I know this is 10mb vs 16mb. On a picture vs picture which camera would have the better high ISO? I need to crop with BIF and when enlarging the noise shows up more . I need many times to be at a higher ISO because of the higher f/ vs shutter speed......Thanks...Rich
Based on having used both cameras extensively in the past, here's what I can say:
1. If you fill the frame with your subject on both cameras, the 1Ds2 wins, hands down, the additional resolution easily compensates for the "better" pixels of the 1D3
2. If you crop a 1Ds2 image down to 10mp and compare, the 1D3 comes out ahead, especially at ISO 1600 and 3200.
Now you say you crop for BIF, so the real question is how much. If you are already cropping your 1D2N images, then you will likely be cropping your 1D3 images in which case the added resolution of the 1Ds2 is completely wasted and the 1D3 images will likely produce the better print.
1D3 hands down, at any resolution, especially when you use it's FlexNR action (which is only available for the 1D3). ISO's up to 25,600 are almost equivalent to what the new D3s is producing. I would put the 1D3/FlexNR combo at least 2 stops ahead of the 1DS2 (with or without any NR program, most of which destroy detail, which FlexNR doesn't do).
Rich Swanner wrote:
What is FlexNR?
A guy over at POTN named Pixmantra, made an action that leverages the sensor of the 1D3, and the fact that it has very little NR (some cams have moderate amounts even on RAWS even when "turned off"). He made custom profiles for every ISO (up to 25,600 which is available with EC), and for most Raw converters and JPG's. He even made custom color profiles. The action runs in multiple passes, and the result is a better noise profle than even the D3 produces, and NO loss of detail or artifacts that you get when using a plain vanilla NR program. It's only been made for the 1D3.
Most people think it doesn't do what it claims, that is until they get the programmer to run one of their high ISO raw images for them. Then they are blown away. If anybody doesn't believe me, just send me a high ISO RAW 1D3 file and I will show you.
I don't have many great shots to show, but this was taken in a very dark arena, at ISO6400. I underexposed by about 1/3 stop (because of the ice) and recovered it in RAW, making this a equivalent of ISO8000. It's not a great example, but all the fine details in the socks, and lettering is retained, 100%. I have some better ones in REALLY low light, with hairs, and cloth that show all detail retained. EXIF is intact.
(btw, I am not affiliated with FlexNR, other than I was one of the first to use it and beta test it)
thedigitalbean wrote:
Based on having used both cameras extensively in the past, here's what I can say:
1. If you fill the frame with your subject on both cameras, the 1Ds2 wins, hands down, the additional resolution easily compensates for the "better" pixels of the 1D3
2. If you crop a 1Ds2 image down to 10mp and compare, the 1D3 comes out ahead, especially at ISO 1600 and 3200.
Now you say you crop for BIF, so the real question is how much. If you are already cropping your 1D2N images, then you will likely be cropping your 1D3 images in which case the added resolution of the 1Ds2 is completely wasted and the 1D3 images will likely produce the better print....Show more →
I agree 100%. This has been my experience as well. Add to it the ability to go to 6400 on the 1D3 really makes it the winner if you need to shoot low light.
you do know Canon makes a 
