Sl2 improved in low light high iso over sl1?

jebo1 wrote:

I am on the other hand quiet happy with my sl 1 in lowlight.

Your camera may be exactly what you need! That’s an excellent position to be in.

The limiting factor for me is not the sensor but more the ability to focus.

OTOH the OP is looking to get better noise performance than what his SL1 is delivering. These new sensors do just that. And the newer Digic processors can handle the noise better too (if the OP is shooting jpegs). I do however recommend shooting RAW, as you have a lot more leeway in adjusting all of the image variables in Post.

I’m guessing too that the OP is looking to keep the overall size of his/her rig down (being a street shooter), so that likely precludes going with some of the larger bodies (ie. full frame), and perhaps may rule out mounting any larger faster lenses, which themselves may help with letting in more light.

Manual focus does not work that great and on autofocus it is sometimes difficult to focus.

I don’t know what your current AF technique is, but in general I recommend always going with a single AF point. If I’m shooting people (or animals) I’m usually focusing on the near eye. Sometimes when the AF is sketchy I’ll resort to focusing on a nearby high contrast AF target (like a shirt pattern, or the numbers on a uniform), I’ll lock the AF, then lean forward or backwards with my camera to compensate for the difference in distance to my subject.

Personally I love the flexibility that Back Button AF brings to the table. It makes it much easier to lock the focus (you just lift your thumb off the BBAF button). You can then keep shooting for as long as you want (without any change in focus point, or having any re-focusing delay), for as long as the distance to the subject remains the same. This makes subsequent follow-up shots very very quick. I can often even extend this period of locked-on AF if the subject does move a little bit, by swaying to and fro with the camera the same amount that the subject has moved. Just re-focus whenever necessary. It helps too, to always keep in mind what your depth of field is!

When shooting in low light I like to shoot bursts. Not only does your chance of catching a decisive moment improve, but this also helps to stabilize the lens (one of the images is invariably sharper than the others). I gain about a stop in handhold-ability (I call this “Poor Man’s Image Stabilization). Some folks may prefer not to shoot bursts though, so YMMV.

What also helps is if you underexpose your picture with one stop.

My philosophy is actually just the opposite. Noise response improves the More light you collect (likewise does detail). To maximize this benefit, I adhere to the ETTR principle (Expose To The Right). Which is to increase exposure until just before clipping the (important) highlights, then applying the appropriate adjustments afterward in Post. It really helps to shoot in RAW too.

Underexposing may have been a viable technique back in the days of color-positive slide film (which I in fact used to employ in order to increase film density), but in this digital age just the opposite would be true. Again, I do understand that YMMV.

This gives a more natural picture and allows you to use longer shutter times.

Hmmm. Actually intentional underexposure would allow one to use shorter shutter speeds. This being a last-ditch technique sometimes employed when freezing action is of paramount concern, and you’ve run out of all other options. This does increase noise however. Perhaps a little moreso than even raising the ISO.

I do agree that there are instances when less exposure might indeed be preferable, such as when not wanting to blow out a sky. Do this at base ISO though to keep noise to a minimum. Your other areas will still be subject to that increase in noise however, so one must remain aware of that, and you may not want your main subject to suffer this.

Ahhh, this is what makes photography so fascinating! Easy to learn, difficult to master.

Happy shooting all!

R2