# 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images



## danski0224 (Sep 7, 2013)

I am noticing a difference between the raw images from those two cameras using the same lens.

The 1D IV images seem to have more pop and depth, for lack of a better description.

Anyone else notice this, or am I seeing things?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 7, 2013)

More depth is because of a smaller sensor, more pop might be because of a
Weaker AA filter...


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 7, 2013)

Because the 5D series is a stripped down version of the 1D series...

Of course the images from 1D IV are better.

I used the 1D IV for 3 years and switched to 1DX 4 months ago and everything about the images are 5 times better than fron the mark IV in my opinion.

1D series rules.


----------



## MLfan3 (Sep 7, 2013)

Viggo said:


> More depth is because of a smaller sensor, more pop might be because of a
> Weaker AA filter...



no , usually bigger sensors produces better look (or more pop), not the other way around here.
I think the main reason why the 1D series has better noise quality (not lesser amount of noise but less patterned noise) is that the 1D bodies have better electronics surroundings around the sensor.
just like the Nikon D800E has a bit better read out electronics than that of the D600 or the D800, or the Sony A99v has better electronics than the D600.
in short , what you get what you pay for in electronics quality in any system.


----------



## MLfan3 (Sep 7, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> Because the 5D series is a stripped down version of the 1D series...
> 
> Of course the images from 1D IV are better.
> 
> ...



it is true but for me the 1DX is just too big , I hope Canon makes the EOS3 type of body but with the same quality electronics as in the 1DX.
I do not really need 12f/s or the tough build of the 1DX but I want the high ISO and electronics quality of it in the 5D sized body.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 7, 2013)

I have had most of the 1 Series cameras including the 1D MK IV. They are all nice. I've also owned all three 5 Series cameras. They produce good IQ as well.
I don't believe there is any significant difference in images at base IQ, except what the raw converter produces. At high ISO, FF bodies of the same generation have lower noise.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 7, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> I am noticing a difference between the raw images from those two cameras using the same lens.
> 
> The 1D IV images seem to have more pop and depth, for lack of a better description.



Anything other then guessing would require a better description or, better yet, sample files. But since the 5D3 has higher IQ then the 1D4 across the board, some good guesses include:

* You're viewing images at the same image viewer magnification (i.e. 50%) without realizing this actually magnifies the 5D3 image much more.

* Different in camera settings.

* Different RAW converter setting defaults or profiles.

And if you're not talking about a test pair produced under exact conditions (same subject, lighting, lens, exposure, etc) then anything and everything is in play including lenses, exposures, focusing, selected apertures and/or shutter speeds (beyond the obvious exposure differences), subject, lighting, etc, etc.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Sep 7, 2013)

I have these 2 bodies.
Speaking for RAW: 
1D4: easier to handle, better to push if necessary.
5d3: more work, can show better results.
Speaking for jpeg (I always run them parallel):
1d4 much better in everything, especially AWB and brightness.

1Dx is 5 times better?
Wow.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 8, 2013)

alexanderferdinand said:


> I have these 2 bodies.
> Speaking for RAW:
> 1D4: easier to handle, better to push if necessary.
> 5d3: more work, can show better results.
> ...



What i mean by 1DX being 5 times better is that it is the first camera i have been in absolute awe about the image quality and i had no idea that my lenses could produce such sharpness and comor and contrast.. I used to convert many of my 1D IV images to black/white but now with the 1DX i almost always have them in color because the colors are so amazing. and i could not go back to 1D IV anymore. That to me makes it that much better. If i was perfectly honest mathematically i would say it is 2.1 times better


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 8, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Anything other then guessing would require a better description or, better yet, sample files. But since the 5D3 has higher IQ then the 1D4 across the board, some good guesses include:
> 
> * You're viewing images at the same image viewer magnification (i.e. 50%) without realizing this actually magnifies the 5D3 image much more.
> 
> ...



Yes, I understand that a lot of it is subjective.

Even if I set the 1D IV images and 5D III images to "neutral", the 1D IV images have something special/different.

I use Canon DPP to view, straight out of the camera. It is set to "fit to window", so the 1D IV images are the ones being magnified.

I may try to do a somewhat controlled side by side test, but the best I can do is swap lenses between bodies and try to get the same image in the viewfinder and have the same settings on both cameras.

I can compare it to listening to different audio amplifiers. The specs may be the same, but they sound different.

I'm afraid to rent a 1DX because I may like it, even though 90% of the capabilities would be lost to me at first. And, I actually prefer the 1D form factor.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 8, 2013)

I am curious if you can post the raw files from the 2 cameras with the same setting, preferably same lens?


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 8, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I am curious if you can post the raw files from the 2 cameras with the same setting, preferably same lens?



Well, I don't have any images taken at the same time to make a meaningful unbiased comparison.

Nor do I have the capability to upload full scale raw images. I certainly can't host that.

I'll see about taking both bodies and one lens and getting a couple of same settings images.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 8, 2013)

Because I didn't hear any difference in IQ from the presentation about the 5D3 and 1DX beside speed


http://youtu.be/SfiAhAL7QE0





danski0224 said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious if you can post the raw files from the 2 cameras with the same setting, preferably same lens?
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Because I didn't hear any difference in IQ from the presentation about the 5D3 and 1DX beside speed



Nevertheless, there is a difference in IQ, particularly at high ISO, but also at 'tweener' ISO settings.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 8, 2013)

ISO 25600
1/30 s
f4

noise reduction is 50% in LR


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nevertheless, there is a difference in IQ, particularly at high ISO, but also at 'tweener' ISO settings.



I take it that you see a difference in the raw files out of the camera comparing the 1DX and 5D3 using the same converter?

Pixel peeping not required?


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 9, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Because I didn't hear any difference in IQ from the presentation about the 5D3 and 1DX beside speed
> 
> 
> http://youtu.be/SfiAhAL7QE0
> ...



It's pretty obvious that there is an IQ difference on 3000$ camera compared to their flagship 6000$ camera.. Think how much more the 1DX has prosessing power.

5D III is a stripped down version from te 1DX including the sensor.

Don't believe me?? Try the 1DX your self and compare


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 9, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > Because I didn't hear any difference in IQ from the presentation about the 5D3 and 1DX beside speed
> ...



Did you watch the video above?
It was from Canon rep. There are no such thing as IQ from $3k vs $6k cameras.
There are reasons why the 1Dx is more expensive and IQ according to the video presentation isn't the case.
However, we are talking about the 5D3 and 1D4 here


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 9, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > duydaniel said:
> ...



I did watch the video.. all i have to say is have you compared the images on 1D IV, 5D III and 1D X in detail........ that's why i said don't believe me? go see for your self.. the difference is noticeable.. no room for arguing when the truth is out there for testing and seeing for yourself...


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 9, 2013)

Yes I did extensively

here is one http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8289.120

The conclusions I saw from many sources (the threats above or even DXO) disagree with yours.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 9, 2013)

The ISO performance is proof alone about better IQ and performance.
Maybe you don't see the difference but i do and many others do also.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 9, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> The ISO performance is proof alone about better IQ and performance.



Maybe you know something that Canon's engineers not ware of


----------



## cocopop05 (Sep 9, 2013)

I find thread very interesting. I am always curious to see how newer technology compares to older technology. I own a Canon 5D Mark III but not a 1D Mark IV. I would have thought the 5D Mark III would offer more detail and less noise being a much newer camera, I would love to see a photo comparison of these two cameras using the same lens. 

danski0224, are you able to post a photo with the same lens from both cameras of the same subject? I would greatly appreciate you doing so.


----------



## cocopop05 (Sep 9, 2013)

Just found this site: http://www.dougbrownphotography.com/2012/04/03/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-1d-mark-iv-high-iso/

Very interesting reading.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 9, 2013)

That dude in the video is not a canon engineer.. Far from it. He just works for canon usa. The purpose of the presentation is to make pelple go to buy both 1D X and 5D III cameras..

Why would they mention that canon put a worse sensor to the 5D III than they could have if the purpose os to sell the camera. That is just plain common sense. 

Have it be my opinion then that i see a big difference in the IQ of these cameras but it's true. Look again.


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 9, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Yes, I understand that a lot of it is subjective.



I wasn't speaking about subjectivity at all. My two points were that A) the 5D3 sensor objectively measures better across the board, but that B) literally dozens of variables that have nothing to do with the sensor could cause a 1D4 RAW file to look better then a 5D3 RAW file.

People fail to realize how many links in the imaging chain are an order of magnitude more important then the sensor differences they endlessly ponder and debate, even FF vs. crop vs. 4/3.



> I use Canon DPP to view, straight out of the camera. It is set to "fit to window", so the 1D IV images are the ones being magnified.



To give you an idea of the variables and tolerances: what you think gives the 5D3 an advantage might in fact give the 1D4 an advantage. Even Photoshop uses fast scaling algorithms for screen display that can look worse at certain magnifications. An even better example: Apple's Preview is notorious for destroying images at certain sizes. You can open an image in Preview, it looks horrible, then click full screen and it can grow by maybe 15% but all of a sudden look like gold. Or vice versa. I don't spend that much time in DPP, but it wouldn't surprise me to observe the the same.

And opening both in DPP with "neutral" settings does not eliminate settings or profiles as a variable. DPP is doing different things for different cameras even if all the human visible settings seem the same.



> I can compare it to listening to different audio amplifiers. The specs may be the same, but they sound different.



Bad analogy. There's a lot of nonsense that gets passed around the audiophile crowd, and I rarely ever trust a claim unless it's repeatable under blind testing conditions.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you're claiming a camera which objectively tests worse (though still very, very good...none of these cameras are ever "bad") looks better then one which objectively tests better. If you want to know if something is wrong in your 5D3 imaging chain, post RAW files (identical subject / lighting / lens / exposure).


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 9, 2013)

If I take a picture of the same subject using a 5D3 and a 1DIV using the same lens, how do I make the other variables the same?

It's a crop camera, so if I shoot at the same distance or if I create the same field of view in the viewfinder, the light level changes.

Should I use flash?

What ISO setting?


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 9, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> If I take a picture of the same subject using a 5D3 and a 1DIV using the same lens, how do I make the other variables the same?
> 
> It's a crop camera, so if I shoot at the same distance or if I create the same field of view in the viewfinder, the light level changes.
> 
> ...



I would shoot from the same spot and crop the 5D III image to the same as the IV


----------



## risc32 (Sep 9, 2013)

It's normal to see a vast improvement in IQ in a more expensive camera over a "stripped down" cam. the power of the penny? have you ever been to imagining-resource. com and used their comparometer? 1dmk4 better IQ than the 5dmk3? if you say so...


----------



## Viggo (Sep 9, 2013)

I've owned the 1d4 from the first batch here and had until I bought the 5d3 in march last year. The 1dX I've owned since august last year and to question the IQ difference is to me just to argue to argue to argue 

No doubt that the 5d is better than the 1d4, with sharpness, I can give edge to the 1d4, but color and noise is way better on the 5d3. For me personally a fullframe picture is always preferred because I like the shallow dof and smooth, clean rendering. I demands more of a lens, but the best lenses shines much more on a FF camera. The AF system is also the biggest factor in getting a sharp image when you're shooting anything that can't be done with MF (and my guess is, if you buy a 1d4 or 5d3, you're not into MF) and there also, the 5d3 is way better, especially tracking subjects and when the light dims a bit where I found the 1d4 to be pretty poor.

Then there's the 1dx.. It's the only camera I have ever been completely satisfied with, it's truly remarkable and it IS better then the 5d3, better sharpness, more accurate color (less noise when using ColorChecker-correction) much less noise at even moderate iso values and better DR. I can work the files harder without them collapsing. That on top of everything else that's better with it than the two others is what makes such an amazing tool to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > The ISO performance is proof alone about better IQ and performance.
> ...



As stated, that video was a marketing/PR piece, not a technical piece.

If you want technical, it's out there.



duydaniel said:


> The conclusions I saw from many sources (the threats above or even DXO) disagree with yours.



You seem to be drawing conclusions that aren't supported by the data. I suspect you're looking at the DxOMark *Scores* (which are biased in favor of their priorities, which aren't the same as everyone's). 

For example, if you compare the dynamic range 'score' of the 5DIII, 1D X and 1DIV, they're not all that different. However, DxOMark only considers ISO 100 in their score. If you look at the _Measurements_ for DR, you can see that starting at ISO 800, the 1D X has the advantage, and by ISO 3200, that advantage is nearly a full stop of extra DR.

As for noise, DxO only tests full stops. But in Bill Claff's data, you can see the jagged lines of the noise at the 'tweener' ISOs in both the 5DIII and 1DIV, whereas the 1D X is a smooth progression (with less noise than the 5DIII throughout, and less noise than the 1DIV from ISO 800 and up). That smooth progression is a result of the 1D X's better electronics. IQ from the 1D X is very slightly better than the 5DIII, and that can help, espeically when you push the files a bit in post (or look in detail at noise quality, for example in these crops from the thread you linked). IQ from both the 1D X and 5DIII is better than the 1DIV. 

However, the differences are subtle. While there's not 'no difference', the IQ difference between the 1D X and 5DIII certainly not a differentiating factor between the two cameras. That's ok, though - there are plenty of differentiating factors (for most people, price being the first and foremost!).


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 9, 2013)

@neuroanatomist

I never said 5D3 > 1DX IQ wise since this threat is about 1D4 and 5D3.
I have read through the 1DX vs 5D3 threats and really appreciated bdunbar79 who did very interesting tests for us.
For me, saying 1D4 > 5D3 in IQ is just an unsupported claim.

About the 1DX and 5D3,
From many sources, I conclude that the 1DX iso is more conservative than 5D3 given the same setting.
For example, with the same exposure where all parameter equaled, the 1DX yields a darker image.

+That could be because the internal true iso is lower than one in 5D3 (DxO measured iso).
+Ken Rockwell also agrees that he said the 1Dx uses half stop lower iso than the 5D3 which enable the 1DX yields cleaner but slightly darker image.
+ bdunbar79 also agrees with this in the 1Dx vs 5D3 threat (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8289.0)


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 9, 2013)

dtaylor said:


> Bad analogy. There's a lot of nonsense that gets passed around the audiophile crowd, and I rarely ever trust a claim unless it's repeatable under blind testing conditions.



I may agree that there are a lot of bogus claims in the audiophile business, but have you ever auditioned a couple of amplifiers in your own home using your own support equipment?

Same goes for preamps, CD players, CD transports and outboard DA converters.

You should try it, because there really is a difference. I didn't even have to listen hard, close one eye, tilt my head to the left or "imagine" things.

I did have the opportunity to hear a system with $100k in just cables. The rest of it was pretty expensive too. Not mine, though.


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 10, 2013)

Ok, I took some pictures.

Nothing special and I don't have any fancy studio equipment or a tripod.

I put an X-Rite color checker passport and a $20 bill on a towel wrapped around a box. It was illuminated with a 500w halogen worklight.

The positions of the target, camera and light did not change (until the end).

I used a 100mm L macro at f/8.

ISO's were set at 400, 1600, 3200 and 6400. I let the camera set the shutter speed.

Cameras used were a 5DII, 5DIII and 1DIV.

The camera was set up on a box and the 10 second self timer was used.

Picture style set to neutral, large RAW and Jpeg. There are 32 total images, straight out of the camera.

Not the best lighting, not the most interesting target, but it was consistent.

The 1DIV was set into portrait mode at the same distance as the 5DIII to fill the frame. Then the 1DIV was put into landscape mode and moved back until the viewfinder looked the same as the 5DIII. Lighting position with respect to the target did not change. 

One thing I did notice was less moire/artifacts when zoomed into Jackson in the center of the $20 in the 1dIV images. Another is the noise is smoother.

It also looks like the 5DIII needs some focus adjustment.

I am in the process of uploading these images to my dropbox- and it will take a while with my internet connection. If anyone is interested in the images, send me a PM I can send a link.

I see no point in resizing them for upload here.


----------

