1DMK3 ISO 3200 noise = 1DsMK2 ISO 400

Did anyone else get Arthur Morris's latest email bulletin with his real life 1DMK3 photos? He's claiming ISO 3200 on the new model is about the same as ISO 400 on the 1DsMK2 and has some very nice shots to prove it!

foxbat wrote in post #2817481
Did anyone else get Arthur Morris's latest email bulletin with his real life 1DMK3 photos? He's claiming ISO 3200 on the new model is about the same as ISO 400 on the 1DsMK2 and has some very nice shots to prove it!

http://forums.dpreview​.com/forums/re...ssage​=22304091

I beleive the bulletin is by suscription ...

Anyway, here is a copy and paste of that report:

"This is a quote from Artie's latest bulletin.

"From Thursday, February 22 through Wednesday morning, February 28 I had the opportunity to work with the just- (and I mean just) announced Canon EOS 1D Mark III Professional Digital Camera Body"
Second Quote

"On the Friday Anhinga Trail ITF-Workshop we were fortunate to watch an alligator dine on an unfortunate Brown Pelican. With the Mark III in my hand I figured that it would be a good chance to check out the high ISO settings; with the gator chewing I knew that I needed a shutter speed of at least 1/500 sec. to freeze the action so ISO 3200 it was. I think that I had set the Custom Function for High ISO Noise Reduction and the image was processed in DPP with Low Noise Reduction set for both color and luminance. The converted RAW image exhibited very little noise. Both Robert O’Toole and I agreed that the noise in this and other ISO 3200 images from the Mark III was comparable to ISO 400 in the 1Ds MII and the MII 1DN. Virtually noise-free images at ISO 3200 will open up new worlds to nature photographers."

--
Dennis Donohue
Freelance Nature and Equine Photographer "

Just posted in the main 1D MkIII official thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=2810​10&page=73

can we have a link or a post please FB? or will it just goooogle?

jeeez that was quick!

bildeb0rg wrote in post #2817510
jeeez that was quick!

yeah but still not a direct quote. that was someone on dpreview quoting from arthur morris info.

coreypolis wrote in post #2817516
yeah but still not a direct quote. that was someone on dpreview quoting from arthur morris info.

I believe the bulletin is free. You can receive it signing in at his web page at

http://www.birdsasart.​com …ART%20ON-LINE%20BULLETINS

Juan Zas wrote in post #2817503
http://forums.dpreview​.com/forums/re...ssage​=22304091

<snip>With the Mark III in my hand I figured that it would be a good chance to check out the high ISO settings; with the gator chewing I knew that I needed a shutter speed of at least 1/500 sec. to freeze the action so ISO 3200 it was. I think that I had set the Custom Function for High ISO Noise Reduction and the image was processed in DPP with Low Noise Reduction set for both color and luminance. <snip>

https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=2810​10&page=73

I wonder how much processing time if any, is lost using the reduction fuctions.
Does the buffer fill up faster when shooting RAW using the reduction fuctions ?

If true, wow

calicokat wrote in post #2818518
If true, wow

Ditto.
But, how much detail is lost in the noise reduction and are they comparing apples to apples? IE, noise reduction on and post processed ISO3200 vs no noise reduction and non post processed ISO400...

Amazing news. As if we needed another reason to get psyched about this camera.

Ha, turned out that wasn't the only thing to get psyched about.

Maybe once it can focus, we can actually enjoy the noise free nature of things.

me

MDJAK, reviver of dead threads of yore.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Ive never used a MkII of any sort but Ill atest to the low noise abilities of the MkIII. Having used a 20, 30, and 40D, the MkIII is almost noise free ( relatively speaking ) all the way to 3200. And even then, 6400 is usable too with some NR

i am sure that it is just me but i am starting to lose more and more respect for Arthur Morris everytime i read his newsletters.

blonde wrote in post #4323089
i am sure that it is just me but i am starting to lose more and more respect for Arthur Morris everytime i read his newsletters.

Well blonde, he is employed by Canon, and that says a lot imho. A paid spokeperson is never going to be totally truthful. Moose Peterson is no better imho. I take what they say with a grain of salt, as should anyone with a modicum of common sense

I like Mark's reply

From Mark III images that I've seen, I reckon there's about a stop in noise performance between the Mark III and the Mark IIn. Since you've owned both, what are your thoughts? Physics doesn't lie - decreased pixel size will result in higher noise and lower resolution. Sure, you can work around it to some extent, but you can't totally eliminate the way that physics works. I suspect that whilst the Mark III might have better noise, there is some extra slight loss of detail when compared to high ISO shots with the Mark IIn.

Dave