Michael,

Some of the high ISO shots in your 1DMkIII article seem to exhibit some unusual artefacting - some would describe it as a "painterly effect". To me it's most obvious in the ISO 1250 shot of Cody. There is some visible in the flower shots, especially in the grey background at ISO 400 and above as well but it's not as obvious. To me it looks like somewhat "heavy handed" noise reduction has been applied. When looking at the high ISO shots on the Imaging Resource website I don't see this effect (e.g. look at the woman's hair in this shot - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DM...SO1600_f50.HTM).

What was your workflow? Could it be a player? Maybe inadvertent Lightroom NR? Do the shots look like this out of the camera?

Regards,

Steve

Steve,

I noticed the same thing.


The effect can also be seen,increasing in strength,in the series of flower/leaf
closeups, as the ISO increases, that accompany the article.

Naturally,we're looking at 100% crops and the effect would not be visible in almost any
useage but i was curious,like you,as to whether it was introduced in-camera by Canon or
at the Raw processing stage.

Mark

Apparently you can't link directly to the full res samples at Imaging Resource. Try this link, http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DM...ISO1600_f50.HTM, instead and click through to the full res sample.

Note that there are higher ISO samples and shots of other subjects at the imaging resource site. I picked the one above because it has fine detail in the woman's hair similar to Cody's hair and it's closest to ISO 1250 (erring on the high side).

Steve

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...-8738-8908-8909

From my subjective impression of the 1D Mk II N vs the 1D Mk III, I'd rank the noise/detail quality like this, from better to worse, but at 100% pixel for pixel:

1D Mk III ISO 1600
1D Mk II N ISO 1600
1D Mk III ISO 3200

So to my eye, the noise/detail advantage of the Mk III over the Mk II N appears to be slightly less than one stop.

The difference may be better than one stop if the 10 Mpx images from the Mk III are printed to/displayed at the same size as the images from the Mk II N.

In any case, the improvement is clearly visible, and it's enough that I'm seriously considering this camera. But I'll wait and see what else happens in 2007 first.