Sl2 improved in low light high iso over sl1?

Easy Rider wrote:

I'm a street photographer. My 100d is great in good light but atrocious in low light for city night street photography. Iso 6400 is literally appalling and focus in low light even with my 24mm f2.8 stm is very poor. Stunning daylight set up and has bagged me some great shots but come dusk let alone night it is just atrocious.

Is the 200d much better in poor light?

AF is probably much better in low light. I don't have much issue in this regard.

If not I'll likely go back to Fuji as I like a small compact apsc set up and was happy with my x-100T.

Had a Nikon d5300 which was stellar in low light but no primes wider than 35mm and I like 28mm and 35mm equivalent as I stopped using zooms.

So if the 200d or m50 are not much better In low light I'll need to go back to fujifilm. Worse battery life but astonishing iso 6400 and great low light focus.

IMO, the SL2 is better than the SL1 overall in low light performance. How much better depends on why you are using it. If it is to increase shutter speed (where decent light is available) more than deal with exposure (light is minimal) it works much better. If it is mostly to obtain an acceptable exposure then the improvements are somewhat less noticeable. Hopefully I explained this in a way that is understandable.

Also, I am not too sure the grass is much greener with other APS-C brands. I have a 6D and it is a beast for low light shooting. FF might be a better choice if shooting in low light conditions is very important to you.