Will the R6 be any better in low light than the R5 in real terms?

Nov 12, 2016
801
536
I noticed the standard ISO range for the R6 goes one stop higher than the R5 (102400 on the R6, vs 51200 on the R5.) This makes sense because of the lower resolution and larger pixels.

But with just under half the resolution on the R6, at the risk of setting off a heated debate, is it fair to say that the high ISO noise performance between the two cameras will probably be pretty similar to one another for any photo viewed at a given size? I would think any higher amount of noise on the R5 will be negated by the fact that you are only looking at the photo at about half the scale of a photo from the R6 at any given size.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
16,038
1,139
The sensor from the 1D MK III has lower noise. That's basically what a ISO measurement determines. At very high ISO's, it can be noticeable, and low ISO's, it won't be,
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
808
975
The sensor from the 1D MK III has lower noise. That's basically what a ISO measurement determines. At very high ISO's, it can be noticeable, and low ISO's, it won't be,
Given that I am looking for a backup low light wildlife camera and a dedicated Aurora camera the R6 is looking better and better for me based on the high ISO performance. It almost seems too good to be true.
 
Nov 3, 2014
698
507
I noticed the standard ISO range for the R6 goes one stop higher than the R5 (102400 on the R6, vs 51200 on the R5.) This makes sense because of the lower resolution and larger pixels.

But with just under half the resolution on the R6, at the risk of setting off a heated debate, is it fair to say that the high ISO noise performance between the two cameras will probably be pretty similar to one another for any photo viewed at a given size? I would think any higher amount of noise on the R5 will be negated by the fact that you are only looking at the photo at about half the scale of a photo from the R6 at any given size.
My guess is you'd have a hard time telling the difference. We already know from IDX III testing that the 20 MP sensor is excellent and there's no reason to think the brand new 45MP sensor won't be very good as well. If I were choosing between the two, noise wouldn't be big factor for me. If you think you will be shooting a lot of very high ISO that might be a reason to go to the 20MP sensor but I'd have to be conviced you couldn't get the same result from sampling down the larger 45MP.

But, I've never even seen either camera so that's just my guess if it's any value to you. I think the highest ISO I've ever used "successfully" used was 10,000 and that was a 20 MP file from a 1DX Mark II.