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.)?

 

[John Sheehy]

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.

How is it any more "light hungry" than any lower-MP Canon APS-C, or 1.6x crop mode from any Canon FF? You make it sound like the R7 has some special, unique noise problem, when the fact is that it has one of the CLEANEST 22.5mmx15mm sensor areas in the industry, with nothing better from Canon, all of whose FF cameras have similar (R6) or greater visible high-ISO noise in crop mode than the R7 has.

It is true for AF, though, that the R7 will begin to fail sooner in low light with slow lenses, because the AF points on the sensor can't do much to integrate pixels for NR in real time, the way our brains do. Until a sensor of these dimensions comes in a stacked form, where NR can be applied to the smaller pixels, the AF will suffer with the same low light or slow lens.

However, if we think in terms of AF speed vs pixels-on-subject, rather than vs a body, then it is only when you are getting more pixels-on-subject that the R7 AF struggles more than other non-stacked sensors in low light (for a non-stacked sensor). Take the R6, R5, and R7. With the same slow lens, the R7 will start to struggle first around sunset, then the R5, then the R6, but if you had a 1.4x on the R5, and a 2x on the R6, you have similar "pixels-on-subject", and then the R7 is no longer the AF underdog in low light.

 

[John Sheehy]

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

If you are getting 2.56x as much total light with the R6-II, then obviously, any under-exposure that is the same for both cameras will still have 2.56x as much light, so your statement is a bit of a tautology.

The question is, does the shooting situation allow for 2.56x the light?

Sometimes yes; sometimes no. "Yes" at base ISO with ample light. "Yes" when shutter speed needs prevent base ISO and lenses with larger pupils are available and you want or can work with shallower DOF. "No" when stopped-down DOF is needed. "No" when you crop away most of the FF image.

For both of the "No" scenarios, the R7 has Canon's best sensor for noise in very low light.

 

[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.)?

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.

"FF look", or the look of a larger pupil for the same framing/AOV?

Do you get a "FF look" at 50/22?

 

[R2D2]

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.)?

Which would be better very much depends on what you would want to shoot, and what your output requirements are. There are also other factors involved such as size, cost, lens selection, autofocus requirements, how you (post)-process, etc.

Would you be able to expand on that some? TIA!

R2

ps. I've been shooting with the R5, R5ii, R6, R6ii, and R7 (plus M6, M6ii, RX100 and others).

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[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.

How is it any more "light hungry" than any lower-MP Canon APS-C, or 1.6x crop mode from any Canon FF? You make it sound like the R7 has some special, unique noise problem, when the fact is that it has one of the CLEANEST 22.5mmx15mm sensor areas in the industry, with nothing better from Canon, all of whose FF cameras have similar (R6) or greater visible high-ISO noise in crop mode than the R7 has.

I knew you'd likely respond and I don't possess the detailed technical knowledge you do. Yes the R7 is a very clean sensor and there is nothing wrong with it.

It is true for AF, though, that the R7 will begin to fail sooner in low light with slow lenses, because the AF points on the sensor can't do much to integrate pixels for NR in real time, the way our brains do. Until a sensor of these dimensions comes in a stacked form, where NR can be applied to the smaller pixels, the AF will suffer with the same low light or slow lens.

I do have slow lenses, the 100-500 and when you place a TC on it really slows down. I have no technical explanation except for an overall assessment. Comparing all my files and all shooting situations I prefer my R6II. There is nothing technical to that. Just observation. I do realize this is a technical form so likely not as helpful.

I have the RF 24-105. If my wife is singing in her indoor Christmas concerts I don't even consider my R7. If I had no choice I use the R7 and make it work.

However, if we think in terms of AF speed vs pixels-on-subject, rather than vs a body, then it is only when you are getting more pixels-on-subject that the R7 AF struggles more than other non-stacked sensors in low light (for a non-stacked sensor). Take the R6, R5, and R7. With the same slow lens, the R7 will start to struggle first around sunset, then the R5, then the R6, but if you had a 1.4x on the R5, and a 2x on the R6, you have similar "pixels-on-subject", and then the R7 is no longer the AF underdog in low light.

Agreed.

 

[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.

How is it any more "light hungry" than any lower-MP Canon APS-C, or 1.6x crop mode from any Canon FF? You make it sound like the R7 has some special, unique noise problem, when the fact is that it has one of the CLEANEST 22.5mmx15mm sensor areas in the industry, with nothing better from Canon, all of whose FF cameras have similar (R6) or greater visible high-ISO noise in crop mode than the R7 has.

I knew you'd likely respond and I don't possess the detailed technical knowledge you do. Yes the R7 is a very clean sensor and there is nothing wrong with it.

It is true for AF, though, that the R7 will begin to fail sooner in low light with slow lenses, because the AF points on the sensor can't do much to integrate pixels for NR in real time, the way our brains do. Until a sensor of these dimensions comes in a stacked form, where NR can be applied to the smaller pixels, the AF will suffer with the same low light or slow lens.

I do have slow lenses, the 100-500 and when you place a TC on it really slows down. I have no technical explanation except for an overall assessment. Comparing all my files and all shooting situations I prefer my R6II. There is nothing technical to that. Just observation. I do realize this is a technical form so likely not as helpful.

I have the RF 24-105. If my wife is singing in her indoor Christmas concerts I don't even consider my R7. If I had no choice I use the R7 and make it work.

However, if we think in terms of AF speed vs pixels-on-subject, rather than vs a body, then it is only when you are getting more pixels-on-subject that the R7 AF struggles more than other non-stacked sensors in low light (for a non-stacked sensor). Take the R6, R5, and R7. With the same slow lens, the R7 will start to struggle first around sunset, then the R5, then the R6, but if you had a 1.4x on the R5, and a 2x on the R6, you have similar "pixels-on-subject", and then the R7 is no longer the AF underdog in low light.

Agreed.

I guess to explain it in basic terms. Excellent images when exposures are good. In low light if you don't get a good exposure with the R7 then I call it the dirty look. The R6II is more forgiving. Sure you can use modern NR apps but I still would sue my R6II.

 

[DNBush]

Would this be accurate?…

Generally speaking, the size of a sensor and number of megapixels determines the size of photosites which are primarily responsible for gathering light on the sensor. A full frame camera has a larger sensor. it's surface area is larger. The R6II has a lower pixel density giving it the ability to have larger photosites which in turn gives it the ability to gather light more effectively. The R7 has a smaller APS-C sensor, a higher pixel density and smaller photosites making it less sensitive to light and in turn a little more noisy.

 

[Zeee]

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.)?

You didn't mention your actual applications. Where will you be shooting this low light? Will you also be using a flash at times?

I'm going to go a little off topic. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but R7 has a pretty loud shutter. I don't like it but it would not be the reason I'd choose the R6II over it.

I'm using Electronic Shutter (ES) pretty much all of the time where with the R6II I use both it and Mechanical or Elec. 1st - Curtain (EFCS). There I silent mode which is basically ES.

The R7 is not that great for rolling shutter. You can switch the display format to milliseconds.

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/

I have not used a flash since my DSLR days. I don't know how well flash works with ES if that is important to you.

Despite all of that a shot with the R7, 100-500 and 1.4. Unless I tell someone that is not into photography they would never notice. The eyeball I a little oblong due to rolling shutter. I know the beak is a little elongated as well. Not much but I have shot and processed these birds and will again next month. I can tell.



This is with my R6II, 100-500 and 1.4. The R7 AF could not do this even with the barrel pull in. AF could not keep up.









--
I roll with pleasing colour

 

[Zeee]

Would this be accurate?…

Generally speaking, the size of a sensor and number of megapixels determines the size of photosites which are primarily responsible for gathering light on the sensor. A full frame camera has a larger sensor. it's surface area is larger. The R6II has a lower pixel density giving it the ability to have larger photosites which in turn gives it the ability to gather light more effectively. The R7 has a smaller APS-C sensor, a higher pixel density and smaller photosites making it less sensitive to light and in turn a little more noisy.

That's exactly what I mean about light hungry and the R6II being more forgiving. Sorry I don't the technical wording. It's just what I see in PP.

 

[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.)?

You didn't mention your actual applications. Where will you be shooting this low light? Will you also be using a flash at times?

I'm going to go a little off topic. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but R7 has a pretty loud shutter. I don't like it but it would not be the reason I'd choose the R6II over it.

I'm using Electronic Shutter (ES) pretty much all of the time where with the R6II I use both it and Mechanical or Elec. 1st - Curtain (EFCS). There I silent mode which is basically ES.

The R7 is not that great for rolling shutter. You can switch the display format to milliseconds.

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/

I have not used a flash since my DSLR days. I don't know how well flash works with ES if that is important to you.

I don't think you can use flash with ES on the R7 or R6II. You can on the R5II, R3, and R1. You need the kind of faster readout speeds that you get with stacked sensors for flash.

Despite all of that a shot with the R7, 100-500 and 1.4. Unless I tell someone that is not into photography they would never notice. The eyeball I a little oblong due to rolling shutter. I know the beak is a little elongated as well. Not much but I have shot and processed these birds and will again next month. I can tell.



This is with my R6II, 100-500 and 1.4. The R7 AF could not do this even with the barrel pull in. AF could not keep up.

Nice shots. I would never have noticed the rolling shutter effects in the R7 shot, if you hadn't pointed them out.

--
“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

anorcross

Keen hobbyist since teaching myself film photography as a teenager in the 70s, using manual SLRs and black and white film. Love photographing people and animals.

anorcross.smugmug.com

Equipment in profile

 

[Zeee]

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.)?

You didn't mention your actual applications. Where will you be shooting this low light? Will you also be using a flash at times?

I'm going to go a little off topic. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but R7 has a pretty loud shutter. I don't like it but it would not be the reason I'd choose the R6II over it.

I'm using Electronic Shutter (ES) pretty much all of the time where with the R6II I use both it and Mechanical or Elec. 1st - Curtain (EFCS). There I silent mode which is basically ES.

The R7 is not that great for rolling shutter. You can switch the display format to milliseconds.

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/

I have not used a flash since my DSLR days. I don't know how well flash works with ES if that is important to you.

I don't think you can use flash with ES on the R7 or R6II. You can on the R5II, R3, and R1. You need the kind of faster readout speeds that you get with stacked sensors for flash.

Despite all of that a shot with the R7, 100-500 and 1.4. Unless I tell someone that is not into photography they would never notice. The eyeball I a little oblong due to rolling shutter. I know the beak is a little elongated as well. Not much but I have shot and processed these birds and will again next month. I can tell.



This is with my R6II, 100-500 and 1.4. The R7 AF could not do this even with the barrel pull in. AF could not keep up.

Nice shots. I would never have noticed the rolling shutter effects in the R7 shot, if you hadn't pointed them out.

Not many do.

--
I roll with pleasing colour

 

[EduPortas]

The complaining about the lack of lenses designed exclusively for crop is rather silly, and tiresome.

Of course FF lenses will perform well on APS-C cameras. No arguing there.

What's confusing is Canon ignoring APS-C prosumer buyers for the new RF-S cameras. No wonder the older EF-S lenses are selling like pancakes. We're still waiting for the equivalent 17-55mm 2.8, 15-85mm, or even the 24mm f/2.8 STM, all for the EF-S mount.

Nikon is not doing any better for their DX cameras, but Sony and Fujifilm are leagues ahead Canon in this regard.

 

[Zeee]

The complaining about the lack of lenses designed exclusively for crop is rather silly, and tiresome.

Of course FF lenses will perform well on APS-C cameras. No arguing there.

I used an EF 24-105 F4 on crop bodies for 6 years.

What's confusing is Canon ignoring APS-C prosumer buyers for the new RF-S cameras. No wonder the older EF-S lenses are selling like pancakes. We're still waiting for the equivalent 17-55mm 2.8, 15-85mm, or even the 24mm f/2.8 STM, all for the EF-S mount.

Nikon is not doing any better for their DX cameras, but Sony and Fujifilm are leagues ahead Canon in this regard.

 

[Ali]

The complaining about the lack of lenses designed exclusively for crop is rather silly, and tiresome.

Of course FF lenses will perform well on APS-C cameras. No arguing there.

What's confusing is Canon ignoring APS-C prosumer buyers for the new RF-S cameras. No wonder the older EF-S lenses are selling like pancakes. We're still waiting for the equivalent 17-55mm 2.8, 15-85mm, or even the 24mm f/2.8 STM, all for the EF-S mount.

In this past year Canon went ahead and allowed third parties to start delivering RF-S lenses. Some pretty good ones are already on the market.

Nikon is not doing any better for their DX cameras, but Sony and Fujifilm are leagues ahead Canon in this regard.

 

[Andy01]

The complaining about the lack of lenses designed exclusively for crop is rather silly, and tiresome.

Of course FF lenses will perform well on APS-C cameras. No arguing there.

What's confusing is Canon ignoring APS-C prosumer buyers for the new RF-S cameras.

Why is it confusing ? It is entirely predictable based on Canon's range (or lack of) of EF-S lenses - even after almost 20 years of EF-S, the range was still pretty poor.

I am not saying I agree with it, just that it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

And yes, I am one of those people that used EF 24-105L & EF 100-400L (both versions) on a crop 600D & 70D for years. In fact, I still had my 450D when I got the EF 100-400L, so about 10 years for it.

 

[EduPortas]

Generally speaking, the size of a sensor and number of megapixels determines the size of photosites which are primarily responsible for gathering light on the sensor. A full frame camera has a larger sensor. it's surface area is larger. The R6II has a lower pixel density giving it the ability to have larger photosites which in turn gives it the ability to gather light more effectively. The R7 has a smaller APS-C sensor, a higher pixel density and smaller photosites making it less sensitive to light and in turn a little more noisy.

No.

Sensor size is only one part of the quality equation.

Otherwise, we'd still be using the original 5D from 2005. Massive sensor, but not the best for low-light when compared to newer FF Canons.

You must take into account analog to digital conversion processing, processor, and of course the lens used. These are just as important as the size of the sensor.

Many current APS-C cameras are better in low-light than former FF cameras thanks to newer tech and the magic that goes on AFTER the sensel captures the light. A sensel is the "single light-detecting element of an image sensor".

 

[EduPortas]

Why is it confusing ? It is entirely predictable based on Canon's range (or lack of) of EF-S lenses - even after almost 20 years of EF-S, the range was still pretty poor.

I am not saying I agree with it, just that it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

And yes, I am one of those people that used EF 24-105L & EF 100-400L (both versions) on a crop 600D & 70D for years. In fact, I still had my 450D when I got the EF 100-400L, so about 10 years for it.

You're right. I meant disappointing.

 

[EduPortas]

In this past year Canon went ahead and allowed third parties to start delivering RF-S lenses. Some pretty good ones are already on the market.

No thanks.

 

[EduPortas]

I used an EF 24-105 F4 on crop bodies for 6 years.

So?

 

[Sittatunga]

The complaining about the lack of lenses designed exclusively for crop is rather silly, and tiresome.

Of course FF lenses will perform well on APS-C cameras. No arguing there.

What's confusing is Canon ignoring APS-C prosumer buyers for the new RF-S cameras. No wonder the older EF-S lenses are selling like pancakes. We're still waiting for the equivalent 17-55mm 2.8, 15-85mm, or even the 24mm f/2.8 STM, all for the EF-S mount.

Nikon is not doing any better for their DX cameras, but Sony and Fujifilm are leagues ahead Canon in this regard.

There was also a total of 8 EF-M lenses. One f/1.4 prime, one f/2 prime, one f/3.5 macro and five slow variable aperture zooms. The fast primes were possible because they couldn't be used on any FF cameras. I suspect the RF 28mm f/2.8 is going to do double duty as the standard pancake prime, just as sales of the EF-S 17-55mm have probably deterred Canon from making a second fast APS-C zoom. (Unless that Sigma 18-50mm becomes really popular.) RF-S is Canon's third bite at the APS-C cherry and they are obviously now going for "small is beautiful".. Canon have the sales figures for their crop lenses over the last twenty years, so they will have a much better idea than any of us as to what actually sells