1D4 vs. 1D3

I thought this would be of interest to people shooting in difficult environments. Last year I was shooting sports in dim gyms using a 1D Mark III and I did RAW conversion using LR 2.7.

This year I have changed to a 1D Mark IV and LR 3.2. I have also ditched all of my primes as I think this new combination is better despite giving up a whole stop.

To start - Here is a shot of a girl celebrating a point from last year. This is 1D Mark III, f/2, 1/500, ISO3200, LR2.7 pushed +0.19 stop.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

And now here is the same girl (how's that for continuity) one year later with the 1D Mark IV. This is 1D Marki IV, 1/400, ISO6400, f/2.8, LR 3.2 pushed 0.48 stops.

If you account for the difference in how much I pushed the two shots, these are essentially ISO3200 @ f/2 on the 1D3 compared to ISO8000 @ f/2.8 on the 1D4 along with the slight difference in shutter speed.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

^Looks good Jeffrey. I really miss my 1D MK III.

This pretty much follows what I've seen with mine (I have one of each right now)

Looking at the 1D IV shot, it definitely has an advantage at 6400.

I was just comparing my MkIII @ 3200 and the MkIV at 6400 and they're about the same, texture wise.

On the one hand you think "Meh, one stop..." but you have to realize that that's twice the light!

MkIII 3200

^One stop of light is one stop of light!

Excellent, useful tech improvements.

LR 3 is also supposedly better in noise reduction than LR 2 from what I've heard.

I have no doubt the 1D4 produces cleaner images. But that said... I'd be curious what will happen if you used the old 1D3/LR2.7 photo and process it through LR3.

IMO, LR3.x/ACR6.x has been absolutely phenomenal.

The noise improvement is welcome, one stop is massive for indoor sports, but what really does it for me is the AF that's so much better - compared to my Mark III at least.

Here is the 1D3 shot from last year processed by LR3.2.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I expected a much cleaner result, especially when switching from 2003 to 2010 settings + some nominal NR.

Oh well, I guess LR3.2 wasn't as magical as I thought it was.

jwcdds wrote in post #11174376
I expected a much cleaner result, especially when switching from 2003 to 2010 settings + some nominal NR.

Oh well, I guess LR3.2 wasn't as magical as I thought it was.

I expected better too because I swear that my 1D4 files started printing cleaner once I changed to LR3.2.

I kicked out the above shot really quick this morning before going to work. I'll take another look and if anything changes I'll post more information.

wow that's a big difference...just not sure if it's worth the $$$ premium for most mortals