1d mkIII users for PA/music photography

After pming dwight he suggested i should try a thread on this.

Currently I shoot with a 1d mkIIn.

I am looking to switch up to a mkIII. I have seen the odd photo at iso 1600 where the mkIII looks very grainy in the dark areas of the stage etc..

I was wondering those of you who shoot these sort of events and have mkIIIs can give your own experiences and feedback, im sure its something more than just I have pondered so would be good to see what everyones views are.

Reason for the 1d is because I like the dual cards for paid stuff, the extra secruity I think is very good, and want to use it for sports and motorsports still, which is why the 5d mkII and its not so good AF is out of the question. 7D also a no no as I dont want a 1.6X body due to my current lens line up.

Any comments/discussion would be great on the matter.

So basically for events where flash is permitted where its dark and isos between 1600-3200 are needed how does the camera perform, how bad is the noise

many thanks

Edit: sorry didnt see the PA discussion section before this gets moved

I don't have experience with the mkIII directly, but my experience with noise in low light is that the actual light level/exposure contributes to the amount of noise you'll see in an image. In other words, you can't necessarily compare one ISO 1600 shot to another if they were shot under different conditions.

The mkIII should give you a pretty significant improvement over your IIn in terms of high ISO noise performance.

For what it's worth. Tests but no samples. Doesn't look significantly different.

http://www.dxomark.com …and)/Canon/(bra​nd2)/Canon

I will soon hopefully be in the market for a Mk III as well depending on a few nicely paid gigs I might have in the next few months.

#1 Grain does NOT = bad. There is good grain, and bad grain.
#2 Your exposure has LOT to do with the grain in the finished product.
#3 Mk III has great low light focusing.... I'd much rather have a useable grainy photo than an OOF non-grainy photo. Especially if you are being paid.

Good luck!

Reason I am wanting better iso performance is the venues are not allways well lit and so I want to have a slightly bigger buffer rather than being where I feel is right on the edge.

The mkII is lovely with the flash but its when i dont want to use the flash i feel it doesnt handle going above 1000-1250 that well, and even here its not as smooth as id like

for example this I shot on a 5D and it was lovely at 3200 it blew me away although the AF wasnt that great all around, I felt the same thing wasnt anywhere near doable on the mkII so kept the iso relitively low for the other. Ok the 1d is much smoother but its only iso 800.

5d 3200

I think the general consensus is that the mkIII is somewhere between the 5D and 5D2 in terms of high ISO noise performance, though I know some people would debate that.

The 1DIII actually has hardware ISO levels up to ISO3200 (IOW, ISO3200 is not an "expanded" setting like on the 5D).

bacchanal wrote in post #9990061
I think the general consensus is that the mkIII is somewhere between the 5D and 5D2 in terms of high ISO noise performance, though I know some people would debate that.

The 1DIII actually has hardware ISO levels up to ISO3200 (IOW, ISO3200 is not an "expanded" setting like on the 5D).

Drew, when you say some people would debate that, do you mean that its worse than a 5Dc or better than 5D2?

I've read reviews saying as at time of release the 1D3 was the best high ISO camera available, and obviously this was prior to the 5D2 coming out... I would hope that it would at least be on par with a 5Dc if not significantly better, and coupled with better low light AF performance it would be a fantastic live music body.

And I have a total vested interest here... I'm looking to upgrade from a 50D to a 1D3 for live music as well!

niqqunos wrote in post #9990242
Drew, when you say some people would debate that, do you mean that its worse than a 5Dc or better than 5D2?

I've read reviews saying as at time of release the 1D3 was the best high ISO camera available, and obviously this was prior to the 5D2 coming out... I would hope that it would at least be on par with a 5Dc if not significantly better, and coupled with better low light AF performance it would be a fantastic live music body.

And I have a total vested interest here... I'm looking to upgrade from a 50D to a 1D3 for live music as well!

Some people would argue that it's actually better than a 5D2 due to more prevalent banding on the 5D2. And of course it makes a big difference whether you're looking at 100% crops or resized images for output. There is also the FlexNR crowd.

bacchanal wrote in post #9990061
The 1DIII actually has hardware ISO levels up to ISO3200 (IOW, ISO3200 is not an "expanded" setting like on the 5D).

This is not correct.

ISo 6400 is fully supported as true, direct analog gain (and everything in-between), instead of RAW values multiplication.

This is also true for 1D3s ISO3200 level, and this is a trait only reserved to 1D-class cams.

Cheers,

PIX

PIXmantra wrote in post #9997768
This is not correct.

ISo 6400 is fully supported as true, direct analog gain (and everything in-between), instead of RAW values multiplication.

I was half right...up to ISO3200 and beyond.

Thanks for the info.

I shot with a 1D Mark IIN for a fair while before I got my 1D Mark III - it would be at least a stop better in low light and the noise at high ISO is significantly less. As others have mentioned if you get the exposure right the noise is negligible.

blackshadow wrote in post #9999202
I shot with a 1D Mark IIN for a fair while before I got my 1D Mark III - it would be at least a stop better in low light and the noise at high ISO is significantly less. As others have mentioned if you get the exposure right the noise is negligible.

thanks for the comparrison with the mkII that you owned thats great to hear.

A worthy upgrade in your opinion then? Ill still be keeping the old tank for other bits

itsafastworld85 wrote in post #10001483
thanks for the comparrison with the mkII that you owned thats great to hear.

A worthy upgrade in your opinion then? Ill still be keeping the old tank for other bits

Told ya' this was the place!

I too went from a 1D2 to a 1D3.
Agree with Richard: At least a stop better.

AF is better too (at least on my 1D2, which was so-so)

Galleries: http://www.damkot.com/​Recentworkonline2.html

Exif is there. Mixed 1D, 1D2 (before 4-2009) and 1D3 (from 4-2009).
Sometimes decent, sometimes crappy lighting. Anything marked "Atak" is "PA" or "nightclub" shots.

Ah its been moved to the right section

rene' nice to hear of someone whos done the same...

today this was collected