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

Started Dec 4, 2018 | Discussions
Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

With the DxO site apparently busy with moving, I was wondering if there is any other site/organisation or whatsoever with objective measurements on those sensors? I wanna compare them to the Sony A7 III and A7R III but most sites dont have any info about this specificaly.

Thanks in advance!

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z7 Sony a7 III Sony a7R III
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
camera_nerd Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?
1

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here  http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

 camera_nerd's gear list:camera_nerd's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Sony a7 II Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus E-M1 II Fujifilm X-T20 +10 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,368
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?
2

camera_nerd wrote:

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

Yes, and don't miss the sort-able table below the chart:

Note that the Low Light values are the same measurement; one is ISO and the other is stops. Stops is better for making comparisons.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

OP Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

camera_nerd wrote:

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

Whoa, thanks for the suggestion! Exactly what I was looking for! What is, (in your opinion) a relevant difference in low ISO (or EV stop). I think DxO suggests a 25% difference to be relevant, do you agree?

Looks like the Pentax K1 II looks like the perfect fit for me (price, resolution and

Also, a few more questions:

Is it a good approach to also look at specific ISO values to compare the noise? For example, with my old Nikon D200 I wasnt able to go over 1600 in auto-mode, but all in all I was able to get decently exposed shots (with a f/6.3 or 5). Could have been better ofcourse, but I think an ISO up to 6400 will be able to handle all my ISO needs for my wildlife shots (defintely if I also would be able to use a flash+betterbeamer for fill in). Would comparing @6400 not make more sense, than the a general score or a score at their highest values? I think it definitely use the higher ISO values, but those would not be a priority I think. The Pentax K1 II looks like an absolute winner on that field (but sadly a too slow fps to be a pick).

is there a formula (or rule of thumb OR detailed info) to convert FF to a certain cropped mode (for a certain camera)

What amount of noise would be a good value to look at (Dxo sets it at 30db I think), and what about a good value if you include post processing noise reduction.

To conclude, I'm looking into a new DSLR for wildlife photography, and my father already has a whole set of expensive Canon lenses which I can use. I only included Nikon in this comparison for reference, but it seems I dont really have to worry about them. They are not better than my favourites, the Sony A7 III, A7R III and A9 and Canon EOS R.

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,368
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Maarten Droogne wrote:

camera_nerd wrote:

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

Whoa, thanks for the suggestion! Exactly what I was looking for! What is, (in your opinion) a relevant difference in low ISO (or EV stop). I think DxO suggests a 25% difference to be relevant, do you agree?

25% is a strange way to put it but that's about 1/3rd stop which I think is reasonable.

Looks like the Pentax K1 II looks like the perfect fit for me (price, resolution and

Also, a few more questions:

Is it a good approach to also look at specific ISO values to compare the noise? For example, with my old Nikon D200 I wasnt able to go over 1600 in auto-mode, but all in all I was able to get decently exposed shots (with a f/6.3 or 5). Could have been better ofcourse, but I think an ISO up to 6400 will be able to handle all my ISO needs for my wildlife shots

Yes you can use your D200 experience to determine how much Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) you find acceptable, in this case it's about 4.2 :

I also through the Canon EOS R on since you have easy access to Canon lenses.
Since that's a full frame camera it's sensible to compare it in APS-C mode with the D200 because you'll want reach for wildlife.

The chart says that the Canon EOS R in APS-C mode at ISO 10000 has about the same PDR as the Nikon D200 at ISO 1600.

...

Personally, I would avoid that Pentax because they perform heavy Noise Reduction (NR) that you cannot turn off starting at ISO 800:

(The triangle pointing down indicates NR.)
Probably without the NR the Pentax would be about the same as the Canon EOS R.
Again, it's my personal preference to do NR later, if at all, so I wouldn't want this. You may feel differently.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

OP Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

camera_nerd wrote:

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

PS just to let you know your link is broken, it took me a quite a while to notice the simple extra " . " after htm which blocks it from going to the correct page.

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
OP Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

bclaff wrote:

Maarten Droogne wrote:

camera_nerd wrote:

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

Whoa, thanks for the suggestion! Exactly what I was looking for! What is, (in your opinion) a relevant difference in low ISO (or EV stop). I think DxO suggests a 25% difference to be relevant, do you agree?

25% is a strange way to put it but that's about 1/3rd stop which I think is reasonable.

Looks like the Pentax K1 II looks like the perfect fit for me (price, resolution and

Also, a few more questions:

Is it a good approach to also look at specific ISO values to compare the noise? For example, with my old Nikon D200 I wasnt able to go over 1600 in auto-mode, but all in all I was able to get decently exposed shots (with a f/6.3 or 5). Could have been better ofcourse, but I think an ISO up to 6400 will be able to handle all my ISO needs for my wildlife shots

Yes you can use your D200 experience to determine how much Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) you find acceptable, in this case it's about 4.2 :

I also through the Canon EOS R on since you have easy access to Canon lenses.
Since that's a full frame camera it's sensible to compare it in APS-C mode with the D200 because you'll want reach for wildlife.

Yeah APS-C mode is pretty usefull! I'm still not sure about 7R III vs 7 III, because of the difference in resolution, which is why I asked the question about deducing the noise specs out the full frame specs. Is it a specific formula/rate? I want to see how the noise holds up when digitaly zooming in. Or doesnt it work like that? Cause if I do, I can maybe look how much noise (deducing from the iso settings shots I have taken with my other cameras combined with this chart) I want to achieve, and go from there to look how far I can digitally crop before I hit this amount of noise at a certain ISO rating. Or does this noise level stay the same (because I do realize the different noise ratings for APS C is because it uses not the same sensor size as the FF mode). If it is possible though, I can compare how much noise both cameras (A7 III and A7R III) have at a certain resolution.

The chart says that the Canon EOS R in APS-C mode at ISO 10000 has about the same PDR as the Nikon D200 at ISO 1600.

The Canon EOS R does look like a perfect choice, but everything I have looked up about the MC11 Sony to Canon adaptor is pretty favourable (and compatible with my lenses). Also, the EOS R only has a 5 fps with focus on.. so Sony still ahead.

...

Personally, I would avoid that Pentax because they perform heavy Noise Reduction (NR) that you cannot turn off starting at ISO 800:

(The triangle pointing down indicates NR.)
Probably without the NR the Pentax would be about the same as the Canon EOS R.
Again, it's my personal preference to do NR later, if at all, so I wouldn't want this. You may feel differently.

Whoa, incredibly helpfull! I already saw that fishy looking jigged graphline, but didnt make the connection. Good to know, Pentax K1 II defintely off the table (also not compatible with Canon lenses, so a true no brainer!).

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
Slaginfected Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Maarten Droogne wrote:

[...]

Is it a good approach to also look at specific ISO values to compare the noise? For example, with my old Nikon D200 I wasnt able to go over 1600 in auto-mode, but all in all I was able to get decently exposed shots (with a f/6.3 or 5). Could have been better ofcourse, but I think an ISO up to 6400 will be able to handle all my ISO needs for my wildlife shots [...]

First things first: I haven't used any of these cameras personally, and in case of R, Z7 and A7rIII also don't see any reason to do so, because I'm one of these few persons who really do need high ISO capabilities.

With that said, from what I have seen so far, I'd say that as long as you stay within the 4-digit ISOs, even the R and the Z7 are ok-ish, at least in terms of sensor performance (AF, noise in viewfinder, and other usability stuff are topics on their own which you must include in your analysis, too).

I'd order the cameras like that: R < Z7 < A7rIII < Z6 ? A7III (latter two might be about equal). The difference between Z7 and A7III is more than 1 stop easily, and the difference is even bigger towards the R.

Maybe another note: Its funny how the topic of high ISO is always approached with "noise" (although the actual meaning is more along the lines of "grain" or "graininess"). The reason why I mention that is that actual noise is causing color distortions and limits your post-processing latitude. But, as said, 4-digit ISOs are ok-ish for all options; but especially if you start processing ISO6400+ (real world) images out of an R and an A7III/Z6 you should perceive the differences during post-processing.

OP Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Slaginfected wrote:

Maarten Droogne wrote:

[...]

Is it a good approach to also look at specific ISO values to compare the noise? For example, with my old Nikon D200 I wasnt able to go over 1600 in auto-mode, but all in all I was able to get decently exposed shots (with a f/6.3 or 5). Could have been better ofcourse, but I think an ISO up to 6400 will be able to handle all my ISO needs for my wildlife shots [...]

First things first: I haven't used any of these cameras personally, and in case of R, Z7 and A7rIII also don't see any reason to do so, because I'm one of these few persons who really do need high ISO capabilities.

With that said, from what I have seen so far, I'd say that as long as you stay within the 4-digit ISOs, even the R and the Z7 are ok-ish, at least in terms of sensor performance (AF, noise in viewfinder, and other usability stuff are topics on their own which you must include in your analysis, too).

I'm not neglecting the other factors ofcourse, but I'm going through the process step by step!

I'd order the cameras like that: R < Z7 < A7rIII < Z6 ? A7III (latter two might be about equal). The difference between Z7 and A7III is more than 1 stop easily, and the difference is even bigger towards the R.

I included the Nikons for reference, but as I have a whole set of Canon lenses I can borrow, I'm gonna stay with Canon or Sony (with MC11 adapter). So my pick for now (A7 III) was the correct one!

Maybe another note: Its funny how the topic of high ISO is always approached with "noise" (although the actual meaning is more along the lines of "grain" or "graininess"). The reason why I mention that is that actual noise is causing color distortions and limits your post-processing latitude.

Is this "actual noise" a different set of specifics than the ones were talking about here? Or what do you mean?

But, as said, 4-digit ISOs are ok-ish for all options; but especially if you start processing ISO6400+ (real world) images out of an R and an A7III/Z6 you should perceive the differences during post-processing.

I am planning on doing post processing when needed, and when I say I wont need the higher ISO ratings, I'm speaking out of experience with a D70/D200 with very limited capabilities, so I could very well end up discover a whole new world of options with the extented ISOs. Those 2 cameras started to distort almost  instantly, a lot of times I shot for long extented times @1600 ISOs, which is a equal to 10 000 settings on an EOS R.. I do have a lot of experience of how "high ISO noise" looks like I have around 5-10000 very grainy captures from my last trip!  To conclude, although I dont prioritise the higher settings and their noise at that point, it is something I do value very much (which is an extra +point for the A7 III).

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
Slaginfected Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?
1

Maarten Droogne wrote:

Slaginfected wrote:

Maybe another note: Its funny how the topic of high ISO is always approached with "noise" (although the actual meaning is more along the lines of "grain" or "graininess"). The reason why I mention that is that actual noise is causing color distortions and limits your post-processing latitude.

Is this "actual noise" a different set of specifics than the ones were talking about here? Or what do you mean?

You do have like 2 major noise "sources" in digital photography. One is the shot noise, which is a property of the light, and is the major contributing factor to what people call noise (aka grain) in their high ISO images. All things equal (sensor size, tech of the sensor, exposure, output size), regardless of the resolution of the sensor you should get the same perceived noise (= grain) in the end in your images. Note that this is within bounds, because of ...

Read noise, which is the second noise type and a combined noise out of many different actual noise sources along the processing pipeline in the camera. That is the one which is a limiter for the post-processing latitude and also responsible for the color distortions. If you use the studio scene here at DPR, you will see blacks not showing black anymore in the low-light scene: Read noise is saying hello, even though the perceived noise might still be the same compared to cameras which show black there.

But, as said, 4-digit ISOs are ok-ish for all options; but especially if you start processing ISO6400+ (real world) images out of an R and an A7III/Z6 you should perceive the differences during post-processing.

I am planning on doing post processing when needed, and when I say I wont need the higher ISO ratings, I'm speaking out of experience with a D70/D200 with very limited capabilities, so I could very well end up discover a whole new world of options with the extented ISOs.

Chances are good for that to happen, yes. At ISO6400 you have multiple stops of post-processing latitude into the shadows with the A7III, meaning the colors stay stable while doing so.

Those 2 cameras started to distort almost instantly, a lot of times I shot for long extented times @1600 ISOs, which is a equal to 10 000 settings on an EOS R.. I do have a lot of experience of how "high ISO noise" looks like I have around 5-10000 very grainy captures from my last trip!

Yeah. I've driven enough more recent models beyond their ISO capabilities that I'm now at a point where I actually request a minimum of quality in terms of colors, post-processing latitude etc. Means that talk about "noise" (as in grain) is an outdated quality measurement, if you can call it that. But a lot of people have to pick up on that, yet.

To conclude, although I dont prioritise the higher settings and their noise at that point, it is something I do value very much (which is an extra +point for the A7 III).

bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,368
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Slaginfected wrote:

...

Read noise, which is the second noise type and a combined noise out of many different actual noise sources along the processing pipeline in the camera. That is the one which is a limiter for the post-processing latitude and also responsible for the color distortions. ...

Many, if not most, color issues arise from an imbalance between the color channels (black level) as opposed to from read noise itself.
Naturally, at low signal levels not having a "proper" zero reference makes a visible difference in the results.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Slaginfected Contributing Member • Posts: 703
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

bclaff wrote:

Slaginfected wrote:

...

Read noise, which is the second noise type and a combined noise out of many different actual noise sources along the processing pipeline in the camera. That is the one which is a limiter for the post-processing latitude and also responsible for the color distortions. ...

Many, if not most, color issues arise from an imbalance between the color channels (black level) as opposed to from read noise itself.
Naturally, at low signal levels not having a "proper" zero reference makes a visible difference in the results.

Even if things were perfectly "even" between the channels, you'd still get a desaturation, like crushed blacks, i.e. black is grey then instead of some purplish-blue. You'd still lack the details in the darker parts (details as being "things to see" not resolution detail), because they are close to or drowned in the read noise. Increasing contrast for such images will kill the visible read noise then, but also everything else close by. Means this won't change the differences between cameras really. Nonetheless, in overall that would be a very good improvement, because I've grown to really dislike this difficult to correct color cast over the years.

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 24,315
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Maarten Droogne wrote:

With the DxO site apparently busy with moving, I was wondering if there is any other site/organisation or whatsoever with objective measurements on those sensors? I wanna compare them to the Sony A7 III and A7R III but most sites dont have any info about this specificaly.

Thanks in advance!

First of all, that metric is highly overrated, IMO. It heavily factors in photon noise, and mostly ignores the far uglier and problematic read noise. It is mainly relevant to high-key photos taken with no shadows or darker midtones, and does not reflect shadow noise at all.

The DxO DR charts show the input-referred read noise (which is more relevant, the deeper the shadow), but even that is incomplete, because it does not reflect the character of read noise, which is more blotchy or banded with some cameras than others.

DPR's studio scenes are better for that, but only assuming that exposure is always the same for the same ISO, and there may be differences in contrast and NR and sharpening.

John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 24,315
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

camera_nerd wrote:

Photonstophotos has a chart that is much more accurate than DxO.

See here http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm.

I have Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic cameras and just sold my Nikon

DSLRs. My experience agrees with Photontophotos.

That would make sense, if you both ignored absolute exposure.

PDR is not a measurement of input-referred noise. It is a an SNR threshold measured below the assumed (4095, 16383, etc; not measured) clipping point, of unstated exposure level.

If Canon made "HTP" standard, and removed the non-HTP versions of ISOs, the PDR would increase by almost a stop for all the high ISOs, but noise would go a hair up, not a stop minus a hair down! There are cameras by other manufacturers that do just that; they start with an ISO 200 with lots of headroom and maintain it throughut the ISO scale; this increases PDR, but does not decrease noise when you shoot at 1/800 at f/8 in a given situation.

OP Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Slaginfected wrote:

Maarten Droogne wrote:

Slaginfected wrote:

Maybe another note: Its funny how the topic of high ISO is always approached with "noise" (although the actual meaning is more along the lines of "grain" or "graininess"). The reason why I mention that is that actual noise is causing color distortions and limits your post-processing latitude.

Is this "actual noise" a different set of specifics than the ones were talking about here? Or what do you mean?

You do have like 2 major noise "sources" in digital photography. One is the shot noise, which is a property of the light, and is the major contributing factor to what people call noise (aka grain) in their high ISO images. All things equal (sensor size, tech of the sensor, exposure, output size), regardless of the resolution of the sensor you should get the same perceived noise (= grain) in the end in your images. Note that this is within bounds, because of ...

Hey, sorry for taking so long to reply! Very busy!

When you say 'regardless of resolution', I'm still not sure about how to interpret this. I'm particulary interested in comparing the noise from the A7R III when cropped to the same resolution as the A7III. You would take 'less space' of the sensor, so the noise goes up? Or is this not the case? In any case, if you zoom in on a picture, the noise definetely stands out more, so this would also be the case going from 40+ MP to 24MP no? The chart seems to confirm this thought, but still.. It would mean considering the A7R III ,because I could crop it to the same size as the A7 III but with a huge crop factor, is not a valid argument because of the increased noise?

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
agukha Regular Member • Posts: 231
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?
1

I don't know what process is specifically done after 800 (?) iso on Pentax K1-II, but I can't find where details are supposedly lost, for example compared to the K1 with the same sensor.

You can chek yourself using the studio scene tool of dpreview, here are 2 examples :

We can see that even at 3200 iso (not very much...) the sonys are already behind.

OP Maarten D Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

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 ( https://www.sonyrumors.co/tag/sony-alpha-a7000/ ), 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):

A6300

  • ISO 100: 10,49
  • ISO 200: 9,65

A7 III ISO 503: 9,4

A6300

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

A7 III ISO 4022: 7,15

A6300

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

A7III

  • 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.

 Maarten D's gear list:Maarten D's gear list
Sony a7R III
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,368
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?
1

Maarten Droogne wrote:

do you know soon I can expect a scoring on new cameras? ...

Normally sensor measurements (not scores) are available at PhotonsToPhotos around the time that a camera ships. Sometimes a bit early if I have worked with a reviewer to obtain files, sometimes a bit later if I get files from an early adopter.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Historicity Senior Member • Posts: 2,237
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 ( https://www.sonyrumors.co/tag/sony-alpha-a7000/ ), 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):

A6300

  • ISO 100: 10,49
  • ISO 200: 9,65

A7 III ISO 503: 9,4

A6300

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

A7 III ISO 4022: 7,15

A6300

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

A7III

  • 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.

Lawrence

 Historicity's gear list:Historicity's gear list
Ricoh GR II Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Olympus E-1 +123 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,368
Re: Nikon Z6, Z7 and Canon EOS R low-light ISO scores?

Historicity wrote:

Maarten Droogne wrote:

...

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 ...

Not all cameras have Noise Reduction (NR) applied at any ISO setting.
For those that do the effect is generally at high ISO settings and not too extreme.

I am the person who used the term aggressive and I stand by that statement.
Here's an annotated graphic to give you some idea of why:

I suspect this signal processing is a combination of noise reduction and sharpening.
Personally I would not want this in my raw files.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads