The topic of low light performance between APS-C bodies and full frame bodies comes up here frequently. I tell people that the biggest difference between DX and FX is how much it costs. That opinion is based on my experience, and it frequently gets downvoted.

Below are 6 shots. 3 were shot with a Z50 with a DX lens, 3 were shot with a Z5 with an FX lens. The Z50 setup cost new is approximately $1100. The Z5 setup cost new is approximately $1700. All shots were taken in aperture priority, with Auto ISO at f/1.8. Each has been run through Lightroom with auto settings. They have been resized so that the resolution doesn't give away which is which. I'm not saying that you can't see a difference at all, but be honest; How hard did you have to look?

Sunday morning I'll update the post with which is which and the rest of the relevant EXIF info.

EDIT: My comparison has been rather effectively torn apart. I'll take the feedback and think about doing another comparison in the future. Extra info added to the descriptions. For some reason two of the photos disappeared when I edited this. Don't know why.

Shot 1a - Z50, AF-S DX 35 f/1.8 - 1/60 ISO 5600

​

Shot 1b - Z5 AF-S 50 f/1.4, 1/50 ISO 3200

​

Shot 2a - Z5 AF-S 50 f/1.4 - 1/50 ISO 220

​

Shot 2b, Z50 AF-S DX 35 f/1.8 - 1/60 ISO 360