Low Light performance SL2-S/SL3-S vs SL3

[NightPix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have SL2 and SL2-S bodies and especially love the low light performance of the SL2-S. I would like to replace one or both of these cameras, hopefully with one body that has both high resolution (mainly for cropping) AND great low-light performance. Looking at PhotonsToPhotos, the performance of 60MP sensor in the SL3 appears very close to the SL2-S and SL3-S (and the Q3 for that matter).  All have much better low-light performance than the SL2. My question is - how much better is the SL2-S or SL3-S compared to the SL3 in low light. If the difference is relatively minor, I can meet my needs with the SL3. If not, I'll need one of the -S bodies for my low-light work. I'd appreciate hearing thoughts from anyone who has experience with the SL3 and SL3-S in low light situations.

My apologies if this question has been addressed in a previous discussion. My search didn't find it. 

[beewee]

The SL3 comes close to the SL2-S but it’s not the same for high ISO performance if you’re looking to do things like astro work. I don’t have experience with the SL3-S but my expectation is that it is similar or maybe marginally better than the SL2-S but sensor technology has been pretty stagnant over the past 5 years. Sony has dominated the sensor market and they have little incentive to put out even better sensors when there are no viable competitors in the field. Unless there’s a big enough company that can generate enough volume to warrant custom developments with Sony like Nikon or Fuji, I don’t expect much improvement anytime soon, at least not in the high ISO department.

Just based on seeing where the innovation is happening, most of the energy is being put into faster read-out speed to improve video performance, not necessarily because it’s a huge market but because iPhones are catching up and camera manufactures need to defend their market share. However, this is costly because faster readout implies more complex circuitry on the sensor, increasing cost of sensor manufacturing, and eroding camera margins. At some point, there’s only so high of a price the market will be willing to pay and you end up pricing your customers out of the market.

Edited yesterday at 09:02 PM by beewee

[beewee]

One thing that could be worth considering is to go with SL3 and then use post-processing software like Adobe Lightroom’s AI noise removal to help bridge the gap when needed.

I don’t use AI noise removal often as it is time consuming. Running AI noise removal on a 48MP DNG takes about 16-45 seconds on a maxed out M3 Max Macbook Pro.

However, if you’re doing long exposures like astrophotos, unless you’re shooting time lapse sequences, you’re probably not going to have that many images either so using AI noise removal could be a viable workflow option. 

[NightPix]

Thanks! This is very helpful. I need a high resolution sensor for shooting wildlife (often with a telephoto) and there are usually low light challenges. I sometimes use DXO PureRaw to clean up noisy images and it works well. I have had reasonably good luck using my Q3 for astro and moon-lit nightscapes. I wonder if using the pixel binning options in the SL3 improves the sensor’s high ISO performance. 

Edited yesterday at 09:41 PM by NightPix

[jaapv]

I am afraid that it does not appear to do so. 

As for Astro, AI noise reduction tends to remove stars. LENR is better.

[LocalHero1953]

I cannot compare to the SL3, but I have just switched from SL2-S to SL3-S. My early impression, which may change, is that the SL3-S has about a stop advantage in noise over the SL2-S - based on the image after using AI Denoise in Lightroom. At any rate, I have set my AutoISO maximum one stop higher, from 25,000 to 50,000.

Two shots at ISO 50,000 from the SL3-S from Friday night, after denoise, and auto-exposure, just for reviewing purposes - no cropping (or straightening!). One from a rehearsal in even lighting, one from the concert in more hostile overhead lighting. In the latter I cannot lift the shadows much more than here. The results are very acceptable IMO. I should add that I see the low light performance as much (or more) about colour fidelity and saturation as about noise. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited yesterday at 10:41 PM by LocalHero1953

[NightPix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I typically do use LENR for astro with the Q3. Seems like a lost opportunity to improve high ISO performance with pixel binning. I imagine the required extra processing might create performance issues. 
 

 

[beewee]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I cannot compare to the SL3, but I have just switched from SL2-S to SL3-S. My early impression, which may change, is that the SL3-S has about a stop advantage in noise over the SL2-S - based on the image after using AI Denoise in Lightroom. At any rate, I have set my AutoISO maximum one stop higher, from 25,000 to 50,000.

Two shots at ISO 50,000 from the SL3-S from Friday night, after denoise, and auto-exposure, just for reviewing purposes - no cropping (or straightening!). One from a rehearsal in even lighting, one from the concert in more hostile overhead lighting. In the latter I cannot lift the shadows much more than here. The results are very acceptable IMO. I should add that I see the low light performance as much (or more) about colour fidelity and saturation as about noise. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Slightly off-topic but I just noticed all the performers have iPads. It’s been 20 years since I was in the performance arts, before iPads existed, and I still have memories of having to flip through pages during the performance. If I have to guess, there are probably apps that can detect where in the score you are and automatically flip the page or scroll through the score as you perform.

That said, I love the juxtaposition of iPads and instruments that were developed from the 16th century!

Edited 22 hours ago by beewee

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, beewee said:

Slightly off-topic but I just noticed all the performers have iPads. It’s been 20 years since I was in the performance arts, before iPads existed, and I still have memories of having to flip through pages during the performance. If I have to guess, there are probably apps that can detect where in the score you are and automatically flip the page or scroll through the score as you perform.

That said, I love the juxtaposition of iPads and instruments that were developed from the 16th century!

They are quite common among individual singers and instrumentalists these days, though not universal. This particular professional orchestra appear to have made a corporate decision to use them - they're identical, and have foot-operated page turners (bluetooth, I assume), but operate by swipe as well. (I'd hazard a guess they are not expensive ipads but something cheaper with just the basic functionality). I am in a choir with a couple of members who use them, with just swipes to turn the pages.

For a photographer they are a pain: a bright light in your sight line, and a blue colour clashing with typically yellow venue lights!

Edited 14 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[Photoworks]

The SL3 is a har better than the SL2s, but it is all about how much you underexpose.

There is a big difference between SL2 to SL3.

There was a discussion on noise when the SL3 came out, with many samples. must be over a year old now.

[jaapv]

Obviously one EV of underexposure is one stop of EV that you must boost in postprocessing and thus one stop of noise that you add.