# Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions?



## mStevens (Feb 4, 2012)

Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions such as in a high school gym or at an outdoor stadium at night? Would a 5D Mark II be my best choice for upgrading from a 40D? I was considering a 7D, however, I have read a couple of entries on this forum where it is mentioned that the 7D is not as clear as the 40D.

I have been using a 40D with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM lens. I mainly shoot High School soccer in daylight. I am happy with my clear shots. I want to upgrade my camera. I want a camera that I can shoot indoor sports such as basketball/volleyball in a school gym and nighttime outdoor stadium games. Even with my 2.8 lens (and high ISO setting), I am not happy with my indoor sports shots.

I look forward to your advise on which type of camera I should purchase next.


----------



## ejenner (Feb 4, 2012)

If reach is not a problem, then yes. If you find yourself using the long end of the 70-200 a lot then possibly not. Although FF does have better high ISO, if you crop the noise is magnified and in general an uncropped 7D image will be less noisy than a 5DII image cropped to the same FOV.

I don't know about how a 7D or 60D would compare to the 40D though.

A 135L would gain a bit if you can live with the FL.


----------



## mStevens (Feb 4, 2012)

Actually I am not worried about reach inside a gym. With my 70 - 200mm I shoot at the low end. However, I do crop all my shots very tight. So your comment about noise concerns me. Thanks for your input.


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 4, 2012)

My 7D gives me around an extra stop in comparison to the 40D in terms of noise, but it obviously isn't as clean as the 5D MkII. In fact, I find it superior in every way ot the 40D, but it is less forgiving. The higher resolution magnifies all the imperfections of lenses and slight motion blur or focus problems, each of which will soften the image, but reduce the image to that of the 40D and it will be just as sharp, plus you have more latitude in ability to sharpen images in post. While the 5D MkII does produce higher image quality, with fast moving action, it will start to show its inadequacies, particularly with tracking focus, although for static scenes, in low light, it will have better focusing than the 7D if the centre point is used. Also, you will have to be much more careful about timing the instant, to get the shot you want, due to the slower frame rate.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 4, 2012)

mStevens said:


> Actually I am not worried about reach inside a gym. With my 70 - 200mm I shoot at the low end. However, I do crop all my shots very tight. So your comment about noise concerns me. Thanks for your input.



If you take the pictures at the low end then you will be getting a full frame image by using a longer focal length.

A 5DII is very confortable with iso 3200 an there is not significant noise there. At iso1600 even a cropped 5DII would not show as much noise as the 40D

Not sure what your concerns are????


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2012)

A FF body definitely has a large advantage. My 5D MK II looks much better at ISO 3200 than my 7D at ISO 1000. I would not use my 40D over ISO 800.

Using your 70-200mmL at 200mm makes absolutely no difference in the noise or high ISO performance. Neither does any other focal length. The ISO setting is the big factor.

Neither does cropping. The noise is either there, or it isn't. You can see it better at 1:1, so in that respect, it is more visible in a crop.

This is a image taken at ISO 6400 last week with my 5DMKII using a 135mm L at f/2 and 1/125 sec. The lighting was very dim!


----------



## mStevens (Feb 4, 2012)

briansquibb, one of the concerns I have with a 5D Mark II is that I would be giving up FPS. My 40D has 6.5 and the 5D has 3.9. I also prefer a cropped frame since I like to shoot zoomed in sports shots. Finally, I was worried that the ISO on the 5D would not live up to my expectations. My 40D ISO is awful at 1600. But as Mt Spokane Photography pointed out, I should keep my ISO below 800 on my 40D. This means I cannot get decent shots shooting outdoor soccer after 5:30 pm, this time of year .

However, I think I can compromise and keep my 40D as a backup for outdoor sports when shooting in bright sunlight and the 5D for sports shots where there is poor lighting conditions and where I don't need as much reach (i.e. inside a gym). I'm just waiting for this month's announcements before I make a final decision :-\.

BTW, Mt Spokane Photography nice shot! I am glad to see that the 5D has good ISO performance.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 4, 2012)

mStevens said:


> briansquibb, one of the concerns I have with a 5D Mark II is that I would be giving up FPS. My 40D has 6.5 and the 5D has 3.9. I also prefer a cropped frame since I like to shoot zoomed in sports shots. Finally, I was worried that the ISO on the 5D would not live up to my expectations. My 40D ISO is awful at 1600. But as Mt Spokane Photography pointed out, I should keep my ISO below 800 on my 40D. This means I cannot get decent shots shooting outdoor soccer after 5:30 pm, this time of year .
> 
> However, I think I can compromise and keep my 40D as a backup for outdoor sports when shooting in bright sunlight and the 5D for sports shots where there is poor lighting conditions and where I don't need as much reach (i.e. inside a gym). I'm just waiting for this month's announcements before I make a final decision :-\.
> 
> BTW, Mt Spokane Photography nice shot! I am glad to see that the 5D has good ISO performance.



As I see it you are shooting at the low end - say 100mm. On a 5DII you would be getting the same image with 160mm - which works with your zoom

At iso3200 you would be shooting at 2 stops faster than on the 40D so motion blur would disappear and background blur would improve at the same time

You will also be shooting at 21mps and getting better IQ

1fps reduction is not too critical for your sports - you should be able to anticipate when things are going to happen.

So what is the alternative? a 7D with all its issues or (relatively) low light performance.

Your choice


----------



## Kernuak (Feb 4, 2012)

mStevens said:


> briansquibb, one of the concerns I have with a 5D Mark II is that I would be giving up FPS. My 40D has 6.5 and the 5D has 3.9. I also prefer a cropped frame since I like to shoot zoomed in sports shots. Finally, I was worried that the ISO on the 5D would not live up to my expectations. My 40D ISO is awful at 1600. But as Mt Spokane Photography pointed out, I should keep my ISO below 800 on my 40D. This means I cannot get decent shots shooting outdoor soccer after 5:30 pm, this time of year .
> 
> However, I think I can compromise and keep my 40D as a backup for outdoor sports when shooting in bright sunlight and the 5D for sports shots where there is poor lighting conditions and where I don't need as much reach (i.e. inside a gym). I'm just waiting for this month's announcements before I make a final decision :-\.
> 
> BTW, Mt Spokane Photography nice shot! I am glad to see that the 5D has good ISO performance.


With my 40D, I wouldn't go above ISO 800 either, whereas with my 7D, I won't go above ISO 1600. For critical shots, I wouldn't normally go beyond that with my 5D MkII either, but I know that I have the option if I need it. I tend to use my 7D for situations where I need the faster focusing and might need the frame rate (although it's actually quite rare I use the motor drive, I prefer to time it instead if possible), but switch to the 5D MkII for higher image quality, where detail is important, such as for macro and landscape or in low light.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2012)

mStevens said:


> However, I think I can compromise and keep my 40D as a backup for outdoor sports when shooting in bright sunlight and the 5D for sports shots where there is poor lighting conditions and where I don't need as much reach (i.e. inside a gym). I'm just waiting for this month's announcements before I make a final decision :-\.
> 
> BTW, Mt Spokane Photography nice shot! I am glad to see that the 5D has good ISO performance.



I loved my 40D's, I had five of them, and they were definitely a wonderful camera. However, after keeping my 40D as a backup and studio camera for product photography, I found that I used the 5D for almost everything, it is much better. I replaced the 40D with a 1D MK III, it was also a huge improvement accross the board. I found that, I still preferred my 5D MK II almost all the time, except for focal length limited shots. I never found much use for the high FPS. If you do sports seriously, then consider a 7D or 1D MK III. 

For casual sports and center point AF, the 5D2 is fine. (See some jr hS track shots below)

Finally, I sold the 1D MK III and bought a refurb 7D thru Canon CLP for half the price that I sold my 1D MK III for. It really had to do with needing a product photography body and a close focusing lens with the right focal range, and both the 17-55mm and 15-85mm EF-s worked with my setup better.

The 1D MK III had better high ISO performance, but the fine grained noise of the 7D made NR work fairly well, so it wasn't a huge difference.

My grandchildren's soccer meet with 5D MK II and 70-200mm f/4 IS:

Full frame







100% Crop






Full Frame






100% Crop


----------



## archangelrichard (Feb 4, 2012)

"Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions such as in a high school gym or at an outdoor stadium at night? "

What do you mean by "perform better" Better IQ, Better sensitivity, faster focusing, faster metering?

There are different answers to these different questions, you need to prioritize the issues so you can get an answer that meets your needs

Some of the answers you are getting refer more to the magnification of APS-C using the same lens focal length but they fail to mention: Lenses are compromises; they are sharpest in the middle of their zoom range so let's say you are using a 70 - 200mm the sharpest area is going ro be 135 - 170mm (the difference at lower lengths is greater than the difference at longer lengths so the lowest end is usually the worst) regardless of the camera but the APS-C sees that as 210 - 270 equivalent being the sharpest; and THEN we look at the noise / grain / cropping issues -- you also have to realize that the longer the effective focal length, the more blur you get from any movement, you or the subject moving so a larger image that you crop may also be a sharper, clearer image that you crop while the APS-C sensor image may get much more blur from movement

Others are pointing out that with the ability to use ISO 3200, you can get shots with the 5D you simply can; not get with any APS-C, 7D included; lower light or stopping action with higher shutter speeds

And then the Autofocusing speed and metering speed come in to play as these, too, will limit your ability to get that special shot

There is no absolute here, you need to prioritize your needs and go from there or you will end up with a combination that fits someone else's needs and not yours


----------



## gabriele (Feb 4, 2012)

ejenner said:


> Although FF does have better high ISO, if you crop the noise is magnified and in general an uncropped 7D image will be less noisy than a 5DII image cropped to the same FOV.



Strongly disagree. Probably you have never tried a 5D mark II, otherwise you woud definetely notice the difference on a 100% crop picture.
Full frame cameras have way better picture quality, that becomes even more noticeable if you raise the ISO and compare it to crop cameras.


----------



## mStevens (Feb 5, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> "Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions such as in a high school gym or at an outdoor stadium at night? "
> 
> What do you mean by "perform better" Better IQ, Better sensitivity, faster focusing, faster metering?
> 
> ...



archangelrichard, My needs are a new body that will allow better hand held shots in less than perfect lighting. By this I mean action shots with no blur, no underexposure, no noise. Yes there are many factors that contribute to the ideal shot and for every feature there appears to be some give and take. I guess my initial thoughts were that a camera with good ISO would solve most of my problems and I never considered Autofocusing speed and metering speed. Thanks for bringing this up! Can you and other CR forum members please provide your comments on Autofocusing speed and metering speed for the 5D Mark II and the 7D.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 5, 2012)

The 5DII has better high iso performance therefor will allow you faster shutter speeds therefore less or no motion blur


----------



## thatguyyoulove (Feb 5, 2012)

gabriele said:


> ejenner said:
> 
> 
> > Although FF does have better high ISO, if you crop the noise is magnified and in general an uncropped 7D image will be less noisy than a 5DII image cropped to the same FOV.
> ...


Actually I'm fairly certain he is correct. The 5D has lower noise overall(per pixel), but the 7D has less noise per area. This is just due to the crop mainly, which will magnify the 5D's noise 1.6 times. In real life you would just buy a lens that is 1.6 times the focal length of what you would use on the 7D so that you get the same FOV, but less noise. So, yes, he was right. However I would wager that it doesn't really matter in the real world. And I'm a 7D owner.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2012)

gabriele said:


> Strongly disagree. Probably you have never tried a 5D mark II, otherwise you woud definetely notice the difference on a 100% crop picture.
> Full frame cameras have way better picture quality, that becomes even more noticeable if you raise the ISO and compare it to crop cameras.



I think you're missing the point. Yes, if you view a 7D image and a 5DII image as 100% crops, the 5DII image will have a lot less noise. But for a given focal length, the 5DII will have far fewer pixels on target. The question at hand is comparing the noise in a 7D shot to a shot taken with the same lens on a 5DII and then cropped to the same FoV as you'd get with the 7D. When you do that (and since I have both cameras, I have done it), you find that the images have pretty similar noise, but you've got 18 MP from the 7D and only 8 MP from the 5DII. Now, if you take both of those resulting images and print them at a fixed size, say 8x10", you'll be downsampling the 7D image more, and it will actually appear to have _less_ noise than the 5DII image. 

Obviously, the above only applies when you're limited by focal length. If you can use a lens with a 1.6x longer focal length on the 5DII so you don't have to crop, you'll get a much better image from the 5DII (assuming the 5DII's AF is able to keep your subject in focus).


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2012)

mStevens said:


> Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions such as in a high school gym or at an outdoor stadium at night? Would a 5D Mark II be my best choice for upgrading from a 40D? I was considering a 7D, however, I have read a couple of entries on this forum where it is mentioned that the 7D is not as clear as the 40D.



The 7D out performs the (still quite good) 40D in every way. But people have a tendency to compare images at 100% in PS. They fail to understand that higher resolution at 100% = greater magnification of the APS-C or FF image. At a target print or screen size the higher resolution image will be better even though it may look "worse" at 100% where any softness, blur, or noise is magnified more.

The 5D2 has about a 1 to 1.5 stop noise advantage at high ISO (i.e. 3200, 6400). I don't find this to be noticeable in small and medium prints. ISO 1600 and 3200 are perfectly usable on the 7D. I've printed plenty of ISO 3200 8x10's from HS gym basketball games and they are clean. The few 16x20's I've done do show some noise, but they're still very good prints.

The 5D2 would show an IQ advantage for a 16x20 under gym conditions, but I'm not confident the AF would hold up. Nor do I think I would trade 8 fps for 1 stop lower noise.

FYI, in a gym I generally shoot my 85 f/1.8 at f/2 or f/2.8 with ISO ranging from 1600-3200.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> Others are pointing out that with the ability to use ISO 3200, you can get shots with the 5D you simply can; not get with any APS-C, 7D included; lower light or stopping action with higher shutter speeds



Not to pick on your post in particular, but...it's ridiculous to claim the 7D is unusable at 3200. The 7D is quite good at 3200. I do apply NR at that ISO, but I would with a 5D2 as well. It's at 6400 that things start to become iffy on the 7D, where the 5D2 is still easily usable.

Anyone who gets an unusable 3200 shot from a 7D is either a) severely underexposing, or b) using a workflow that exaggerates noise.

That said, I have found myself in gyms where I was pushed to shoot f/1.8 and ISO 3200, right at the edge on the 7D's envelope so to speak. I don't know what the gyms are like where Stevens is shooting.


----------



## Mooose (Feb 5, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My grandchildren's soccer meet with 5D MK II and 70-200mm f/4 IS:



it's about time they livened up the game with a few hurdles.


----------



## gabriele (Mar 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> gabriele said:
> 
> 
> > Strongly disagree. Probably you have never tried a 5D mark II, otherwise you woud definetely notice the difference on a 100% crop picture.
> ...



Well the point was "Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions"...the answer is YES.
We're not talking about crops but final picture quality, if you want to zoom in more get a more powerful lens.
Thinking the way you do you should (to do a fair comparison), zoom in a 7D picture the same amount you zoom in a 5D Mk II picture and then compare the noise, or just compare standard 100% crop noise on both.
If you can't get a more powerful lens most likely you can get closer to the subject, which is something that lot of photographers seem to have forgotten since the advent of zoom lenses.


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Mar 11, 2012)

To keep it simple....lower pixel density sensors, in the same generation of technology, will generally perform better in low light.

So as others are saying, you can't simple say that FF performs better in low light, but if two cameras are released near the same time (i.e. same technolgy generation) and one is full frame and the other crop, AND they have the same number of pixels, then the full frame camera will have lower pixel density (pixels per inch) and thus give better low light performance.

But really this is just academic. Look at the cameras you can afford and then look at the web sites that let you compare the same image taken with both. That will let you see how equivalent that are or aren't. I like dpreview.com and imaging-resource.com If your choice in camera will effect how fast a lens you can get, look at that too. (i.e. if the cheaper camera lets you buy an f2.8 instead of the equivalent f4.0 lens, then you should look at an image on that camera shot one stop faster since the lens will allow that.)

Hope it helps.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 11, 2012)

Where the comparison gets more complicated is that to get the same framed picture between the ff and 1.6 then the quality of the lens will favour the ff. Therefore a same framed picture there will be as least as many pixels from the ff as well as better glass

So there is a good chance that ff will win the IQ race but lose out in the cheapness stakes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2012)

A few days after buying my 2nd 7D, I gave it a ultimate workout. I took it to a local small town rodeo held at night with really weak lighting. A high school gym is blinding by comparison. The sun was barely up to start, so I was able to use my 70-200mm f/4L. As it dimmed, and I got up to ISO 1600, I was forced to switch to my 85mm f/1.8, and my ISO continued to climb to 4000. Then, since the 85mm was not long enough, I was doing 100% crops.

Here are a few shots taken as it got darker. Judge the 7D's capabilities for yourself. I will say that autofocus was supurb and beat my expectations.

ISO 1600 1/800 sec







ISO 3200 1/400 sec 85mm cropped






ISO 4000 1/400 sec 85mm severe crop.







ISO 4000 1/320 sec 85mm 1:1 Crop. There is very little detail left and a lot of NR. 1/320 sec also makes for a lot of motion blur.


----------



## JonJT (Mar 12, 2012)

The measured and perceived performance of the latest FF cameras is definitely superior at high ISO. Having said that, you can do very well with Canon's latest APS-C cameras at high ISOs IF you take care to expose properly and use a good de-noise plugin/software like Noise Ninja or Topaz Denoise. 

Take care to expose as far to the right as you reasonable can and then bring it back down in post. If you add a good noise reduction step in your workflow, you can shoot a stop or two higher than you other wise would and still get very acceptable photos. I'll go up to ISO3200 without thought and, when possible, I'll also go up to ISO6400 on my 60D. The latter doesn't produce the best results but, in those situations, having the lower quality photo is better than having nothing at all.


----------



## Michael7 (Mar 12, 2012)

Yes. FF sensors are much better for low light work.

Where a crop camera wins is versatility. A 300 mm lens becomes an almost 500mm lens, and you can buy decent ultraw wide angles.

I owned both the 5D II and the 7D (bought the 5D II and 24-105 for $2700). I ran them through their paces in tough light at a dog park across a period of two weeks, which also luckily included some birds in flight. Here's what I found:

1.The 5D II has plain better IQ. Sharper, cleaner, better colors.
2. The 5D II center focus point in AI servo is superior to the 7D center focus point in AI servo in poor light. The difference in noticable.
3. The 5D II's outer focus points are inferior to the 7D's outer focus points.
4. The 7D is built better and feels much better in hand.
5. ISO 1600 on the 5D II looks far superior to ISO 800 on the 7D.
6. There is no comparison in sharpness. 5D II destroys 7D.
7. The 7D's 1.6x crop factor makes it more useful for wildlife, even though 5D II has better IQ.

That said, I kept the 7D, kept the 24-105, and sold the 5D II. I like to shoot wildlife. A lot. I can often be found standing inthe rain with my monpod waiting for animals. The 7D wins for this pursuit thanks to the extra reach and improved sealing. I also shoot landscapes, but the 7D is pretty good at those too at ISO 100. If I shot nothing but landscape/portrait, I would own the 5D II and not the 7D.

I see all these rules applying to the 5D III as well.


----------



## CowGummy (Mar 12, 2012)

Mooose said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > My grandchildren's soccer meet with 5D MK II and 70-200mm f/4 IS:
> ...



LOL! No, genuinely - I laughed out loud just then. And it's currently 2am in the morning here and I just woke up my wife next to me in bed... Thank you for the awesome post, at least in my mind - made my day, morning, night, whatever. Hats off.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2012)

CowGummy said:


> Mooose said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



My granddaughter is a soccer nut, and it just slipped in rather than track meet. I wonder how a combination soccer / hurdles would play out?


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

Michael7 said:


> Yes. FF sensors are much better for low light work.
> 
> Where a crop camera wins is versatility. A 300 mm lens becomes an almost 500mm lens, and you can buy decent ultraw wide angles.



I would suggest wins on the budget front as you can always buy a 500mm lens

With WA then ff is king with the 14mm and 8-15. The 10-22 doesn't even get close for IQ.


----------

