R7 vs. R6 II - Sensor Size

[DNBush]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

 

[Alastair Norcross]

The R6II is better, so long as you don’t have to crop to get the same FOV as the R7. I have both. The R7 is an excellent crop camera, about as good as it gets in crop currently. But it is crop.

 

[Andy01]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

R6 ii (or R8 - same sensor) is better for low light and DR

DR

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

The gap has closed a bit between APS-C and FF sensors with software like DxO though. So, an important consideration is whether you need wide angle or more telephoto reach.

Worth noting that the AF on R6 ii (& R8) is generally considered to be better than R7 as well.

 

[kodakrome]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

The FF sensor is more than 2 and a half times the size of the crop sensor. The crop sensor could be a good choice for a reach-challenged bird shooter, but for other types of photography, the bigger sensor will usually be better.

 

[Zeee]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

 

[dmartin92]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

The FF sensor is more than 2 and a half times the size of the crop sensor.

Ah, is that right ? Looking here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/get-inspired/tips-and-techniques/aps-c-vs-full-frame/

"However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor".

Not 2.5 times.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

The FF sensor is more than 2 and a half times the size of the crop sensor.

Ah, is that right ? Looking here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/get-inspired/tips-and-techniques/aps-c-vs-full-frame/

"However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor".

Not 2.5 times.

That quote refers to the linear difference. You have to square that to get the difference in area, which is the usual way of assessing the size of the sensor. It is the total image area that affects how much light is gathered. The article you linked to gives the actual dimensions of the sensors, so you can easily do the math yourself. But here it is: Full frame is 36mm X 24mm, which is 864 square millimeters. Canon's crop sensor is 22.4mm X 14.8mm, which is 331.5 square millimeters. So, full frame is 2.6 times bigger than crop. If you think about it, you wouldn't say a square with a side of 4 meters was twice the size of a square with a side of 2 meters. It is four times the size. The reason why Canon uses the linear difference is that the crop factor is usually described that way, because that tells you how to calculate equivalent field of view. But when you're interested in light-gathering ability, which is the primary determinant of image quality ('photography' means 'drawing with light', remember), you need to talk about the size of the sensor in terms of the total area.

 

[Ali]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

The FF sensor is more than 2 and a half times the size of the crop sensor.

Ah, is that right ? Looking here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/get-inspired/tips-and-techniques/aps-c-vs-full-frame/

"However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor".

Huh, that is flat out wrong. As they indicate, the APS-C sensor is 23x15, which is about 345 sq mm. FF is 36x24, 864 sq mm. That is 2.5x

Not 2.5 times.

 

[DNBush]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

 

[Zeee]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

Correct. If the exposure is good it will be OK but you have a lot more leeway with the R6II

 

[Andy01]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

The FF sensor is more than 2 and a half times the size of the crop sensor.

Ah, is that right ? Looking here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/get-inspired/tips-and-techniques/aps-c-vs-full-frame/

"However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor".

Not 2.5 times.

It is 1.6 times larger IN EACH DIRECTION, so 1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56 times the area. Hence a FF R body going into crop mode (with a EF-S or RF-S lens) reduces the pixel count by 2.56 times.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

It won't do as well as any FF sensor (of roughly the same tech) in low light. It's the total area of the sensor that's the most important factor, not the number of megapixels. The low light difference between the R6II and R5II is marginal, if it's there at all. I have both, and really struggle to see a difference between the two in low iight performance.

--
“When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror, like the passengers in his car.” Jack Handey
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 

[Zeee]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

It won't do as well as any FF sensor (of roughly the same tech) in low light. It's the total area of the sensor that's the most important factor, not the number of megapixels. The low light difference between the R6II and R5II is marginal, if it's there at all. I have both, and really struggle to see a difference between the two in low iight performance.

I have both the R7 and R611 and there is a difference. Just like there was with my 7D’s and 5D’s.

 

[EduPortas]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

This is a gear forum so any minute difference between models will be heavily discussed.

But in reality we're talking about a one stop difference in exposure between these two cameras. Maybe less.

I today's camera market it's more about the "feel" of the camera than ultimate image output, since sensor have been incredibly good for the last 10 years.

If you prefer the FF "look" you know you're answer already.

On a secondary note Canon's APS-C lineup for the R cameras is abismal. If you're considering the R7 I assume you'll be using FF glass.

That makes any final image output difference even more difficult to spot.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

It won't do as well as any FF sensor (of roughly the same tech) in low light. It's the total area of the sensor that's the most important factor, not the number of megapixels. The low light difference between the R6II and R5II is marginal, if it's there at all. I have both, and really struggle to see a difference between the two in low iight performance.

I have both the R7 and R611 and there is a difference. Just like there was with my 7D’s and 5D’s.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the R7 and R6II. I said I struggled to see a difference between the R6II and R5II. I was responding to the poster who said the R7 won't do as well as a 'lower MP FF sensor in low light'. That implied that there was also a difference between a lower MP FF sensor and a higher MP FF sensor in low light. As I said (more than once), total sensor area is what's crucial, so, of course the R7 doesn't do as well as the R6II in low light, or the R5II. I have all three cameras, and the R7 is certainly an excellent crop camera, but any current FF camera is clearly better in low light. The difference is around a stop or so. The only thing I was taking issue with was the need to say 'lower MP FF sensor'. People are easily misled into thinking that lower MP sensors perform better in low light than higher MP sensors of the same format. They think that, because they look at the images at 100% magnification, which, of course, magnifies a higher MP image a lot more than a lower MP image. You need to compare images at the same viewing size. If you take an R5II image, and downsize it to 24MP, you'll struggle to see any noise performance difference between that and an R6II image at the same settings.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

This is a gear forum so any minute difference between models will be heavily discussed.

But in reality we're talking about a one stop difference in exposure between these two cameras. Maybe less.

I today's camera market it's more about the "feel" of the camera than ultimate image output, since sensor have been incredibly good for the last 10 years.

If you prefer the FF "look" you know you're answer already.

On a secondary note Canon's APS-C lineup for the R cameras is abismal. If you're considering the R7 I assume you'll be using FF glass.

That makes any final image output difference even more difficult to spot.

Actually, it should make it easier to spot. Glass that is optimized for crop sensors should perform even better on crop than FF glass. The truth is that there's plenty of excellent glass for the R7, both in FF format and crop format. I've used crop cameras since 2004, and FF in addition since 2020. In the 16 years I shot crop exclusively, the vast majority of my lenses were designed for full frame. My experience was pretty common. In terms of lenses designed exclusively for crop on the RF mount, there are now a lot more than there were a year ago, with 6 Sigma lenses, a Tamron, and others coming soon. All the small RF full frame primes work really well on crop too, as does the 100-400 and 600 and 800 F11 lenses. The complaining about the lack of lenses designed exclusively for crop is rather silly, and tiresome.

 

[Zeee]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

It won't do as well as any FF sensor (of roughly the same tech) in low light. It's the total area of the sensor that's the most important factor, not the number of megapixels. The low light difference between the R6II and R5II is marginal, if it's there at all. I have both, and really struggle to see a difference between the two in low iight performance.

I have both the R7 and R611 and there is a difference. Just like there was with my 7D’s and 5D’s.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the R7 and R6II. I said I struggled to see a difference between the R6II and R5II. I was responding to the poster who said the R7 won't do as well as a 'lower MP FF sensor in low light'. That implied that there was also a difference between a lower MP FF sensor and a higher MP FF sensor in low light. As I said (more than once), total sensor area is what's crucial, so, of course the R7 doesn't do as well as the R6II in low light, or the R5II. I have all three cameras, and the R7 is certainly an excellent crop camera, but any current FF camera is clearly better in low light. The difference is around a stop or so. The only thing I was taking issue with was the need to say 'lower MP FF sensor'. People are easily misled into thinking that lower MP sensors perform better in low light than higher MP sensors of the same format. They think that, because they look at the images at 100% magnification, which, of course, magnifies a higher MP image a lot more than a lower MP image. You need to compare images at the same viewing size. If you take an R5II image, and downsize it to 24MP, you'll struggle to see any noise performance difference between that and an R6II image at the same settings.

I realize you were comparing the R6II and the R5II. The op was asking about the FF and crop so I thought I’d just add to that. I also did say exposure makes a big difference. I’ve found less packed sensors more forgiving when comparing FF to a crop.

 

[Zeee]

R6II will be better for what you seek. Like stated the R7 has an excellent sensor but like any tightly packed sensor it makes it light hungry.

Light hungry meaning it won't do as well as a lower mp FF sensor in low light?

It won't do as well as any FF sensor (of roughly the same tech) in low light. It's the total area of the sensor that's the most important factor, not the number of megapixels. The low light difference between the R6II and R5II is marginal, if it's there at all. I have both, and really struggle to see a difference between the two in low iight performance.

I have both the R7 and R611 and there is a difference. Just like there was with my 7D’s and 5D’s.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between the R7 and R6II. I said I struggled to see a difference between the R6II and R5II. I was responding to the poster who said the R7 won't do as well as a 'lower MP FF sensor in low light'. That implied that there was also a difference between a lower MP FF sensor and a higher MP FF sensor in low light. As I said (more than once), total sensor area is what's crucial, so, of course the R7 doesn't do as well as the R6II in low light, or the R5II. I have all three cameras, and the R7 is certainly an excellent crop camera, but any current FF camera is clearly better in low light. The difference is around a stop or so. The only thing I was taking issue with was the need to say 'lower MP FF sensor'. People are easily misled into thinking that lower MP sensors perform better in low light than higher MP sensors of the same format. They think that, because they look at the images at 100% magnification, which, of course, magnifies a higher MP image a lot more than a lower MP image. You need to compare images at the same viewing size. If you take an R5II image, and downsize it to 24MP, you'll struggle to see any noise performance difference between that and an R6II image at the same settings.

I realize you were comparing the R6II and the R5II. The op was asking about the FF and crop so I thought I’d just add to that. I also did say exposure makes a big difference. I’ve found less packed sensors more forgiving when comparing FF to a crop.

I should have also said. If I had to give up one camera for whatever reason the R7 would go first. I wouldn’t even have to think about. The R6II would cover all my needs including birding. It performs admirably with my 100-500 and 1.4 TC, just like my R5 did. I stopped using the TC with my R7. Not that I couldn’t get good shots with it on.

 

[Zeee]

Not that I'd ever crop with this much with the R6II but it did surprise me. I was strolling around a city in Spain doing some street photo photography. I heard all this squawking and there were parakeets in the trees. Once pets were let go and now have overrun the Iberian peninsula.

I took just took shot for some fun and have no real use for it but did not expect this.





--
I roll with pleasing colour

 

[John Sheehy]

Just in terms of the sensors, 32.5mp APS-C (R7) and 24.2mp FF (R6 II), which would generally be better in terms of IQ (low light, high ISO, DR, etc.)?

The FF sensor is more than 2 and a half times the size of the crop sensor.

Ah, is that right ? Looking here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/get-inspired/tips-and-techniques/aps-c-vs-full-frame/

"However, a full-frame image sensor is physically about 63% or 1.6x larger than an APS-C format image sensor".

Not 2.5 times.

Just another case of linguistic shortcuts causing confusion.

1.6x the linear dimensions = 2.56x the area. No reason for any confusion here, if you make it clear which you are talking about.