1D markII vs 1OD at iso 1600 ?

[Pef]

I want to know if they are any differences between shots at iso 1600 from a 1D mark II and a 10D.

I like to take night photos and I'm very excited by the 1D mark II.

Let me know !

[rebenstein]

I want to know if they are any differences between shots at iso 1600 from a 1D mark II and a 10D.

I like to take night photos and I'm very excited by the 1D mark II.

Let me know !

There is no comparison....

The 10D @ 400 looks to be about as noisy as 1DMKII @ 1600.

[Pef]

Could you post some photos to make comparisons ?

Thanks for your answer !

[Haifidelity]

You could compare DPREVIEW's crops of them two (it's a gray image..but what the heck)

1DMKII : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp

10D : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page18.asp

[Pef]

At first glance, I see not a lot of discrepancies between them...

Look rather similar to me...

But that depends how accurate is my monitor !

I prefer some real world comparison...

[petiot111]

There is no comparison....

The 10D @ 400 looks to be about as noisy as 1DMKII @ 1600.

I dont want to be rude or whatsoever, but i think this answer was not very usefull and not objective at all. Even if there is a difference, it is certainly not as you described it, and the links provided by Haifidelity proves it.

I dont have the mkII :( but i l try to post a photo taken with the 10D at 1600.

Dan

[Ballen Photo]

i l try to post a photo taken with the 10D at 1600.

Dan

Here's a link to a shot I took while goofing around trying to come up with a "Grapes of Wrath" type photo of a friends trailer.

10D 1600 ISO with the ISO extension turned on making it ISO 3200? F/3.5 at 1.5 sec exposure, taken at about 10:00 PM.
http://www.fototime.com/CA2806B81FC0723/orig.jpg
Hope this helps, and I'm curious about the results here too. :shock:
.........Bruce

[CyberDyneSystems]

The tests I've seen conclude that the 10D maintains one of the best High ISO low noise ratios of any Digital on the market.

The 1D MkII just barely edges out the 10D.

And yes,. I own both.

However looking at a crop does not tell the whole story.

Couple the "slight" edge that the MkII has over the 10D as far as noise with the MkII's higher resolution.. and the MkII images viewed on screen at anything other than 100% size (ie: shrink the image to fit your screen.. or print for that matter) then the MkII images Appear to have MUCH less noise than the 10D images.

This is because by reducing the higher res image to fit the same size screen or print as the lower res 10D image, you are also reducing the size of the "grains" of the MkII's noise relative to the entire image.

Thus the MkII's ISO 1600 images may look like a 10D's ISO 400 images (more like 800 IMHO..) but at a 100% crop they are very nearly the same.

Catch my drift?

[CyberDyneSystems]

P.S. Bruces image is indeed at ISO 3200.. and it is such a dakr setting that it also looks a tad underexposed. Neither camera will perform well under these circumstances.

The difference between a good ISO 1600 shot well exposed and a dark ISO 3200 shot is significant.

[Pekka]

In my experience Mark II ISO noise is much more tolerant to post processing than 10D. You can use plain USM even on whole of ISO 1600 image without getting "starfield" effect like 10D very easily does at ISO 800, also curves and levels do not affect noise as much as with 10D. The quality of noise more film grain like in Mark II and as such it is not as distractive. Level of noise varies a bit on every Mark II image based on exposure, dynamic range and color content (I'm pretty sure this is due to internal DIGIC processing, and of course camera temperature affects, too) but with good exposure Mark II ISO 1600 can have less noise than 10D at 800.

Both cameras have excellent price/performance ratio.