Am looking at these two bodies to make a choice for low light shooting. Tripod mounted in relatively dark buildings, moonlight, Auroras and night sky images.
Cold weather is the norm where I live - with temps into the minus 20-40(farenheit) range but much just 10 above to 15 below or so.
I know the 6d has the latest advances and chip. But, will it actually produce finer detail and quality overall in these conditions than the 1DsMkIII?
6D .
The DS3 may be a legend but I'm pretty sure that for long exposures and high iso's the 5D2 beat it .(amp glow for example) and as the 6D is supposed to be canons low light king (well ok the 1Dx may hold the crown) theological conclusion is the 6D should be better
I have decided to keep both. The 1Ds3 controls are better than the 6D's, especially the joystick. The files at low ISOs are similar, but the 6D's high ISO files are 2 or 3 stops better. Most importantly for me, the 6D's size and weight make it an ideal travel camera. So both complement each other.
6D, no question about it. The 1DsmkIII is still the better camera for AF speed and accuracy, but the sensor quality and AF sensitivity of the 6D is beyond dispute. If night scenes are really a specialism of you, you should also have a look at Olympus OM-D. That camera has live bulb exposure which gives you a great control over exposure while the image is build up on the EVF / LCD screen. It doesn't give EOSfun but it's the specialist camera for this type of photography at the moment.
For low light IQ, the 6D has to be better. I don't have a 6D. I used a 1DsIII for many years. I recently sold it to help pay for a 1DX. The 1DsIII was great up to ISO 1600, definitely usable at 3200. High ISO IQ on the 1DsIII at 1600 is equivalent to the 1DX at 12800. It's a whole new ball game. The 6D is on the next-gen side.
Daniel Smith wrote:
I looked at and tried a loaner Olympus SLR, the newest one but the electronic eye level finder drove me nuts. Can't stand using the thing.
It definitely takes some acclimation (and btw it's not an SLR at all, but I'm nitting ).
As for astrophotography - I'm definitely not an expert at this at all, but I've had my hand at some long-exposure stuff with the OM-D that I own.
Live Bulb / Live Time is absolutely awesome, I totally agree with this. Now, would I use this camera over the very low-noise 6D? Probably not.
At base ISO 200-ish or so, the OM-D is fine but IIRC, most night shots are at high 1600+ ISO. I wouldn't want to deal with my OM-D for those types of exposures over the 6D's noise levels. World of difference, especially in longer exposures.
jcolwell wrote:
For low light IQ, the 6D has to be better. I don't have a 6D. I used a 1DsIII for many years. I recently sold it to help pay for a 1DX. The 1DsIII was great up to ISO 1600, definitely usable at 3200. High ISO IQ on the 1DsIII at 1600 is equivalent to the 1DX at 12800. It's a whole new ball game. The 6D is on the next-gen side.
For me the 1Ds3 is fine up to 800 ISO, I won't go higher as I find the noise more difficult to remove than on my other dslr's.
Up to 800 it's a fantastic camera, but the new Canons (like my 5D3) are FAR better at high ISO's
I just compared the 5Dm3 to my 1DS-mk3 for moonlit shots around ISO1600 30 seconds. The 5d3 is better, but not good enough for large prints. Neither camera is.
I have the results posted here. I am thinking a 6D now but have not tried one yet.
stanj wrote:
I read a pretty comprehensive article showing the 1DX to be the best astro camera right now. Unfortunately I can't find the link anymore...
Man, my 5d3 1600 shots were way nosier than his, I wonder why? I did not have nice dark clear sky's. Otherwise I was not doing it that much different. Check my 100% crops.
cputeq wrote:
Maybe his shots were post-processed? Perhaps he clips blacks slightly. This does a lot for night noise.
I thought they were unprocessed. I started to wonder if my higher aperture matters? I had to go to f7.1 and f8 to force the ISO1600 13 seconds. I could have shot at ISO400 but specifically wanted to see the higher settings. But even ISO400 noise needed clean up.
It was nearly a full moon. His was a dark night other than distant lights. I was at about 5000 feet, he was twice that.
Edit, one set shows images with no noise reduction applied. I am amazed at the difference from my results. He says in one place that he uses no NR in camera. What could this mean? NR does not apply to raw. is he shooting jpg? Or does he refer to long exposure nr? My shots used the long exposure nr to reduce amp glow.
