Canon 1Ds3 noise handling

[KevinA]

I have used the mkIII for some aerial night photography and it coped well even at 3200 iso. What has surprised me is the 550D I bought to mount on a UAV, I use it all the time next to the mkIII and I cannot tell the difference. In fact earlier this week I was doing some sunrise aerial work, the mkIII was struggling to focus the 70 - 200 mm, I swapped it onto the 550D and no problem. I started with both at 800 iso and noise it not a problem with either. I am staggered and surprised that the little 550D matches the mkIII everytime I shoot them side by side. The mkIV will have to have something seriously good about it to get me to part with more money on the new flagship model, more pixels will not be enough.

Kevin.

[pcunite]

I am staggered and surprised that the little 550D matches the mkIII everytime I shoot them side by side. The mkIV will have to have something seriously good about it to get me to part with more money on the new flagship model, more pixels will not be enough.

Indeed I think we have come full circle back to how it was with film where the camera did not matter anymore. Features, yes, image quality no.

[fredjeang]

Guys, if I follow you, do you suggest that there is no more IQ differences between a pro full frame sensor and a low cost camera aps? And that those differences just lay in the features and component resistence?
So, if I still understand well, having a bigger sensor do not make any difference in low light situations and resolution (resolution in terms of details accuracy perceived by the eyes)?
mmmm...

[pcunite]

Guys, if I follow you, do you suggest that there is no more IQ differences between a pro full frame sensor and a low cost camera aps? And that those differences just lay in the features and component resistence? So, if I still understand well, having a bigger sensor do not make any difference in low light situations and resolution (resolution in terms of details accuracy perceived by the eyes)?
mmmm...

Speaking for myself I find the larger sensors better, but for commercial reasons it is fastly not mattering anymore. I would have moved to MFD if it had made business sense, but cost and workflow are a joke. If they can improve on this I would buy it for just myself. Make no mistake, at most reasonable outputs a tiny APS-C sensor pleases most clients.

[KevinA]

The difference is small enough not to make me go looking for it. I shot a sunrise aerial job last Wednesday mostly at 800 iso, I used both 1DsmkIII and 550D on the job, Saturday again more flying work I used both side by side. The differences for the most part is not worth bothering about. I would not go spending money going from a 550D to a 1DsmkIII just for an expected increase in picture quality.
Where it does gain is the fullframe when using L prime wide angle, if you want wide and top quality then 5D's and 1Ds 's make sense, more because of lens quality than sensor quality.

Kevin.

[KevinA]

Speaking for myself I find the larger sensors better, but for commercial reasons it is fastly not mattering anymore. I would have moved to MFD if it had made business sense, but cost and workflow are a joke. If they can improve on this I would buy it for just myself. Make no mistake, at most reasonable outputs a tiny APS-C sensor pleases most clients.

Agreed, just when I think MFD starts to make sense Canon come out with something that closes the gap enough to make price performance ratio of MFD impractical from a business point of view.

Kevin.