High ISO: 1D4 vs. D3s vs. 5D2

[yakim_peled1]

<p><a href="http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/" target="_blank">http://www.neutralday.com/canon-eos-1d-mark-iv-vs-nikon-d3s-iso-comparison/</a></p>

<p>Alas, shock and horror, he used the native resolution. :-)<br>

<br />Happy shooting,<br />Yakim. </p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>wow, how unexpected. If those images are true, canon really dropped the ball on the 1d4.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>Not very fair comparison innit, different format sizes... next gen FF 1DS would be the proper comparison.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Very flawed methodology for comparisons, so the crops have no merit, but his comments about real world shooting are more salient. However the 1D MkIV will sell in numbers and the iso performance is definitely better than the MkIII, and it has many other improvements, so progress is progress.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Out of the camera Vs post processed would likely yield different, more interesting and valuable results.</p>

[zml]

<p>Define better... What's better, less noise (and if so, which kind of noise) or more detail? Lesss noise or less processing artifacts? Less noise or "beter looking" noise? Less noise or more DR at the same ISO setting? Et cetera. This is not as clear cut as the dolts of the world lead us to believe. If you are on the market for 1D4 and are not sure, just rent one and see if its output matches your expectations, instead of making $$ purchasing decisions on some write up on the electronic wildreness, quite possibly made by a low rent BS artist.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>It's shot in JPEG, so it's really more of a comparison about how the different cameras handle in camera noise reduction and processing rather than the native file itself. I'd like to see the three cameras shot in RAW and processed in ACR.</p>

<p>I don't doubt that the D3s would still win though, it's quite the camera!</p>