.

In fact, the difference in resolution between the 6D and 7D is approximately 5.5% linear.

If you'd just use the correct terms then you wouldn't keep getting corrected. You are talking about sharpness - not resolution.

 

[ASR45]

MASTERPPA wrote:

"DOF worse" I can tell you shoot landscapes.. LOL..

The IQ of the 6D and 5D3 are higher in many ways, worth it. You need more F to get the same DOF, but the image DR and noise are better.. So 6D

Agreed.

usedtobedontrustme wrote:

I have a 7d and was going to buy a 6D for its low light performance but now I have reservations because of the DOF. I believe the 6d's low light performance is two stops better than the 7d's but the DOF is worse by about one stop. Since I usually need deep DOF for landscapes and close ups, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the two stops improvement and I don't think one stop is worth it for me. If I shot portraits indoors I would get a 6d for the two stops and for the decreased DOF.

I was going to keep my 7d for action, sports and bif, and for its reach. Now I think I will keep using my 7d for landscapes too. The 6d has other nice features too but I can live without them.

Am I missing anything or flat out wrong about any of this? Thanks for any input.

dt