Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk
Thread started 26 Sep 2017 (Tuesday) 21:31
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Better for Low Light: 7d with L glass or 6d with cheaper glass?

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 22 days ago by TeamSpeed. 7 edits done in total.
Nov 01, 2017 18:57 |  #31

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18486510 (external link)
No. Something is amiss with the ISO!! I should have mentioned that those 2x3 images are night games at horribly lit HS stadiums @ 6400.

The 7D is amazing @ sports during the day.


I have a bit of experience in that particular arena (pun intended), having had my sports shots in the local newspaper and foxsports online over the years, with the 7D and other bodies. Again it takes some patience to learn it and how to manage files. I even developed a set of Photoshop actions for the 7D, using Noiseware as a base, for those that wanted more out of the 7D images, and I sold many copies at $15 over the years.

I would have no issues using a 7D for a wedding at ISO 3200 or lower, as the 5DC was used for years for weddings and they are pretty similar at ISO 3200. ISO 6400 would be usable for most receptions except for those where they only light everything with candles or led tea lights and peripheral lighting. Of course the 6D would do much better, there is no doubt, and a better tool for low light more static scenes.

If you would like to share a raw or two of yours at ISO 6400, I can see what my actions can do with the images?

ISO 12800

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/Tin-Caps-2012/i-wxVjHFW/0/73866342/X3/IMG_6861-X3.jpg

ISO 6400
IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/Tin-Caps-2012/i-TvCwhSQ/0/dc031134/X2/IMG_6751-X2.jpg

ISO 6400

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/HS-Football/i-bLMWt8V/0/a39cc2ed/X3/IMG_9568-X3.jpg

ISO 6400

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/Mad-Ants-Mar-10-2013/i-qSt8xvt/0/a427f62c/X3/7D1_0507-X3.jpg

ISO 6400

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/Mad-Ants-Mar-21-2013/i-hNGVVNX/0/543d9da0/X2/IMG_1212-X2.jpg

ISO 12800

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/Mad-Ants-Mar-21-2013/i-vsDdxb6/0/0c2f2a34/X2/IMG_1039-X2.jpg

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 22 days ago by TeamSpeed.
Nov 01, 2017 19:14 |  #32

Of course now, I shoot ISO 16K and higher (up to 25K) with the 5D4, love this camera! The 7D2 comes out to shoot as well here.

Saving up the pennies to get the 5D4 was very much worth for me... :)

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20162017/March-21-2017/i-B9pFdD4/0/34ac1421/X3/FX8A0760-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20162017/March-21-2017/i-GDHmG53/0/93cd4bed/X3/FX8A0770a-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20162017/March-24-2017/i-fTfn345/0/f49ac0f1/X2/FX8A1006a-X2.jpg

How about the Rebel SL2 at high ISO?

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/CHS-Band-2017-2018/Band-Shots/i-DxKrH82/0/110fe338/X2/IMG_0066-X2.jpg

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/CHS-Band-2017-2018/Band-Shots/i-9XKGx5s/0/deed7246/X2/IMG_0065-X2.jpg

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jotto123
Member
75 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Nov 02, 2017 10:25 |  #33

MalVeauX wrote in post #18461286 (external link)
The 7D's RAW files look noiser to me than the T3i's RAW files. Same sensor right? I found the 7D RAW's to be overly noisy at ISO 100 with correct and often over-exposure compared to much older cameras even. I let my 7D go due to it, as everything else was great about it. Maybe mine was noiser than everyone else's?

Very best,

I had the same experience. I've read on other forums people saying the same thing as well.


7d - 135L - 85mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.8 - 24mm 2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 21 days ago by TeamSpeed. 9 edits done in total.
Nov 02, 2017 12:26 |  #34

I don't buy it in the general "all 7Ds are noisy" claim, and I had 4 7Ds. One was noisy, the others were not. The big issue was also that people weren't using DPP and instead used 3rd party tools, and it took Adobe and others quite some time to get their software updated accordingly for raw file format changes.

The other thing that really hurt the 7D was its very aggressive AA filter. Cannon reduced that on later bodies sharing the same sensor. The 7D, in cleaning up the noise, was harder to retain detail due to the aggressive blurring. So if anybody used any NR tool at all, their results would suffer. It took a detailed hand at post processing to knock out the noise and still keep most of the detail. That didn't do the 7D any favors.

We have enough comparison tools over the years to really compare the 7D, haven't we? :)

----

Straight out of camera ISO 100.
https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...JPG-Suite-OOC/i-DHZV9pL/O (external link)

---

50D 1600 vs 7D in artificial light, always an interesting test for noise due to poor WB/saturation levels...

50D: https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...7D-versus-50D/i-wgDMdQT/O (external link)
7D: https://teamspeed.smug​mug.com ...7D-versus-50D/i-5Zf7Ssj/O (external link)

Equalize the 7D down to the 50D and it would even be cleaner.

----

Here is DP Reviews Studio comparison tool using the SL1 vs 7D, and the SL1 came out after the T3i.

Link so you can play from this point: https://www.dpreview.c​om ...8984&y=0.6583391486​392184 (external link)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jotto123
Member
75 posts
Joined Jul 2012
Post has been last edited 21 days ago by Jotto123. 2 edits done in total.
Nov 02, 2017 13:46 |  #35

As former 7D owner I cannot recommend the 7D over the 6D. No way in hell.

7d is not a low light indoor camera at all.


7d - 135L - 85mm 1.8 - 50mm 1.8 - 24mm 2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 21 days ago by TeamSpeed. 5 edits done in total.
Nov 02, 2017 14:01 |  #36

Jotto123 wrote in post #18487016 (external link)
As former 7D owner I cannot recommend the 7D over the 6D. No way in hell.

7d is not a low light indoor camera at all.

Nobody is saying otherwise. We (all) are in agreement. I would certainly expect a new generation FF body to beat out a 2009 APS-C. The 6D was so good in fact, that the 6D2 does little to improve upon it.

The points I made were around how "noisy a 2x3 black and white high ISO 7D image was" and also the stigma that the "7D was noisy even at ISO 100". Barring some copy variations that were terrible (I had one), there are many, many accounts and image samples to show otherwise.

Adding a fast zoom to the 7D is a way to shoot at lower ISOs and improve the results, but the 6D allows for AF at much lower light levels. Regardless of the ISO noise differences, that alone would warrant the 6D for low light reception hall and dark church weddings. You have to first have focus, then worry about noise later, so the 6D wins on both accounts.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Pigpen101
Member
Joined Mar 2017
Nov 02, 2017 15:54 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #37

TeamSpeed

Thanks for the offer, I don't think I have a RAW file to send you because I only shoot JPEG (sports) to keep up burst rate & allow faster download to laptop. Your high ISO shots look great! Your PP skills are incredible. My next camera will be FF, likely the 5D MIII. Thought of the 6D, but wasn't impressed with it's FPS. Then heard of upcoming 6DII, held off only to hear people were not as impressed with the MII. Next in line, 5D series. Did you have to do a lot of PP to those 5D shots to get them that clean?
Thanks.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 21 days ago by TeamSpeed. 3 edits done in total.
Nov 02, 2017 15:59 |  #38

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18487114 (external link)
TeamSpeed

Thanks for the offer, I don't think I have a RAW file to send you because I only shoot JPEG (sports) to keep up burst rate & allow faster download to laptop. Your high ISO shots look great! Your PP skills are incredible. My next camera will be FF, likely the 5D MIII. Thought of the 6D, but wasn't impressed with it's FPS. Then heard of upcoming 6DII, held off only to hear people were not as impressed with the MII. Next in line, 5D series. Did you have to do a lot of PP to those 5D shots to get them that clean?
Thanks.

Ah, that is one issue I believe. The JPG engine in the 7D is the old JPG engine with the old NR code. Sometime after this, like the 70D, T3 series, etc Canon put a better JPG engine into the cameras, and the delta between the in-camera JPG and what you could get via raw + post processing was greatly reduced. I could never use JPG out of the 7D, I had to shoot raw, set various settings, export to JPG, then post process.

Example: The bottom is the OOC JPG 100% crop, the top is raw + settings -> JPG -> post processing, huge difference. This was ISO 6400 I believe.

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Electronics/7D-Full-ISO-JPG-Suite-OOC/i-vMp8SHF/0/1a8ee0e0/O/7dtestcomparo2.jpg


Today with the 7D2 and 5D4, there is little to be gained by shooting raw and working it, vs using the JPG from the camera.

The 5D4 out of camera JPGs don't require alot of work really at all. Just Noiseware and a few USM runs for contrast and sharpness. My processing time is much much less these days with the 2 cameras I have.

I shot an entire season or two with the 5D3, it is a very capable and good camera too. If you can get one, you will be very happy with it, I feel.

ISO 16000

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-2014-2015/i-GBn4G29/1/6f3cc84b/X3/5P1B3523-X3.jpg

Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Nov 02, 2017 16:33 |  #39

I recently picked up a used 6Dc here on POTN. I knew I had to get some low light photographs in a dark wedding reception room... for a friend. I wasn't their photographer but I told him I'd try to get some interesting shots for him.

Anyway, I used the 24-105 f/4 original and had the ISO at 12,800. Most of the shots I took came out better than I expected, truth be told. I was able to catch a few people in unguarded moments... his grand daughters with their babies, the three grand daughters all together, joking around... stuff like that.

Now, would the 5D Mark IV be better? Of course. In a year or so, I'll probably sell off the 6Dc and buy one as my people/landscape camera. I know it will work for wildlife too but I've been very happy with my 1D IV results with birds, etc. It's a hard decision for me. I'd rather have a 1D X Mark 2, I think.... but I'd have to sell all three camera bodies I have currently and come up with the rest. I could do that but that would leave me no back up. Hard choices, I guess.

Sorry for musing off topic. I like the 6Dc for what it is. For me, it focuses in the dark, pretty much. I got some really nice sunrises with it and lots of intimate photos at the wedding reception. I'm pretty happy.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been last edited 21 days ago by TeamSpeed. 5 edits done in total.
Nov 02, 2017 16:36 |  #40

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18487148 (external link)
I recently picked up a used 6Dc here on POTN. I knew I had to get some low light photographs in a dark wedding reception room... for a friend. I wasn't their photographer but I told him I'd try to get some interesting shots for him.

Anyway, I used the 24-105 f/4 original and had the ISO at 12,800. Most of the shots I took came out better than I expected, truth be told. I was able to catch a few people in unguarded moments... his grand daughters with their babies, the three grand daughters all together, joking around... stuff like that.

Now, would the 5D Mark IV be better? Of course. In a year or so, I'll probably sell off the 6Dc and buy one as my people/landscape camera. I know it will work for wildlife too but I've been very happy with my 1D IV results with birds, etc. It's a hard decision for me. I'd rather have a 1D X Mark 2, I think.... but I'd have to sell all three camera bodies I have currently and come up with the rest. I could do that but that would leave me no back up. Hard choices, I guess.

Sorry for musing off topic. I like the 6Dc for what it is. For me, it focuses in the dark, pretty much. I got some really nice sunrises with it and lots of intimate photos at the wedding reception. I'm pretty happy.

Simply based on high ISO, the 6D isn't that far behind the 5D4. The 6D was seemingly a bit ahead of its time when it came out, besting the 5D3 by about 1/3 stop, and very closely mirroring the 1DX, 5D4 and 1DX2. It is in other areas that the 6D was lacking (focusing, DR, fps), but was expected considering it was the entrance FF at the time. This is why the 6D2 just didn't make the splash it probably should have, there is very little in the way of improvements it could make over the 6D.

Even today a 12800 shot from a 6D is hardly distinguishable from a 1DX, 5D4 or 1DX2 at even normal viewing of large prints.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Nov 02, 2017 16:51 |  #41

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18487151 (external link)
Simply based on high ISO, the 6D isn't that far behind the 5D4. The 6D was seemingly a bit ahead of its time when it came out, besting the 5D3 by about 1/3 stop, and very closely mirroring the 1DX and even now not too far from the 5D4 and 1DX2. It is in other areas that the 6D was lacking, but was expected considering it was the entrance FF at the time.

Yeah. I know it has some built-in limitations but at the current price point, it serves a purpose. It's a center AF point, low light, 1/4000 max shutter speed... .entry level FF camera. At least, that is one man's opinion. ;)

I was sort of encouraged by your comment a few days ago about the 1D IV files.... you said they were approaching FF standards. I was seeing that.... but wasn't quite sure. My wife and I can both see the difference it's making in my photographs, but you know how that is.. confirmation bias, sometimes.

I do know, I have 3 or so birding books published when the 1D IV was Canon's best action/wildlife camera. If I can get close to what those photographers were capturing, I'll be more than happy. Of course, they were all using one of Canon's super telephoto lenses: 500, 600 or 800. That said, if I get close enough, my 100-400L ii isn't bad. ;)

My point is.... I'm not seeing a huge difference between my 1D IV files and the 6Dc's output. Of course, the 6Dc focuses in low light where the 1D IV won't even shoot because it can't auto focus.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited 21 days ago by TeamSpeed.
Nov 02, 2017 19:10 |  #42

I think the 6D is probably a bit better at high ISO than the 1D4, but they probably aren't too far off. The 1D4 was pretty atrocious for AI Servo focusing in low light, in fact one of my copies had to go to Canon to make sure there wasn't a problem. It couldn't even focus on my moving kids in our walkout basement. It was frustrating. Despite that, the 1D4 is one of my favorite top 3 bodies. I would think a 1D4 and a 6D are a great pair. :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Nov 02, 2017 19:17 |  #43

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18487269 (external link)
I think the 6D is probably a bit better at high ISO than the 1D4, but they probably aren't too far off. The 1D4 was pretty atrocious for AI Servo focusing in low light, in fact one of my copies had to go to Canon to make sure there wasn't a problem. It couldn't even focus on my moving kids in our walkout basement. It was frustrating. Despite that, the 1D4 is one of my favorite top 3 bodies. I would think a 1D4 and a 6D are a great pair. :)

I don't remember the last time I took mine off AI Servo. As you can tell, I don't shoot many landscapes. ;)

I can get it to focus on our cat in semi low light but actual low light? No way. If I'm inside, I just reach for the 6Dc now.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
Pigpen101
Member
Joined Mar 2017
Post has been edited 20 days ago by Pigpen101.
Nov 03, 2017 16:09 |  #44

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18487115 (external link)
Ah, that is one issue I believe. The JPG engine in the 7D is the old JPG engine with the old NR code. Sometime after this, like the 70D, T3 series, etc Canon put a better JPG engine into the cameras, and the delta between the in-camera JPG and what you could get via raw + post processing was greatly reduced. I could never use JPG out of the 7D, I had to shoot raw, set various settings, export to JPG, then post process.

Example: The bottom is the OOC JPG 100% crop, the top is raw + settings -> JPG -> post processing, huge difference. This was ISO 6400 I believe.

QUOTED IMAGE

Today with the 7D2 and 5D4, there is little to be gained by shooting raw and working it, vs using the JPG from the camera.

The 5D4 out of camera JPGs don't require alot of work really at all. Just Noiseware and a few USM runs for contrast and sharpness. My processing time is much much less these days with the 2 cameras I have.

I shot an entire season or two with the 5D3, it is a very capable and good camera too. If you can get one, you will be very happy with it, I feel.

ISO 16000
QUOTED IMAGE


TeamSpeed

I will be covering a Pitt game next week. It's a night game which means high ISO, so I'll purposely shoot some RAW so I can send you a shot or 2 to play with, if that's OK?

Mike




LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,241 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Nov 03, 2017 19:07 |  #45

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18487853 (external link)
TeamSpeed

I will be covering a Pitt game next week. It's a night game which means high ISO, so I'll purposely shoot some RAW so I can send you a shot or 2 to play with, if that's OK?

Mike

I would be happy to look at a couple of raws and outline whatever I do them. :)


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,180 views & 13 likes for this thread
Better for Low Light: 7d with L glass or 6d with cheaper glass?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00115 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is andrewwong927
787 guests, 320 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016