High ISO Comparison – Canon 1D Mark IV, Nikon D3s, Canon 7D, Nikon D300s

The Canon 1D Mark IV has arrived, it’s been unboxed, and my highest curiosity is about the focus systems and the high ISO abilities. I’ll talk about camera features in another article, but for now, I want to get into the guts of these babies. A few quick shots were taken to check it out and then in the past few days testing has been done to check out what has been done in the focus department and what the 1D4 had going for it under the hood in the high ISO department.

Here are a few shots to compare the hottest cameras out there right now.  The original picture and setting is this:

Working our way up, here is a round of ISO 1600 shots. All the following pictures unless otherwise posted are straight out of the camera with the following workflow: shot in raw, converted to tiff using LightRoom with no adjustments and standard LR settings. The profile for all the cameras were set to Camera Neutral. No sharpening or noise reduction other than default standard LR settings. Developed as tiff files and then 100 percent crops were extracted to jpg files and posted straight here. Additionally, all images in each section were shot with equivalent manufacturer best of breed lenses on a gitzo stick and controlled for all relevant variables including white balance and exposure. Can’t get much plainer vanilla than that.

ISO 1600 Section

Settings for all cameras: 1600 ISO. 300mm f/2.8 lens set to f/5.6. 1/200 shutter. ~2900K fixed at point of capture.

ISO 1600 Canon 1D Mark IV 100 percent crop:

ISO 1600 Nikon D3s 100 percent crop:

ISO 1600 Canon 7D 100 percent crop:

ISO 1600 Nikon D300s 100 percent crop:

Download the Full Raw 1600 Files (Warning VERY LARGE files):

Canon 1D MKIV 1600 Raw File

Canon 7D 1600 Raw File

Nikon D3s 1600 Raw File

Nikon D300s 1600 Raw File


ISO 3200 Section

Settings for all cameras: 3200 ISO. 300mm f/2.8 lens set to f/5.6. 1/320 shutter. ~2900K fixed at point of capture.

ISO 3200 Canon 1D Mark IV 100 percent crop:

ISO 3200 Nikon D3s 100 percent crop:

ISO 3200 Canon 7D 100 percent crop:

ISO 3200 Nikon D300s 100 percent crop:

Download the Full Raw 3200 Files (Warning VERY LARGE files):

Canon 1D MKIV 3200 Raw File

Canon 7D 3200 Raw File

Nikon D3s 3200 Raw File

Nikon D300s 3200 Raw File


ISO 6400 Section

Settings for all cameras: 6400 ISO. 300mm f/2.8 lens set to f/5.6. 1/640 shutter. ~2900K Fixed at point of capture.

ISO 6400 Canon 1D Mark IV 100 percent crop:

ISO 6400 Nikon D3s 100 percent crop:

ISO 6400 Canon 7D 100 percent crop:

ISO 6400 Nikon D300s 100 percent crop:

Download the Full Raw 6400 Files (Warning VERY LARGE files):

Canon 1D MKIV 6400 Raw File

Canon 7D 6400 Raw File

Nikon D3s 6400 Raw File

Nikon D300s 6400 Raw File


ISO 12800 Section

Settings for all cameras: 12800 ISO. 300mm f/2.8 lens set to f/5.6. 1/1250 shutter. ~2900K Fixed at point of capture.

ISO 12800 Canon 1D Mark IV 100 percent crop:

ISO 12800 Nikon D3s 100 percent crop:

ISO 12800 Canon 7D 100 percent crop:

Download the Full Raw 12800 Files (Warning VERY LARGE files):

Canon 1D MKIV 12800 Raw File

Canon 7D 12800 Raw File

Nikon D3s 12800 Raw File


Is there a clear winner – yes and no. The point is to look not only for the cleanest picture, but also for detail. Clearly the Nikon D3s has the cleanest frames. Does that eliminate all the other cameras? No it does not. The 7D puts up a heck of a fight and is a big surprise. The Canon 1D Mark IV is about a stop worse than the D3s at ISO 6400 and higher but it is totally usable. Don’t get caught in the internet trap that there is such a thing as a noise free camera – there isn’t. Some may be surprised to know that ISO 1600 black and white film is as noisy (or grainy) as the ISO 12800 shots here and even grainier when pushed higher.

Just for fun – make you sure you note that this is only for fun and somewhat for curiosity, here is what ISO 12800 images would look like at 100 percent if enlarged to 16×24. A 16×24 print would be a size I would use in a full spread of a 12×12 wedding album. Since the Nikon is so good, I have not done any more than sharpen the image. The Canon 1D Mark IV is a stop or more worse than the Nikon D3s, so naturally I wanted to see how close i could get to the Nikon D3s. The Canon shots have a small touch of noise reduction done to them.

ISO 12800 at 24×16:

Canon 1D Mark IV

Nikon D3s ISO 12800 24×16:

Canon 7D 100 percent 24×16:

These last 3 frames are equalized by being the same size and upsized to 16×24.

The Nikon D3s is again the clear winner, but I would not hesitate to operate fully with a Canon 1D Mark IV. In fact, the 1D4 is the camera I own along with a D3X. I really have to scratch my head with the Canon 7D though. I thought it would be pure garbage, but it is not and while I wouldn’t be using it at ISO 12800 it does surprise me that it isn’t a lot worse.

I also want to thank Professional Photo Resources and B&H photo for all of their help in providing gear and lenses as needed for these reviews. Please support this site by visiting them for your camera gear and rental needs.

Coming soon is the focusing test.

Please Note – Nikon D300s does not have an ISO 12800.

54 Responses to “High ISO Comparison – Canon 1D Mark IV, Nikon D3s, Canon 7D, Nikon D300s”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. Skip says:

    As always, your work is both informative and well done! Not to mention timely :)

    The battle between the D3S and 1D Mark IV seems to be clearly pitched as a battle over high ISO capabilities. We all know that high ISO performance is not the end-all, be-all of these superb cameras, but when making a choice between such closely matched competitors, it’s definitely a factor worth consideration.

    I’d like to say I’m surprised the D3S bested the 1D by such a visible (to me) margin, but given it’s larger photosites, I guess it makes sense.

    Looking forward to your focus test!

  2. Skip says:

    Apologies for back-to-back posts (and this long post) , but I think there may be a flaw in some of the high ISO tests I’ve seen around…
    When we make a photo we concern ourselves with composition, depth of field, and shutter speed. Forgive me for being obvious, but here’s my thought:

    Composition: If the photographer is stationary, the composition is effected by the focal length. For the 7D image to be composed (framed) the same way as the D3S, the DS3 must have a lens with a focal length 1.6 times the length on the 7D (given the APS-C vs FF sensor sizes).

    DOF: APS-C sensor gives more effective DOF than FF, therefore in order for the pictures to have a consistent DOF from both cameras, the D3S must have a smaller aperture than the 7D. By my calculations, 1 1/2 stops.

    Shutter speed: With shutter speed, we’re managing blur of moving objects in the frame. Sensor size would not affect this.

    OK. So to have identical pictures, assume the following:
    7D with 50mm lens, f/5.6, 1/100th shutter, ISO 100.

    To have the exact same composition, DOF, and exposure would require the D3S to be:
    D3S with 80mm lens, f/9,5, 1/100th shutter, ISO 300.

    If both cameras were side by side, and had a picture composed the same way, with the same shutter speed and the same DOF, the D3S would need 1.5 stops higher ISO to account for the narrower aperture, correct?

    So, shouldn’t we be comparing noise on the 7D with noise on the D3S, having the D3S 1.5 stops higher than the 7D? This method would allow the comparison of pictures that are truly identical… by my calculation, teh ISO 100 images fromt he 7D should be compared to the ISO 300′ish images form the D3S.

    If this is the case, then in real-world photos, the 7D would be even more impressive at noise performace, compared to the D3S, (as would the 1dMark IV, albeit by a lesser margin, given it’s larger APS-H sensor).

    What am I missing here?

  3. Tom Sweet says:

    I was a Canon and Mamiya film shooter and also shot digital with a Nikon D2XS. Since the Nikon D3S became commercially available, I was an early adopter. I must say, the camera lives up to its hype about high ISO performance. I regularly print 16″ x 20″ and even occasionally larger prints and the images contain a high amount of detail and great clarity.

    I have captured images at 25,600 and 51,200 that are exceptional. With a touch up with Dfine 2.0 noise reduction software, even images at ISO 102,400 are very usable. That can mean literally shooting in the dark and it’s difficult to even see the subject at times.

  4. docj says:

    The D3s shots seem brighter than the 1Ds4 – isn’t it important to make sure the exposure is the same for both camera’s or the comparison is meaningless?

  5. admin says:

    Hi docj,

    Exposure was controlled for all images. The Manual Settings used have been added above. Full raw file download links have also been provided.


  6. Skip says:


    I am seeing a Page Cannot be Displayed when downloading the RAW. Just FYI…


    • PeterGregg says:

      Right click and download the file the way your computer will allow it – mine requires a right-click and then save file as.

  7. cheese coney says:

    nikon camera make good door stop not much else buy canon

  8. Skip says:

    Ahh – thanks! Worked like a charm!

    Just for grins and giggle I plan to run the ISO 6400′s through Topaz and Noise Ninja – it will be interesting to see how much they can be cleaned up :)

  9. I suppose that also means that the Nikon D700 would be a winner at high ISO. It’s nearly identical to the D3s in terms of the sensor, pixel pitch and processor.

  10. Michael says:

    Great review and as a Canon user it’s disappointing for me. Like many I’m way too far invested in my system to change.

    I always find comparisons of cameras a bit amusing because for 99% of us even if one brand blows away another we are not going to switch to the better one due to investment, not to mention speed of workflow. On the other hand these brands take turns swapping positions and Canon will have it’s turn again at some point.

    To be honest if Pentax came out with a full frame weather sealed camera I’d consider a switch. The cost of Brands like Nikon, Canon, Leica are like buying a over-priced brand name car. I a BMW really better than a Lexus or is it just brand preference? Is a Cadillac Escalade better than a Chevy Suburban? They are really the same with a few trim changes. Yes I know there are user preferences and all that and I prefer Canon as I’ve been using them since 1980 but I also have Mamiya’s, Olympus, and a dozen deferent brands of point and shoots which all are great cameras too.

    Point is I know some will argue the issue but regardless of test results most of us can’t and won’t switch. I’d bet I’m safe in speculating that most buyers of the pro level cameras already won that brand.

  11. Gandalf58 says:

    The D300s shots are out of focus. In such test the best way is to shot in LV mode and focus on the same point. We can’t compare D300s with 7D, I see noise of D300s but due the out of focus can’t check detail rendition.

  12. Howard Ino says:

    Hey cheese coney…

    Professional since 1978… mostly Linhoff and Blad but used Nikon and Canon as backups and for sports and candids!

    Cheese… I guess you know more than everyone else!

    But then…. I’ll take you on with your little Canon… just give me a pinhole camera… and a silver halide plate!

    It’s not the bow son, it’s the Indian behind it!

    “Small minds take sides without all the information”!

  13. are you sure that the D3s is 1stop better than the mark IV. If you’re really unbiased it’s pretty obvious than the D3s 12800iso looks like the 1600 iso pic from the Mark IV. You must see an opthalmologist asap !

  14. name says:

    why haven’t you resized the images so they all show the same area for inspection

  15. Really can´t follow Skip; There is an object that is 10 by 10, the area is 100. The Nikon takes a picture of the 100 area. The Canon takes a picture of 100/x, where x is the crop factor. Now we take a cut out of the center of both photos. The center is y. All you are doing is “blowing” up the same area (y) of the same object. What am I missing?

  16. Steve says:

    I downloaded the 1280 ISO RAW files and compared the Mark IV and D3S files in Lightroom. I sure would not return the Mark IV based on what I saw – they were much closer in appearance than the jpg files above. I thought the Mark IV images also had more detail than the D3S.


  17. pajama_man says:

    When I right click the RAW files and select “Save Target As”, my file save says I’m saving a TIFF image, anyone else getting this? The link shows as CR2 (for Canon) but TIFF shows up.


  18. pajama_man says:

    Changed extension on dowloaded TIFF file to CR2 and that worked.

  19. Yaniv says:

    Armond, I think the keypoint is that you shoot for the same composition. No need to crop in PP. In that case, Skip’s calculations are (probably) correct.

  20. Erik says:

    I wish Canon would get rid of the 1.3x crop. Nikon is really taking the advantage with a FF, low noise, pro body camera. From these crops the 1d MKIV looks like its at least 1 stop if not 1.5 stops worse in noise. Thats a lot.

    Please Canon wake up and stop packing in so many pixels!

  21. Skip says:

    Armond, my analysis was that to maintain the same composition (frame size and DOF) at the same shutter speed, the crop sensor has an advantage. The crop sensor has more depth of field than the full-frame sensor. To get the same composition, you will need 1.6x the focal length on the D3S than the 7D. If you then go and do the DOF calculations, based on those focal lengths, and the 1.6 crop of the 7D, the D3S will require a smaller aperture in order to be equivalent to the 7D in DOF. Since a smaller aperture is needed, the ISO has to be bumped up for the exposure to remain the same. By my measurement, 1.5 stops.

    One must do more than simply use a different focal length to maintain the same composition, one must also change the aperture to have the same depth of field. Make sense now? That’s where the ISO get’s affected.

  22. TT says:

    There must be a bribery between this website and Canon~
    everybody please notice the photo of Nikon D300s, there is even a dithering when shoot, and didn’t focus on the object~
    do you want to smear the D300s on purpose to do something for Canon?
    prophotohome, lie lie lie !!!

  23. Gotaru says:

    Why shoot in the dark when you can shoot with lights?

  24. Howard Ino says:

    Cause lights can not reach 100 meters silly!

  25. Susan R. says:

    Notice women don’t yammer for hours about technical details. But Nikon rules! Always has.

  26. Giovanni says:

    This has convinced me to buy my 1DmkIV this week!!! Considering the 1D mk IV has more mp than the D3s, overall the iso performance is very impressive!

  27. Taken at face value, the D3s looks far superior. However, noise is much more apparent in an underexposed image or in shadow areas of a correctly exposed image. In these examples, there appears to be variability in the exposure (probably for reasons already mentioned above). Hence noise comparisons are very hard to evaluate here. What is also puzzling is the variability in the areas that are in focus. Surely this isn’t simply a depth of field issue. Probably we need more testing before making a final judgement.

  28. Gandalf58 says:

    PeterGregg – put in this post the right, sharp shots from D300s, please.

  29. name says:

    he has gone in tighter on the canon than the nikon and then he is surprised there is more noise when looking at smaller pixels, this guy is an idiot

    • PeterGregg says:

      he has gone in tighter on the canon than the nikon and then he is surprised there is more noise when looking at smaller pixels, this guy is an idiot

      I knew someone was not going to think it through and make a comment like this :)

      These are 100 percent crops and they are NOT resized. This means crops of untouched files from different megapixels cameras will be different sizes at their own 100 percent crop. You would have to downsize a 16.7 megapixel picture to be equal in size to a 12 megapixel picture.

      My belief is very few people actually know what they are looking at when they see 100 percent crops on the computer screen and most of the time are misjudging camera abilities. The world’s larges online site – DPReview has trained people to misjudge camera abilities with the 100 percent crop tests they do. Now everyone does them and very very VERY few people know how to judge a camera by looking at them. The final verdict should ALWAYS be from a physical print and not from a glance at 100 percent files on the computer screen. I know what I am looking at and even so, I still will print 16×24 prints in the studio before I make a final judgment on a camera.

      No disrespect to the folks that really CAN judge by a 10 percent crop, but the general public is having a dis-service done to them by just showing 100 percent crops and then saying “here, you take it from here”. The proof is this poor fella who doesn’t even understand why the crops look different when presented to him.

  30. Very good test. Nikon D3s is a clear winner. I think there is 1.5 f-stop difference between the D3s and 1D4. Also nikon files have more “clarity”. It loox 2me that nikon lens have better transmission coefficient.
    About the test – the tester did a very good job. Using 300 mm lens at f5.6 eliminates the possible errors all other tests have. However, i believe that if 7d used 200 mm lens (to make crop factor equalized) it would not be that “good”.

  31. Skip says:

    ‘name’ – this guy is most certainly NOT an idiot – what nerve! Do YOU go out and spend the money to purchase these cameras so you can do tests for others to see? Do YOU take the time to process and post those results for others? I’ve been following the work of this site for some time, and I find it very valuable and informative, not to mention HIGHLY EDUCATED.

    Only a real idiot would disparage a person who went out of their way to provide this great info to their readership.

  32. Skip says:

    My two cents, for what they are worth…

    I downloaded the raw files. I processed them as I would any other file, and I printed them :) I agree wholeheartedly that a print is the final say in image quality! Even when proofing colors using custom profiles, I print to see how they look. That being said, I printed the samples graciously provided here on my Pro9500 at 13×19 – the largest size I personally print, and what I am seeing is that there isn’t as much difference as 100% crops would lead some to believe. I personally consider pixel-peeping as another form of mental masturbation – the final product is print or graphic for web, and the only way I see to determine quality is to put the image in it’s final form.
    From what I’ve seen I wouldn’t hesitate to use the 7D at 3200, or the D3S OR 1D Mark IV at 25,600. I’d reserve 51K and 102K for emergencies on both cameras, but I’m pretty discerning of my print quality.

  33. name says:

    petergregg you’re an assuming twat, he hasn’t normalised the pics, which is why the canon pics are tighter, you can quit thinking you’re the smart guy here

  34. Pete says:

    Thanks, but it is disappointing that you did not include the Pentax K-x in this comparison. It has virtually the same or maybe better high ISO performance based on some tests on other sites.

  35. Jacob says:

    first of all thankyou for the great test and the samples.

    to Skip – (first of all what you say dosent make any sense at all regarding the aperture stuff). it´s like you buying a non sport family van and challenging your neighbour who has a ferrari for a speed test on a condition that he should only drive in first gear because he has a much powerful engine . guess what it´ll sound silly just like your argument here.

    people buy FF cams because it´s FF, PJ´s buys FF because they get better WA capability and they can get close to their subjects in cramped areas, Sport shooters (football like games played in big fields)buy a cropped because of the extra reach, but tennis shooters wont mind which format it is.

    most PJ´s would consider a D3s if they were starting out fresh,just cos of the FF and the 12mp ,it makes the file transfer and storing a lot easier and the high iso lot cleaner as you can see.not everyone needs the extra mps , sure if i were a studio photog i´ll welcome it, if i were selling big prints , hell ya.

    if i were starting out and

    if i am a studio pro and need high mp and the best low iso IQ ,there is nothing better than a d3x out there.

    if i am a PJ i need an AF system and a body i can rely on and need the best high iso IQ then there is nothing better than a D3s out there.

    if i am an amateur shooting cats and birds moving a Km away from me and i cant afford long lenses and need to print it 5 feet wide and hang in in my living room so i can see it everyday and needs a ton of MPs then there is nothing better and cheaper than a 7d out there in the market.

    if i need an allrounder cam with good low iso IQ and good high iso IQ and a great AF at a reasonable price there is nothing better than a D700 out there.

    if i need a good low and high iso performance with high MP count to shoot static subjects and if i wont care about an antique AF system at a reasonable price ,then there is nothing better than a 5d2 out there.

    canon made a clever decission by staying with the crop sensor on the MK3 , not because they are generous but they can make the crop sensors cheaper and sell it in a costly body and match nikon in price and ergonomics, see how both are priced ?and according to your theory, all one need is a cheapo 7D :-) ). it dosent work like that and these companies know it.

    sure they are both great cams. but the price, aint it a bit too much ? well we need a third or even fourth brand to challenge them if you want to think beyond 7d. till then all you are doing is silly reasoning and illogical whining.

    happy shooting.

  36. Me says:

    >even images at ISO 102,400 are very usable. That can mean literally shooting in the dark and it’s difficult to even see the subject at times.

    And how do you focus (or check point of focus)?

  37. Skip says:


    You missed my point entirely. I wasn’t making a practical argument, I was making a technical one to put the IQ (specifically, noise) of each camera in perspective. I won’t rewrite my posts here, but suffice it to say the following holds true:

    A photog who chose the D3S will need an 80MM focal length at f/9.5 and ISO 300 to match a photog right next to him who has a 7D with a 50mm lens set to f/5.6 and ISO 100. I’m not berating the D3S – I’ll likely buy one as soon as the supply is decent, and I don’t disagree that these cameras fit different needs – what I AM saying is that to get the exact same composition (framing and DOF), the crop sensor has a 1.5 stop advantage. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself and prove me wrong. Unwilling to try? Then don’t challange my findings.

  38. Mardon says:

    Any chance of getting access to the actual RAW files instead of the TIFFs that you’d already converted? I’d really like to look at them.

  39. Bruce says:

    can’t see any necessity on this comparison, unless you took the photo in the same/similar pixel settings such as mRaw/sRaw on some DSLR bodies.

  40. Tom Sweet says:

    Some of the comments are amusing at least. It shows people are committed to their brand, and I guess that says a lot for marketing. For truly rigorous and objective comparisons, I find one of the best is DXO Mark.


    The D3S and 1d Mark IV haven’t been added to the study yet, but you can clearly see where the latest equipment like the 5D MIII, D3 and D3X fall.

  41. Tom Sweet says:

    >>”Me said” even images at ISO 102,400 are very usable. That can mean literally shooting in the dark and it’s difficult to even see the subject at times.

    >And how do you focus (or check point of focus)?

    Actually, my shots at 102,400 used AF and it did a good job. I was surprised it could focus, but it somhow eeked out enough light to focus. The EV was low and required a slow SS and wide f, but the damn thing worked.

  42. Vitorino says:

    This test is wrong!, The cameras do not focus on one point and the Nikon D300s focuses on the map. Do not understand how you can post a test so unprofessional.

  43. John Chardine says:

    Useful test. However, the comment about the mk IV images being dark is right on. The D3s images are lighter and better exposed. Although you standardised exposure, each camera is different in this regard. What you need to do is come up with exposures that give you standard histograms or that look the same across cameras. Any camera will produce noise in underexposed images.

  44. Gonzague says:

    thanks ! impressive sensibility from all cameras but the D3s has the advantage !

  45. Mr. L says:

    Don’t be too serious with this test. If you are on Canon side, even D3s is super good… so what? You have a job coming tomorrow, will you sell your whole set of Canon and buy a set of Nikon right now. Same as the people on Nikon side. If you are a hobbyist, who cares you have a photo with zero noise? Maybe friends who visit your home? Will you print something larger than 24″ x 36″?

    Need to work? Then go get the best gear which fits the job. That’s all. Not just looking at the tiny pixels on screen.

  46. phantom says:

    hmm maybe a fairer test would be that of a 1Ds MKIII or 5D MKII with the Nikon D3s ?

  47. reltubmada says:

    I also have shot with 1d mk iv at 12800 and have been very happy with the results… I haven’t tested it against Nikons though… but if you want to have a look at some football photos shot at 12800… please have look… http://www.reltubmada.com/?p=152

  48. Remedy says:

    Skip: now what would a guy with 7D have to do to get D3s’s 12mm view angle? Why do You narrow it down to putting longer lens on D3s? Try to get the ultra wide angle with 7D, now what? Seriously mate take a good look, D3s at ISO25600 looks better than 7D on 6400. You can’t justify that no matter what.

  49. pitchblue says:

    Jacob, I’m a photojournalist, I own a 7D, and I’m afraid I’m going to bust your balls a little and disagree with some of your statements:

    >>people buy FF cams because it´s FF, PJ´s buys FF because they get better WA capability and they can get close to their subjects in cramped areas,

    Yes, FF provides somewhat better wide capability, but this is true for any type of photography. The rest of your statement doesn’t track: First, getting close to subjects doesn’t require FF. If I really need to get close, there are lenses that’ll do a fine job on the 7D — 10-22 EF-S, Tokina 12-24, etc. Second, I’m not sure where you get the idea that getting up in a subject’s face is any more necessary in photojournalism than in other forms of photography. When shooting people, I’m much more often using a long lens, because it’s often impractical to be that close to a subject.

    >>most PJ´s would consider a D3s if they were starting out fresh,just cos of the FF and the 12mp ,it makes the file transfer and storing a lot easier and the high iso lot cleaner as you can see.not everyone needs the extra mps , sure if i were a studio photog i´ll welcome it, if i were selling big prints , hell ya.

    Uh, no. Most photojournalists starting out fresh a) are usually in a financial situation that makes acquiring the latest pro-level body difficult and b) often don’t need to own their own gear for journo work, as they use their organization’s gear (if they’re on staff; if they’re freelance, well, then there’s even less money for gear). In any case, the D3s isn’t the body — any more than other bodies — that most budding photojournalists seriously consider buying straight out of j-school. Also, I’d argue that noise reduction is less critical for neophyte photojournalists; many of them start out at newspapers, where print quality just isn’t high enough to justify the cost of a body with the absolute lowest noise.

    Anyway, I’m guessing by your statements you’re a Nikon cheerleader, which is fine — it’s great to be enthusiastic. Just try not to make wildly inaccurate statements while cheering. ;)

  50. Gary Bridger says:

    I still think Canon should compensate us 1D MK iii owners or offer some up date in a better processor and sensor. I love my 7D and sadly The 1 D MK III I have not used for some time. Kept for rainy days and sports.

  51. Remans says:

    What would a guy with D3s have to do to get 7Ds’s 1.6x800mm view angle without teleconverters ?

    Why is lack 12mm wide view angle be the criteria for putting down 7D anymore than lack of FoV equivalent to 1.6x800mm image stabilized lens for D3s or any Nikon?

    What about 1.6x loss of DoF on D3s which is more required than low light capabilities in some application?
    You have to crank up the ISO 1.6x to get same DoF, there goes the ISO advantage.

  52. ugur says:

    I think there is a problem with the test results, because the exposure of the samples are not the same.
    I downloaded the ISO 6400 and ISO12800 files, then I opened them with Photoshop cs5.1 with default settings. I didn’t change any settings in photoshop. I see that the files which is taken with 1D mk4 is underexposed approx 1 EV according to the nikon D3s files.
    Especially, the shadow areas in nikon D3s file is well exposed so the noise level is much lower than the canon 1D, As a result the nikon D3s seems that it is the clear winner but it’s wrong.
    When I compare the photos according the color chart part of the pictures, I saw that canon 1D is a little bit more grainy but sharper and d3s is little bit softer. I think If the same photo was taken with 0.5-1 EV higher exposure settings with canon 1D, The high iso results would be better than nikon d3s.