John Sheehy wrote in post #18416399
None of the cameras that you are mentioning here have banding noise of any significance, so the amount of noise as measured by Photons2Photos and DxO are fairly representative of what you can expect. Most of the biggest differences between under-exposing vs using higher ISOs for the same sensor exposure occur at the bottom of the ISO range. The difference between 100 and 200 is the greatest, 200 and 400 a little smaller, 400 and 800 smaller yet, and above that, even smaller and smaller, until you get no noise improvement at all from mathematically pushed ISO settings. Both types of ADC have this pattern, but for on-sensor ADCs, the effect is more diluted.
The absolute read noise of the 6D2 is about 8x as high at base ISO as at the highest ISOs. The absolute read noise of the 5D4 is about 2.67x as high at base ISO, and the absolute read noise of the 6D3 is about 3x that of the 5D4 at base ISO, and they are about the same at the highest ISOs. The higher the ISO, the less of the difference between them. The 6D2 keeps improving in absolute read noise up the ISO scale to 800, slows down a bit for 1600, and is fairly level by 3200. The 5D4, however, is almost level already at 400, and only improves at a very slow rate above that, because it had less room to improve to begin with, with less noise at base ISO.
None of the cameras that you are mentioning here have banding noise of any significance, so the amount of noise as measured by Photons2Photos and DxO are fairly representative of what you can expect. Most of the biggest differences between under-exposing vs using higher ISOs for the same sensor exposure occur at the bottom of the ISO range. The difference between 100 and 200 is the greatest, 200 and 400 a little smaller, 400 and 800 smaller yet, and above that, even smaller and smaller, until you get no noise improvement at all from mathematically pushed ISO settings. Both types of ADC have this pattern, but for on-sensor ADCs, the effect is more diluted.
The absolute read noise of the 6D2 is about 8x as high at base ISO as at the highest ISOs. The absolute read noise of the 5D4 is about 2.67x as high at base ISO, and the absolute read noise of the 6D3 is about 3x that of the 5D4 at base ISO, and they are about the same at the highest ISOs. The higher the ISO, the less of the difference between them. The 6D2 keeps improving in absolute read noise up the ISO scale to 800, slows down a bit for 1600, and is fairly level by 3200. The 5D4, however, is almost level already at 400, and only improves at a very slow rate above that, because it had less room to improve to begin with, with less noise at base ISO.
Thanks for clarifying this stuff even more for me, John.
Patbil10 wrote in post #18416404
Do you think the photo I posted above would be impossible to get with the 6D2 ?
Do you think the photo I posted above would be impossible to get with the 6D2 ?
No. But it's not that hard of a shot to do. And I'm pretty sure my old 5D classic could handle one stop of added light in post.
Patbil10 wrote in post #18416431
Weather you're shooting with a 6D or D810, do people regularly intentionally underexpose 5 stops ? I don't think even landscapers do that...
Weather you're shooting with a 6D or D810, do people regularly intentionally underexpose 5 stops ? I don't think even landscapers do that...
Read John Sheehy's last comment and you know why people at times would want to shoot at base ISO and pull up shadows later in post. It's so much quicker and easier than taking multiple exposure shots and blending them in post.
That's the reason why DR was never an issue for me....however I will admit that if Canon put out a camera with lesser capabilities than the 6D, that would be cause for concern.
I think we need to see a few more reviews before passing final judgement !
I think we need to see a few more reviews before passing final judgement !
The files and images are out there and numbers don't lie.
