Canon 1DIII v 1DIV comparison

Tobers

Tobers

Messages
3,435
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Howdy. So I was made very welcome to the Guildford Flames practice session this evening and took a bunch of shots on the 1DVI and 1DIII using the same settings, lenses etc. Never shot ice hockey before so it was an all-round learning session for me.

The thing I'm most interested in initially is the high ISO comparison, so forgive the lack of multiple-frame sequences. Here's a couple to start with. Both at ISO2000 f/2.8 300mm. I'll do some higher ISO shots at the weekend but these should give you an initial heads up. Please note that due to Smugmug size restrictions I cant get a full original 1DIV file (12.6MB) uploaded so both these are exports from Lightroom at 280dpi and 90 quality but no image resizing. Shots were taken as jpegs in the camera. No NR, cropping, sharpening or any other "develop" changes done.

1DIII (click for full size)


1DIV (click for full size)


Looking just at the rendition of the red shirt the 1DIV wins by some margin.

And how hard is ice hockey to shoot!!! Bit faster than rugby and the puck wangs all over the place. The players thought it highly amusing to whack shots directly at me smacking into the plexiglass in front of my nose. Oh how I laughed.

And here's a few 1DIV only shots which I've cropped & straightened a bit. To be honest I'm only putting these up as I'm embarrassed by the lack of stunning action in the two shots above, but I was trying to get two comparative pics with the same colours & rough composition, and that's the only two that fitted the bill. Again all at ISO2000 1/1000th at f/2.8 but maybe some on a 70-200 too. No clicky on these. All I need to do now is get the puck in shot and I'm laughing...

764858154_HrG9A-L.jpg


764858069_TgBLg-L.jpg


764858241_EpDab-L.jpg


764858194_64LsX-L.jpg



I'll have put up some more tomorrow after I've had a few hours kip.
 
Been waiting for some real world images from the MKIV and to be honest based on the one original file i'd be very dissapointed with it, at ISO 2000 its only as good as the D3 at ISO 2500 let alone the D3's

Heres a link for a shoot out between the MKIV and D3's, ignore the lower ISO stuff as theyre abouyt equal but 1600 ISO and above the D3's looks 1-2 stops better.

http://www.moss-foto.com/nctest/cnjpg.htm
 
Rovers_Andy said:
Cheers for the edit, i wondered why i couldn't see much difference :bonk:
Click to expand...

Yeah - me too. I was looking at them thinking "hmmm...not worth the money" before I realised. Ho ho.

Gary Coyle said:
Been waiting for some real world images from the MKIV and to be honest based on the one original file i'd be very dissapointed with it, at ISO 2000 its only as good as the D3 at ISO 2500 let alone the D3's
Click to expand...

I'll do some more higher ISO shots this weekend. You may well be right about the D3 but seeing as I'm bought into Canon my main interest is in the improvements over the 1DIII. Maybe I'll turn up the in camera NR and try that too.

You're looking at 16mp v 12mp on the D3. I'm sure someone cleverer than me can work out whether there's an apparent difference in the image quality as any noise on the 1DIV will look less noticable for a given print size?
 
Looks good enough to me at 2000 :) the shots above just won't show noise on "normal" sized prints.

How did you find the AF?
 
Hmmm, now where can i get the cash for a 1DmkIV

No offence meant here, but i hate that people are comparing the 2 brands and "who is better then who" when you are already bought in to a system, its harder to change out (unless you are minted ;) ). What matters to me is how well the camera performs and would it do a job for me, not a "well, this one is slightly better then that one at ISO 3,000,000 blah blah blah". I understand there will always be people comparing it, but if it was miles worse, then i could understand, but we really are pushing the boat at ISO 2000 here. And yes, this is coming from a guy who shoots at ISO 1600 on a 1DmkII in dim churches etc
 
If I still had Canon I'd be seriously ready to take the plunge into a MkIV. For what I shoot, APS-H is an ideal format and the MkIV looks pretty damned good to me.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Please dont hate me, im a nice bloke really :shrug:
Click to expand...

:annoyed:

I dont hate people, i hate that people compare the two brands and just purely based on the latest batch of cameras, are happy to jump ship every 5 minutes. I am loving the IQ of the current Nikon line-up after what i deemed a dreadful early exsistance compared to Canon, but i dont feel the need to jump ship when the work i do is handled well by the current Canon Line-up and feel that so many people are quick to throw in the towel when something "better" comes along that probably in the real world wont make a ***** worth of difference to the actual final results as prints :D

And Gary, dont worry, i'm too much of a nice guy too :) :hug:
 
I dont hate you either Gary (not too much anyway) - it'll just be nice for me not to look like a total spanner in the media room at a rugby game when Mr D3 next to me has much much cleaner shots than me. Instead I'll be able to amaze him with my cropping ability :D.

Anyway, onto some other non-in-depth analysis of the new camera.

Focus is smooth and very fast. I left all the settings mostly as standard, stuck it in AI Servo and let it get on with it using a single focus point and all 49 points to assist.

Immediately I noticed how superbly cool the auto-rotate of the AF point is if you swap from horizontal orientation of the camera to vertical (landscape to portrait). If in portrait and focusing on the subject's head using the focus point above the centre one, and then switching to landscape, the focus point switches automatically to stay above centre. Coolio! I'd got so used to doing it manually I had forgotten how much I do this, so having the camera do it for me is very nice.

It has typical 1D-style rapidity for acquiring focus on the given subject. Very slick, but seems to always get it first time rather than the little "bounce" that the 1DII would give as it zeroed in.

Focus tracking appears excellent. I've not really had noticeable problems with the 1DIII, so it'll take a while before I can give a better comparison. It certainly held good crisp focus on hockey players skating straight at me at speed. I'll dig out an example sequence some time today.

The buttons feel a bit smoother. It's got that lovely tight, crisp, new camera feel to it.

It smells lovely :cool:

The screen is super - really crisp and a big improvement over the 1DIII in sharpness and detail. All the controls and layout of buttons are essentially the same so once you've set up things the way you want, any 1DIII user will feel straight at home.

There are more menus and more custom functions. Must read the manual. There appears to be AE microadjustment whatever that is, and some other microadjustment thing that is new.

I worked out how the video works :clap:. Looks uber-cool with a 50 1.4.

I'm about to look at a few RAW files as I shot RAW + jpeg. Will keep you posted on that.
 
Indeed, I hope to see the smell issue used more often in Canon vs Nikon arguments :D
 
based on the one MKIV file at iso 2000 I would be wanting my money back :(

Sorry but theres something wrong here..I do a lot of ice hockey so the test is good for me... But I get better files on my mkIII at the higher iso 2500
 
With a bit more of a "real world" test following my usual workflow but with a RAW file, here's another shot.

This one went into Lightroom as a RAW. I upped the levels as I was underexposing consistently throughout the set (noob mistake with lots of white ice), added about a quarter of a slider on Luminance NR and nothing on Colour NR, and sharpening about 1/3rd up on the slider.

ISO2000, 1/1000th, f/2.8 @ 115mm on a 70-200. Click for full size.

 
Tobers said:
ISO2000, 1/1000th, f/2.8 @ 115mm on a 70-200. Click for full size.

Click to expand...

He's not a real Ice Hockey player.....he has all his teeth :lol:
 
KIPAX said:
based on the one MKIV file at iso 2000 I would be wanting my money back :(

Sorry but theres something wrong here..I do a lot of ice hockey so the test is good for me... But I get better files on my mkIII at the higher iso 2500
Click to expand...

Thats the original point i was making, its quite poor for ISO 2000, it looks very "soft" as well
 
Gary Coyle said:
Thats the original point i was making, its quite poor for ISO 2000, it looks very "soft" as well
Click to expand...

On softness, dont worry overly about that. My 300 2.8 is on +8 micro focus adjustment on the 1DIII so I just stuck the 1DIV on the same without doing a proper calibration so it's likely wrong. I'll be doing the tweaking later today on that.

The 70-200 shot I just popped up might be a better guide.
 
Tobers said:
With a bit more of a "real world" test following my usual workflow but with a RAW file, here's another shot.

This one went into Lightroom as a RAW. I upped the levels as I was underexposing consistently throughout the set (noob mistake with lots of white ice), added about a quarter of a slider on Luminance NR and nothing on Colour NR, and sharpening about 1/3rd up on the slider.

ISO2000, 1/1000th, f/2.8 @ 115mm on a 70-200. Click for full size.

Click to expand...

Whatever processing you or the camera has done to this image, its absolutley murdered the skin tones
 
This is about the same distance as your mkIV shot ... Stright out of a markIII no processing.. no in camera NR and shot in JPG .. this is iso 2500 in far poorer lighting than you had as my shutter is 320 as apposed to your 1000


its the 100% untouched out the box jpg iso 2500
http://www.kipax.net/KIP_9935.JPG

thoughts?
 
Tobers said:
On softness, dont worry overly about that. My 300 2.8 is on +8 micro focus adjustment on the 1DIII so I just stuck the 1DIV on the same without doing a proper calibration so it's likely wrong. I'll be doing the tweaking later today on that.

The 70-200 shot I just popped up might be a better guide.
Click to expand...


I was thinking maybe it needs a tweak... maybe its not noise maybe its slightly oof .... i hate doing micr adjustment arrrgh :)
 
Have to agree with Kipax, I don't see enough difference (if any) to justify the massive price tag. Obviously this is just one test and I am looking forward to seeing some more pictures (especially any rugby and football ones).
 
Kipax, that does look really quite clean for ISO2500

I think the best way to tell is compare the two shots of the OP's, because he was the one shooting, and i can see a massive difference between the two

Then, give yours a test once you get it and give it a try in real life.
 
oh and Tobers... dont take any of this the wrong way.. I really do appreciate you posting these tests up.. seriously.. thank you :)
 
No worries mate - I'm putting it all on the line for you :-)
 
So why do i want a mkIV if my mkIII handles noise so well? The shutter on that is 320 so you can imagine the keeper rate using a slow shutter on a fast action sport... A mkIV should give me same iso results but hopefully at twice the shutter speed :)
 
KIPAX said:
This is about the same distance as your mkIV shot ... Stright out of a markIII no processing.. no in camera NR and shot in JPG .. this is iso 2500 in far poorer lighting than you had as my shutter is 320 as apposed to your 1000


its the 100% untouched out the box jpg iso 2500
http://www.kipax.net/KIP_9935.JPG

thoughts?
Click to expand...

Hi Tony, thats a full stop better than the MK4 at lower ISO and looks more like ISO 2500 from a D3, need to bear in mind noise shows more in darker areas and the MK4 has more darker areas but it is still poor in comparrison.
 
KIPAX said:
This is about the same distance as your mkIV shot ... Stright out of a markIII no processing.. no in camera NR and shot in JPG .. this is iso 2500 in far poorer lighting than you had as my shutter is 320 as apposed to your 1000


its the 100% untouched out the box jpg iso 2500
http://www.kipax.net/KIP_9935.JPG

thoughts?
Click to expand...
Hi,

I think the lighting and the white shirt in your shot makes a huge difference, the one thing I noticed in the 1st sample of Tobers' Mark IV was the edge of the 'G' look pretty fuzzy although there was certainly a lot less noise on the gloves, as per usual with Canon bodies if the image is slightly dark at all noise is present.

I'm just waiting patiently for the Mark III's to plummet in price on the used market ;) and even the Mark II's will take a huge hit as well :thumbs:

Mike.
 
KIPAX said:
This is about the same distance as your mkIV shot ... Stright out of a markIII no processing.. no in camera NR and shot in JPG .. this is iso 2500 in far poorer lighting than you had as my shutter is 320 as apposed to your 1000


its the 100% untouched out the box jpg iso 2500
http://www.kipax.net/KIP_9935.JPG

thoughts?
Click to expand...

Aside from yours being properly exposed compared to mine, look at the red band at the top of your shot. Compare it with the red jersey of the player in my shot. Or compare the red band in your shot to the darker area above the boards at the top of my shot. I wouldn't compare the lighter areas as the noise tends to show most in the shadows.
 
Tobers said:
Aside from yours being properly exposed compared to mine, look at the red band at the top of your shot. Compare it with the red jersey of the player in my shot. Or compare the red band in your shot to the darker area above the boards at the top of my shot. I wouldn't compare the lighter areas as the noise tends to show most in the shadows.
Click to expand...

Hi,

that was my thoughts too ;)

Mike.
 
compare the red band in your shot to the darker area above the boards at the top of my shot.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I have just been doing. The IV is much much smoother in these areas and that says to me that once you've got the right set up and process steps for you, it's going to be very worthwhile upgrade in real world terms. :thumbs:
 
mikeyb said:
I'm just waiting patiently for the Mark III's to plummet in price on the used market ;)
Click to expand...

Mines less than a yr old straight from canon as a replacement.. all latest everything... no idea how many clicks but it was on the shorter lens so not used as much as my other mkIII .. 1400 quid.. unfortunatly everyone i have met so far who says they are loking for a cheap mkIII must be looking for cheaper than mine :(
 
What i find quite amusing about this whole topic is that a lot of us are submitting work to papers who will inevitably take your image, crop it so its not framed poorly, adjust the colours to their uncalibrated monitor and then print it in such low dpi you can barely tell its been taken on a DSLR.

Yet here we are pixel peeping at resolutions that photo editors are probably not aware even exist. :lol:

Fair enough for you guys getting work in glossy mags over large spreads, but i cant say i'm there yet.

Also for what its worth i think the silly ISO's 25,600 and above look better on the Canon. Albeit i agree at 12,800 the Nikon does look better than the Canon. Which is probably the ISO of most interest to me, so i can work the shutter speeds back up on flood lit games.

But they are all far too expensive, i will take advantage of the drop in 1dmkiii price and make do with 2nd best.
 
Yep - that's probably a good approach to be honest. The 1DIII will still produce images just as good as it did yesterday. I've got larger-than-life-size rugby shots up on the walls in boxes at Twickenham with a 1DIII and they still look super.

I rarely go over ISO3200, so any improved cleanliness at that level is always going to be good news, as is the ability to get a faster shutter speed. Add that to more croppability and it's quite compelling. However, if you aint got the money going spare then the 1DIII will do just fine.
 
KIPAX said:
Mines less than a yr old straight from canon as a replacement.. all latest everything... no idea how many clicks but it was on the shorter lens so not used as much as my other mkIII .. 1400 quid.. unfortunatly everyone i have met so far who says they are loking for a cheap mkIII must be looking for cheaper than mine :(
Click to expand...

Hi,

if I had the cash then I'd have that off you in a heartbeat as I know how hard you persevered to get a good one.

Mike.
 
interesting reading chaps
mainly academic for a happy snapper like me but thanks for posting up the images

the Nikon/canon link was very interesting too, although not what this thread is really about :)
 
A bit more ISO experimentation for your delight. This time I thought I'd try playing with the "High ISO Speed Noise Reduction" facility on the 1DIV. This has 4 settings, off, low, standard and strong, and compare with the 1DIII.

Firstly, here's the reference 1DIII shot at ISO3200 50mm f/2.0. Sorry, no more rubbish ice hockey shots, just some batteries. But note how I've given you a pic with some nice dark areas and some nice light areas. Note that I exported all these at 3000px long edge which makes the pics all the same size. I'm aware this may be seen as giving the 1DIV an advantage, but hey the picture editors I speak to ask for files of a certain max pixel size at 300dpi so this is more real life than looking 1:1 at each pixel. (click for bigger)


And here's the 1DIV same settings with the in-camera NR off (click for bigger)


1DIV with in camera NR at "strong" (click for bigger)


And just for fun, the 1DIV at ISO 6400 1/200th f/2.0 50mm with in camera NR at "strong" (click for bigger)


Enjoy peeping peeps.
 
noise reduction looks good...normally just softens the image completely. am excited about seeing some of your rugby images with it!
 
Just done a "proper" ice hockey match, Guildford v Manchester, after dialling in my lenses. I may have actually exposed correctly this time.

I've got to say that the 1DIV is awesome. Just going through the pics. I'll post some up Sunday AM. Focus tracking is super. High ISO is a major improvement on the 1DIII.

Still no clue about shooting ice hockey though - v.tricky indeed so kudos to Kipax and others that do it regularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top