1dmkIII Iso performance

F

fastworldimages

Messages
998
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
No
Yes ive searched and read alot, so before people jump at me.

If anyone does have useful threads I will be happy to read them though :D

basically shooting alot of music events, currently on a mkIIn, preferably I want to retain shooting on a 1 series as it can double up for all the other stuff I do nicely.

Has anyone here used one for music/club images and if so how did they feel it performed at high isos 1600-3200. I know that 6400 on 'expansion' will probably not be much use like most of the expaded numbers but I am unsure on how well it will perform in the normal peramiters.

The reason this is so important is that not all venues/artists allow flash photography and also not all are lite very well so the need for the iso is quite high.

Many thanks for reading and hope some guys have feedback.

Also no people suggesting buy a 7D I really dont want to go back to a 1.6 crop body :nono:
 
Pete W said:
Have a look at this thread, Many here use the mk3 for nightclubs.... Large thread but worth a look

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=415099
Click to expand...

cheers I allready use that thread, am waiting for a reply other than that I should buy a 7D :lol::lol:

I didnt know if many did use the mkIII anyway, iirc rukes is on a 1ds mkIII and dwight mchan maybe the same, the rest seem to be 400/40Ds

being a mkIII owner have you ever used it in a badly lit room without flash? it seems the mkIII can deal with high iso in reasonable light, but as soon as its a dark room the obvious drop off due to the big shadows is very apparent.
 
The 1DMkIII is much better at high ISOs than the 1DsMkIII.
 
fastworldimages said:
cheers I allready use that thread, am waiting for a reply other than that I should buy a 7D :lol::lol:

I didnt know if many did use the mkIII anyway, iirc rukes is on a 1ds mkIII and dwight mchan maybe the same, the rest seem to be 400/40Ds

being a mkIII owner have you ever used it in a badly lit room without flash? it seems the mkIII can deal with high iso in reasonable light, but as soon as its a dark room the obvious drop off due to the big shadows is very apparent.
Click to expand...

I don't often have call to but I don't like the results 1000 and above, I try to keep 800 as a max !
 
EdBray said:
The 1DMkIII is much better at high ISOs than the 1DsMkIII.
Click to expand...

thanks, something I wasnt aware of.

dseered said:
I don't often have call to but I don't like the results 1000 and above, I try to keep 800 as a max !
Click to expand...

thanks again, interesting that as im often shooting at iso 800 or above on the mkII so i suspect that you would hate the files im getting there :nuts:

Ive read the odd report where someone felt that 1600 on the mkIII was like 400 on the mkII although i find this hard to believe.
 
It all comes down to technique though doesn't it.

The following image is just about famous now on TP - but for good reason.

IMG_8361_sb.jpg


Would you believe that was taken at ISO 1600 on a 450D (entry level body) with no NR at all?
 
trencheel303 said:
It all comes down to technique though doesn't it.

The following image is just about famous now on TP - but for good reason.

IMG_8361_sb.jpg


Would you believe that was taken at ISO 1600 on a 450D (entry level body) with no NR at all?
Click to expand...

That's all well and good but what does the ISO performance on a 450D have to do with the ISO performance on a 1DMKIII? :thinking:

It's like telling me how a Ford Focus drives when I'm looking to buy a Landrover! ;)

Si
 
You didn't have to quote it twice... it was as clear as mud the first time! ;)

We're talking about two entirely different cameras... One basic, consumer model ie. yours and one professional standard camera. Using your trusty 450D to demonstrate the ISO performance of another camera isn't relevant. :thinking:

The OP was requesting TECHNICAL information about a 1DMKIII, not speculation based on what you own! :cuckoo:

I daresay that if the OP ever wants to shoot a bolt on a table in front of some paper at a concert with a 450D, you'll be the first person he'll ask! :D

Si
 
I love the High ISO performance of my Mark III. I'm happy using 3200 no problem, and when the noise is really visible it's actually not that bad as far as noise goes. I've heard people describe it as similar to noise you get with film. I really didn't like the noise with the 7D. It looked very 'digital'
 
Spiritflier said:
You didn't have to quote it twice... it was as clear as mud the first time! ;)

We're talking about two entirely different cameras... One basic, consumer model ie. yours and one professional standard camera. Using your trusty 450D to demonstrate the ISO performance of another camera isn't relevant. :thinking:

The OP was requesting TECHNICAL information about a 1DMKIII, not speculation based on what you own! :cuckoo:

I daresay that if the OP ever wants to shoot a bolt on a table in front of some paper at a concert with a 450D, you'll be the first person he'll ask! :D

Si
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the fact that I own a 450D. I couldn't care less that I own a 450D. All I was saying is that the ISO performance is going to appear to be poorer if one's technique isn't up to scratch, as I discovered some months ago when I started out, and wondered why all my shots above ISO 800 were a grain fest - I was under exposing and then dragging the exposure back in PP.

There seems to be a bit of a stumbling block with people in this forum whereby when someone offers a piece of advice, or a side note, that isn't exactly, 100% within the constraints of the thread (but could still be useful, I'm not exactly talking about the price of fish, and I certainly wasn't going off topic) that half the users go berserk, and it's beginning to get on my knockers. If you have a problem with me, please do say, as it would appear that some members on here do so, and I am finding my experience here at times most unpleasant.
 
trencheel303 said:
It has nothing to do with the fact that I own a 450D. I couldn't care less that I own a 450D. All I was saying is that the ISO performance is going to appear to be poorer if one's technique isn't up to scratch, as I discovered some months ago when I started out, and wondered why all my shots above ISO 800 were a grain fest - I was under exposing and then dragging the exposure back in PP.

There seems to be a bit of a stumbling block with people in this forum whereby when someone offers a piece of advice, or a side note, that isn't exactly, 100% within the constraints of the thread (but could still be useful, I'm not exactly talking about the price of fish, and I certainly wasn't going off topic) that half the users go berserk, and it's beginning to get on my knockers. If you have a problem with me, please do say, as it would appear that some members on here do so, and I am finding my experience here at times most unpleasant.
Click to expand...

All things send and done I have to agree with Spiritflier. The OP was asking for first hand advice on the noise performance of the 1D MkIII and not any other cameras or on technique. Though "technique" is important (I'm guessing that means how steady a user can/can't hold the camera) the OP is specifically asking for noise performance on the 1D MkIII so although bringing up tthe echnique issue is pretty relevant but the photo isn't.

Let's calm down and get back on track and include some current/former 1D MkIII owners to post their shots of this camera's noise performance, eh? :)
 
1D3 at 3200 ISO. Shot raw and processed in Lightroom 2.6 with no edits except white balance. Full image and 100% crop...

20090418_203716_6832_LR.jpg
20090418_203716_6832_LR.jpg
 
I haven't performed back to back tests with the 7D and the 5D2 against the 1D3 but some time back I did make comparisons between my 40D, 50D and 1D3 at ISOs from 100 to 3200. Prior to that I did a similar test with 30D vs 40D vs 50d. My opinion at the time, each time, was that if you forget about the pixels and concentrate on the image, enlarged to the same degree, then there was not a huge difference between them.

If, on the other hand, you were to simply compare 100% crops then, frankly, I think you're wasting your time, unless you like comparing apples with giraffes.

Although there are, I'm sure, some improvements in sensor technology from one generation to the next, the biggest factor (IMHO) in achieving better IQ is to capture more light in the first place, and that means using a longer lens to fill a larger sensor with more light. e.g. if you were to slap a 70-200/2.8 onto the three cameras and shoot them all at 3200 ISO and 100mm, then crop from the 1D3 and 5D2 so they all gave the same composition there would be little to choose. If, however, you were to shoot the 1D3 at 130mm and the 5D2 at 160mm, thus avoiding the need to crop, the cameras with larger sensors would have larger images, formed from more light, needing less enlargement and just looking better.

This does raise other questions, like whether you can compose as you wish, or are focal length limited, and whether you are limited by DOF considerations and need to stop down more on the larger formats. Within their class they are all bloody good cameras, but I see very little point paying for a larger sensor if you don't have the glass to fill it.

I don't have a 3200 ISO example from my 7D, but here is something at 6400 ISO, processed in Lightroom with no edits except WB and a slight crop....

20100115_195834_2032_LR.jpg


The 100% crop doesn't look quite so rosy, unsurprisingly....

20100115_195834_2032_LR.jpg


That doesn't mean you can't get a great picture, though. Here is a 50% crop, again with no edits except WB. If it were not for the motion blur (1/250 is not always enough for sports, but where do you go when already you are at f/2.8 and 6400 ISO?) then a bit of NR could see this looking printable, I think.....

20100115_195834_2032_LR.jpg
 
Here are a couple of example 100% crops from a theatre shoot. The lighting must be relatively similar. Both are 1d3 @ iso3200. It definately helps to nail the exposure which is difficult with a band as the lights change so much. Both have had the WB tweaked but are untouched apart from that. I would say the output if you get the exposure right.

I am favouring my 5D2 slightly for low light but only when the subjects are pretty still.

Canon1D3_32001.jpg

Canon1D3_3200.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top