Batdude
•
Veteran Member
•
Posts: 6,532
Re: Low light rating of "great"?
noggin2k1 wrote:
Batdude wrote:
noggin2k1 wrote:
Sebastian1x wrote:
Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge of the R3 from … 50 - weddings, wow! Can you elaborate a bit more regarding your comment or wish for better high ISO-performance? I thought the R3 would be an improvement in that regards compared to R5.
Sebastian
I think the R3 may be a very marginal improvement over the R5, but nothing particularly noticeable.
I'm not afraid of a bit of noise at high ISO, it's more so the degradation of colours. It's by no means a criticism of the R3, as it's very comparable to the best cameras on the market in this area - more of a "in the coming years if I change my R3's or a R3 II is released, it's the area I'd want to see improvements in to make me change cameras".
I can't afford no R3, but, am a "potential" new customer for the rumored R6II which is supposed to have the same sensor as the R3.
My question to you is can you expand a little more or (provide samples) as to what you see "degraded" in the colors with this $6000 camera? I thought it was very interesting how you gave the low light capability a rating of "great" but not excellent.
One thing I have learned, no matter how modern or expensive a camera might be, the rule or expression "garbage in garbage out" always give you the same result no matter how good your equipment is. The same as a very expensive high quality Audio receiver, I don't care how good it is if you feed it poor audio quality the sound output will also be crappy. How much do you push the images in low light without flash as you said?
Thank you.
The low light rating is more around the camera being on par in low light performance with lower priced cameras (A7IV, A9II, R6, etc). For me to have rated it excellent, I'd want to see some level of high ISO improvement over those cameras.
As far as how far I can push the files, again - a bit of a tricky one, as it'll depend on what you're coming from.
If you're comparing with APS-C, the difference is light and day. I'm regularly pushing exposure 2.5 stops and lifting shadows, without needing any real form of LR noise reduction or external software.
Compared to Sony, it's a strange one. Whilst I'd say I could push my old Sony files more, I also found much more noise in the shadows earlier on with Sony too. If I was spending 20mins on each file going through sharpening and noise reduction, Sony wins by a hair. But I'm not, so the R3's are much better suited to me.
Side note; I really wouldn't expect the R6II to have the same sensor as the R3. No full frame camera at it's price point has a stacked sensor.
Thank you for your input.