csd2020 wrote:
Thanks for this comparison. I'll be looking forward to more of these as early adopters start posting samples. FWIW I profiled these in Noise Ninja and it reported the following indexes:
Certainly good numbers for the 1D3 but not 1 or 2 stops as some have reported.
Any numbers for the ISO 6400 shots?
My visual observation puts the difference at about 1/3 stops at 6400, perhaps less at 3200. I had expected a 1-stop difference at 3200 but these images don't show that.
As a 5D owner, that pleases me since I don't have quite the strong tug pulling me towards another body (granted, there are many other features that give the Mk III an advantage, but one does have to ask their self if those features are needed for their own style of shooting).
kylee wrote:
my initial impression is 1D3 is a very pro body 5D
This comment appears to be very close to dead on and indicates that Canon is and has been near the point that it will take a radical change in technology to produce a major improvement in quality. This makes things very interesting for their marketing department.
I believe that the laws of physics dictate that further advances in resolution vs. noise will be very, very difficult. The 1D3 enjoys a modest gain in pixel density over the 5D and produces but a small improvement in noise performance. The steps will be smaller and smaller.
The next rendition of the 5D might well share that pixel density, just as the 5D now shares the same density as the 1D2n. It's noise characteristics will probably show a similar small improvement as the Mk III does/did over the Mk II.
So the bottom line seems to be: the Mark3 has really great high ISO performance, even a bit better than the 5D.
But considering this test the claims made elsewhere ("1-2 stops better than any other Canon camera") look way overhyped. It's very good, but it's not miles ahead.
If you look at the deep shadows the 1D III is clearly cleaner, and you can see smoother tonal transitions although subtle in this test. The gap as ISO grows get larger IMO.
This high ISO performance is only a small part of why I'd buy the 1D III and even if it were only as good as the 5D It wouldn't make any difference to me, as the 5D is very good to start with.
The way I see it is like this. The 5D already has about a 1 stop advantage on all other current Canon cameras and the new 1D3 has a slight advantage on the 5D. Seeing as I shoot in dark gyms (1/400th @ f/2.8 and ISO3200) and even darker fields (1/250th @ f/2.8 and ISO3200) for most of my work, seeing ISO6400 shots that look just like my ISO3200 shots makes me extremely happy. The only problem I have with your tests is, the pictures look slightly underexposed, but even so, the noise looks very nice.
Can you imagine what the 5DmkII (or whatever it'll be called) will be able to produce? If the 1D3 is pulling out shots slightly better than the 5D, I see the next-gen 5D producing ISO1600 shots that look like current ISO400 from crop cameras.
"70-200 2.8 non-IS on tripod, 1D3 shots first, then use 5D, zoom in till similar FOV"
It is almost impossible to use the eyes only to zoom until they are identical, and even if you see the FOV is identical, the 2 VF are not both 100% and 5D is also 1 stop under, so essentially the speed should almost impossible be the same. As long as the final images exposed the same, it should be valid, and most if not all noise test in the net can not make sure the exposure speed must be identical.
Shows two directions the next generation of full frame sensors could go. With larger sites like the 5D sensor they could probably get the ISO3200 performance to the ISO 400 levels. Alternatively, they could go for the same lowlight lownoise smaller sensor size and dramatically improve resolution. Or somewhere in between. Makes me want a 1DSIII or 5D successor even more.
As long as the final images exposed the same, it should be valid, and most if not all noise test in the net can not make sure the exposure speed must be identical.
Obviouly the exposure speed aren't identical for the iso 6400 and the iso 1600.
Every time a new body or lens is released, it is hailed as magic. Then as objective comparisons are made the reality sinks in...manufactureres generally make incremental improvements over previous products. "Magic" is very rare.
I have shot thousands with the 5D and hundreds with the MkIII. A few test images will not tell you enough. Better to run many images through your normal workflow. High ISO speed comparison is not as simple as a hard number (remember that you are comparing a FF image to a 1.274 crop).
The MkIII does indeed have a higher ISO (6400 for "H"). But it handles RAW files differently from the 5D. You will want to use different settings in ACR and different noise and sharpening too. So depending on what you shoot, how big you enlarge and what your output is the results vary. I would think that for New/Press that ISO 6400 would be a given but for glossy Commercial work (at lower ISOs) the 1 Ds MkII is still king.
I think that most of us will agree that the MkIII has at least 1/2 + stop less noise. No doubt that the 5D looks better at Hi ISO-at and above 100% on a computer. But this may or may not be important. My MkIII makes fine 13x19" prints @ 3200.
My recent work indicates that, for my use, the MkIII may allow me to underexpose a bit more than the 5D. So, again for me, the MkIII has a total image equity ISO gain of at least 1 stop and in some case more. Your mileage will vary.
I think this just shows what a fantastic 'ahead-of-it's-time' camera the 5D is, that in comparison with the finest photographic tool ever invented it can still compete (more than that really).
20D on steroids, my @ss, the 5D is still brilliant and fantastic value. AND full frame.
The 5D certainly is wonderful but achieve critical focus in low light (except for the center sensor-thats why I must use MF). The MkIII does a fine job while cranking out 10FPS. And, yes, I too am waiting for a camera hat has the features of the MkIII with FF.
