Show me your 1Dmk3 high ISO shots (also, high ISO performance... 1D3 or 7D?)

So I decided to sell most of my film and digital gear to fund something big...a 1D Mark III.

I was dead-set on the Mark II, but quite frankly, I was less than impressed with its high ISO performance.

So...show me your UNTOUCHED, straight off the card high ISO 1D Mark III (1.3, not FF) photos...please and thank you

Also...for those who have used both...is the 7D much better?

For the price of a 1D3, I could get a 7D...aesthetically, as well as due to the weather seals, I'm drawn towards the 1D3...but...should I consider the 7D and why?

Thanks!
Tamas

LowriderS10 wrote in post #10994753
Also...for those who have used both...is the 7D much better?

I think the only folks that will say that the 7d is 'much' better are 7d fan boys. They are two different cameras. The 1d3 AF is still superior as are it's fps. If they were cars though it would be a driver's race really. They are pretty damn close. The 7d is just so small That is the main turn off for me.

MichaelBernard wrote in post #10994884
* * * The 7d is just so small That is the main turn off for me.

Yeah, but you're (quite a bit) bigger than average. For an average-sized guy it's a pretty good fit.

I have both the 1d and 7d and I think the 1d is slightly better at ISO6400 then the 7d but I wouldn't hesitate to use either one.

I don't have any straight out the camera shots handy so take these for what they are worth...

Mostly 1d shots but some 7d shots mixed in. You can tell by the name of the images (all the 1d shots are named 1d....). These are just proofs so they only have minor editing in LR3 done including a +15 Lum NR and a +100 color NR (what I found to be the best settings I could apply to all high ISO photos for proofs without having to edit each one).

http://johnwoolley.zen​folio.com/f652653941

Same deal here: http://johnwoolley.zen​folio.com/f921224567
and here: http://johnwoolley.zen​folio.com/f197476284

For the 7d I just have some individual examples of high ISO in this gallery.. again all with NR so maybe useless for you (but to me it is more important what you can get out of the photo then how the original photo looked out of the camera.. I'm also not a huge pixel peeper either)

http://www.pbase.com/p​almor/backyard


Not sure if any of that helps but hopefully you figure out what your looking for

What do you shoot and what lens. High ISO mean nothing if you going to stick slow glass on the body. Also I wouldn't spend money on 1dmk3 unless I was able to thoroughly test the AF before buying.

Thanks for all the replies! If they're dead even (which they look to be), then my choice is 1D3...the higher fps doesn't matter to me, but I just love the 1D body style.

bobbyz: How/what should I test on the AF...I've been reading up on it, and yeah it looks like the 1D3s have had a really bad AF track record, but it looks like Canon fixes it for free, right? Anyways...tell me what to look for and how and I'll do it

Also, I'll be using the following on it: Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Canon USM 50 1.4 and Canon 70-200 f4L. So decently fast glass...(thinking about upgrading the 70-200 to the F4L IS version eventually)

Yes Canon fixes it for free, and no it wasn't even ALL of them that were affected. People just like to repeat what they see on the net.

Just picked up a slightly used 1D3 off the market here. Used it last Friday for some HS football. Here is one image shot with an ISO of 6400 with my 70-200 L 2.8:

Image straight from card other then converting it from RAW to jpg:

A ISO 3200 example... straight from jpeg.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jmagdiel/446307​9205/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jmagdiel/446307​9335/

If you shoot sports or BIF, it is easy test. Bunch of shots in sequence in AI servo mode and see what kind of keeper rate you get. Of course you have to make sure various custom settings are set up properly. I don't thave 1dmk3, only 1dmk2.

There's A Read-me-First....

LowriderS10 wrote in post #10994753
So...show me your UNTOUCHED, straight off the card high ISO 1D Mark III (1.3, not FF) photos...please and thank you

Untouched in 1D MarkIII can be as UNTOUCHED as it can get (both in .JPG and .CR2). No messed-up/pre-defined, digital-to-digital stage Noise Reduction, even with NR set to "Off" in the Menu.

In other words, UNTOUCHED = UNTOUCHED in 1D MarkIII's domain.

Conversely, in most DiGiCIV cams, there is NO SUCH thing as UNTOUCHED for .JPG output (unfortunately), except for 5D MarkII, which seems to exhibit a different behavior with NR=off on-board, with its .JPGs.

Therefore, an in order to compare the 1D MarkIII under today's "modern" rules-of-the-game, you will have to invariably consider two (2) scenarios:

1. Comparison with on-board NR=ON, which will ONLY clean Chroma channels, and leave LUMA virtually unchanged in .JPGs.

2. Comparison with off-board NR for .JPGs, with similar strength-and-depth as DiGiC IV's deliver. (the 7D falls here).

Your choice.

PIX

Thanks! Any more? I just sold a bunch of gear and looks like my last 30D just found a potential buyer...if it does, I officially have the money for either a 1D3 or a 7D

I think I'm done at this field for the year...at least I hope so:

ISO 6400, 1/200

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …wrphotography/5​067871586/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …wrphotography/5​067254079/

I posted these in the sports section but it may be helpful. These all have NR applied but I'll try to post a couple "pre NR" later tonight when I get home from work if you want.


Canon EOS-1D Mark III ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1/800s f/2.8 at 200.0mm iso6400