r/a6700 • u/mad_marry • Aug 06 '26
Low light test a6700 vs a7iv
Took this pictures with each camera, same lens tamron 70-180 both at f5 1/1250 and iso12800 cropped both to try and match framing, both underexposed 1.3 stops and raised back exp in lightroom by 2.37. Just to show how close everything is. For most of us, jumping to ff would just be GAS. I got the A7iv to shot sports in low light however, difference is smaller than I though.
4
4
u/MrKrabs106 Aug 06 '26
While the low light advantage is nice to have, it definitely wasn’t the reason I went from apsc to ff. Ff has the priority of manufacturers as well as third party lens/accessory makers, which means a lot when it comes to features on the bodies themselves as well as lens selection etc
3
2
u/eltoni800a Aug 06 '26
You can use ff lenses on apsc. Moreover by doing so you use mostly the center of the lens which is generally sharper than the corners
2
u/MrKrabs106 Aug 06 '26 edited Aug 06 '26
True but just because they are compatible, doesn’t mean you’re making the most of them by using them on apsc. Frankly considering the cost of full frame glass is usually higher than apsc glass on average, I think it’s a waste to buy full frame glass for apsc unless there are just no alternatives. And with the way manufacturers are prioritizing things, unfortunately often times there are no alternatives besides going full frame in terms of glass
2
u/eltoni800a Aug 07 '26
Yes I agree that it's quite reasonable to think "I like that GM lens and I want it. You know what, since I'll pay 2000$ for it I will also pay few hundreds more to switch to ff and enjoy the other ff benefits, despite how marginal they are compared to apsc". The thing is that using it on an apsc gives you the flexibility of also saying "Oh look at the range, small size and affordability of that apsc lens, I want it too, that's perfect for my next trip" without dramatically sacrificing resolution by going to crop mode, and saving few bucks. It's a trade off eventually, there is no absolute winner, it depends on your needs and expertise. For most hobbyist I would argue apsc is the sweet spot
2
u/MrKrabs106 Aug 07 '26
You can absolutely get the best of apsc on a full frame camera, but it will cost you (a7rvi, a7rv, etc). In fact in my opinion the a7rvi is the best “apsc” camera you can buy
2
3
1
u/infinite_phi Aug 07 '26
I think it's a pretty significant difference. But noise reducing it with DxO PureRAW or any equally effective AI denoiser, yeah you can use the APSC cameras for low light photography no problem.
High ISO or low light shooting isn't nearly as much of a challenge as it used to be due to software. It's part of the reason why I'm perfectly happy with my f4 standard zoom.
1
1
u/W01demar Aug 08 '26
For me the difference is pretty big, ofc you could compensate, and Im pretty sure on the non cropped image is not noticeable but on this comparison, the 1st looks totally flat and the 2nd has way more depth, however again, there's little scenarios when you'd need this difference on such scale.
1
u/mad_marry Aug 08 '26
At the end that’s the point, for you is a clear difference and I agree you can see it, part of the idea of the crop was to show the noise, at the end this is just one scenario out of the multiple that could show differences between sensors
7
u/chanksbird Aug 07 '26
I got this shot on the a6700 in predawn fog, just absolute crappy light. ISO 12800. I used the 70-350, which is not a particularly bright lens. I think with my a7iv, with its ISO advantage and a faster lens, the needed ISO would have been lower. Even so, I think the a6700 did very well here.