Question to those who moved from crop sensor to full frame camera-low light Perf

[goodguy]

How big of a jump was it in low light performance ?
If your crop sensor camera was the latest generation and you moved to a full frame did you see a BIG jump in low light performance ?

I was complitly sold on the idea of moving to full frame but lately I am starting to question it a bit.
I love my D7100, awesome camera and my only wish (except having a bit of a bigger buffer) is that it will have better low light performance.
The D7100 low light performance are impressive for a crop sensor camera but what can I say I want more MUCH MORE LOL
So if the jump in low light performance when moving to full frame isnt so big maybe staying with crop sensor might still be the preffered option for me.

 

[astroNikon]

I just ran a test in a semi-dark room.
using the same 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens

My nikon d7000
f/4
ISO 100
for proper exposure --> 30 seconds

My Nikon d600
f/4
ISO 100
for proper exposure --> 15 second

pics looks about the same, except the longer exposure is a bit more blurry becz I wasn't expecting to hold it still for so long.

 

[astroNikon]

Straight Out Of Camera

d600 - 15 seconds


d7000 - 30 seconds


yeah, I'm not good at hand holding for so long while breathing and laying on my stomach.
photo taken from the same position. FOV variance.

 

[KmH]

15 seconds to 30 seconds is 1 stop (1 EV).
The following comparison shows about a 1.3 stop improvement in ISO performance.
Nikon D810 versus Nikon D610 versus Nikon D7100 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
Going FX also yields a bit of gain in dynamic range and color depth.

Some of the ISO gain with the D810 and D610 is from programming in Nikon's EXPEED image processing chip.

 

[ruifo]

With the right technique and gear, you will always be able to reproduce the same image with both formats (DX and FX).

The thing is that the FX sensor will give you much better flexibility, usually in those more challenging situations where you need more light, more speed, and less ISO, to get the right shot. The FX gives you better control, once you usually gain from 1 to 2 stops of advantage (more or less) in comparison the DX (if not more, depending what camera bodies you are comparing).

However, depending on your shooting style and subject, you may miss the DX format if/when you need extra reach, light weight, extra DoF, and more MPix for cropping purposes (especially when talking about the Nikon 24Mpix DX sensors, that are amazing sensors).

So, there's always some kind of trade off. If you're focusing on better low light shooting conditions, the D6x0 family can give you around 1 extra stop of advantage (of less ISO, of more speed, or of wider aperture), the D8x0 family something between 1 and 1.5 extra stop, and the Df/D4s families between 1 and 2 extra stops, given or taken... The newer Expeed 4 processor also plays a role here, and not only the sensor size itself. So, a lot more flexibility, just like tested and shown above.

But as said, if you're only comparing the final result picture quality, between DX and FX, instead of the flexibility gains during the shooting process itself, you will always be able to reproduce the same image with both formats (DX and FX), given you have the right technique, the right gear, and the patience.

My recommendation is for you to rent a FX body for the weekend and test it for yourself. So you can have the taste and the feel in your hands. Try to reproduce the same shot with both formats, and see what it takes you. And don't forget, you also need to multiply the aperture by the 1.5 crop factor as well, and not only the focal length, to be able to reproduce the same final result between FX and DX.

 

[jaomul]

There is no question that ff do better in low light but at the cost of a bigger system and expence. The better crop sensors now are really very good. I kind of find it amusing when I see a review of newer cams and it praises the camera for good 3200 performance but ultimately say it's poor at high iso like 6400 or 12800. At 100 iso 30 secs on a tripod any crop or ff will do well with a little noise reduction.

To OP, your Flickr page shows mostly bright scenes for your shots. I think you are right to reconsider going fullframe. Not sure higher iso performance would add to your shooting style.

 

[JustJazzie]

Hmmm, I am going through the photos I took from the week with my d7100, I can't seem to find one that went above 6,400. I can't do a side by side test with my DF. I have a few test shots of my umbrella plant from when I had the camera, though it was taken with a different lens. (70-200 vs my 50) Anyways, the lighting on that plant doesn't change much during the day, due to its location.

when comparing the files from the df and d7100 side by side at 100% crops, The d7100 file at 6,400 and the the DF files taken at 6,400, 12,800 and 25,600. To me, the two files that look closest noise wise are the 6,400 from the d7100 and the shot at 12,800. This is extremely unscientific, but at least you gave me something to do this morning over coffee! :Giggle: Because this IS such an unfair comparison, I decided not to post the shots. But if you want me too, let me know and I will.

 

[EIngerson]

I went from the Canon 7D to the 5D MK III and the performance increase was incredible.

 

[Derrel]

I went from a pair of cameras I had had for six and five years, the Nikon D2x and the Canon 5d classic, to the Nikon D3x in the spring of 2012, and the performance increase in dynamic range and shadow recovery and highlight holding and color depth between those two and the D3x was **incredible**. In one simple purchase, I gained about 3 EV more dynamic range, and just better resolution, and my LENSES became what they were designed to be on the Nikon: the 50 was once again a 50, the 85 was useful indoors once again, the 70-200 became MUCH better for close-in work on people, and the 300mm was just perfect for what it HAD BEEN designed to be for the prior 40 years, and so on.

However, the D7100 is a much newer and better sensor than the older ones I had used: I think its image quality is better than the Canon 5D classic's was, at all ISO levels, and the dynamic range and color depth of the new D7100's sensor is, well, I think it is the best crop-frame sensor and camera on the market, bar none. I trialled the EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D4, but ended up buying the D3x for a better price than either of those three, but you know, to me the issue is NOT about the High ISO capabilities: it is what each lens "does" and "where I have to stand at" to make pictures, in the real world, in places like back yards, and living rooms, and at school events, and so on. With APS-C, the "good lenses" are few in number. Nikon really is biased, lens-wise, to a full range of optics designed for FX sized cameras. The DX lenses are mostly consumer or entry-level, and the FX lenses, which are the vasty majority, are not of the optimal lengths for DX sensors!

If I had to buy a DX camera today, I would go for the D7100 and probably locate a 50-135 or 50-150 type zoom lens option, and go with the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 as my go-to daily user zoom for high-speed, or the 16-85 DX for my utility zoom. FX will always be ahead of DX at high ISO levels, but the D7100 and that generation of sensors has reallllly closed the gap that used to be big; I see D7100 images now that kick ass. All the time.

 

[480sparky]

Let's just say I have yet to do an HDR with images taken with my D600.

 

[Derrel]

Let's just say I have yet to do an HDR with images taken with my D600.

Is that because of the simply amazing dynamic range performance, and the incredible shadow/highlight recovery tools we now have in today's software? Or is it something else do ya' think?

 

[coastalconn]

You may have seen my thread last week, because I was teetering on the edge of buying a D800. The general consensus for how I shoot and what I shoot(birds) was there was not a huge advantage for me to go FF since I'm always cropping. My biggest problem is all the comparisons show the comparisons with different focal lengths. Shooting at 600mm is 600mm so I would always be cropping the D800 so much that the noise difference wouldn't be huge. For the most part with careful noise reduction, I can still do OK at ISO 6400 and still get use-able 8x10 prints or maybe slightly bigger. This was what I could produce at 6400 on the D7100... But it isn't always so good, you really have to nail exposure...
Typical George 7_15 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr

VS this on a D600 at 6400.. which I didn't even have enough DOF to get the whole head in focus..
Juvi Red Tail Hawk 5_29 4 by krisinct- Thanks for 2! Million + views!, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Just wanted to point out something for coastal.conn and others: Thom Hogan now has a D810, and this week he posted an impressions overview. One thing: the sensor in the D810 is NOT the same, exact performer as the D800 was. As he points out, Nikon is now "doing something differently" with the sensor gain, beginning at ISO 3200. Sony is apparently doing something different too with how their camera handles high-ISO gain, with their new D7s, the 12MP FF camera designed as an ULTRA-high ISO (over 400,000 ISO!) video camera capable of 4k video. So...the old arguments, which we saw here like a week ago, about how gain works in d-slr sensors is not really the full truth any more; Nikon, and Sony, are changing the way their high-MP sensors handle HIGH-ISO sensor performance by way of different gain-handle routines than were done before. It'll be interesting to see some test results and some actual photos, but it seems like the D810 is going to be better than the earlier D800/D800e at higher ISO values, due to the way the new EXPEED 4 engine and associated electronics handle the original image data when the ISO is cranked way high.

As Hogan mentioned, he has noted over 50 changes between the D800 and the new D810.

 

[480sparky]

...........Is that because of the simply amazing dynamic range performance, and the incredible shadow/highlight recovery tools we now have in today's software? ........

Yeah, dat's purdy much it.

ETA: Plus, I'm having to re-train myself not to default to ISO 100. Having shot Kodachrome 25 for years, it's hard to get my noodle to accept the fact that shooting ASA 400-1600 is juuuuuuuuuust fine. Oops. Sorry....... ISO 400-1600.

 

[ruifo]

With time passing, many more people are getting to the conclusion that the D810 is a bigger upgrade from the D800/E than originally though/perceived. The new sensor, the new Expeed 4, the new 64 native ISO, and the new buffer are doing a lot of improvements.