Canon's EOS-1D Mark IV gets unboxed, high ISO modes tested
By Tim Stevens 
posted January 6th 2010 3:23AM
posted January 6th 2010 3:23AM
Wondering how Canon's high-ISO response to Nikon performs in the dark? We've got the answer. Photographer John Deeb got his early and was not only kind enough to take a comprehensive set of unboxing pictures with a video, but also captured a series of pictures of model Lauren Howery to show off how the thing performs in extremely low light at increasingly excessive ISO settings. Lots and lots of pictures below.
John took a series of photos going from ISO 1600 all the way up to a mind-blowing ISO 65535 102400 and the results are plain to see. 1600 is quite impressive. Even up to 6400 the photos are quite smooth and even 12800 isn't bad, but after that things quickly go downhill -- suitable for capturing a shot of the sasquatch hiding in the shadows, but not something you'd want to resort to for your next studio shoot by any means. This seems to fairly closely match the performance we've seen in the Nikon D3S we've been testing of late, meaning yet again it's probably time for photogs to show their colors and fall along party lines.
Update: Apparently the app we used to generate the ISO overlays read the EXIF information incorrectly for the highest-ISO picture, as it is actually shot at 102400, not 65535 as we'd indicated. All the more impressive, then.
Update: Apparently the app we used to generate the ISO overlays read the EXIF information incorrectly for the highest-ISO picture, as it is actually shot at 102400, not 65535 as we'd indicated. All the more impressive, then.
[Thanks, John]
@ ISO1600 it looks pretty nice, not a lot of static
@Techie
65535 looks like 3200 on my camera (*ist DS). Insane!
@bigcow05 Lol my 1600 and 3200 on my Nikon d90 is the same as this 1D Mark IV. But it's 6400 is better then my 6400. lol
@Techie
Top that off with some noise ninja and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at 6400. That's just crazy.
@Techie "ISO1600 it looks pretty nice, not a lot of static"
I wouldn't get too excited.
1. We don't know the lighting conditions. Under good light, I've taken ISO 1600 pictures with a D70 that look at least that good.
2. We're looking at 16MP downsized to 0.5MP. That alone will cause dramatic noise reduction.
3. I'm not sure what kind of built in noise reduction this camera has and how much of it was applied.
Don't me wrong, I'm sure the ISO performance is spectacular. It's just that this "test" doesn't tell us a whole lot.
@Techie Still no contest against the 5D Mark II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-IV-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
is it weather sealed to protect against drool?
@Baconbits thats what she said.
@Baconbits
Why, I didn't even know weather drooled over things.
Idk anything about photography but isnt cranking up the iso in cases where there is low-light? If he's going with high iso settings and the background lights remain the same, would flaring and noise not be inherent?
(sry for the newb Q but idk anything abt this stuff. Anyone know of sites for novices?)
@Munk
You just make the shutter faster to reduce the amount of light.
A good photographer would not use such a high ISO in this situation.
@Munk It's just an artificial test here. In practice you try to use the ISO setting suitable for the exposure you're making.
You can't know that to be true. Those lights may be 500 feet away. That could be shot at f/8 with a long lens to get nice boleh. There are plenty of cases where you bump up the ISO with backround lights.
faster shutter speed and/or smaller aperture.
65500...That is well and truly over 9000....
whoa
that iso 1600 performance is really awesome. the extended range will really make this a versatile camera. too bad its way out of my price range....
@Nick Brown
The day we see anywhere near this kind of high ISO performance in a midrange DSLR is the day I buy my dream camera.
@Gad Get
There was a SONY point & shoot out recently with super awesome ISO capability. I can't remember the name of it though.
@Gad Get
Check out the Pentax k-x. It has some very impressive low-light performance at an entry level DSLR price point. I've had mine for about a month and couldn't be happier.
canon dslr really good, but it seems they forgetting to update their prosumer line. Come on canon I wanna see new G model with large ccd ala Oly pen!
@eka
G model and prosumer don't really work. That thing is a toy compared to this.
@(Unverified) Yeah, the prosumer line is the 50D to 7D range. Everything below is relatively basic consumer level really.
At 1600 its clear she is wearing a fur coat .. at 65535 ..it's not at all clear. Why not show the exposure time difference and apertures? That makes a big difference in telling us if the 65535 is useful or not.
@JS Exposure and aperture have nothing to do with noise. Though severly out of focus areas tend to show noise well for testing purposes.
@JoeRodricks
Exposure has a LOT to do with noise. The longer the exposure, the more the noise is allowed to surface.
JS is right. This is a critical piece of information that needs to be revealed for the test to have any meaning.
@JS
http://www.johndeeb.com/1dmiv/
At ISO 1600, the pictures look pretty much like anything a P&S could muster at 80. Amazing.
I'm no DSLR user, but lately I've been thoroughly intrigued by the fantastic possibilities in using one. P&S cameras are way too restrictive for the open mind.
@TheJoker Well no shit. It's a $5000 camera. Of course it'll do a better job than a $300 point and shoot.
Okay, so who is the cute blond?
@holzmann
Lauren Howery she's a model. I know I would not be able to keep the camera steady shooting her.
The ISO 65535 you are showing is actually ISO 102,400, just like Nikon's highest. These must be from a pre-production model, which displayed the ISO incorrectly. You may want to correct the article to indicate this.
@Isurus Agreed. 65535 is a mistake.
It's clearly worst than D3s at the highest ISO. But that's what you get for smaller sensor.
@tino
Clearly? Smaller Censor?!!
What are you talking about?
@tino Agreed. Not to mention the color fidelity suffer terribly on the 1DmIV
WHY not use a FLASH instead.... BRILLIANT.... (do i have to think of everything)...lol
@raystevensii
Ever been to a church wedding or a concert? No flash photography is allowed....
@raystevensii
Some people like to take pictures of the night sky, exposures up to ten minutes with the camera sitting on a telescope that tracks the stars. The ability to go from low noise at ISO 800 to the same noise at 3200 would be a big improvement for them.
@raystevensii
It would look very different if she was lit up with a flash.
I use the Canon 5D m2, and it has good low light noise levels, but I notice it too much on anything over 3200. You can stop motion better with a higher ISO and quicker shutter speed, but I like the the pictures taken at 50, 100, and 160 ISO level.
@EM1
Not one where it was lit by a single candle...
most of these high iso tests are plain ridiculous
@raystevensii
Guys/girls.... the flash comment was a joke, I know the reason for the high ISO..... :) I can't wait till canon/ google develop their see thru clothes camera ISO = googel
@(Unverified) No.
102400 may be a bit silly, but most photographers who work outside a studio want less noise. At ISO1600 (which is not very good on my 40D anyway, I generally avoid it), if it's a bit dark - not single-candle dark, just a bit dark - you can't really get a quality picture. And less noise at ISOridiculous also means less noise at ISO levels you need frequently, like 800.
Me I just take photos out and about (outside at dusk, in buildings without flash). But sports and wildlife photographers need to use fast shutter speeds with their ridiculous zoom lenses, and that means higher ISO too. (Not all sports are played in bright daylight.) Most photographers benefit from reduced sensor noise.
Noise is definitely the second thing I'd like to see improve in digital cameras in terms of image quality. (I'm not saying it isn't already great compared to film, just that I'd like even more please!) The first is dynamic range at the higher end (i.e. so that overexposure is less of a problem). Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be so much attention on that, maybe it's technically impossible or something...
By the way, agreed that the 'test' is not ideal - need to see a 1:1 file converted from RAW using the same converter, Adobe's or whatever, without software noise reduction applied, to do comparisons.
Also agree that some great photographers have produced great pictures that were crazy grainy. It's only because I'm not a great photographer that I'd like if at least the technical details of my images looked good. ;)
@raystevensii
Or, what if you're taking pictures of distant objects, or scenery? Flash won't reach that far...
What's the big deal with noise in the picture? I see some people making comments like they would never shoot above 1600 ISO because there's noise. That's just stupid and I am sure your photography reflects it.
If you ever shoot 1600 ISO or even 3200 ISO with film, you'll get grain. And what's wrong with having a grainny picture? Many of the most beautiful pictures in the world have plenty of grain.
@miakotamatsue
Ok, forget this story and go take pictures with your blackberry. You do not belong to here.
For a being a "pro" photographer, you would think he would have selected a better spot to make his un-boxing video than a back-lit wobbly kitchen table.
@AbeFroman
Hey Mr Sausage King, I had no idea when I contributed my images and video to engadget that my professionalism as a photographer would be brought into question by the wobbliness of my table and my location selection for the monumental unboxing video.
May all the tables you encounter in life never wobble.
@DEEB
Just making an observation, no need to take it personally. And yeah, we usually hold professionals to a higher standard here.
Hey everyone, I posted the images on my site with a bit more info about the exposer/lens
http://www.johndeeb.com/1dmiv/