Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Started Dec 4, 2018 | Discussions thread
Historicity Senior Member • Posts: 2,234
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Maarten Droogne wrote:

do you know soon I can expect a scoring on new cameras? I see Sony is going to announce a new APS-S high end camera ( ), which will hopefully improve on a few things, like AF, upper ISO setting etc. It looks like if it can do that and keep (but hopefully improve) on the noise of the A6300, it looks like a fine choice! The crop factor makes it possible to use the 300mm 2.8 without compromising on noise on the even long reaches, as the 50-500mm and 150-600mm have about 2 1/3 stops of light less on their longest range, and if you look at the numbers the APS-C with 300mm comes out far ahead (numbers are compared to the full frame numbers) when comparing same exposure (so 2 + 1/3 stop) settings. Also, as 300* 1,5 is not the same as 450, I'll include the numbers of the 300mm with a 1,4 converter (1 stop loss):


  • ISO 100: 10,49
  • ISO 200: 9,65

A7 III ISO 503: 9,4


  • ISO 800 (start of steeper noise increase): 8,87
  • ISO 1600: 7,23

A7 III ISO 4022: 7,15


  • 10183 (end of non-boosted ISO range): 4,64


  • 51200: 3,48
  • 25600: 4,49
  • (here I added the A7 III with 1 stop more, instead of A6300 with a stop less)

In general you can see the differences are slim, when looking at 300+converter numbers (although the range is bigger going from 450 to 620). The 300mm would be heavier, so except if the A7000 has a better IBIS) I should consider them equals. That means if the A7000 can improve majorly over the A6300 on NDR, and come on the same playing field as the A7III on focus and ISO (for reference, the APS C should come to a native 25,6k to improve over the A7III). I'm not getting my hopes up though, as the sensor also improved to 32MP (based on rumours for now), so noise control will not have been the priority.

Again, obviously, this whole comparison only works on the longer ranges (500-600mm), and the FF will definitely be better at the shorter ranges, but I'm primarly interested on how they will work on those longer ranges.

As a K1 Mark ii owner and party to the after-effects of what on the Pentax forum is considered a faulty DPreview, I notice that someone basing a decision on that review caused you to take the K1ii "off the table". "Aggressive noise" reduction was mentioned. Since all the camera makers have some noise reduction in their sensors, "aggressive" becomes a matter for debate -- unless there is some negative result that is observable in the usage of said camera with aggressive noise reduction. The K1ii is without doubt the camera that has produced the best image quality of any camera I have owned, and this has also been the testimony on the Pentax site of everyone who has commented about their use of this camera.

On my last hike I used an old Pentax FA * 200 mm f/2.8 lens and among other things did some test shots at some distance objects. If "aggressive" noise reduction is going to have an effect it will be in producing reduced image quality, but the image quality I saw from these recent shots with the FA * 200 was as good as anything as I edited the shots in Lightroom 6.

You may have good reason for not buying a K1ii. It wouldn't be my first choice for sports or video, but I don't think anyone out there, with mirrorless or DSLR cameras, is going to get better image quality from a camera -- at least no camera I have seen a discussion on.


 Historicity's gear list:Historicity's gear list
Ricoh GR II Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Olympus E-1 +123 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow