Low light performance ==> 5D vs. 1Dmk2N

I've been using both 5D and 1DMk2N, and found that the noise level of the 5D is much better than the 1DMk2N when shooting at low light (i.e., high ISO). I haven't done any formal testing, but below is a quick shot with each camera. I expected the 5D is better, but didn't expect that much of a difference. I just wonder if this is normal. Any thoughts would be appreciated Thank you!

1DMk2N + 85L @ ISO 1600 f/1.2 1/250s, 100% crop, handheld

That's a very big difference, imo. I know I've been nothing but impressed with mine. When I had my 20D's, 30D, and even the 1DMkII, I was kind of afraid to go over 800, because the noise just wasn't good. To be frank, 1600 looked like hell on my 1DMkII.

Now, with the 5D, I use 1600 and 3200 quite regularly, and I don't worry about it a bit. I'm a happy camper. I hate that I paid $1800 extra for basically just ISO performance, but I think it's a big enough deal.

I guess your answer to my question is YES then I wished the 1Dmk2N could be better. To me, it's quite a difference Thanks!
Oh btw, how's your 35L? I've been thinking about this lens

Any other thoughts??????????????

To be quite honest, the 35L doesn't suit me on FF. Too wide. It was my walkaround solution on the 20D/30D, and I might keep it for that, but I was getting into the 50 1.4 on the 5D. Nice combo there.

The 35L is an absolutely outstanding lens. I'd stand behind it 100% for anyone considering it. It's pretty darn sharp even at f/1.4 (if you can focus properly[DoF]), and insane sharp otherwise. Great build obviously, and it's nice and small for an L. It's a clear winner in my book.

Leorooster wrote:
I guess your answer to my question is YES then I wished the 1Dmk2N could be better. To me, it's quite a difference Thanks!
Oh btw, how's your 35L? I've been thinking about this lens

Any other thoughts??????????????

The 1DMkIIN is better...in just about every other way. However, you appear to be getting more CA, way more noise, and yet better sharpness with the N.

The N will beat the pants off the 5D in a number of situations. Low light just simply isn't one of them.

Leorooster wrote:
I guess your answer to my question is YES then I wished the 1Dmk2N could be better. To me, it's quite a difference Thanks!
Oh btw, how's your 35L? I've been thinking about this lens

Any other thoughts??????????????

The 1D is better, relatively speaking, at what it does best. It still performs in low light very well. Only the 5D does better than it. And the 20D has been said to do slightly better. It's still a good low light performer. It's just the 5D is the best at that.

Well, from what i have seen, 1D-series bodies have, by default, a less pronounced noise reduction algorithms, so as to have more detail at the expense of noise.

Plus, yes, i agree, 1DmkIIN seems to be better at everything else but pixel count and noise. That's my problem nowadays... I just can't decide...

It seems like it's kind of normal to have a better low light result (as far as noise is concerned) on the 5D. I agree that the 1D seems to be better in every other aspects except for the noise issue. I don't have a 20D or 30D to compared with, but from what I remember, the 20d and 30d are comparable with the 1dmk2n. Thanks! Now I feel better

The 1DMII and N version are designed for quick action under all conditions. The 5D is a studio camera. It all depends on what the need is. In other words, I wish I could afford a 5D.

That's a bit bold, Scott Surely, as compared to 1D2N, the 5D seems like a studio camera, but try to compare the 5D with something like the Kodak Pro SLR/c. Now that's more of a studio camera.

Plus, why would you need the invisible focus points on a studio camera? Btw, I bet that 5D was a market testbed for this feature, and soon, probably with the advent of the rumoured 3D, we'll see a new AF sensor with a lot of invisible focus points to improve the subject tracking performance over the old 45-point AF.

5D has stronger noise reduction. If you add e.g. 1 point median filter to 1D Mk II image above you get 5D look. If you sharpen 5D image above you get 1D look (but you can not make the detail).

Both cameras are good enough. I shoot ISO 1600 with Mark II all the time and I have no problems with any excessive noise levels.

So do you claim that 1D2 has more per pixel detail than 5D (assuming we're using the same lens)?

Is it just me or does the 1d look a lot sharper? Or maybe thats jst a focus thing.

But one thing to keep in mind is that the 5D has more pixels, meaning smaller noise particles, which will be less aparent in the final product.

I wonder how they'd look when put through noise ninja and processed and all.

When you take 100x100 pixel center crop and the other camera has more NR of course it looks like it has less detail.

To me it looks like 5D and 1D have different design philosophies: 1D stores the image as it is and lets you decide if you want to NR and how much. 5D seems to have slight NR inbuilt (this can be done in CMOS, maybe just by reducing pixel contrast on higher ISO's). If you see http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canoneos5d/p​age21.asp Phil Askey also arrives to this conclusion.

I'm all for low noise cameras, but not if it is sacrifies contrast or detail.

Pekka wrote:
When you take 100x100 pixel center crop and the other camera has more NR of course it looks like it has less detail.

To me it looks like 5D and 1D have different design philosophies: 1D stores the image as it is and lets you decide if you want to NR and how much. 5D seems to have slight NR inbuilt (this can be done in CMOS, maybe just by reducing pixel contrast on higher ISO's). If you see http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canoneos5d/p​age21.asp Phil Askey also arrives to this conclusion.

I'm all for low noise cameras, but not if it is sacrifies contrast or detail.

Thanks Pekka, i have browsed this review of 5D so many times, but i haven't remembered this bit.

Btw, your galleries are awesome. I still haven't finished browsing thru the D30 folder, it's all very inspiring and makes me wanna get a few new lenses.