Canon 1D Mk1V noise performance

It appears Canon has given up on low noise and are just interested in pixels. Read the latest test review from DXO Mark the new Mk1V has worse noise performance than the 6 year old 1Ds MkII and is hardly better than the 1D MkIII. It isn't even in the same 'ball park' as the new Nikon D3s. I certainly would have preferred if Canon had kept the 1D Mk1V to say 12.5 MP with better noise performance!

Look here:http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings

David

In case members do not look at the replies to the same thread by David on one of the other forums
This is a good reply by David Bostedo...

David - Be careful in how you interpret the DxOMark scores. They're just a tool and there are a few things to keep in mind that show you can't simply look at the "Low Light ISO Ranking" and draw too much of a conclusion, since resolution is not factored in. I'd say Canon still thinks noise is very important, and continues to make improvements, however small.

1) Sensor size generally trumps everything.

Overall noise in final images is largely a factor of the whole sensor's efficiency in capturing light. What I mean is, a larger sensor has an inherent noise advantage in prints/screen images even if the individual pixels are noisier. Add in the fact that you can generally make larger pixels on a larger sensor and the advantage for larger sensors grows.

The 1D MkIV has a smaller sensor than the 1Ds series, and as such I'd expect that even higher res 1Ds sensors would be better noise-wise. It's not anything to do with Canon's attitude toward noise as much as the 1Ds size sensor capturing more light.

In fact, the 1D MkIV is the highest ranking camera with a sensor smaller than "full frame". And ALL of the "full frame" cameras, including the Nikons, Canons, and Sonys, score higher than any smaller sensor camera. (The medium format digitals are a special case, and they actually AREN'T designed for high ISO shooting.)

2) Noise in a fixed print size is helped by increased resolution even when the per-pixel noise increases

A lot of people compare pixel against pixel which isn't usually a very valid comparison. Smaller pixel are inherently more noisy as they collect less light. If you being to factor in your final output, however, the higher res sensors usually have an advantage. For instance, if you assume an 11x14 output at 300 ppi, or a fixed size digital image, a high-res sensor will oversample each pixel which will cancel out the amount of per-pixel noise.

So an image from a 1D MkIII with less noisy pixels will likely still be noisier than the same sized print from a 1D MkIV.

DxO Mark themselves have an article on exactly this

3) The DxO Mark data is not normalized for a fixed output size unless you use the "Print" selection in the comparison tool.

The data in this case is put on a level playing field by down sizing all output to 8 MP. That way, the resolution advantage for noise is accounted for, and you see things evening out amongst the cameras.

--------------------------------------------

As an example of all of this, Nikon has released a couple of stunning cameras for high ISO in the D3 and D3S. Despite accomplishing this, the D300 and D300S are only OK by most people's estimation (and DxO Mark) when it comes to noise. And you wouldn't say that Nikon doesn't care about noise! This is largely a sensor size issue, and there's no magic bullet to getting the same low noise on smaller sensors.

Now comparing apples to apples, the 1Ds MkIII has much noisier pixels (as you'd always expect) than the Nikon D3. Yet when you factor in resolution, the 1Ds MkIII is less than 1/2 stop behind the D3 in high ISO performance - and has a lot more resolution allowing for much more detail at lower ISOs.

Now this ignores the fact to some extent that some people buy higher res sensors so that they can print larger. In that case, you have a trade-off between print size and noise, and resolution. Nothing's perfect, and companies choose different ways to approach this -- Canon by giving people higher res at the cost of more per pixel noise (not necessarily more print noise) and Nikon going the other way.
David Bostedo
Fairfax, Virginia, USA

David Bostedo does raise a valid point re. resolution v. low noise/pixel count but I am still a little disappointed with the route Canon have taken. Below my reply to David's very valid points:

"Hi David

Thank you for your detailed reply I was aware that even if the noise performance was the same as the old 1D MkIII in DXO's test - in practice the Mk1V would be close to 60% better due to the higher resolution. That said I still feel say 12MP on a 1.3 crop (assuming most people buy the Mk1V for action images) is a high enough resolution for for most application and the increase in noise performance would have been better trade off.

I agree that Canon clearly are capable of making lower res. large pixel sensors with better high iso perfpormance (which as you point out are much easier to make & cheaper) I just wish they would and give you the choice as Nikon do with their users.

Re. the Nikon D3X it's pixel pitch is quite close to that of the Mk1V but has quite a marked all round improvement in sensor performance.

However on a brighter note a few of my friends already own the Mk1V and are delighted with AF performance.

David"

Peter, as you are now a NEW owner of a MKIV, perhaps we could see some results taken with this camera and some dialogue with the 'Pro & Cons' you have found using it, which would be extremely valuable for ALL Canon users, whether we are in the market or not.

From a simple operational viewpoint I did done some tests when I had both my old 1dS3 and the my 1D4.

I only did full stop iso tests and my findings using the different camera bodies but the same 135 F2 L lens, where as follows.

100-800ASA - There was nothing really different to note at 800 and below on both cameras.
1600ASA - At 1600ASA the 1DS3 possibly won by a margin, but when neat image was applied to both images again there was no practical difference.
3200ASA - At 3200, the 1DS3 was noticeably better in the raw than the 1D4 If Neat Image was used to cleaned the 1D4 I would probably use them for A4+ but Not A3+.
Above 3200ASA I don't know as I did not do it, for I rarely use a camera above these ISO's

I cannot do any more tests as I do not own both cameras anymore.

As with the 1DS3 I have set the 1D4 ISO setting to 400 as a default 'opener', I have set the auto ISO range to pick between 100 and 1600.

I don't know what type of photography everybody does but given 1600ASA@F4@125' is EV7 which equates to

"Bottom of rainforest canopy. Brightly lighted nighttime streets. Indoor sports. Stage shows, circuses."

type of lighting, well, I have normally have switched to landscape mode that that point rather than trying to freeze wildlife

We waste so much time on technology, time better spent on photography.

That said the boundaries of light that the Nikon D3S ISO performance apparently allow an indoor sports photographer to operate in are amazing and I am sure it will help in some special circumstances to produce wonderful images from wildlife photographers - but it will not be me as I cannot mount it onto my Canon Glass which I am very happy with.

Cheers

T

I guess Tom the answer is, to hire the body for a week and test it yourself, then you will know how it performs in the areas you wish to use it. If you like it, then ask if the rental cost can be deducted against the overall cost. Sadly in recent years we cannot afford to buy on recommendation only. Having been with Canon since '79 I am too much into Canon and cannot afford to swop, however, if I was starting afresh, I think I know the route I would choose. Interesting that the G11 has a lower Pixel range than the G10, giving better quality images. Perhaps that is the route to take?

cheers
Steve

As a Nikon shooter: I wished Nikon put a few more pixels in the D3s instead of upping the iso to ridiculous heights - just don't see the point of that. This to me is as useful as 20mp in tiny compacts.

Having a 16-18mp however, would allow greater flexibility in cropping. If we're being realistic, we can afford to lose more than a few of those top iso's.

Just to balance the whining a bit

The Canon boys are complaining that Nikon has better noise control and the Nikon boys are moaning they dont have enough pixels From what i have read the MK4 is similar to the D3 for noise which if true is quite something but Nikon pulled a blinder with the D3s which has at least a stop over the MK4, I hear a lot of people saying that they have too much invested in Canon to switch, Well if you sold it all you would still have enough for a good starter kit i.e body/backup and a couple of lenses and yes you would take a hit but at sometime you will have to replace your kit anyways might as well do it now

Dave

I've managed to borrow a MkIV from a friend for the weekend, so I hope to be able to do some side-by-side comparison shots with the MkIII... I'll mainly be checking out the high ISO noise performance and AF for fast BIF (Lanner Falcon, Saker Falcon and maybe something a bit faster). It will all be rather subjective and low-tech as that's my style but I am happy to share my findings if anyone is interested

As a recovered 'camera kit-o-holic' of some ? years, I no longer assess my gear requirements based on the latest offerings of new and shiny toys that the manufacturers tempt us with. Instead, I look at the TOOL and its ability to do the job. First and foremost, I want (and need) that tool to be trustworthy.

The Canon 1D MK3's AF faux pas and the arrival of Nikon's (brilliant ISO perfroming) D3 have together conspired to produce a huge wave of dissatisfaction in the Canon-user fraternity, In reality, the potential for producing stunning pictures with Canon gear remains undiminished. Don't believe me? Take a look at some of the images in the BBC WPOY '09 book shot with the 1D MK3. Stunning! What has changed is trust in the Canon camera brand at the Pro-DSLR level. Ring any bells with Toyota car owners?

Don't always believe what you read: I bought a Canon 1Ds MK3 and my experience of using it bears no resemblance to the findings penned by Andy Rouse (Warehouse Express) and Rob Galbraith; it has performed to an exceedingly high standard.

Since the release of the 1D Mk4 I've thought long and hard about camera gear. I've concluded that the real question is: would switching brands improve my ability to see and make better pictures? Probably not! I'd just be faced with a different set of (? imaginary) technological short-comings to get in the way of concentrating on the image!!!

Cheers,
Chris

for me at least, you've hit the nail on the head Chris. I've a MKIII and I love it

Never a truer word spoken, Chris.
Eric

I'll stick with two Sigma SD14's, until the SD15 appears, as I normally only shoot at ISO 50 anyway.