Canon 1D4 vs 1D3 noise test

Hello POTN members,
i have a Canon 1DMKIII and i'm considering for an upgrade to the 1DMKIV (1Dx is way out of reach lol )i'm all interested in noise at high ISO, i shoot max at ISO 2000 -2500 with my 1D3 for sure 1DMKIV handle noise better, but has anyone made a comparison and mind to share the result?
thank you in advance.

Pak_o wrote in post #13406548
Hello POTN members,
i have a Canon 1DMKIII and i'm considering for an upgrade to the 1DMKIV (1Dx is way out of reach lol )i'm all interested in noise at high ISO, i shoot max at ISO 2000 -2500 with my 1D3 for sure 1DMKIV handle noise better, but has anyone made a comparison and mind to share the result?
thank you in advance.

I shoot with a mk3 and mk4 - the mk4 blows the mk3 away.
I will try and remember to shoot a few high ISO frames for you as a comparison next time I'm at the office (probably Friday or Saturday)

The extra megapixels help hide the noise a lot better too

Echo63 thanks alot mate for ur answer and thanks in advance for the test of high ISO glad to hear that from someone has both, have a good day.

Echo63 wrote in post #13408028
the mk4 blows the mk3 away.

This. I have both bodies and if I have to work in high ISO I will try and shoot with the 4 if I can.

ssim what do you mean by "you will try and shoot with the mk4 if you can"?

Pak_o wrote in post #13412183
ssim what do you mean by "you will try and shoot with the mk4 if you can"?

Ssim is probably in a similar job to me
I generally run a 16-35 on one body, and the 70-200 on the other
Depending on what im doing will depend on which body has what lens.
If i can i will swap lenses over, but sometimes its not possible and the shot has to be taken "right now" not in 10-15 seconds once i have switched lenses over.

I would say that 6400 on the mk4 is similar in noise to 1600ish on the mk3
I am happy to push the mk4 to 12800, and expose correctly (histogram as far to the right as possible without blowing out important hilights)

Echo63 wrote in post #13412681
Ssim is probably in a similar job to me
I generally run a 16-35 on one body, and the 70-200 on the other
Depending on what im doing will depend on which body has what lens.
If i can i will swap lenses over, but sometimes its not possible and the shot has to be taken "right now" not in 10-15 seconds once i have switched lenses over.

I would say that 6400 on the mk4 is similar in noise to 1600ish on the mk3
I am happy to push the mk4 to 12800, and expose correctly (histogram as far to the right as possible without blowing out important hilights)

wowwwww im impressed 6400 <-> 1600 u made my day, i guess i'm leaning forward to upgrade then! if you can post some sample crop from the cam it would be great. thanks alot. i guess at weddings the MK4 will ace then, i have two bodies 5DMKII & 1D3 im using the 5D2 as primary and the 1D3 as backup, i guess with my upgrade hopefully i will has the 1D4 as main cam and the 5D2 as backup, thank you guys...

Ok - i did the test shots, but i made a massive foul up - the Mk4 shots are 1 stop underexposed, the mk3 shot is "correct" exposure

i will reshoot this and do a better comparo for you when i get another chance

here are the pics anyway (gives you an idea, but the difference is much greater if everything is equal)

The Location

Echo63 thanks alot mate for taking time to do the comparison. really appreciate ur help, i posted my 1D3 for sale hoping to sell it soon so i can get the 1D4 thanks again.

Following

Would love to see some 1DMKIV files at 6400 and 12800, especially from the wedding photogs. Im loooking at this as well.

IMO anything past 25600 ISO is pretty damn crazy for 1dm4 isn't it? I just wanted to say it to revive this post as im really interested in the camera.

Echo63 wrote in post #13417097
Ok - i did the test shots, but i made a massive foul up - the Mk4 shots are 1 stop underexposed, the mk3 shot is "correct" exposure

i will reshoot this and do a better comparo for you when i get another chance

here are the pics anyway (gives you an idea, but the difference is much greater if everything is equal)

Just curious, but why did you underexpose the MkIV shots by a full stop (compared to the MkIII)?

The one MkIII shot is 1/1000, f/2.8, ISO6400, the MkIV shot is 1/2000, f/2.8, ISO6400.

The remaining MkIV shots are also 1 stop underexposed - one full "click" up in ISO and shutter speed from the underexposed settings at ISO6400.

Flower and Woodpecker 6400 Duck and Dogs 12,800. The 12.8 shots were just experiment so composition does not count Woodpecker shot using a 2X keno extender.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Please give us the 100% crops to see just how good or bad the noise is

tonylong wrote in post #13461330
??

How is this relavent to this thread? Please look at the thread topic and contribute or read and learn, rather than posting something confusing and off-topic!

I see you are new, stick around because this is a great forum!

I'm guessing spambot, Tony