1D mark IV vs 5D mark II (high ISO)

Here is a short (sorta unscientific) comparison between the 1DIV and the 5DII as far as "high" ISO noise is concerned.

I'll get straight to the point and put the 100% crops on first (the reduced size "full" shots will be posted below.

This is the settings used
FULL RAW (not resized in PP) from both cameras. That's 16MP for the 1DIV and 21MP for the 5DII.
ISOs 3200, 6400 and 12800 (I didn't think going higher or lower was necessary as higher is only used for emergencies and lower they are so much the same it doesn't really matter).
Lens: Canon 28 1.8

Shot 1:
3200iso
F/4
1/500

Shot 2:
6400
f/4
1/1000

Shot 3:
12800
f/4
1/2000

They were imported into Lr Beta 2 (for my connivence sake) then opened in Photoshop.

No NR or sharpening was added.

Now I didn't use a tripod or controlled lighting or anything like that. So the focus is off on some shots and so on. Just look at the noise.

So here is the main deal:

1DIV on the LEFT
5DII on the RIGHT

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Now for the full/whole shots

1DIV 3200:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Before someone says anything. I know the 5DII shots seem slightly underexposed, but the overall histogram is very similar and I wanted to keep the SS and Aperture settings the same.

is that 3rd shot for 1D4 in focus? needless to say. Looking good ^^ now its time to rob a bank

EDIT:
I'm talking about your first post.

Mastamarek wrote in post #10299023
is that 3rd shot for 1D4 in focus? needless to say. Looking good ^^ not its time to rob a bank

EDIT:
I'm talking about your first post.

Yeah sorry about that. The second shot for the 5DII and the 3rd for the 1DIV aren't perfectly in focus.

The focal point is actually the kangaroo.

I have found the 1D Mark IV can make large prints with a dead on exposure up to ISO 6400, and you can jack the curves around at ISO 3200 and make great prints.

I'd say the 1D4 is about a stop better than the 1D3 for this, and I have not used a 5D2 enough to make a comparison.

JeffreyG wrote in post #10299135
I have found the 1D Mark IV can make large prints with a dead on exposure up to ISO 6400, and you can jack the curves around at ISO 3200 and make great prints.

I'd say the 1D4 is about a stop better than the 1D3 for this, and I have not used a 5D2 enough to make a comparison.

Stop it, I have been resisting the urge, I thought the MKIII was quite good, and now all of these comparisons and comments, I know I will end up with a 1D4, but I have to stay out of these threads for a while...

JeffreyG wrote in post #10299135
I have found the 1D Mark IV can make large prints with a dead on exposure up to ISO 6400, and you can jack the curves around at ISO 3200 and make great prints.

I'd say the 1D4 is about a stop better than the 1D3 for this, and I have not used a 5D2 enough to make a comparison.

Yeah, exposure is pretty important to get right with both cameras.

Like I said, if I changed the setting on the 5Dii to "Expose to the right" or something, I'm sure it would improve.

The 1DIV and the 5DII are a pretty good match overall.

I'm going to go buy a sensor cleaning kit though, my 5DII looks filthy.

Were the exposure meter readings the same for both cameras at those settings?

Scatterbrained wrote in post #10299240
Were the exposure meter readings the same for both cameras at those settings?

not exactly, but the histograms were pretty simular. The 5DII was SLIGHTLY less exposed. My test was on the same Manual settings though. Not the metering, so YMMV.

dammit. and i was telling myself the "more affordable" 1d4 (than the 1dsiii) was no better than the 5dii

lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body
lens before body

For real world usage, I found the MKIV and 5DMKII to be close high ISO noise wise. They were both maybe 3/4 to 1 stop better than the MKIII.

nicksan wrote in post #10299675
For real world usage, I found the MKIV and 5DMKII to be close high ISO noise wise. They were both maybe 3/4 to 1 stop better than the MKIII.

Yep, this is probably true (about them being about the same).

As for the MkIII I don't know.

I'm already set on buying the MKIII as soon as it comes out ....already preparing my gear for that as well. I think it should have the same ISO capabilities as MKIV, but lose out in other areas.
This is a great comparison though, and really makes things clear regarding MKII vs 1DIV

I'm a bit surprised actually at how much worse the 5DmkII is over the 1DmkIV... from other reviews I've seen i thought it would be the opposite.