Mini-Review: 1D4 vs 1D3 High ISO Comparison

Okay, time for another useless but fun comparison. This time, I looked at the 1D4 vs the 1D3 at ISOs 3200 through 12800. ISO 1600 was so very close, it wasn't worth looking at.

Here is what I did to set the stage for the comparison images below.

1) Shot 3 images with the 1D3 at each ISO in raw, with high ISO NR set to ON
2) Shot 3 images with the 1D4 at each ISO in raw, with high ISO NR set to STANDARD
3) Used DPP on each image setting the same WB (see notes below on this), one time each where DPP honored the NR values from camera, and one where I set NR to zero.

Comparisons Below:
a) Difference in the metering systems between the two
b) Crops of each image with in-camera NR honored, where I resized the 1D4 down to match the 1D3
c) The 12800 shots post processed with Noiseware/Smart Sharpen for both
d) Crop comparisons of resulting JPG with NR turned off in NR, then different comparisons of resizing one to the other, and post processing results, etc.

Brief Observation:

These two are very similar to each other, but there is an edge given to the 1D4 due to the larger resolution that can be resized down, and it seems to be more even/controlled at the higher ISOs, where the 1D3 starts to show the blue blotchiness (which I saw on my previous 1D3). The metering on the 1D4 does better in CFL lighting, still not great, but there is a definite improvement, much like I saw with the 7D.

In any case, they are both very good, and if you weren't pixel-peeping, you may not even be able to tell. It is nice to see that the 1D4 does have an edge, and with the increased resolution even, so it is definitely more versatile at low light shooting with more cropping power.

I hope you enjoy this brief overview and let the discussions ensue!

Here is the general test subject, low light, just 2 lights overhead in our basement. Here are the differences in color/light metering between the two, straight raw to JPG with AWB.

1D3 first, then 1D4...

1D3 vs 1D4 at 3200, 6400, then 12800

Okay, crops from each (1D3 on left obviously, 1D4 on right) at the ISO 6400 level, since this is the last Canon-supported selectable ISO for the 1D3, both where NR was turned off in DPP, this would be pure Raw to JPG results.

back to back

ISO 12800 on a 1D3 - how did you manage that?

In your 2nd post & 2nd image set, why is the 3 "sized" to the Mk4? Did I miss something, thought they where both 1.3's.

the WB sure looks better on the 4 ......unless you adjusted it.

cristphoto wrote in post #12271379
ISO 12800 on a 1D3 - how did you manage that?

Shoot -1 exposure in raw, then adjust exposure +1 when converting the raw to jpg

SeanH wrote in post #12271437
In your 2nd post & 2nd image set, why is the 3 "sized" to the Mk4? Did I miss something, thought they where both 1.3's.

the WB sure looks better on the 4 ......unless you adjusted it.

Resizing images result from resolution differences, not format differences. Yes, the awb with the ifcl metering on the 1D4 works better than the old metering.

This is actually disappointing, in a way. At the pixel level, the IV doesn't look any better than the III in any meaningful way (or at all). When you factor in the added pixels, then, in real use, there will be some improvement when printing large or need to crop.

So, does this mean that technology has reached it's peak with current sensor and electronics technology ? This does not bode well for the upcoming 5DIII, imo, if Canon decides, which they will, to increase the pixel density.

It does mean that the 1D3 is a great value at its current price point though!

Considering a 60% increase in resolution with some improvement at the high ISOs, that is still a good thing to see with the 1D4. Not a major advancement, sure, but if they upped resolution and ISO handling also improved a bit in the sense it is easier to clean up either in-camera or during post, then that is a positive. I am still keeping the 1D4, regardless, my big complaint on the 1D3 was the lack of resolution for cropping.

Yes, the 5D3 will be an interesting announcement.

At 12,800 the images look like they're oil paintings, cool comparison.

Here is my final output on the 12800 from the 1D4, using my 1D4 medium noise action in CS3.

so, it looks like that 1D3 is still good buy. Considering to buy one, but i'm not sure. What do you think?

If the IDIII had more pixels, let's say, around 14meg I would have bought that instead of a 7D. I often need room to crop and still print fairly large.

very happy with the noise performance compared to my previously owned 7D. Overall I like the files from the 1d4 better, but really not $3000+ better

I am a bit confused from the standpoint of this-many times I have read on this forum, from knowledgeable users, that the 1D Mark IV "blows away" the 5DII when it comes to ISO 6400, and ISO 12,800 noise. Looking at this, where it barely looks any different or "better" than the 1D III, how can it possibly "Blow away" the 5D II? am I blind, or are the posters blind?