Best camera for low-light conditions?

[Glasya]

Hi people in the LTT forum!

 

I'm hobby photographer who likes to do alot of stuff under low ligth conditions.

especially when it comes to shooting the milkyway, i get into some trouble. im shooting with Canon 80D, a solid DSLR but it has a cropped Sensor.

 

i know the lens is very if not more important for doing such things but still, most videos/vlogger/tutorials tell me that cropped sensor just arent as good in low ligt as a Full frame sensor.

Especially when bumping up the ISO above 3200, the 80D starts to look kinda crappy.

 

Does anyone have expierence shooting stars or low light in generall with the 6D mark II

Does it make sense to sell the 80D to get a 6D mark II, wich according to reviews shouldbe really good in low light conditions.

 

 

[Fetzie]

What glass are you using?

[cc143]

The 6dII is criticised for being crappy in low light. I haven't seen examples my self, but the 80d is a pretty new sensor and processor, so unless you for a Sony a7s or something I'm not sure if you can get something at a reasonable price in the Canon lineup. The 1dx2 is obviously great in low light, but 5K at least is not worth it. 

 

I'd expect the 5d4 would be an improvement, and a used one would probably be comparable in price to the 6d2, or you could always go for an EOS R...

[LyondellBasell]

13 hours ago, Glasya said:

Hi people in the LTT forum!

 

I'm hobby photographer who likes to do alot of stuff under low ligth conditions.

especially when it comes to shooting the milkyway, i get into some trouble. im shooting with Canon 80D, a solid DSLR but it has a cropped Sensor.

 

i know the lens is very if not more important for doing such things but still, most videos/vlogger/tutorials tell me that cropped sensor just arent as good in low ligt as a Full frame sensor.

Especially when bumping up the ISO above 3200, the 80D starts to look kinda crappy.

 

Does anyone have expierence shooting stars or low light in generall with the 6D mark II

Does it make sense to sell the 80D to get a 6D mark II, wich according to reviews shouldbe really good in low light conditions.

 

 

The increase in low light performance is going to be minimal for the type of shots you're doing. If you want to get better results shooting the night sky, invest in a start tracker. Increasing your exposure time will do WAY more for you than changing from APS-C to FF.

 

Keep your body, bump your shutter speed down, and comp several exposures together to help kill noise.

[ThePointblank]

10 hours ago, cc143 said:

The 6dII is criticised for being crappy in low light. I haven't seen examples my self, but the 80d is a pretty new sensor and processor, so unless you for a Sony a7s or something I'm not sure if you can get something at a reasonable price in the Canon lineup. The 1dx2 is obviously great in low light, but 5K at least is not worth it. 

 

I'd expect the 5d4 would be an improvement, and a used one would probably be comparable in price to the 6d2, or you could always go for an EOS R...

Would not go Sony for astrophotography due to the known issue of Sony cameras being star eaters; it's gotten better with the later cameras and some software updates, but it is still present.

 

Best bet from the Canon lineup brand new would either be a EOS R or a EOS RP, with the RP being perhaps the best value option out of the two; same sensor as the 6D Mark II, but in a considerably lighter and cheaper body. Obviously, if one can swing it, get the R, but the RP would fit the bill.

[Glasya]

okay first of all thanks for all your responses. 

On 7/6/2019 at 10:23 AM, Fetzie said:

What glass are you using?

depends but for stars for example, im using the sigma 10-20mm F 3.5 

 

i just wanted to get some more opinions rather than go out, buy the 6d mkII and still not being happy with the results. 

i dont really want to switch to sony either after i got some EF mount lenses...

 

so the conclusions so far would be something like this

1. FF sensor's arent worth it just for low light or im a getting this wrong? 

2. a startracker (like the iOptron skyguider pro?) would help me getting better results

3. i should look into "merging" multiple exposures together to counter the noise*.  

4. the Canon EOS R or RP would be more of an improvment than the 6d 

 

*can someone recommend a good tutorial?

 

i'll look into these things. thanks again to everyone.

[LyondellBasell]

11 hours ago, Glasya said:

okay first of all thanks for all your responses. 

depends but for stars for example, im using the sigma 10-20mm F 3.5 

 

i just wanted to get some more opinions rather than go out, buy the 6d mkII and still not being happy with the results. 

i dont really want to switch to sony either after i got some EF mount lenses...

 

so the conclusions so far would be something like this

1. FF sensor's arent worth it just for low light or im a getting this wrong? 

2. a startracker (like the iOptron skyguider pro?) would help me getting better results

3. i should look into "merging" multiple exposures together to counter the noise*.  

4. the Canon EOS R or RP would be more of an improvment than the 6d 

 

*can someone recommend a good tutorial?

 

i'll look into these things. thanks again to everyone.

Just to clarify, it's not that FF sensors don't have a low-light advantage. They do; general consensus is that you can get about one full stop brighter exposure with FF compared to APS-C.

 

BUT

 

In this specific case, the benefits of a FF's light collection capabilities are far outweighed by what you can do by simply keeping that shutter open longer and dropping your ISO.

Instead of trying to make it work at (and this is totally made up) f3.5, 3sec, ISO3200.

you can used a star tracker to kill any motion blur, and use f3.5, 100sec, ISO100.

 

So it's not that FF bodies aren't awesome. They are, and they'll let you take full advantage of all the pro lenses out there by whatever color manufacturer you like.

But if you're looking to spend some money to improve your results when taking *this type of specific shot*, then a star tracker is going to give you the best results *for the money*.

[ThePointblank]

13 hours ago, Glasya said:

okay first of all thanks for all your responses. 

depends but for stars for example, im using the sigma 10-20mm F 3.5 

 

i just wanted to get some more opinions rather than go out, buy the 6d mkII and still not being happy with the results. 

i dont really want to switch to sony either after i got some EF mount lenses...

 

so the conclusions so far would be something like this

1. FF sensor's arent worth it just for low light or im a getting this wrong? 

2. a startracker (like the iOptron skyguider pro?) would help me getting better results

3. i should look into "merging" multiple exposures together to counter the noise*.  

4. the Canon EOS R or RP would be more of an improvment than the 6d 

 

*can someone recommend a good tutorial?

 

i'll look into these things. thanks again to everyone.

A tutorial on image averaging:

 

 

[Glasya]

2 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

Just to clarify, it's not that FF sensors don't have a low-light advantage. They do; general consensus is that you can get about one full stop brighter exposure with FF compared to APS-C.

 

BUT

 

In this specific case, the benefits of a FF's light collection capabilities are far outweighed by what you can do by simply keeping that shutter open longer and dropping your ISO.

Instead of trying to make it work at (and this is totally made up) f3.5, 3sec, ISO3200.

you can used a star tracker to kill any motion blur, and use f3.5, 100sec, ISO100.

 

So it's not that FF bodies aren't awesome. They are, and they'll let you take full advantage of all the pro lenses out there by whatever color manufacturer you like.

But if you're looking to spend some money to improve your results when taking *this type of specific shot*, then a star tracker is going to give you the best results *for the money*.

it might get a bit annoying but in your opinion, what other benefit do FF sensor's have? dont get me wrong stars arent the ONLY thing im shooting, i was just wonderuing about this specific use case and how i could improve it

 

and with F3.5 and ISO 3200 i could never ever see a star with only a 3 second exposure. im still shooting stars with 15sec but any longer ans star trailing starts to appear.

 

light pollution is also fairly present where i live. also a star tracker moves at the same speed with the stars, so you cant have any foreground elemts cause they will be blurred out. am i right? 

[ThePointblank]

40 minutes ago, Glasya said:

it might get a bit annoying but in your opinion, what other benefit do FF sensor's have? dont get me wrong stars arent the ONLY thing im shooting, i was just wonderuing about this specific use case and how i could improve it

 

and with F3.5 and ISO 3200 i could never ever see a star with only a 3 second exposure. im still shooting stars with 15sec but any longer ans star trailing starts to appear.

 

light pollution is also fairly present where i live. also a star tracker moves at the same speed with the stars, so you cant have any foreground elemts cause they will be blurred out. am i right? 

Biggest one would be focal length; a full frame sensor is based off the 35mm film format, and most camera lenses are measured based upon the 35mm film format.

 

A crop sensor has a field of view is a crop of the full frame; if two cameras (one full frame, and one crop) were taking photos of a subject at the same distance and focal length, the crop sensor camera will have a tighter field of view than the full frame camera.

 

Second would be depth of field; full frame cameras have a shallower depth of field, which would increase the blur of out of focus elements in a picture.

[LyondellBasell]

On 7/8/2019 at 12:04 AM, Glasya said:

it might get a bit annoying but in your opinion, what other benefit do FF sensor's have? dont get me wrong stars arent the ONLY thing im shooting, i was just wonderuing about this specific use case and how i could improve it

The main benefit of FF over APS-C is that, for most crop sensors and lenses, there will be a point at which you cannot go wider with your aperture or lower with your ISO to achieve equivalence in a single photo with a full frame sensor and that same lens. For example, if you have a picture taken on an EOS R at f1.4 105mm, to replicate it with and APS-C camera would require a 70mm lens that can open to f0.85. No such lens is currently available for a reasonable price.

On 7/8/2019 at 12:04 AM, Glasya said:

and with F3.5 and ISO 3200 i could never ever see a star with only a 3 second exposure. im still shooting stars with 15sec but any longer ans star trailing starts to appear.

I definitely understand, I made sure to include the disclaimer that those numbers are a made up setting, picked solely to demonstrate my point with a real, possible example.

On 7/7/2019 at 8:54 PM, LyondellBasell said:

 (and this is totally made up) f3.5, 3sec, ISO3200.

That being said, this problem is exactly what a star tracker can fix. Because it keeps the stars motionless, from your sensor's POV, it will allow you to keep your shutter open for much longer periods of time. Not only will this give you the chance to expose properly for your stars in a single shot, but it ALSO lets you make subsequent, follow up shots.

You can use the followup shots with the image averaging technique linked above, and cut down on your noise even further. Star trails begone!

On 7/8/2019 at 12:04 AM, Glasya said:

light pollution is also fairly present where i live. also a star tracker moves at the same speed with the stars, so you cant have any foreground elemts cause they will be blurred out. am i right? 

Nothing you can do about the light pollution except make a change in venue, but a tracker will at least allow you to get your subject exposed correctly.

 

You're absolutely right in that, when you use a star tracker, any foreground elements will be blurred.

What you'll want to do it capture your shots of the sky, and then composite in a different shot that you've made of your foreground, with the tracker removed or turned off.

This way you can expose properly for your foreground as well, depending on what it is and how you choose to light it.

 

It's not annoying at all! I love to discuss photography, and if I dare to speak for the other forum members I'd say they all do too. Happy to have you.

[bowrilla]

5 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

Biggest one would be focal length; a full frame sensor is based off the 35mm film format, and most camera lenses are measured based upon the 35mm film format.

That's only a factor of convenience. 

 

5 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

A crop sensor has a field of view is a crop of the full frame; if two cameras (one full frame, and one crop) were taking photos of a subject at the same distance and focal length, the crop sensor camera will have a tighter field of view than the full frame camera.

Again, only a factor of convenience.

 

5 hours ago, ThePointblank said:

Second would be depth of field; full frame cameras have a shallower depth of field, which would increase the blur of out of focus elements in a picture.

The way you phrase it this is wrong. The factors for field of view are distance to object and distance to background on one hand and the diameter of the entrance pupil on the other. Depending on the various definitions of the circle of confusion, neither focal length nor sensor diameter play a role in depth of field. That's physics. It is true though that in practice you get some lenses for certain FF systems that don't have a match on APS-C or even MFT. But they could be made. And then there's the question if you actually have a use for somethin like a 85mm f/1.2 FF lens shot wide open. I had it for years and I can tell you: you're not using it at f/1.2 because it has serious chromatic abberations and the DoF is so shallow that you either have the eye or the nose in focus. This is basically unusable. I basically never shot this lens on a faster aperture than f/2. Sharpness was phenomenal though at that aperture.

 

6 hours ago, Glasya said:

it might get a bit annoying but in your opinion, what other benefit do FF sensor's have? dont get me wrong stars arent the ONLY thing im shooting, i was just wonderuing about this specific use case and how i could improve it

FF sensors can (!) have higher dynamic range and better ISO performance. That is if (!) resolution isn't pushed at the same time. Both ISO performance and dynamic range depends mostly on pixel size and therefore pixel density. If you compare an APS-C and a FF sensor witht he same pixel density and on the same technological level, there won't be any noticeable difference. Of course, if both sensors have the same resolution, the pixel density of the FF sensor will be lower and therefore the pixel bigger.