Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison

  
 
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


mark fadely wrote:
Well I guess that settles it. Everyone must shoot RAW from now on.




That's a good idea to get the best out of your 5D3 or MK4 or any other camera.




Apr 05, 2012 at 12:57 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


BirdWhisperer wrote:
Hi everyone. I've just posted a comparison of Canon's 5D Mark III and 1D Mark IV at high ISOs. As opposed to other tests that use a bunch of studio shots, I devised my test to be relevant to bird photographers. Click on this link to read the comparison. The results may surprise you!


I'm confused by the posted images. How can the owl look the same size in both cases for both cameras?
Did you upscale the 5D3 image to match the 1D4 owl, it doesn't seem to have an upscaled look though? Why does it look the same size at 100% for test from both cameras? There is so little high contrast detail it's hard to judge detail captured at all.

And even for the first comparison, with the different MP count, even if you framed them for the same FOV, the owl, viewed at 100% crops still should not be the same size on each camera and yet it is. I assume you then upscaled the 1D4 owl, but it doesn't have an upscaled look? Although maybe you framed them to put the same pixel count and not same FOV?



Apr 05, 2012 at 01:05 PM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


skibum5 wrote:
I'm very confused by the posted images. How can the owl look the same size in both cases for both cameras?
Did you upscale the 5D3 image to match the 1D4 owl, it doesn't seem to have an upscaled look though? There is so little high contrast detail it's hard to judge detail captured at all.

And even for the first comparison, with the different MP count, even if you framed them for the same FOV, the owl, viewed at 100% crops still should not be the same size on each camera and yet it is. I assume you then upscaled the
...Show more

The test is for fixed output size, in case 1, 5D3 image has been downsampled. in case 2 1D4 image has been downsampled. there is no upsampling.



Apr 05, 2012 at 01:12 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


speedmaster20d wrote:
The test is for fixed output size, in case 1, 5D3 image has been downsampled. in case 2 1D4 image has been downsampled. there is no upsampling.


OK, that makes sense then. I got confused because he kept talking about it also being a test for comparative detail when it's not if downsampling got used (the subject wasn't good for that anyway so I guess it's besides the point), but it works for comparing noise (in a simple manner).

(Although much trickier to carry out, I suppose the really true test for SNR would be to instead NR the one at the higher scale to the detail of the other and then compare since advanced NR software does a better job than a basic downscaling and it would make the advantage a little bit stronger for the 5D3 in the first case (and for the 1D4 in the second case). But that's a trickier judgement call and you really would need a subject with tons of detail at all sorts of scales and contrasts to be able to have a chance to do it fairly. I've hardly ever seen anyone attempt this latter sort of comparison.)

Anyway there is no shock in the missing 2 stops better since that was always just marketing nonsense. At least there is a difference though.

EDIT: I see he explained it all in his text. That's what I get for skimming past his instructions. But the talk about comparing details WAS confusing though given the context.



Edited on Apr 05, 2012 at 01:26 PM · View previous versions



Apr 05, 2012 at 01:23 PM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


speedmaster20d wrote:
seems like you have won multiple BBC or Nature's best awards with your JPEG files. Would be nice to enlighten us with those photos because I haven't seen them before. Perhaps your photos were so good the judges twisted their rules and waived RAW submission requirement


We are talking about the ridiculous statement that you made, not my photography. You are not even aware of the submission requirements for every reputable competition and reputable magazine around the world. I guess if someone takes a jpeg of Obama being assassinated, or a 747 crashing through the Empire State building, that the jpeg image would not be accepted by a reputable competition or reputable magazine What a joke.

I guess you are also the judge of what is a reputable competition or reputable magazine also, are you







Apr 05, 2012 at 01:24 PM
jonbrach
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


a picture is a picture,how foolish to state that one must shoot RAW in order to have a picture taken seriously....we still revere pictures taken decades ago shot with antiquated equipment and yet a JPEG from a professional camera today isnt considered proper?Please!....i have a MK3 on the way and do not yet have the ACR available for my elements 10 so I will likely shoot JPEG for a while and I will consider my pictures every bit as valid as any others taken!


Apr 05, 2012 at 01:34 PM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Imagemaster wrote:
We are talking about the ridiculous statement that you made, not my photography. You are not even aware of the submission requirements for every reputable competition and reputable magazine around the world. I guess if someone takes a jpeg of Obama being assassinated, or a 747 crashing through the Empire State building, that the jpeg image would not be accepted by a reputable competition or reputable magazine What a joke.

I guess you are also the judge of what is a reputable competition or reputable magazine also, are you




Thanks for your well-thought and educated comments as well as amazing examples. I don't submit images of tragedy or criminal activity to a wildlife photo competition. In those instances the FBI will be happy to assist you. And yes, if you are to provide photographic evidence to a court it needs to be original RAW format if it was shot with a digital camera or have some other method of digital verification. JPEG alone is unacceptable.

and yes, I have had the honor of judging wildlife competitions.

Thanks for your smart comments, now please excuse me if I am not interested in debating with you further. I don't have much time to waste.






Apr 05, 2012 at 01:40 PM
John Shultz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


speedmaster20d wrote:
Thanks for your well-thought and educated comments as well as amazing examples. I don't submit images of tragedy or criminal activity to a wildlife photo competition. In those instances the FBI will be happy to assist you. And yes, if you are to provide photographic evidence to a court it needs to be original RAW format if it was shot with a digital camera or have some other method of digital verification. JPEG alone is unacceptable.

and yes, I have had the honor of judging wildlife competitions.

Thanks for your smart comments, now please excuse me if I am not
...Show more

I shoot RAW exclusively in my work but understand where JPEG has application. Pro-sport real time wifi transfer to edit desk for rapid web display (think superbowl) comes to mind. Your antagonistic responses and derogatory manner of writing aren't helping your case. You put people down and won't accept that others have a need for JPEG Get real. You waste plenty of time on this forum from what I can tell. Get over yourself.



Apr 05, 2012 at 01:48 PM
Dragonfire
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


"I don't trust any photo I have not shot with film" Amstel Adams


Apr 05, 2012 at 01:55 PM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


John Shultz wrote:
I shoot RAW exclusively in my work but understand where JPEG has application. Pro-sport real time wifi transfer to edit desk for rapid web display (think superbowl) comes to mind. Your antagonistic responses and derogatory manner of writing aren't helping your case. You put people down and won't accept that others have a need for JPEG Get real. You waste plenty of time on this forum from what I can tell. Get over yourself.



Thank you for your comments, but before making comments, try to read and understand the discussion. Doug Brown is a world-renowned wildlife photographer, I am also a wildlife photographer. The title of the thread reads:

A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison

I am talking about professional wildlife photography, not sports or war photography. Competent wildlife photographers don't shoot in JPEG.

In response to a poster who asked about JPEG, I mentioned that we don't bother with JPEG. If you are interested in JPEG do your own test and a post a separate thread because we won't. This isn't hard to understand.

Just like dpreview.com this site is full of "professional" photographers who shoot in JPEG, engineers and image sensor exerts who know Canon cameras better than Canon themselves. So I agree it is best to leave it to them to decide

I only contributed to this thread because Doug Brown is my friend and we discussed how to do the test-my last comment.

Edit: I am sorry I did not include the world-renowned super professional sport shooters of this site who make their world-class award-winning photos with a 6fps camera and in JPEG mode. Obviously they are too busy to read the title of this thread

Edited on Apr 05, 2012 at 06:44 PM · View previous versions



Apr 05, 2012 at 01:58 PM
larkinsg
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Nasty! JPEGs have lots of applications but if you are a pro you are better off in most instances with a raw since gross exposure mistakes are more recoverable. Even if youare a Photo Journalist I recommend that you shoot RAW + Medium JPEG -- the one to save for real important stuff and the other to meet deadlines with.

I don't do PJ though; others do and this is what some of them have told me.....



Apr 05, 2012 at 02:01 PM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Thanks for a careful and thoughtful test! I am not a birder but I am interested in various camera's RAW hi ISO noise performance for my work. Based on the "transfer standard" method (of yours and others tests) it appears I made the right choice when I bought my D4 without waiting for the 1Dx.

Canon has compared their 1Dx to their 1D IV. Since I have owned and shot many Canon FF bodies I have some definite hi ISO noise benchmarks. Your test bears out the results of other RAW hi ISO tests.

So it seems, at least to me, that when the 1Dx is fully compared to the D4's hi ISO performance that the 1Dx will lag-from 2/3 to a full stop. I could be wrong here but I can't imagine that the 1Dx would come close to exceeding the D4's RAW hi ISO noise performance.

I believe that, even though Canon has improved their in camera JPEG engine a RAW image with a full suite of PP tools on a full computer offers the opportunity to select any amount of processing (NR or otherwise) that you might desire.

With Canon's claim of the 1Dx's two full stops better hi ISO noise over the Mk IV it seems that Canon has opted for (non-defeatable to some extent) aggressive in camera JPEG noise processing.

If this suits your style then Canon's in camera JPEG processing would be a time saver-if not a blessing. If you rely on highly detailed JPEG output for your work at hi ISO then that would be worthy of some substantial testing.

For those of us that shoot RAW (and take the time in PP) we, naturally, concentrate on RAW possibilities. That's because we believe we can more closely achieve the results we want with a minimum of in camera processing and have the time to do it.



Apr 05, 2012 at 02:40 PM
CarlG
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


It's a wonder people actually find the time to use their cameras with all of the time wasted arguing over such trivial semantics.....


Apr 05, 2012 at 03:52 PM
miccullen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Professional photographers don't bother with JPEG format.

One of the great things about gross generalisations is how often they are utterly wrong. Just like this one.

Just because the field you are in doesn't do that doesn't mean that nobody does, and it's just ignorant to say so.

Most obvious example: sports shooters on a deadline.



Apr 05, 2012 at 04:53 PM
slowdad
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


My opinion.

His conclusion hit it on the head. All depends on the application you want it for. I love the MKIV and would never consider a 5D3 as a replacement. another big consideration is Build. An MKIV blows a 5D3 out of the water with build quality and it has a 300K shutter over a 150k shutter on the 5D3.

In the end, your splitting hairs with image quality and ISO. No one is going to look that far into a photo to be able to tell the difference anyway. By the time you factor a grip and build quality in addition to what the OP has pointed out, My opinion is that the MKIV is the smarter choice. I shoot weddings and portraits and i love to play around and shoot sports and wildlife MKIV is perfect for my needs. .Im amazed how clean the files are on an MKIV. At 100-400 ISO they are spotless. Would love to see comparisons of the 1DsMKIII files V/s MKIV files at the low end. Im betin the MKIV is as good or better. I think when you factor in what the MKIV does at low iso and High iso, build quality and IQ, it still remains on the top of the heap for canon. Of course the 1Dx is going to change that. Ive seen the files. They are stunning. But its 6800.00. That's a lot of $$ for anyone. I just dont think you can go wrong with any selection but i think that depending on what you do, one may be a better choice over the other. I Will not give up the MKIV. I plan to keep it for many years and after this wedding season, one of my 5D2's will have over 120K on the shutter. Its getting replaced with the 5D3'



Apr 05, 2012 at 09:20 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


First thing I noticed was the image at the top of the page of what must be the very rare left-handed and left-eye shooter's special order 1DIV!

Now to read the review....



Apr 05, 2012 at 10:13 PM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


Doug, thanks for posting this review, very informative, also from a sports photographer's perspective (one who shoots RAW whenever possible or RAW+JPEG on deadline). Since adopting the 1DIV as my main sports camera I've found I can crop into files quite deeply, compared to the 1DIII, without need for a teleconverter or bringing a longer than 400mm lens to events (mostly field sports). With the 1DX being a few MP lower in resolution than the 5DIII, it would seem, based on your results, that the 1DIV will remain quite the versatile (pro caliber) camera for focal length limited situations.


Apr 05, 2012 at 10:25 PM
TBannor
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


speedmaster20d wrote:
That is not a photography magazine. There are hundreds of thousands of magazines like that, they often don't pay much for submissions... example of a reputable photography magazine : National Geographic.

Any ways, neither Doug nor I nor any photographer that I know shoot in JPEG mode or care about it, if you are interested in JPEG you can do your own comparisons.

good luck


National Geographic published a two page spread of a night shot of Shanghai by Peter Hessler in their May 2008 China issue taken with...a Canon G7 which is a jpeg only camera. Magazines generally don't care what you shoot in as long as you're up front about any manipulation. News photographers frequently shoot jpeg or raw + jpeg because there frequently isn't enough time to mess with raws before wiring the photos.

Even most stock agencies will take out of camera jpegs if they're up to their standards. I used to work for one.



Apr 06, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


TBannor wrote:
National Geographic published a two page spread of a night shot of Shanghai by Peter Hessler in their May 2008 China issue taken with...a Canon G7 which is a jpeg only camera. Magazines generally don't care what you shoot in as long as you're up front about any manipulation. News photographers frequently shoot jpeg or raw + jpeg because there frequently isn't enough time to mess with raws before wiring the photos.

Even most stock agencies will take out of camera jpegs if they're up to their standards. I used to work for one.


What Are you saying Speedmaster20D does not know what he is talking about? You must be referring to magazines and stock agencies that are not reputable.



Apr 06, 2012 at 10:13 AM
PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · A Bird Photographer's 5D III vs. 1D IV high ISO comparison


speedmaster20d wrote:
I am talking about professional wildlife photography, not sports or war photography. Competent wildlife photographers don't shoot in JPEG.


That's unadulterated nonsense.

If you said that "competent" photographers didn't take compositionally insipid, boring or inept photos, then I'd perhaps agree with you.



Apr 06, 2012 at 10:26 AM
1      
2
       3       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.