5DmkII vs 1DsmkIII shadow noise

Quick question to owners/users of both 5D2 and 1Ds3: Is the shadow noise better on the 1Ds? I'm talking up to and including ISO 800.

I'm getting more and more hassled by the shadow noise on my 5DmkII. My old 1DmkIII was a lot better. I'm thinking of either going 1Ds mkIII or 1DmkIV. Any help is greatly appreciated

After seeing images from my neighbors 5D MK II compared to my 1DS MK III, the shadow noise is much better on the 1Ds MK III. The one thing my neighbor **** about is the noise banding from 100-400 ISOs.

1Ds III is the real deal, not a shortcut like 5D II.

They had better solve the ISO 100 banding issue before the 1Ds hits the streets or I'll be VERY annoyed with Canon. Forget sky high ISO, 100 ISO is what I need to be the best it can ever be.

I agree. Canon seems to have lost focus on image quality somewhat in favor of ultra high ISO capability and a ludicrous number of pixels. Have a(nother) look at the old EOS D30 (not to be confused with 30D) sample images on dpreview sometime. I wish our current cameras had ISO 100 performance as silky smooth as what came out of that old 3mp body! I'd much rather have an 8mp camera that produces images like the original D30 than a 16+ mp camera with impressive performance at ISO 1600 and above.

maverick678 wrote in post #9500070
1Ds III is the real deal, not a shortcut like 5D II.

I agree. The 1Ds MK III noise is much more smoother in noise like the 5D MK I. The 5D MK II seems to show some blotchiness in the shadow areas. Don't get me wrong 5D MK II owners, the camera is great. If I were to own one of the 5D cameras, I would go back to the classic 5D.

I am also annoyed with the chase for super high ISO performance! It's already awesome for goodness sakes, STOP KILLING OUR LOW ISO QUALITY! I'll bet ISO100 is used worldwide a heck of a lot more than ISO12800.

I mean, Nikon doesn't even offer ISO100 on their high ISO monsters like the D300, D3, D3s, D700. And even ISO200 is kinda grainy on the D300.

I'm really tired of this high ISO war. Commercial clients want the CLEANEST files possible, which means I shoot at ISO100. Now that canon is messing up ISO100, I don't know what to do.

I'm glad the mark III bodies have spectacular ISO100. I don't think i'm gonna upgrade any time soon.

Yeah, I thought the D30 has such smooth and rich output. It was my first (second hand) DSLR.

For me the plus point of the 5D2 is the sharpness but I am frustrated by the AF and the shadow noise, plus the slow response compared with 1 Series bodies. I'd rather stay with FF but can live with 1.3 crop, in fact I prefer it in many situations. I'm trying to figure if the cash is worth the difference so am looking for a 1D3 'look' and shadow noise output but with more MP's.

dmp-potn wrote in post #9500157
I agree. Canon seems to have lost focus on image quality somewhat in favor of ultra high ISO capability and a ludicrous number of pixels. Have a(nother) look at the old EOS D30 (not to be confused with 30D) sample images on dpreview sometime. I wish our current cameras had ISO 100 performance as silky smooth as what came out of that old 3mp body! I'd much rather have an 8mp camera that produces images like the original D30 than a 16+ mp camera with impressive performance at ISO 1600 and above.

tho 10 mp, the 1d mark III produces smooth files and is excellent @ iso 1600.

ed rader

Ed, I'm half thinking about getting a used 1D3...

echo wrote in post #9500320
Ed, I'm half thinking about getting a used 1D3...

you had one before didn't you? you know i also have the 1ds mark III and the biggest advantages it has over the 1d is width plus file size. IQ is very very close plus the 1d usually produces slightly sharper images, and at hi-ISOs the 1d is the clear leader.

at lower ISOs tho 1ds has the advantage.

if you don't need massive files and you can handle losing a bit of width the 1d is the perfect camera, imo. sure i'd prefer a 1d mark IV but not at the cost difference.

also, i'm pretty oblivious or indifferent to alot of the technical things that guys talk about but i sure do see the banding with the 5d II at low ISOs.

ed rader

The cleanliness of the 1D3 at ISO 100 is amazing. In a well exposed photo pushing +2 stops yields pretty much no noise.

The 5D2 otoh...

smorter wrote in post #9501211
The cleanliness of the 1D3 at ISO 100 is amazing. In a well exposed photo pushing +2 stops yields pretty much no noise.

The 5D2 otoh...

i actually saw the banding before the girl! yep true story......

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=34332597

ed rader

The purpose for the 1D vs. 1Ds split (format vs. pixels vs. processor throughput) is ending. After all, dual Digic IV can clearly now push 16 MP at 10 fps which is plenty for a FF camera.

Maybe Canon should take the 1D and 1Ds lines in new directions. 1D = high ISO king, low ISO meh. 1Ds = low ISO king, noisy at high ISO.

Of course we would all like both on one camera, but where Canon is heading suggests this may not be practicable.

echo wrote in post #9500286
Yeah, I thought the D30 has such smooth and rich output. It was my first (second hand) DSLR.

For me the plus point of the 5D2 is the sharpness but I am frustrated by the AF and the shadow noise, plus the slow response compared with 1 Series bodies. I'd rather stay with FF but can live with 1.3 crop, in fact I prefer it in many situations. I'm trying to figure if the cash is worth the difference so am looking for a 1D3 'look' and shadow noise output but with more MP's.

The one thing that frustrated me with the 5D MK I was the AF. This holds true for the 5D MK II. I put the 85 L on my 1Ds MK III and it snaps faster than the 5D MK II. I know lots of photogs that use the 5D MK II for weddings but, when you miss the shot, that's not good.

I would definitely recommend the 1D MK III. It's superb in grabbing focus in low light.