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

Interesting, isn't it. I think they mean, just guessing, at really high ISO (6400+).

Hm...

I'm with Bohdank on this one... seems to me the 1D4 isn't a "significant" improvement, which is depressing considering there's a 3-year difference. Also makes me cautiously curious as to what Canon has in store for the 5D3. Granted the increase in resolution/pixels does have ~1-stop advantage once you downsize it down to compare with the previous generation (1d4 -> 1d3, 7D -> 50d, etc...) I would've hoped that in 3 years, there would be a bit more improvement than what you've shown.

Oh well... I guess sensor tech (for Canon at least) has plateau'd. It also brings about another question of curiosity... what is Nikon/Sony sensor doing differently at the hardware level, and/or software/processing level to yield better pixel-peeping results these past few years? I am aware that for example, the D7000 will always have some level of NR on beyond ISO1600, even if you try to turn off NR, it will still apply it. Whatever Nikon/Sony has discovered, Canon obviously hasn't.

Nikon has less resolution. The D700 has 12 mpixels. I don't think Nikon has done anything amazing, based on the limitations they've made in pixel density. They chose to take one route and Canon a different one.

Nikon is now concentrating on increasing their pixel densities. I am not convinced that Nikon can or will do any better than Canon has done with a sensor of identical pixel density.

how is the AF between the two, low light/low contrast? some say the 1d3 is better? Having owned a 1d4, it did have issues.

TeamSpeed
as always great work - thanks for sharing
i wish you would have included the 7D as well (but you sold it)
do you think the 7D is 1 or 2 stops worse?

It is funny to see all of us complaining on lack of progress when few (very few) years back iso 800 was a utterly unusable - now we need to dive to the pixel sea to see the noise.

There are many more possible improvement to sensors that i am sure we shall see in next gen cameras and as long as Nikon is out there Canon will do a great job in making progress (and visa versa)

anscochrome wrote in post #12272874
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?

it means they spent a lot of money and are trying to justify their purchase.

The 1D4 sure looked better than the 1D3 to me. The white balance issue is obvious. In the 100% crops the noise levels were similar despite the fact that in the 1D4 the pixels are much smaller (since it's 16MP instead of 10MP, both APS-H). And looking at the "1D4 sized down to the 1D3" pictures (which is seems to me is the fairest comparison) just look at that dark spot in the middle of the left side. The 1D4 is a lot less noisy there. The noise-reduced version seems to have retained more detail too, e.g. in the large green leaf in the lower left.

Perhaps that's not "blows away" territory, but the 1D4 photos sure do look better to me.

anscochrome wrote in post #12272874
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?

I've used the 1D3 and 1D4 for indoor sports. Where I find a difference is in making larger size prints (up to 20x30, but usually 16x20) from these cameras at ISO 6400 and ISO 12800.

There are two things I found:

1) The 1D4 is about 1 stop better in equal sized prints compared to the 1D3. Files processed with LR2.3 would match the 1D3's ISO 3200 about the same as the 1D4 at ISO 6400.

2) LR3's newer RAW converter allows use of ISO 12800 because of better noise reduction, and the 1D4 stands up to this NR better than the 1D3. I presume it is the additional detail from the higher pixel count that affords this, but the end result is that I can get to ISO 12800 with the 1D4 and I could not with the 1D3.

I see results from the OP's testing that support my own results. I'm not sure what other people are looking at here when they don't see an improvement, but I can tell you if you make equal size prints from these two cameras, the 1D4 has less noise to start and tolerates NR better. This is what the OP's test shows as well.

I think people are too used to looking at 100% views and not equal sized prints perhaps.

I've never had both bodies in my hands at the same time but when I first picked up my 1D4 I went back and compared similar shots from 1D3 rental bodies. I came to the same conclusion, the 1D3 is a great camera and the 1D4 is a hair better when it comes to noise.

mikekelley wrote in post #12273511
it means they spent a lot of money and are trying to justify their purchase.

I've said many times that the 1D3 is an excellent camera that never got much respect after the initial focus issues surfaced. For 10mp the results are outstanding. I've taken comparable test shots between the 1D3 and 1DS3 and at 11x14 you really are hard pressed to tell the difference. To those that think you can't make good enlargements with it, I make 16x20 and 20x24 prints all the time with no customer complaints. People that actually own a 1D3 realize you don't necessarily need 16, 21 or 24 mp to make excellent prints. As to noise, for my shooting it's not really an issue. I rarely go higher than ISO 1600 (but sometimes go to 2000, 3200 or 6400 as needed) and simply use fast lenses to capture indoor sports action or no-flash weddings.

One of my photos was printed at 24x36 and is currently hanging on the walls of the PocketWizard headquarters/mothershi​p/whathaveyou. From a 1d Mark III...I love this camera to death. I have never had a client complain about size or quality. The files hold up very very well to enlarging, too.

Interesting observation.
I'd pick the camera that can focus...the 1DMKIII.

Ok-I feel better-now that I am home looking at these on my calibrated, non glossy Samsung SyncMaster 245T, the ID IV does look better than the 1D III. I initially looked on a calibrated 22" imac screen (glossy schlmossy).

I will now put my tail between my legs, take my 5DII with a mounted 5cmm F 2.8 Yashinon Tessar derivative, and go hide somewhere.

I'd say at ISO3200-6400, they are closer than I would have imagined.

nicksan wrote in post #12274161
I'd say at ISO3200-6400, they are closer than I would have imagined.

And to an untrained eye, I bet they couldn't even notice a difference.