1D4 high ISO image tests

schumionbike · Jan 5, 2010

I'm pretty impressed. The room probably isn't as well lit as you think it is. I was at a party the other day, I swear that was the darkest room I've ever been even though it look fairly lit. My camera was set at 1/20, IS0 3200 at f3.5 ( I don't have a faster lens), I wished my D40 didn't isn't so noisy at 3200 IS0. Here are some "darker" photos if you guy want to pixel peep it.

Canon 1D mark IV – test ISO scarsa illuminazione « fotogobbi | blog

I wish my camera could do this

usayit · Jan 5, 2010

So Intempus (or anyone)

Given you've been shooting with the 1dMIII for a while now, I'd like to hear your opinion on what you've seen from your high iso 1d MIII photos versus what you see in the samples of the MIV. In the samples, I am starting to see noise and loss starting to creep in at 12800 (wow). How about in the MIII?

itznfb · Jan 5, 2010

DScience said:
Well this is incredible. I mean for real. If I shoot at ISO 800 I get noise. I don't even see any until like ISO 12800

You really shouldn't be getting any noticeable noise @ 800 with the D90. If you are then your ISO is too high for the lighting conditions. OR you just need some crazy high shutter speed for stopping motion..... which in that case you're going to see noise on even D3s/1DMk4 in those scenarios.

usayit said:
So Intempus (or anyone)

Given you've been shooting with the 1dMIII for a while now, I'd like to hear your opinion on what you've seen from your high iso 1d MIII photos versus what you see in the samples of the MIV. In the samples, I am starting to see noise and loss starting to creep in at 12800 (wow). How about in the MIII?

I know from my limited usage of the 1DMk3 I started to suffer from noise between 800-1600 depending on conditions. Wasn't my camera though so my lack of experience with it could be a contributing factor. I've only used the Mk4 for about 30 minutes.... so I can't really compare.

boogschd · Jan 5, 2010

thats so unreal ... i want one :/

inTempus · Jan 5, 2010

usayit said:
So Intempus (or anyone)

Given you've been shooting with the 1dMIII for a while now, I'd like to hear your opinion on what you've seen from your high iso 1d MIII photos versus what you see in the samples of the MIV. In the samples, I am starting to see noise and loss starting to creep in at 12800 (wow). How about in the MIII?

My 1D3 started to show noise that was noticeable at 3200 but it wasn't bad at all. I could shoot at ISO 6400 pretty easily and with a little NR applied in Lightroom things looked good.

The 1D4 images blow away anything my 1D3 could produce in terms of high ISO performance. ISO 12800 on the 1D4 looks like ISO 6400 on the 1D3 from what I can tell.

Here's a test a user has done comparing, side by side, the 1D4 and the 1D3.

Canon 1D Mark4 vs 1D Mark3 Samples - a set on Flickr

There is no NR being done either in camera or in post according to the poster.

What I am happy to see is that the sharpness and color are nearly identical between them. I always worry that when they cram a few more megapixels in there that sharpness will take a hit (like on the 7D). I loved the images my 1D3 produced and it looks from these sample images that the 1D4 will continue to give me the same images, just at a higher ISO.

inTempus · Jan 5, 2010

itznfb said:
I know from my limited usage of the 1DMk3 I started to suffer from noise between 800-1600 depending on conditions. Wasn't my camera though so my lack of experience with it could be a contributing factor. I've only used the Mk4 for about 30 minutes.... so I can't really compare.

ISO 1600 is clean as a can be, at least that was the case with my body.

I shoot everything in RAW. Here's a shot of a musician I took last year at an event using my 1D3. The ISO setting here is 3200.

I applied no NR to the image outside of the default value in Lightroom.

Montana · Jan 5, 2010

You say the 1DIV blows your mkIII out of the water, then you said ISO 12,800 looks like ISO 6400 on the mkIII. So which is it, it blows it out of the water.....or its one stop better? I am leaning more towards the 1 to 1 1/2 stops better from all the sample I have compaired. BUT, I do not own a mkIII myself so everything is based on online comparisons. Super clean 6400 and even a usable 12,800 is good for me!

inTempus · Jan 5, 2010

Montana said:
You say the 1DIV blows your mkIII out of the water, then you said ISO 12,800 looks like ISO 6400 on the mkIII. So which is it, it blows it out of the water.....or its one stop better? I am leaning more towards the 1 to 1 1/2 stops better from all the sample I have compaired. BUT, I do not own a mkIII myself so everything is based on online comparisons. Super clean 6400 and even a usable 12,800 is good for me!

I guess it's all in how you define "blown out of the water". I would go with the 1-1/2 stops improvement.

I consider that being blown out of the water. I never thought clean ISO 12800 was possible (well, within reason). Now it is. Hell, I used to dread going over ISO 3200 on my 1D3 because it was at the limits of what the camera could do. At 6400 you needed NR. At 3200 you really didn't, or not much. It looks like you don't need any (or not very much) now at 12800 which is incredible IMHO.