Before I go on, know that this is about the high ISO image quality of full-frame and APS-C cameras. APS-C cameras really need to take a quantum leap forward. We’d know, we’ve tested all of them. In the next year, camera manufactures need to step up in big ways and stop focusing on the megapixel war. Here are some of the findings we’ve seen.
When the Phoblographer tests cameras, we do digital high ISO and printed tests. We print images shot at ISO 6400 and 12,800. If we’re doing ISO 6400, we print at 17×22 on a Canon Prograf 1000 printer. But we print a bit smaller if we’re doing ISO 12,800. For a few years, all the brands were doing a great job with results like this. Recently though, they’re not all so great; we’re starting to see more megapixels but worse high ISO results. So manufacturers need to work on this.
Where high ISO results are starting to look really bad are with APS-C cameras. If you’re shooting at ISO 6400 in very good lighting, the APS-C cameras look great. But if you’re shooting in low light, they aren’t as fantastic. So, this confirms that APS-C cameras are doing a better job for sports. The exception is Fujifilm with the XH2s, but that’s a lower ISO camera. The Canon EOS R7 starts to suffer at higher ISOs in low light. But in full daylight, it does a fantastic job. Granted, it’s also delivering a very detailed shot.
Now, beyond this, photographers are also bound to do post-production to their images before they’re printed. But these tests go to show that the sensors shouldn’t necessarily require so much post-production done. That’s also important because, at higher ISOs, image quality from APS-C cameras starts to fall apart. Try pushing or pulling the files and you’ll get mixed results. Editing the color channels will prove to be difficult too.
That’s where full frame comes in. Full frame cameras, through and through, still do a much better job at managing high ISO sensitivity than APS-C cameras. In fact, they still do pretty much everything better than APS-C cameras except, in some cases, autofocus.
The same, obviously, goes for medium format cameras. While the RAW file versatility of full-frame cameras can sometimes be better because of the tech involved, medium format delivers beautiful colors that best full frame most of the time.
We’re digressing here. So, how much should high ISO output improve? Well, over the past two decades of digital photography, it took a while for ISO 400 to become usable. Then, a few years after, ISO 1600 started to look film-like with cameras like the original Canon 5D. After that, Nikon and Canon both started making cameras that performed well at ISO 6400.
For around a decade, we’ve been more or less stuck between there and ISO 12,800. You might wonder why we’d ever need to go beyond that. There surely are situations. Seeing into the night is just one situation. But when it comes to photographing wildlife in their natural habitats with forest canopy coverage, modern lenses can’t get to a fast enough aperture. So we need better high ISO results. Also consider all the crazy moments you can capture in sports, and what was previously impossible (or difficult) suddenly becomes easier.
Leave a Reply