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

GeneC wrote in post #12284917
To be honest, I have never even looked at the high iso performance difference between the 3 and 4. ISO 1600 on either is good enough for me. What is important to me is the the crop ability of the 4 for BIF or any other subject in which the 4 far exceeds the 3. That is where it is at with the 4 IMO.

That was the "negative" that I could come up with the 1D3 as well. But it is nice having the successor that has this issue resolved, along with great ISO performance, and other improvements over the 1D3.

The 1D4 is still doing a great job at high ISOs (ISO 6400) at the games!

I rediscovered this thread and forgot that the high ISO noise performance of the IV wasn't any better or even worse than the III, at the pixel level. For some reason, all the comments I have read on POTN since this thread was originally started, was that it was better than the 5DII or, at least, as good as.... had me thinking of possibly getting a IV. Maybe my memory is worse than I thought

This is rather disappointing. It looks like Canon has ran out of any meaningful high ISO improvements since the 5DII/ID2.

ISO performance of the 1d4 is at least as good as the 5d2 and it pulls ahead in the higher ranges since it doesn't display the banding prevalent in the 5d2. If anything this thread highlights just how good a camera the 1d3 still is. Banding aside... the 4 & the 5 do pull ahead when down-rez'ing to the 3's 10mp.

Maybe I am not seeing the samples correctly but the general consensus is the 3 is not as good as the 5 and the samples seem to show the 4 is not as good as the 3, so how can the 4 be better than the 5 ?

Well don't judge it by one set of samples here. There are heaps of reviews and comparisons out there between the 5D2 and 1D4 - general consensus is they are pretty even up to 6400 with the 1D4 pulling ahead after that.

The 1d4 is better than the 5d Mark II. The 5d is better than the 1d mark 3 a little at the pixel level. Remember when you have 21mp versus 10mp then noise will look better on the 21mp body when viewing the whole image. I have shot with all three bodies and the 1d mark 4 was clearly the best. The 1d mark 3 was closer to the 5d mark 2 than I would have believed until I shot with it. It is just the 10mp that was so limiting for cropping, etc.

Which would print a cleaner 16 x 20 not having to resort to NR etc. That's all I care about. I really don't get into pixel level, if-you-downsize-to-match etc. Interesting sitting around talking over a beer but, ultimately, how it translates into real life is the only thing that counts.

I agree the 5d2 will print better than the mark 3. I figure the 5d2 and the mark 4 is the same up to iso 3200 and then the mark 4 gets marginally better at 6400 and higher. I have taken some 12,800 shots with the mark IV and was shocked. The 5d2 was good as well, just less so. I don't think the selling point of the mark IV is high iso when comparing to a 5d2.... It is all the other well known features that may not be worth $2500 more

Rai33 wrote in post #12701634
Well don't judge it by one set of samples here. There are heaps of reviews and comparisons out there between the 5D2 and 1D4 - general consensus is they are pretty even up to 6400 with the 1D4 pulling ahead after that.

There are very few comparisons that do these back to back at the same exact exposure settings. This thread is for the 1D3 vs 1D4, I have a different comparison of the 5D2 to the 1D4, that does indeed show the 1D4 ahead of the 5D2.

https://photography-on-the.net …448&highlight=m​ini-review

If we would like to discuss the 5D2 vs the 1D4, it is better served in the post that has the comparisons.

jase1125 wrote in post #12701821
I don't think the selling point of the mark IV is high iso when comparing to a 5d2.... It is all the other well known features that may not be worth $2500 more

Yet strangely, that is the one thing that pops to the surface each time we discuss these 2 bodies.

in low light conditions shooting skin tones, such as weddings, which one is better?

Team,

im still amazed at this each time I read it.

Does this mean, when the 1D3 came out, that it was THAT good with high ISO's?

pyrojim wrote in post #12702931
Team,

im still amazed at this each time I read it.

Does this mean, when the 1D3 came out, that it was THAT good with high ISO's?

It was, from what I remember, and even when the 1Ds3 came out, invariably high ISO questions would divert to the 1D3 instead. I have said this many times, the ONLY shortcoming that I ever found with the 1D3 was its resolution. AF was great, ISO handing was great, low-light was great, etc. It is a very well rounded body IMO.

This particular 1D3 is in Iraq currently.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10227​46/0#9721276
http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10155​39/0#9646756

Im really impressed with the 1D3 at high iso. I was a little concerned but after shooting 4 weddings with it , i am completely at ease up to 3200 iso. Im using the 5d2 for all large group formals, 1d3 for most everything else. There is not a hell of a lot of difference b/t these camera body files on the 5D2 and the 1D3 at higher iso. Definately nothing my clients can pick out. I think photographers get way too nit picky about this stuff to the point that is gets to be a bit of " my gear is better than your gear" bantering.

In my judgement, they are all exceptional cameras and it really boils down to how much you want to invest to have the latest and greatest photography gear. At this point, with the camera technology as it stands, clients will not see these minimul differences that trained photographers eyes will see, so in my mind, its all about bragging rights amung photographers. Hate to be so blunt, but really, its just the simple truth especially if you spend any time testing the cameras and making honest real world comparisons.

I do understand the cropping argument for Birds in flight and that type of photography where a larger mp sensor clearly has its advantages. But i think for what 90% of photographers do, A 16mp sensor on a 1D4 v/s a 1D3 is not very much. Definately not enough to justify a $3000.00 price difference b/t the two camera bodies, especially if you own both formats and have a 5D2.

As for noise, Im not surprised by speeds results at all. 10mp v/s 16mp ?? I think on the center point the 5d2 is the king, as it should be with a 21mp full frame sensor. We all know the problem. Center point is not enough for most of us and its the AF systems that really distinguish these two formats for now. We shall see what we shall see with the 5D3 update, when and if it ever gets here.

I grabbed a used 1D3 that had a shutter count of 2697 for $2000.00. basically it was brand new. Best deal ive had to date for a camera body and especially for where the camera technology is today. My opinions are if you want the lastet and greatest grab a 1D4. But a 1D3 is more than enough. The 1D3 got a lot of unjustified krap thrown at it from photographers. Its one hell of a camera and now that its in a price range that i can justify, im darn glad to have it.

The new 1DsMarkIV will be a game changer. But its also going to cost $7000.00. Im not holding my breath on the 5D3 upgrade