High ISO (7D vs. 1D Mk II)

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by brian_wallace|5, Feb 29, 2012.

  1. According to their DXOmark scores my 1D Mk II (which I just got and am just learning to use) should be better (albeit slightly) than my 7D at high ISO when it comes to noise. The DXOmark score for the 7D is 854 while the 1D Mk. II scores 1003. Am I correctly interpreting this as to say that I will get lower noise levels at ISO 3200 on my 1D Mk II than I will at ISO 3200 on my 7D?
  2. The 7D is much, much better at the image level than the 1D MK II.
  3. I tried out the low light capability of my 7D and was quite impressed with the overall image quality. This was shot in a very dark room at iso-6400.
  4. If DXOmark said it was 2012 I would need to check the calendar to make sure. Their findings have absolutely no bearing on image quality at any given ISO. I am sure DXO are in cahoots with that Rockwell idiot.
  5. I own the 1DIIN and 7D. The 1DIIN is less noisy at 1600 and 3200 than the 7D. However the extra resolution of the 7D
    allows more noise reduction so in my opinion you end up with very little difference between the two bodies. That said the
    prints have a different look. One advantage of the 1 series body is that it tends to be less susceptible to under or over
    exposure at high ISO than the 7D. Missing the exposure slightly on the 7D makes the image very noisy
  6. I don't have any comparative tests, but the 1D II has a highest native ISO of 1600. ISO 3200 is labeled "H" and is a push of 1600. For this reason, I don't shoot at ISO 3200 on the Mk II and the 7D may beat it. Neither camera is terrible at high ISO noise handling, but I am not as impressed as others by the 7D's noise control; I find it to be rather noisy at high ISO's. The 1D II on the other hand, does have a larger sensor and less pixels, but it's quite old and the technology can't match up to today's standards (regarding noise), so it isn't a supurb performer either, but it'll get the job done.
  7. Thanks for all the information - my own simple tests had pretty much shown me that they were comparable in performance.
  8. Not sure if this applies to the mkII but, I own the 1DIII and 7D, I think the 7D is better at high ISO if exposed correctly (and resized to 10MP), otherwise I agree with Philip, the 1D is more forgiving to under and over exposure. This makes it easier to get good low-light photos with the 1D even though the 7D is intrinsically better at high ISO.
  9. I own the 1DIIN and 7D. The 1DIIN is less noisy at 1600 and 3200 than the 7D​
    I have no idea what you must be doing to come to that conclusion - at the image level the 7D easily has a stop or more over the 1D Mk II.
    This isn't a matter of more pixels allowing more NR - the 7D is just a cleaner camera at the image level.
    Put it another way: as David points out, in his experience (and mine) the 7D will give the Mk III a run for its money - and that body is miles better than the Mk II...
  10. I was (am)very dissapointed with my 7D (pixel peeping) image quality. Seems the worst on blue sky. Jamming 18MP into a crop sensor will do that. Images from my 6MP 10D were smoother. But then, I guess looking at an image file at 100% is not the best way to judge image quality.
  11. Keith here is an old post showing the crops. I find my 1DIIN is quite clean at 1600 and pretty good at 3200
    For what it is worth (I always take DXO mark tests with a bit of scepticism) the 1DIIN and 1DIII have similar high ISO performance
  12. Stop reading charts and numbers. Instead look at real life images. What does that tell you?
    Lower res cameras often show less noise. Due to lower detail, one can also get away with image imperfections.
    7D is fine camera.
  13. The AF of the MkII bodies is better than the 7D. Shoot RAW and convert and you end up choosing the MkII for all its quality as well as the much lower price on the used market.

Share This Page