Question about FF and iso

Hello,

I have an R7 and I'm extremely happy with how it handles in good light, however, when trying to photograph an owl last week at dusk, the image came out terribly noisy and unusable. I was using R7 and 200-800mm. I can't remember the exif completely but the iso was at maximum or there abouts.

I know APS-C sensors aren't built for low light photography and LLP is more suited to FF cameras.

My question is, and I apologise if this is a stupid question, I'm new to photography.

Does "better low light capabilities" mean that a higher iso can be used? If so, am I going to run into similar problems using FF and a higher iso? Will the image still be noisy or does the larger sensor reduce the noise? Resulting in a cleaner image?

I'm thinking of adding a FF camera to my collection, mainly the Canon R6mkii for low light bird photography, getting shots of owls at dawn and dusk. The max iso for R7 is 51,200 and for the R6mkii it is 204,800.

Am I going to be encountering the same issues? Will I need say a 70-200mm 2.8 to let in more light on the FF body?

Any input will be appreciated

Thanks

Dan

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

Click to expand...

I don’t have owls near me. Do they stay fairly still? If you could get a reasonable shot at 1/125 that would help with the noise. I assume you were mostly filling the frame. I think the pros would use something like a 600mm f/4 prime for dusk shots. Unfortunately they are heavy … and expensive. Dusk is tough.

bodeswell said:

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

Click to expand...

I don’t have owls near me. Do they stay fairly still? If you could get a reasonable shot at 1/125 that would help with the noise. I assume you were mostly filling the frame. I think the pros would use something like a 600mm f/4 prime for dusk shots. Unfortunately they are heavy … and expensive. Dusk is tough.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was perched on a branch about 40 metres away from me, but no wasn't filling the frame, more an environmental shot. Yeah, I can't afford a 13k lens pal haha but thanks for the advice. I'll try lower SS. Thanks

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

Click to expand...

I don’t have owls near me. Do they stay fairly still? If you could get a reasonable shot at 1/125 that would help with the noise. I assume you were mostly filling the frame. I think the pros would use something like a 600mm f/4 prime for dusk shots. Unfortunately they are heavy … and expensive. Dusk is tough.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was perched on a branch about 40 metres away from me, but no wasn't filling the frame, more an environmental shot. Yeah, I can't afford a 13k lens pal haha but thanks for the advice. I'll try lower SS. Thanks

Click to expand...

40 meters at dusk is tough.

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

Click to expand...

You don’t need a new camera.

To me, it’s about getting the best possible photo, and to do that, everything must be as ideal as possible.



For a resting bird, you can use a lower shutter speed, especially if the lens has IS and it’s being supported on a fence/monopod/tripod. But that’s only a stop or two at most. I don’t know if you can get good results at 1/125 at 700mm. You will need to test.



Second, you need to fill the frame as much as possible. And, to state the obvious, your focus needs to be perfect.



Most importantly, you need good light. Not exactly bright light, but good, diffuse light hitting your subject. Last, shoot RAW and learn how to use Lightroom or DxO PhotoLab to bring out the most in your photos, like cutting highlights and boosting shadows.



You have excellent gear and you’re learning really well, but there is more to excellence than pointing camera at bird. Keep going out, over and over, post your mistakes and we’ll help you learn from them. Persevere and it will pay off.

Well, cameras need light. No “low light” capability will produce perfect noise-free images without sufficient light.

On the tp bar here , look under Sample Imagesand then Studio scene comparison tool.

Load the cameras you want to compare and the ISO you want and...compare.

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

Hello,

I have an R7 and I'm extremely happy with how it handles in good light, however, when trying to photograph an owl last week at dusk, the image came out terribly noisy and unusable. I was using R7 and 200-800mm. I can't remember the exif completely but the iso was at maximum or there abouts.

I know APS-C sensors aren't built for low light photography and LLP is more suited to FF cameras.

My question is, and I apologise if this is a stupid question, I'm new to photography.

Does "better low light capabilities" mean that a higher iso can be used? If so, am I going to run into similar problems using FF and a higher iso? Will the image still be noisy or does the larger sensor reduce the noise? Resulting in a cleaner image?

I'm thinking of adding a FF camera to my collection, mainly the Canon R6mkii for low light bird photography, getting shots of owls at dawn and dusk. The max iso for R7 is 51,200 and for the R6mkii it is 204,800.

Am I going to be encountering the same issues? Will I need say a 70-200mm 2.8 to let in more light on the FF body?

Any input will be appreciated

Thanks

Dan

Click to expand...

Generally, FF will be better if your subject matter fills the frame. It'll have less noise when you shoot, say, landscapes.

In terms of birds, what you should care about is "light and noise per bird". In other words, if you get an FF camera and do a heavier crop than with an APS-C camera, you don't reduce the visible noise; moreover you will get a reduced resolution in "pixels per bird".

With the two cameras you're considering, the R6II has basically the same performance per sensor unit area, it can be compared here with the R6II in crop mode:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R6 Mark II(APS-C),Canon EOS R7

But the R6II has lower resolution.

That means if you put the same lens on the R6II but crop more, you get the same visible noise plus much less pixels per bird - generally it'll be disappointing.

You'll need to get bigger very expensive lenses with wide apertures in order to get better results on a FF camera, given you shutter speed is constrained when you shoot birds. Alternatively, you'll need to get closer to the birds with an R6II...

--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed

Birds are very difficult- long lenses, probably have to crop, need a reasonable shutter speed, light might be bad. You have to compromise somewhere. In your case you can try lower shutter speed but shoot a burst at high frame rate and hope to catch a shot where the bird isn't moving.

High ISO can be used but really high ISO will reduce image quality. You didn't say how you were processing, there are some pieces of software available that work very well to reduce high ISO noise.

MarshallG said:

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

Click to expand...

You don’t need a new camera.

To me, it’s about getting the best possible photo, and to do that, everything must be as ideal as possible.

For a resting bird, you can use a lower shutter speed, especially if the lens has IS and it’s being supported on a fence/monopod/tripod. But that’s only a stop or two at most. I don’t know if you can get good results at 1/125 at 700mm. You will need to test.

Click to expand...

I'll mount to my tripod and try to lower my SS on my next outing to see if that drops the iso sufficiently.

MarshallG said:

Second, you need to fill the frame as much as possible. And, to state the obvious, your focus needs to be perfect.

Click to expand...

I had back button spot auto focus on the owl and the focus highlights on the playback screen were bang on

MarshallG said:

Most importantly, you need good light. Not exactly bright light, but good, diffuse light hitting your subject. Last, shoot RAW and learn how to use Lightroom or DxO PhotoLab to bring out the most in your photos, like cutting highlights and boosting shadows.

Click to expand...

Its hard to get good light at dusk, and the owl being nocturnal, only comes out at dusk. Its a catch 22. I shoot in C Raw and process my photos in DXO PL7 but the results were shocking to say the least. I'll have another go and see what I can do in regards to shadows and highlights.

MarshallG said:

You have excellent gear and you’re learning really well, but there is more to excellence than pointing camera at bird. Keep going out, over and over, post your mistakes and we’ll help you learn from them. Persevere and it will pay off.

Click to expand...

Thanks Marshall, I'll have another try next time I go out and see what I can muster

Bob said:

Well, cameras need light. No “low light” capability will produce perfect noise-free images without sufficient light.

Click to expand...

Thanks Bob

Quarkcharmed said:

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

Hello,

I have an R7 and I'm extremely happy with how it handles in good light, however, when trying to photograph an owl last week at dusk, the image came out terribly noisy and unusable. I was using R7 and 200-800mm. I can't remember the exif completely but the iso was at maximum or there abouts.

I know APS-C sensors aren't built for low light photography and LLP is more suited to FF cameras.

My question is, and I apologise if this is a stupid question, I'm new to photography.

Does "better low light capabilities" mean that a higher iso can be used? If so, am I going to run into similar problems using FF and a higher iso? Will the image still be noisy or does the larger sensor reduce the noise? Resulting in a cleaner image?

I'm thinking of adding a FF camera to my collection, mainly the Canon R6mkii for low light bird photography, getting shots of owls at dawn and dusk. The max iso for R7 is 51,200 and for the R6mkii it is 204,800.

Am I going to be encountering the same issues? Will I need say a 70-200mm 2.8 to let in more light on the FF body?

Any input will be appreciated

Thanks

Dan

Click to expand...

Generally, FF will be better if your subject matter fills the frame. It'll have less noise when you shoot, say, landscapes.

In terms of birds, what you should care about is "light and noise per bird". In other words, if you get an FF camera and do a heavier crop than with an APS-C camera, you don't reduce the visible noise; moreover you will get a reduced resolution in "pixels per bird".

Click to expand...

Good to know, thanks

Quarkcharmed said:

With the two cameras you're considering, the R6II has basically the same performance per sensor unit area, it can be compared here with the R6II in crop mode:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R6 Mark II(APS-C),Canon EOS R7

But the R6II has lower resolution.

That means if you put the same lens on the R6II but crop more, you get the same visible noise plus much less pixels per bird - generally it'll be disappointing.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks for explaining

Quarkcharmed said:

You'll need to get bigger very expensive lenses with wide apertures in order to get better results on a FF camera, given you shutter speed is constrained when you shoot birds. Alternatively, you'll need to get closer to the birds with an R6II...

Click to expand...

the area where the owl is, is protected, as its in a wildlife reserve. I can't physically get closer without getting banned from the area. And I can't afford 10k+ for a lens. I guess owls are off my list of animals I can photograph. Thanks for the advice I appreciate it

Quarkcharmed said:

--
https://www.instagram.com/quarkcharmed/
https://500px.com/quarkcharmed

Click to expand...

bjn70 said:

Birds are very difficult- long lenses, probably have to crop, need a reasonable shutter speed, light might be bad. You have to compromise somewhere. In your case you can try lower shutter speed but shoot a burst at high frame rate and hope to catch a shot where the bird isn't moving.

Click to expand...

I did shoot in H+. It wasn't that the picture was blurry. You can make out the owl and it's in focus, it's that the image is extremely noisy, even after putting it through DXO PL7 noise reduction. It might just be the case that I can't achieve what I want without dropping 10k+ on a lens. Thanks for the feedback

bjn70 said:

High ISO can be used but really high ISO will reduce image quality. You didn't say how you were processing, there are some pieces of software available that work very well to reduce high ISO noise.

Click to expand...

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

Does "better low light capabilities" mean that a higher iso can be used? If so, am I going to run into similar problems using FF and a higher iso? Will the image still be noisy or does the larger sensor reduce the noise? Resulting in a cleaner image?

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, yes.

What really happens, is that a full frame sensor gathers more light (at the same aperture, the density of light (photons) hitting the sensor is the same, so the exposure will also be the same. However, since the sensor is larger, it collects more photons, so more signal).

If you're comparing two sensors, one APS-C, one full frame and both have the same resolution, then the full frame one will have larger photosites for each pixel, and with that larger area will collect more photons, reducing the noise level on a pixel level.







If the photosites are the same size on both sensors, that means the full frame sensor has considerably more resolution, and then the noise is hidden with resolution (practical example : the Sony A6700 and A7RV have the exact same pixel pitch of 3.76µm, so on a pixel level those sensors are identical. However, the A6700 has 26MP when the A7RV has 61MP of resolution, ending up in considerably less "visible noise" when looking at the images from the same viewing distance, without any crop applied to either camera.







TL;DR : If you have larger photosites, or more photosites covering a larger area, you will be able to reduce noise either by having lower noise levels on a pixel level, or by hiding it in resolution. So yes, you can use higher ISO values on full frame cameras compares to APS-C ones.

In the end, the noise levels are due to the signal / noise ratio, and more surface = more signal.

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

I'm thinking of adding a FF camera to my collection, mainly the Canon R6mkii for low light bird photography, getting shots of owls at dawn and dusk. The max iso for R7 is 51,200 and for the R6mkii it is 204,800.

Am I going to be encountering the same issues? Will I need say a 70-200mm 2.8 to let in more light on the FF body?

Click to expand...

The R6II has a higehr maximum ISO, but that doesn't mean that you'll get better image quality at those settings. The general rule between two sensors of the same generation of tech, is that the difference between APS-C and full frame is between 1.3 and 1.5 stops depending on the brand and sensors being compared. The noise levels obtained with the R7 at ISO 51200 will be slightly higher than the noise you get at ISO 102400 on the R6II, but the R6II image at ISO 204800 will look worse.

If the image you got at ISO 51200 on the R7 wasn't satisfactory to you, using ISO 104100 or 204800 on the R6II won't improve things. However, using ISO 51200 on the R6II will give you similar noise levels as using ISO 20000 on the R7.










--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

bodeswell said:

Nothing is going to look good at max ISO. Do you remember about what focal length you were using? A 70-200 f/2.8 won’t help if you need 800mm. If you were at 200mm then, sure, shooting at f/2.8 would be an improvement, on a R7 or a ff camera. Whether it is enough of an improvement will depend on how dark it was. Would it be practical to use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Image shot at 707mm. F/9. 1/500. Iso 25600. Not quite max iso, my apologies. It was dusk. The sun wasn't fully set yet. I was resting the lens on a fence post to minimise shaking/wobbling

Click to expand...

In such low light conditions you need to make compromises, eg. try to lower the shutter speed. I believe that eg. 1/250s would be doable in burst shooting. (=ISO 12 500)

Also you can use some of the newer AI denoise software, which make your photos much better (can look like ISO 800 now).

C Raw has lossy compression, and I’d avoid it if you want the best results. Not that the results will be pristine even with non-lossy raws.

If you have to crop a FF image to get the same angle of view as an APS-C while using the same focal length, then typically you’ll lose the low-light advantage of FF.

MJ_Photo38 said:

NewbieNeedingHelp24 said:

Does "better low light capabilities" mean that a higher iso can be used? If so, am I going to run into similar problems using FF and a higher iso? Will the image still be noisy or does the larger sensor reduce the noise? Resulting in a cleaner image?

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, yes.

What really happens, is that a full frame sensor gathers more light (at the same aperture, the density of light (photons) hitting the sensor is the same, so the exposure will also be the same. However, since the sensor is larger, it collects more photons, so more signal).

If you're comparing two sensors, one APS-C, one full frame and both have the same resolution, then the full frame one will have larger photosites for each pixel, and with that larger area will collect more photons, reducing the noise level on a pixel level.





If the photosites are the same size on both sensors, that means the full frame sensor has considerably more resolution, and then the noise is hidden with resolution (practical example : the Sony A6700 and A7RV have the exact same pixel pitch of 3.76µm, so on a pixel level those sensors are identical. However, the A6700 has 26MP when the A7RV has 61MP of resolution, ending up in considerably less "visible noise" when looking at the images from the same viewing distance, without any crop applied to either camera.





TL;DR : If you have larger photosites, or more photosites covering a larger area, you will be able to reduce noise either by having lower noise levels on a pixel level, or by hiding it in resolution. So yes, you can use higher ISO values on full frame cameras compares to APS-C ones.

In the end, the noise levels are due to the signal / noise ratio, and more surface = more signal.

MJ_Photo38 said:

I'm thinking of adding a FF camera to my collection, mainly the Canon R6mkii for low light bird photography, getting shots of owls at dawn and dusk. The max iso for R7 is 51,200 and for the R6mkii it is 204,800.

Am I going to be encountering the same issues? Will I need say a 70-200mm 2.8 to let in more light on the FF body?

Click to expand...

The R6II has a higehr maximum ISO, but that doesn't mean that you'll get better image quality at those settings. The general rule between two sensors of the same generation of tech, is that the difference between APS-C and full frame is between 1.3 and 1.5 stops depending on the brand and sensors being compared. The noise levels obtained with the R7 at ISO 51200 will be slightly higher than the noise you get at ISO 102400 on the R6II, but the R6II image at ISO 204800 will look worse.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't convey what I meant very well. The image I shot was at 25,600. If I was to shoot the same photo on a FF camera at 25,600, would it be equally as noisy as the APS-C image? I didn't mean that I'm going to shoot at the maximum iso settings and expect clear, noise free images.

MJ_Photo38 said:

If the image you got at ISO 51200 on the R7 wasn't satisfactory to you, using ISO 104100 or 204800 on the R6II won't improve things. However, using ISO 51200 on the R6II will give you similar noise levels as using ISO 20000 on the R7.





--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)

Click to expand...

Thanks for the technical breakdown