Sl2 improved in low light high iso over sl1?

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?

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.

Cheers

I mean really low light like in an art gallery or streets at night when its actually dark.

On dxomark the 200d is still only 1041 for low light.  The crop nikons are around 1500 and I know the Fuji 16mp sensors are at least as good as that.

Cheers

Easy Rider wrote:

My 100d is great in good light but atrocious in low light for city night street photography.

The 24 MP Dual Pixel sensor (200D) will give you an additional stop over the older 18 MP sensors (100D).  This applies no matter what the light level.

R2

According to Ken Rockwell:

High ISO Performance

Performance top

High ISO performance is superb; as good as much more expensive cameras. While the SL2 "only" goes up to ISO 51,200, it still looks quite usable at that crazy speed. While other APS-C cameras might go higher, they just look worse at those speeds. The differences are more marketing than actual performance differences.

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/sl2.htm

He also gives you photo's to compare.

I am on the other hand quiet happy with my sl 1 in lowlight. The limiting factor for me is not the sensor but more the ability to focus. Manual focus does not work that great and on autofocus it is sometimes difficult to focus.

But I get far better results than with the panasonic fz 1000. What also helps is if you underexpose your picture with one stop. This gives a more natural picture and allows you to use longer shutter times.

and on the SL1

High ISO Performance

High ISO performance is as expected for this format of DSLR: more than good enough for any reasonable use.

At hyper it gets like film: softer and grainier, and a whole lot better than TRI-Xever will be!

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm

So there seems to be a major improvement.

Rockwell....   every camera is the only one he ever needs.. .😉

I appreciate your enthusiasm but I have actual real world comparisons.  My d5300 I sold due to lack of 24mm pancake had iso 6400 that was better and cleaner than iso 3200 with the sl1.  The Fuji Fuji x100t was better than that.

Over 1200 I find the sl1 to have unacceptable IQ in even dusk let alone night and bear in mind I'm a street photographer so best IQ is not my main concern.

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

As you might have guessed, I am from the film era. So I am really satisfied with but there is always room for improvement. For low light, I also have a 50mm 1.8. Upgrading to sl2 was something I thought about too. But then where to stop? You could also buy a df or . Some phones might take better pictures in low light. My biggest barriers are now time and talent. I would compare the sl1 (sl2?) to a Nikon EM from the film era. Thank you for your suggestions!

I get these results at 6400

https://www.flickr.com/photos/148981344@N02/32348939162/in/dateposted-public/

Cheers.  As r2d2 guessed I want to keep the size down.  Also I like pancake lenses.

I'll likely go back to Fuji as I want to do some 28mm shooting after two years at 35mm eqvt.  No 18mm prime for canon apsc.

I'll likely keep the sl1 for summer as I prefer a DSLR when I can use one.

Tried kit lens at 18mm but focus too slow and close focus distance too long.

I'll get the Fuji x100t with the WCL for a while... I like changing cameras every now and then anyway...  ha ha

Cheers all

Not as good as my old d5300

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-sl2-eos-200d-review/6

Think I'll skip it

If budget is not an issue, you'd be better-server with the m50 and 22mm EF-m. Light, compact, and good AF.

DPR and DXO typically rate a potato better than a 5D4 and 1Dx2. If you look at the raw samles in DPR, the noise on the SL2 looks similar to other current-gen crop bodies. What looks worse is the sharpness, which I honestly don't understand since under a controller environment with a half-decent lens you'll typically get better results.

rmexpress22 wrote:

If budget is not an issue, you'd be better-server with the m50 and 22mm EF-m. Light, compact, and good AF.

DPR and DXO typically rate a potato better than a 5D4 and 1Dx2. If you look at the raw samles in DPR, the noise on the SL2 looks similar to other current-gen crop bodies. What looks worse is the sharpness, which I honestly don't understand since under a controller environment with a half-decent lens you'll typically get better results.

False colour noise and sharpness are much worse on sl2 vs Nikon d5500 and Sony a6000 at above iso 1600.  It's about the same as current m43 bodies.

As I said I'll skip it.

Fuji will not disappoint as I previously stated.

Not to you but another poster who suggested I compare photos.  I have done.

I have owned and used a d5300 and fujifilm x100t and they had stellar iso 6400.

I find dpr IQ comparison and dxo to be quite reliable.

I also need a prime 18mm.  Hence fujifilm makes most sense.

Cheers all.