6D vs 5d-mk3 for long exposure high ISO

[Ben_Egbert]

Some on line info of unkown accuracy shows the 6D has better long exposure high ISO performance. This is known as amp glow. 

The intended usage would be for astro phorotgraphy or night photgraphy where 30 second exposures at ISO1600 and up are required.

I already have a 5D-mk3 comming for evaluation where I will compare it to my 1DS-mk3. But I thought this is a good question for this forum. It seems strange that the lower cost camera would have supperior performance. 

Anyone have personal experince or a technical explanation? Or is the information incorrect?

The same info also shows a vast improvement over the 1DS-mk3 and 5D-mk2

[ScottyP]

Not sure about long exposures in particular, but most of the reputable reviews I have seen say that the 6D has a slight noise advantage over 5D3, but only at high ISO's.  Part may be due to the sensor being just a bit newer, but I am sure part of it is simply good-old-fashioned lower pixel density due to having 10% fewer MP's.

Low light was more important to me than extreme action so I went 6D.  Between the possible 5D3 AF lag in low light, and the 5D3 lack of red AF points, and then this slight 6D advangage in low noise at high ISO, I thought it made the best sense for me personally.

Good luck!

[EOS6D]

I know this topic is long dead, but somehow I was searching more comparisons at night shooting scenario between 6d vs 5dm3 and came across that topic (also in this forums here).

I think that below article comparing 6d to 5dm3 (and later also to 5dm2) at iso 3200 & 6400 with 15 sec & 30 sec exposure time, shows pretty good results in favor of 6D. the maker of that comparison also intended to use 6D camera for astrophotography.

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/canon-6d-and-5dmk3-noise-comparison-for-high-iso-long-exposures/

hope it helps.

[TCampbell]

The one issue this ignores is the amount of time necessary to create an exposure.

I tested a 5D II and tested it against the 60Da for astrophotography and was blown away by the difference. The filter on the 60Da is so much better (filter.... not sensor) that the 60Da can capture an image in substantially less time (I had tripled the exposure time on the 5D II vs what was used on the 60Da and it still hadn't captured as much light as the 60Da).

The standard low-pass filter blocks a lot of the light that astro-imagers want. Even better still would be to use a camera with no filter (use a filter wheel on the scope to control the bandpass) and of course the bayer mask used to record color is diminishing the performance as well (if you're using a filter wheel, you don't need a bayer mask.)

I have not tested my 5D III against the 60Da, but that would be an interesting comparison. I can only say that the 5D II needed about to a 2 minute exposure to capture what the 60Da could get in about 30 seconds (using the same ISO). Shortening that exposure time is a really big deal when imaging.

[ScottyP]

One thing is certain in the OP's question comparing 6d to 5d3 for long exposure night photography: This kind of photography renders the 5d3's expensive AF completely unnecessary. If this kind of work, and/or things like portraits, landscape, candids, macro, travel, are the main part of your usage, you probably dont need to spend the extra $thousand on 5d3, and should perhaps think of spending that money on glass instead.

And as for sports: I do shoot my girls' soccer games with 6d and I really don't have any problem getting great action shots with it. I only ever have trouble if they are coming directly towards the camera at top speed. I will bet that particular shot is somewhat hit-and-miss on 5d3 too.