Canon vs nikon iso performance

Many people jumped ship to Sony years ago because they wowed the world with incredible autofocus performance and features not possible in DSLR's, but many also stuck with their existing systems, waiting for technology to eventually catch up. As time moved on it has become increasingly difficult to ignore all of the advantages mirrorless camera systems provide, so here we are, in , where Canon and debatably Nikon are finally catching up in tech.

Enter the Canon R6 and R5 camera bodies. Canon appears to have noticed they were starting to lose to Sony and put in incredible amounts of work into these cameras. Never have I seen Canon pack so much into any camera as these two, they truly did an amazing job. These cameras are worthy competitors to Sony.

When playing back photos on the Canon, as well as while taking them, it appeared that the R6 was significantly cleaner than the Nikon. I had to take some samples on both to load onto my computer to see if this was going to be the case once it came to the actual raw files.

I was a bit surprised with the results. Owners worked around this by turning on Long Exposure Noise Reduction, then when LENR kicked in after an exposure, they would manually turn off the camera power. Clearly, this clumsy workaround made it impossible to automate the acquisition of raw image sequences with Nikons. Are Nikons still handicapped?

In examining deep-sky images at the pixel-peeping level below , I saw absolutely no difference in resolution or the ability to record tiny and faint stars. With its 4-megapixel advantage the Nikon should resolve finer details and smaller stars, but in practice I saw little difference. I think it is time to lay this bugbear of Nikons to rest.

The Nikon D proved to be just as sharp as the Canon 6D. Note that in the closeups above, the red area marks a highlight the galaxy core that is overexposed and clipped.

Nikon DSLRs also have a reputation for having sensors with a larger dynamic range than Canon, allowing better recording of highlights before clipping sets in. However, in practice I saw very little difference in dynamic range between the two cameras. Both clipped at the same points and to the same degree. Less light falls on the edges of the sensor. The vignetting effect is noticeable only when we boost the contrast to the high degree demanded by deep-sky images, and when shooting through fast telescope systems.

It can be compensated for by using Lens Correction in Adobe Camera Raw, or eliminated by taking flat fields. The dark edge at the bottom of the frame is from shadowing by the upraised mirror. It can be eliminated only by taking flat fields, or reduced by using masked brightness adjustments in processing. So far the Nikon D and Canon 6D are coming up fairly equal in performance. But not here. This is where the Nikon outperforms the Canon by quite a wide margin.

See how the two cameras rendered the scene? Very similar, albeit with the Canon showing more noise and discoloration in the dark frame corners. These are now 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-stops underexposed, respectively. Then we boost the Exposure setting of the underexposed Raw files later in processing, by 1, 2, 3 or 4 f-stops. What do we see? With the Nikon above we see images that look nearly identical for noise to what we got with the properly exposed ISO original.

With the Canon above we get images with grossly worse noise in the shadows and with ugly magenta discoloration. Canons cannot be underexposed.

You must use as high an ISO as needed for the correct exposure. The Canon turns ugly purple at -3EV underexposure, and loses all detail and contrast at -4EV underexposure. For nightscape imaging this is an important consideration.

We are limited in exposure time and aperture, and so are often working at the ragged edge of exposure. Dark areas of a scene are often underexposed and prone to noise. With the Nikon D these areas may still look noisy, but not much more so than they would be at that ISO speed. With the Canon 6D, underexpose the shadows and you pay the price of increased noise and discoloration when you try to recover details in the shadows. Apparently, the difference comes from where the manufacturer places the analog-to-digital circuitry: on the sensor ISO invariant or outboard on a separate circuit ISO variant , and thus where in the signal path the amplification occurs when we boost ISO speed.

One could go on endlessly about features, but here I compare the two cameras on just a few key operating features very important to astrophotographers. The Canon 6D has none, though newer Canons do. Any longer requires an outboard intervalometer, as with the Canon. If you use your camera with any motion control time-lapse unit, then it becomes the intervalometer, negating any capability built into the camera. When taking time-lapse or star trail images with the Canon I can set an interval as short as 1 second between frames, for a minimum of gaps or jumps in the stars.

With the Nikon, controlled internally by its built-in intervalometer, a 1-second interval is possible but only if you set the interval to 33 seconds for a second shutter speed. A little known fact! So the interval between shutter firings has to be set to 33 seconds. The Canon 6D has none. The Nikon D has a very useful tilt-out screen as shown above. This is hugely convenient for all forms of astrophotography. Only cropped-frame Canons have tilt-out screens.

The Nikon has none. With Long Exposure Noise Reduction ON, the Canon 6D allows up to four exposures to be shot in quick succession before the dark frame kicks in and locks up the camera. So it can be too bright at night. You stated that the shortest interval between shots on the D is 3 or four seconds. It might have been due to not being familiar with setting the internal intervalometer to give a 1-sec interval. It can be done and I have revised the text to explain how.

And delete that advantage to Canon. Canon model is a great purchase for a hobby or a career start. They stand in the same price range but are far from being identical in specs.

If you would like to capture everything with stunning clarity, speed and resolution, choose this camera model. Is there an absolute winner? As I confronted Canon vs Nikon semi pro, I could not reach a strong verdict but I had a higher preference for the Nikon photography camera. At the same time, they could do much more with such internals. It is still a great option even despite those downsides.

Pay attention to the lenses. As for D, it is really hard to find flaws in the rugged, nearly professional camera. The autofocus with points is gorgeous, continuous drive and 4K UHD footage are amazing. There is a big selection of them in both brands. If you need extreme resolution and extreme speed, choose the D that allows you to capture fast action in Thus, shooting is made more convenient with it through the articulating screen that opens more angles.

Additionally, the LCD itself has a visibly higher resolution.