I have grown tired of waiting for Canon to fix the AF issues in the 1D Mk III so in a few days I am going to check – and possibly buy - a 1Ds Mk II. For those of you who had both, how do they differ in high ISO (1600 and 3200)?
If you have comparative pictures that will be great. If not, a verbal description will also be nice.
P.S. It is likely that once the 1D Mk III AF problems I will sell this one and buy it. It’s just that I am no longer sure it will happen anytime soon.
The 1D3 has clear pixel-by-pixel advantage at ISO 1600 and 3200. Personally I shoot my 1Ds2 at 3200 only as a last act of desperation, while with the 1D3 it's not all that bad. However, there's one thing to consider beyond pixel-by-pixel noise: the fact that the 1Ds2 has 60% more of them. So if you resize a 1Ds2 image to be the same size as that of a 1D3, the difference isn't all that great anymore. It's still noticeable, but not huge (i.e., not the same as say between 1Ds and 1Ds2).
Personally I have found little use for the 1D3 since I got it in July and still vastly prefer the 1Ds2 for most of *my* shooting. I don't need frame rates, like wide angle and shallow DOF and rarely touch 1600, forget about 3200. YMMV.
Craig, as crappy as they may be, they showed me that the difference is not that big. Either that or is it that they are really crappy, as Stan would probably argue….
There is a lot of detail in those 1Ds2 images at high ISO that cannot be captured with only 60% of the pixels, and the images can be cleaned up nicely with appropriate noise reductioon software. If you are not always or often shooting at high ISO then the 1Ds2 will serve you very well.
Both cameras share similar effective dynamic range, which is better than for most other cameras.
There's a lot more to high-ISO photography than low noise. The 1D3 sensor has been improved a bit but not much. Most of the noise improvement comes from processing in the digic 3 computer, and that can be done in software (with some dedicated NR software doing it better than most other general purpose software).
Alan321 wrote:
There's a lot more to high-ISO photography than low noise. The 1D3 sensor has been improved a bit but not much. Most of the noise improvement comes from processing in the digic 3 computer, and that can be done in software (with some dedicated NR software doing it better than most other general purpose software).
- Alan
There is alot more to high ISO photography than simply low noise, I totally agree. I don't fully agree with saying that everything noise related that Digic 3 does can be replicated using something like NeatImage+. Put it this way, images that come out of my 1D Mark 3 at ISO 3200 with all in camera NR turned off are way better than ones that come out of my 1D2N at ISO 3200 having been processed with NeatImage+. High ISO will generally also mean low light and in my opinion I would say the 1D3 will definitely win here, it's low light focussing ability is unlike anything I have used before. I wish I could say the same about it's AI-Servo ability, hold on, I can, for people sports it is cr*p!
I don’t see much, if any difference in the high ISO noise from the 1Ds2 and 1D2, but the file quality is generally better from the 1Ds2 because of the extra MP. If you don’t need the high frame rate, the 1Ds2 is the better camera. I did down load and print the ISO 3200 file Nikon posted from their D3, and the noise (or lack of) in this image is significantly better
than I get in my 1Ds2. I still have my Nikon lenses, and the D3 is a very tempting replacement for my 1D2....
My understanding is that the Mark III does in-camera noise reduction more aggressively, hence the better look at higher ISO. However, the 1DS MII is full frame, and has larger file sizes, so if you use noise reduction on the images in PS, I think the files look better than the Mark III.
My opinion.
The D3 is very tempting for me as well (and have you seen their 14-24/2.8 with its amazing MTF?) but there's a lot more to a system than just one body and I am not wealthy enough to have two systems…..
emandavi wrote:
My understanding is that the Mark III does in-camera noise reduction more aggressively, hence the better look at higher ISO. However, the 1DS MII is full frame, and has larger file sizes, so if you use noise reduction on the images in PS, I think the files look better than the Mark III.
My opinion.
But if in-camera noise reduction (that would be CFn II-1 (for long exposure nr) and CFn II-2 (for high ISO nr)) is all OFF surely the RAW image you are getting from the Mark 3 has had no NR done it other than what the sensor/digic 3 processes? In my opinion, an image shot with these settings contains loads of detail to work with.
last night i was forced to push the reality curtain aside and shoot at iso 6400 on the 1D3
this image was at 1/50s f/2.8 at 48.0mm iso6400. lighting was 2 candelabras with 6 each 10 watt flame bulbs. the room had to say the least reduced lighting. not the best but surprising. yes there was noise reduction used
Thank you for the pictures. I think that while the 1D Mk III may be better, the 1Ds Mk II will not disappoint me in this regard. Now all that's left is to find out about that cursed shutter….
I recently (about 3 weeks ago) sold my 1Ds2 for a 1D3 and have been making qualitative comparisons between the two. On a pure pixel-wise comparison the 1D3 bests the 1Ds2 at ISO 1600 and 3200. The difference isn't so much in the noise level but in the dynamic range and micro contrast.
Dynamic range decreases pretty linearly with a low slope on a 1Ds2 up until ISO 800. There is a sharper drop at ISO 1600 and a huge drop at ISO 3200. My observational (not measured) experience with the 1D3 suggests that the linear drop with low slope now extends to ISO 1600 with a sharper drop at 3200 and a huge drop at 6400.
The 60% resolution advantage of the 1Ds2 more than compensates for any difference at ISO 1600 (in my opinion). My advice (based purely on high ISO noise level) would be that unless you are focal length limited (i.e. you are a wildlife photographer) to stick with a 1Ds2. Now, my advice changes considerably if you start consider things like low light AF ability, UI and some of the new 1D3 features.
The truth is that I really want the 1D Mk III but as I am afraid getting one with AF problems. According to the survey here at FM the odds are about 50/50 and that is to high for me. Therefore I am considering alternatives till canon will fix this.
