ISO Noise on 5D vs. 1D MKIII or Nikon D3

[fotogen]

I am interested in purchasing a 1D Mk III. I currently own a 5D body and I use it with L glass lenses. The

images of this camera are amazing in Low ISO settings, 100 or 200. Starting from ISO 400, I see plenty of noise

(Luminance noise, this level of noise does depend of the lighting environment however). I hear many people say

that 5D is really good at ISO 800. My experience has been the opposite. ISO 800 is very, very noisy on the 5D

body. Images are not usable for professional photography.

Does any one have any experience with any two or all three combination of the cameras in the Subject 5D, 1D

MKIII, Nikon D3 and have compared the noise at Higher ISO's of these cameras? 1D MKIII is suppose to be very

good at ISO 800 (No noticeable noise). Is 1D MK III really less noisier in High ISO's?

I have seen images of Nikon D3 at ISO 1600 and it looks as good as 5D's ISO 200. But I am not sure if this

camera's focusing is as good as 1D MK III, specially in really low lighting.

 

Thank You

[zml]

<i> ISO 800 is very, very noisy on the 5D body. Images are not usable for professional photography.</i><br>What

kind of output you are generating? Do you see that"unusable" noise on a printed image of just pixel-peep on the

monitor @100% and 72dpi..?

[steve torelli]

I think many people misinterpret "good high ISO performance" to mean they won't see any noise at higher ISO. Not true, there's always some noise, especially at higher ISO. I've used a 5D for two years now and it is very good at high ISO if I don't under expose. If I do, I can get noise at low ISO. Like with anything else in photography it's up to the operator to get it right.

[photo_dark]

If you are finding photos 'unusable' due to noise at ISO 800 on a 5D, then I doubt you will be happy with anything. I have a rather large collection of photos taken using a 40D at different events at ISO 1600 - f2.8 - 1/60 that are not only usable, they are quite excellent. There is some noise, but is so minimal on a 8x10 print it may as well be 'non-existant'. Either you are consistently under-exposing photos, have ultra-high noise standards, or there is something seriously wrong with your camera.

 

If I can take excellent, low noise photos with a 40D, then i'm sure the 1D would be that much better.

[bobatkins]

You must have a bad 5D or you're doing something wrong. At ISO 800 my 5D seems to generate pretty noise free images as shown below.<div></div>

[fotogen]

I do agree that some of images taken with 5D during daylight are actually pretty good at ISO 1000.

The images that I am complaining about are some of which I have taken at a few weddings (as a guest) where lighting is very low to none. These images are very noisy at ISO 800. Some of these Images are under-exposed for obvious reasons. For example, at times, the flash would not reach the subjects so the environmental lighting was the main light and since in Manual mode, the image would be under-exposed. These images are not usable at ISO 800. Has anyone else experienced this?

[elliot1]

Hadi, why not post a sample shot?

 

I find I get a bit of color noise at higher ISOs but unlike most other cameras, the 5D images retain high detail. If your images are underexposed, they will show noise.

[carbon_dragon]

Well, people took wedding pictures before we had DSLRs with adjustable ISOs. There are perhaps other arrows you could put in your quiver to limit how high you had to put the ISO. The IS lenses give you a couple of extra stops you can use to keep the ISO lower. Very fast lenses like the 50/1.4 gives you 2 stops over a 2.8 lens (but no IS). Monopods give you a little extra stabilization.

 

Hey you could try a Leica and a 50/1.0 Noctilux lens ;-)

[will king]

Short answer: Yes. The 1D Mark III handles better in high ISO, but I would echo Bob's statement. You must have a

bad 5D because ISO800 looks great.

 

<br>

<br>

<i> "I have seen images of Nikon D3 at ISO 1600 and it looks as good as 5D's ISO 200." </i>

<br>

Hogwash. Let's get real. Yes, the D3 handles noise very well, but again, you must be dealing with a defective 5D.

[will king]

Here is a shot with the 1D Mark III at ISO800. No noise reduction, not even in RAW.<div></div>

[picturesque]

Any camera will have noise at high ISOs if you underexpose. Before jumping to another camera, try not underexposing with the 5D first. In fact, overexpose a little--let some minor highlights blow and recover them in post processing (shooting RAW).

[johnmottershaw]

I have a 12x16 wedding display print that was taken in a dark room, using available light and at least a stop underexposed

at 800ISO from a 5D. It is absolutely superb and noise free.

 

Your 5D is faulty.

[alec_myers]

I regularly take and sell professionally 12x8 prints from pictures taken with a 5D exposed under artificial light at ISO1600 and pushed a further whole stop in Lightroom. No customer has ever thought to complain about the, er, noise, and if they did, I'd explain that pictures taken in light that's almost too dim to read by can show a little grain. It just depends on your expectations.

[g dan mitchell]

You may see noise above ISO 400 in images from a properly exposed 5D shot displayed at 100% on the screen. However,

this noise is pretty darn insignificant in a print, even one that is pretty good sized. I shoot at 800 regularly in low light

situations and prints look fine.

[asher]

<i>"These images are very noisy at ISO 800. Some of these Images are under-exposed"</i><p>

 

There's your answer. My 5D performs so well at high ISO, I often leave it at ISO 400-640 and bump it up to 1000-1250 in low light. Underexposure will exaggerate any noise, but this is still only visible if I really zoom in and pixel peep.<p>

 

Otherwise, your 5D may indeed be faulty.

[christopher hartt dallas]

Hadi, you can see that you 'touched a nerve' by talking trash about the 5D. It's a camera that has almost mythical qualities for photographers who want a 1Ds3 but have the budget for the 5D.

 

I agree with the comments concerning ISO 800. You should be getting pretty good images. The 1D3 really begins to shine (compared to 5D) at ISO 1600 and 3200. Also, if you're a careful (technical) shooter, the 1D3 will yield better shadow detail in bird feathers and bride's dresses due to 14-bit capability (but only if you use 16 bit colorspace in Photoshop).

 

I heard a lot about the Nikon D3 and finally, frustrated with the reviews and comparisons, I bought one along with a 24-70 lens and sb800 flash.

 

Well...it's good, very good. If I weren't so invested in Canon, I'd choose it over the 1D3 - although I do really like the sensor cleaning and ISO override of the 1D3 better than the D3.

 

My biggest complaint about the 5D is that it's a "dirty" camera. There is a never ending sequence of dust that ends up on my images when I use it.

 

There has been much speculation about the 'new improved 5D' in this forum. Well, my thinking is that the "New" 5D has arrived...and Nikon makes it (D700). Maybe the D700 is a more appropriate comparison for you to be making to the 5D. From all accounts I've read so far, the 5D is the 'redheaded stepchild' of reasonably priced, FF bodies compared to the D700.

 

Yup, I know...I'm gonna get a lot of "Dear Stupid" responses from this post...but hey, I just call 'em as I see 'em.

[bob_osullivan]

Even my lowly XTi has excellent noise performance at 1600. I also have a 30D and 5D all excellent. Yes Nikon may have slightly surpased Canon recently but I belive it is marginal. Sounds like you are not sure if you have a noise problem or not. But I have seen a freinds 5D that had a terrible noise problem, the pink dust type. It was a bad CMOS sensor and had to be sent in for repair.

 

You should be able to shoot in low light with mostly dark backround as long as you properly expose something in the frame ther should be no noise problem up to 1600. I do a lot of theatre work and low light is a constant. I have no problems with any of my canon bodies.

 

So, take some test shots, and if you still get noise with proper exposure at 800 send it in for repair.

[chrisjb]

A few times I have heard a complaint as yours, one major problem turned out to be badly or non calibrated monitors. I bought a 40d as a spare body and now its used mostly all times. All our work (restuarant, niteclubs and events etc) is mainly at 800ISO and printed and sold daily with no problems. You don`t give samples or whether Raw, jpeg, or your methods of processing. I had my own pro wet lab many years and my experience sees better high ISO performance than most films. How do you print your professional standard prints showing the extreeme noise?

 

I agree with christopher the D3 is excellent, and worth having one for odd jobs, but I have seen a shootout with 1d3 and niether won up to 6400ISO. I think D3 slowest ISO maybe 200. Perhaps more info will give a better response :)

[kasperhettinga]

Take a look at this link about the quality vs underexposure issue:<br>

<a>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml</a><br>

This is the same as Nadine already told: using slight overexposure and correcting it in PP will give better

images.<br><br>

I actually get better results overexposing slightly at ISO 1600 and correcting it afterwards than using ISO 800

with slight underexposure: both with about the same shutter speed/aperture...(this is for a 20D). In my

experience, the amount of detail lost after noise reduction is larger for underexposed pictures...

[adrian_lowe]

I have both 5D and 1D mkIII cameras, I use them to make a living, so I suppose you could say that I use thenm professionally. I don't have a problem with noise @ 800 ASA (ISO).

 

I wonder, what are you photographing to create SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much noise? Does th noise appear in the shadows by any chance? Perhaps your control of exposure might do with some attention?

[jan_jarczyk]

5D isnt bad really! i'v got a few pictures taken at iso1600 and 3200 which are very usable - if i were you i woul tend to overexpose rather then underexpose - i know shoter will slow down . f so then use iso 1600 :-)<div></div>

[pclancy]

If it's wedding photos you're talking about at 800 ISO in low light then you are most likely shooting candids with no flash and a shutter speed of 125 or faster and you're images are simply underexposed. I constantly shoot my 5D at 1250-1600 ISO with minimal noise providing I'm not compensating for exposure in editing. Besides, noisy wedding photos are "artistic"...remember? I doubt another camera is the solution.

[pankaj purohit]

Any kind of "Grain" on films at any ISO was acceptable in the film era and grain was not disturbing the beauty of "Photograph"

[peterq]

Quote:

> For example, at times, the flash would not reach the subjects so .. <

 

What light level was there, what kind of flash did you use and what distance did you have to the object?

To me it seems you had extreme conditions.

[ilkka_nissila]

Grain was accepted by some, and hated by others, who usually resorted to MF or LF film sizes. Many people think that 5x enlargement is the maximum for color film for reproduction purposes, if the highest quality is desired. Above that, you need larger formats to avoid image degradation.

 

I still shoot 35mm and 6x7 film along with crop and full-frame DSLR sensor cameras. I think all of them still have their place, although I'm using 35mm less than I used to, thanks to the brilliant new full-frame digital cameras. 6x7 reproduces much more detail than any 35mm based digital system but it's more clumsy to operate.

 

I love to use 35mm color negative film for moderately small prints between 4x6 and 8x12 inches. It has its own character. Yes, grain, too. But I don't often shoot 35mm film for large prints (A3+), digital is so much better at this.