I have often shot at iso 12800 with the 1D4 and got more usable images than the 5DII at iso6400. I am not so worried about lab tests - I am told that the the 1D4 has noise issues at iso400 - but these are not intrusive on A3 prints - same up to iso 3200 with just dome noise visible at iso 6400.cpsico said:I love my 5D mkII I have only seen high iOS samples of the 1 d mkIV but it's clear the 5d has better color but the mark IV seems not to band when really pushed. The 5d has a little more shadow noise at low iSO's than even my lowly 1d mkIII with a tad bit more chroma noise, but when it comes to richness of color the 5d markII is really great and with careful post processing high iSO's are wonderful up 3200, provided you have a proper exposure.neuroanatomist said:Not really. More that I wasn't keen on the APS-H compromise, lack of UWA, etc. APS-C is best when focal length-limited, FF is best when not. APS-H is very good for both, but best for neither.acoll123 said:Have you intentionally passed on the 1D4 because of the ISO performance?
Is that based on testing, or an impression? For ISO noise, DxOMark ranks the 5DII a little less than 1/2-stop better than the 1DIV. I haven't tested that, but they rank the 5DII a little less than 1.33-stops better than the 7D - and that aligns well with my empirical testing. The 1DIV clearly surpasses the 7D for ISO, but I think you're among the few who believe it bests the 5DII.briansquibb said:
I am not too worried about the technical side - just the quality of the picture as seen by my eyes and my clients' eyes