High ISO - 7D or 1D MkIII?

[Chris Brennan]

I currently shoot with a 7D but have become increasingly disappointed with my high ISO (800-1600) results. I'm considering picking up a low mileage 1D MkIII because I've heard that I'll get less noise in that ISO range than the 7D. I realize that we're talking about technology that's now quite a few years old but would like to get some opinions... Unfortunately I just cannot afford a 1D MkIV right now...

Thanks!

[Arthur Morris]

MIII for less noise by miles....

[Doug Brown]

Mark III wins that contest.

[arash_hazeghi]

MKIII

[Roger Clark]

Chris,
The Mark III has larger pixels, so will collect more light per pixel giving higher signal-to-noise ratio (lower apparent noise), but you will lose pixels on the subject in focal length limited situations.

But the 1DIII is a couple of generations old, so the pixels are less efficient. If for example, you normalize pixels on subject (e.g. by using TCs) with a given lens, then the 7D pixels are about 2x more efficient. Thus if you used a 1.4x TC with the 1DIII versus no TC with the 7D, the 7D will give you more pixels on the subject and better noise per pixel.

For example, if you use a 500 f/4 + 1.4x TC a lot of the time, simply switch to no TC and move to the next lower ISO. You would lose pixels on subject, but gain light per pixel thus better apparent noise. Switching to the 1DIII will lose more pixels on subject (e.g. 500 + 1.4x TC on 1DIII versus 500 and no TC on 7D) and the 1DIII will have slightly worse apparent noise in that situation.

Bottom line: the trade is more pixels on subject leads to more apparent noise because you have less light per pixel. The only workaround is longer exposre time to get more light, or larger diameter lens to collect more light, or shorter focal length to get more light per pixel and less pixels on the subject (with the same diameter lens--e.g. switch to an f/2.8 lens from an f/4 lens of the same focal length).

Roger

[Chris Brennan]

Based on this information, tightening up my noise reduction techniques would give me the best fix. It would certainly be less expensive than adding an older less efficient body.

I do tend to crop more with the base 500 as opposed to using the 500 with the 1.4x.

[Arthur Morris]

Chris, I, and obviously Arash and Doug, are fans of image files with larger sized pixels (even if there are fewer of them). Above was have a case of science vs. gut feelings....

[Chris Brennan]

Chris, I, and obviously Arash and Doug, are fans of image files with larger sized pixels (even if there are fewer of them). Above was have a case of science vs. gut feelings....

Art -

Like you, and Arash, and Doug, I think I'd made more decisions in my life based on "gut feelings" than science... I posted this query on another forum that I belong to, and I've now seen some exceptional images shot with the 7D at ISOs in excess of 3200. Although not a critical decision, all of you have given me some excellent information and I thank you for that!

[Chris Brennan]

Chris, I, and obviously Arash and Doug, are fans of image files with larger sized pixels (even if there are fewer of them). Above was have a case of science vs. gut feelings....

Art -



Like you, and Arash, and Doug, I think I'd made more decisions in my life based on "gut feelings" than science... I posted this query on another forum that I belong to, and I've now seen some exceptional images shot with the 7D at ISOs in excess of 3200. Although not a critical decision, all of you have given me some excellent information and I thank you for that!



Chris

[arash_hazeghi]

Art -

Like you, and Arash, and Doug, I think I'd made more decisions in my life based on "gut feelings" than science... I posted this query on another forum that I belong to, and I've now seen some exceptional images shot with the 7D at ISOs in excess of 3200. Although not a critical decision, all of you have given me some excellent information and I thank you for that!

Chris,
Can you point me to those "Exceptional" images shot with the 7D at ISO 3200 please?

[Chris Brennan]

Chris,
Can you point me to those "Exceptional" images shot with the 7D at ISO 3200 please?

Arash -

Check out some of the images on this Fred Miranda thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1053588

While only one of them has birds in the subject matter, I've admired Herb Houghton's work for a very long time and feel that he is a truly exceptional bird photographer. While perhaps not perfect, his images of a woodpecker in that thread show good detail and color at ISO 6400.

[Ken Watkins]

Arash -

While perhaps not perfect, his images of a woodpecker in that thread show good detail and color at ISO 6400.

Very interesting thanks for sharing

[arash_hazeghi]

Arash -

Check out some of the images on this Fred Miranda thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1053588

While only one of them has birds in the subject matter, I've admired Herb Houghton's work for a very long time and feel that he is a truly exceptional bird photographer. While perhaps not perfect, his images of a woodpecker in that thread show good detail and color at ISO 6400.

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the link, However in my point of view none of these photos are exceptional. The portraits and sports shots lack any details because heavy NR was applied-but then fine detail is often not very important for portrait or sports shots. From an IQ perspective these images are not great IMHO. The lack of fine detail is quite evident. For me none of these is acceptable but if you are happy with this output you sure should keep your 7D. I was surprised you were complaining about ISO 800 while you find these images acceptable.

Anyways, good luck with your photography

[Chris Brennan]

Well, I guess that's why there's vanilla and chocolate chip... Some of us have different standards than others. But thank you for your input... it was appreciated!

[David Stephens]

I routinely shoot my 7D at ISO 800 and I'm very happy with the moderate noise levels and exceptional details. I tend to shoot at +2/3EV to +1EV whenever highlights will allow and find this one key to keeping noise under control. Here's one I took this weekend the 7D/500mm combo at ISO 800, f/4, 1/800-sec:


Nice white-tail buck by dcstep, on Flickr

[Chris Brennan]

I decided to go out over the weekend and shoot a local park where I knew I would have to shoot at a high ISO to get any decent exposure at all. This squirrel was shot at ISO 1600 wide open with the 7D and 500mm and I'm pleased as to how it turned out, noise-wise... Practice makes better...

[David Stephens]

I decided to go out over the weekend and shoot a local park where I knew I would have to shoot at a high ISO to get any decent exposure at all. This squirrel was shot at ISO 1600 wide open with the 7D and 500mm and I'm pleased as to how it turned out, noise-wise... Practice makes better...

Yes, I think that works.

Even at ISO 6400 the 7D is "useable" to document events, such as the deer/coyote confrontation after sunset:

Young white-tail buck confronts a coyote by dcstep, on Flickr

7D, 500m at f/4, +1/3EV, Av mode, resulting in 1/80-sec. hand held.

Click on the image to see the original size and see where the NR crushed the detail, BUT the image documents an event that quite nicely.

[Alan Stankevitz]

I wrote a paper on this a few years back...

http://iwishicouldfly.com/iwishicoul...Mark%20III.pdf

As Roger has pointed out, in a focal-length-limited scenario where you cannot move closer to the subject you are shooting, the 7D has better resolution and roughly the same noise level. This only applies to a focal-length-limited scenario however. (But, that's usually the scenario for a bird photogapher.)

Alan

[Dan Avelon]

I have to Agree with Art, Doug and Arash. I have been using a MKIII since 2007, I got a 7D when it came out and tried it for ducks and loons but the IQ was just terrible. Above ISO 400 it is very noisy. The files are soft and grainy and they don't sharpen as good as my MKIII files. I sold it I will either buy a used MKIV or wait until Canon improves noise on the 1.6 bodies. It might be good if you don't care much for IQ though.

[Alan Stankevitz]

I had two Mark III's...they have been gone (good riddens) for a long time now. I currently shoot with the Mark IV and 7D.

I will take the 7D over the Mark III any day. As shown in my paper, the noise levels are similar, resolution is better when cropped identically and the 7D's autofocus is much better than the Mark III even after Canon's supposed autofocus fixes. I have had numerous images taken with the 7D published, including large size prints used in meeting rooms.

If you are shooting BIF with a Mark III, you are missing shots due to the Mark III's autofocus fiasco. Stills aren't as much of a problem with the Mark III, but BIF...you will miss shots. And as Roger stated, you aren't getting as many pixels on the bird when compared with the 7D. Resolution is too low on the Mark III unless the bird fills the frame, then you are ok.

Also, having the video capability of the 7D is worth noting as well. I have caught some great video of birds that I would have missed w/o it.

Alan

[Dan Avelon]

I had two Mark III's...they have been gone (good riddens) for a long time now. I currently shoot with the Mark IV and 7D.

I will take the 7D over the Mark III any day. As shown in my paper, the noise levels are similar, resolution is better when cropped identically and the 7D's autofocus is much better than the Mark III even after Canon's supposed autofocus fixes. I have had numerous images taken with the 7D published, including large size prints used in meeting rooms.

If you are shooting BIF with a Mark III, you are missing shots due to the Mark III's autofocus fiasco. Stills aren't as much of a problem with the Mark III, but BIF...you will miss shots. And as Roger stated, you aren't getting as many pixels on the bird when compared with the 7D. Resolution is too low on the Mark III unless the bird fills the frame, then you are ok.

Also, having the video capability of the 7D is worth noting as well. I have caught some great video of birds that I would have missed w/o it.

Alan

Alan,
my experience was exactly the opposite of yours. I am not sure how you process your files maybe you apply heavy noise reduction. My MKIII has had no AF issues at all. I would never give it away for a 7D Many top class professional photographers still use MKIIIs as their primary or backup body, I am not sure you can say 7D is better.

[Alan Stankevitz]

Alan,
my experience was exactly the opposite of yours. I am not sure how you process your files maybe you apply heavy noise reduction. My MKIII has had no AF issues at all. I would never give it away for a 7D Many top class professional photographers still use MKIIIs as their primary or backup body, I am not sure you can say 7D is better.

Did you read my paper? No noise reduction was applied, except for color noise removal which does not effect the resolution. In three different examples, photographing wildlife in a focal-length-scenario, the 7D produced a higher resolution image with the same noise. Again, this is in a focal-length-limited scenario, which is quite common for photographing wildlife. The Mark III image has to be cropped more than the 7D because of the 1.3x sensor. If on the other hand you are photographing captive subjects and can physically move closer to the subject, framing appropriately, the Mark III would show lower noise framed identically.

As far as other professional photographers that I correspond with, all of them have switched out their Mark III's for Mark IV's. Most also use 7D's as backups.

Alan

[Dan Avelon]

Did you read my paper? No noise reduction was applied, except for color noise removal which does not effect the resolution. In three different examples, photographing wildlife in a focal-length-scenario, the 7D produced a higher resolution image with the same noise. Again, this is in a focal-length-limited scenario, which is quite common for photographing wildlife. The Mark III image has to be cropped more than the 7D because of the 1.3x sensor. If on the other hand you are photographing captive subjects and can physically move closer to the subject, framing appropriately, the Mark III would show lower noise framed identically.

As far as other professional photographers that I correspond with, all of them have switched out their Mark III's for Mark IV's. Most also use 7D's as backups.

Alan

I did but the images looked very soft to me, that's why I asked if you used NR. I am not sure, there are hundreds of tests like this on the net and each have a different conclusion/opinion, so I think the best is to try the bodies for yourself and figure out. For me the 7D just wasn't working.

I know 7 pros that still use a MKIII as a backup, one of them works for National Geographic. As soon as the MK4 prices come down I will get one though!

[Ken Watkins]

Chris,

If I can add a further "tuppence" worth.

I think that it would be fairly obvious that professionals switched from MKIII's to MKIV's the newer one is better, in my view mainly as a result of better "colour"

I never had a problem with my MKIII , but then I did not get one of the early ones with "mirror problems", I use it as my second body and find it perfectly acceptable.

As for the 7D I have never tried it but when you look at Sid Garige's Polar Bear images it certainly looks like it works OK to me.

[Chris Brennan]

Since I posted the original thread, I was able to find a 1D MkIII in absolutely superb condition with less than 12K clicks on the original shutter! I'm looking forward to having it share duties with the 7D, and I know that I'll be covered for almost any situation that I come across... including those where I'm shooting in not-so-good lighting conditions.