Considering that is does vastly better at high ISO than the 1Ds3 in terms of SNR and almost certainyl DR as well, even if the 1Ds3 just nips it for overall ISO100 performance, I bet that from ISO320 and up the 1DX offers the best ever sensor performance from Canon. I'd bet that even by just ISO800 it is very easily beating the 1Ds3.

skibum5 wrote:
So the 1DX sensor best guesstimates so far:
best highest ISO ever, stunning light capture efficiency improvement!!!!

Thanks for the analysis.

While it's encouraging to hear that Canon is once again making strides in high ISO performance, it's very very sad to see them struggling with low ISO noise. Olympus OM-D, Fujifilm X-PRo1, Nikon, Sony, Pentax (not their own design though).... everyone has this nailed... all but Canon.

What good does it do if they have so many patents each year but fail to address this fundamental shortcoming in their sensor design? They may have tried their best but it's not good enough.

Honestly, there are now fewer and fewer reasons to recommend Canon over the competition...

Cute kitty!

The D800 destroys it at low ISO. Even if there is relatively low noise, there is no shadow detail and thus hardly any increase in DR.

So what is the conclusion for shooting the 1D x at ISO100, is it better or worse than the 5D II? I am confused how the camera can excel at ISO 25600 but be poor at 100?

alundeb wrote:
Ok, thanks!

I think it is safe to say that the 1D X sensor does not bring any improvement in low ISO DR over previous Canon cameras.

If so, it will be a fine performer... ;-)

NickD wrote:
So what is the conclusion for shooting the 1D x at ISO100, is it better or worse than the 5D II? I am confused how the camera can excel at ISO 25600 but be poor at 100?

Better than the 5D2 (and 5D3) at ISO100. It may not measure much any better for DR on DxO, when they get around to it, but there are thing that their test doesn't get into, such as banding and character of the noise, the 1DX has much less ugly deep shadow noise at low ISO, so similar random noise plus much less pattern noise = better than 5D2 and 5D3 at ISO100.

It's not poor at ISO100 other than the shadows so you can't get as much DR as the Nikons.

If your scene doesn't need a lot of DR it should perform very well at ISO100, incredibly little noise for all the upper low, mid and bright tones, 18MP is decent enough (although 36MP obv whomps it for reach and total detail), we don't know the color filters yet and how color-blind or not vs other cams it is (5D3 is pretty color-blind).

It's INCREDIBLY beyond belief at capturing photons so it nabs whatever little there is when light is so low that you need to set high gains and readout noise on the stage that matters for high iso is likely solid enough so it does AMAZINGLY well at high iso, say your ISO 25,600.

But a stage of read noise that only shows up at lower ISOs, high iso lifts the signal beyond where this noise will do damage, is still not so hot (although they did reduce banding a fair amount compared to most of their releases of the last 3 years) so it is noisy near black at lower ISOs compared to the best cameras and you get a few stops worse dynamic range (although the SNR at say middle gray will still be exceptionally, record-breaking clean).

This camera, intended for the top sports shooters and journalists, will spend majority of its time at iso 400 and above where it seems like the best camera in the world.

I guess the 1DX isn't going to be a shadow recovery match for the D800, but all I know from processing a few hundred 1DX wire images from the EURO over the past few weeks is that it holds its own. Granted these are all compressed Jpegs, but with some I've done quite strong mid tone and shadow lightening for newsprint purposes, and they held up well. For many of the intended users of this camera, the image quality will be more than good enough, and the apparent improvements in other capabilities will make it an excellent all around performer.

Just as a landscape shooter will lean towards a D800 for the sensor over speed performance, a sports/action photographer will accept the compromise of extreme responsiveness in place of best sensor ever. So, while the sensor statistics are interesting, they're only one point in a much larger range of considerations.

My experience with the 1D cameras since the original is that each new model is typically evolutionary. Sometimes the more prominent updates are focused on the sensor. Other times it's AF, UI, etc. With the 1DX, like with the 5D3, my feeling is this round is more about AF precision/performance and overall speed than it is about the sensor. I guess we'll see in about 18-24 months where Canon's development focus will be in this product category. In the meantime, I suspect there will be a lot of 1DX users happily churning out quality images.

gdanmitchell wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Ok, thanks!

I think it is safe to say that the 1D X sensor does not bring any improvement in low ISO DR over previous Canon cameras.

If so, it will be a fine performer... ;-)

yeah, really

I'll let you know the next time I have to push my shadows 5 stops.

skibum5 wrote:
NickD wrote:
So what is the conclusion for shooting the 1D x at ISO100, is it better or worse than the 5D II? I am confused how the camera can excel at ISO 25600 but be poor at 100?

Better than the 5D2 (and 5D3) at ISO100.

It's not poor at ISO100 other than the shadows so you can't get as much DR as the Nikons.

If your scene doesn't need a lot of DR it should perform very well at ISO100, incredibly little noise for all the upper low, mid and bright tones, 18MP is decent enough (although 36MP obv whomps it for reach and total detail), we don't know the color filters yet and how color-blind or not vs other cams it is (5D3 is pretty color-blind).

It's INCREDIBLY beyond belief at capturing photons so it nabs whatever little there is when light is so low that you need to set high gains and readout noise on the stage that matters for high iso is likely solid enough so it does AMAZINGLY well at high iso, say your ISO 25,600.

But a stage of read noise that only shows up at lower ISOs, high iso lifts the signal beyond where this noise will do damage, is still not so hot (although they did reduce banding a fair amount compared to most of their releases of the last 3 years) so it is noisy near black at lower ISOs compared to the best cameras and you get a few stops worse dynamic range (although the SNR at say middle gray will still be exceptionally, record-breaking clean).
Thanks skibum5, that clears it up for me, I think it will be a fine performer

thw2 wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
So the 1DX sensor best guesstimates so far:
best highest ISO ever, stunning light capture efficiency improvement!!!!

Thanks for the analysis.

While it's encouraging to hear that Canon is once again making strides in high ISO performance, it's very very sad to see them struggling with low ISO noise. Olympus OM-D, Fujifilm X-PRo1, Nikon, Sony, Pentax (not their own design though).... everyone has this nailed... all but Canon.

What good does it do if they have so many patents each year but fail to address this fundamental shortcoming in their sensor design? They may have tried their best but it's not good enough.

Honestly, there are now fewer and fewer reasons to recommend Canon over the competition...

So what are you looking for in a camera?
Let's see..the 1Dx gives 12fps..based off an improved 5Dmk3 AF it will be the best AF ever to see the light of day as the 5Dmk3 offers the most accurate AF currently available, great hi ISO.
Are you saying you can't gt a decent image at ISO 100?
I can't see one thing that old deter anyone from buying either a Mk3 or 1Dx.
Maybe single shot HDR but for any normalized non HDR image the cameras are stunning at worst.
Sorry but if Hi DR is the new Hi ISO I'm really not interested. Sure it's great that if I completely stuff up an exposure I can recover a frame on a D800..but I'd prefer the superior overall performance that means I have three frames to pick from not one..oh and it will be in focus even at 1.2 95% of the time. Something no other manufacturer can get close to offering.
Try shooting a mk3 with an 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 at 1.2 and you get stuff nobody else can get..I can't see a reason to even contemplate another brand..well that us unless you specialize in poor exposures that need saving 95% of the time.

So what are you looking for in a camera?
Let's see..the 1Dx gives 12fps..based off an improved 5Dmk3 AF it will be the best AF ever to see the light of day as the 5Dmk3 offers the most accurate AF currently available, great hi ISO.
Are you saying you can't gt a decent image at ISO 100?
I can't see one thing that old deter anyone from buying either a Mk3 or 1Dx.
Maybe single shot HDR but for any normalized non HDR image the cameras are stunning at worst.
Sorry but if Hi DR is the new Hi ISO I'm really not interested. Sure it's great that if I completely stuff up an exposure I can recover a frame on a D800..but I'd prefer the superior overall performance that means I have three frames to pick from not one..oh and it will be in focus even at 1.2 95% of the time. Something no other manufacturer can get close to offering.
Try shooting a mk3 with an 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 at 1.2 and you get stuff nobody else can get..I can't see a reason to even contemplate another brand..well that us unless you specialize in poor exposures that need saving 95% of the time.



Agreed!
My eyes are still glazed over from reading that thesis on sensor engineering.
Although it hasn't been released in the US yet, I'm convinced that it will be impossible to take a decent image at 100 ISO with the 1Dx.

Brett Beiner wrote:
Although it hasn't been released in the US yet, I'm convinced that it will be impossible to take a decent image at 100 ISO with the 1Dx.



Oh that is not what I said at all. It doesn't have particularly amazing dynamic range at the lower ISOs for this day and age, but otherwise it appears to test super well.

This cam is more a PJ cam anyway and it delivers AF and speed and world-class high iso.

Ralph Conway wrote:
Great Cat shot. What lens did you use?

Ralph

Hi Ralph...

Thanks, I used the wonderful 35mm f/1.4L which I borrowed from a friend in order to have some good glass to test the 1D X with.

skibum5 wrote:
So the 1DX sensor best guesstimates so far:

best highest ISO ever, stunning light capture efficiency improvement!!!!

considerably mediocre read noise for this day and age (many stops behind exmor and 1/2 stop behind old nikon stuff and over a stop behind new non-exmor nikon stuff)

reasonably solid banding performance, more like the old 1Ds3/1D3/40D did than the nasty banding stuff they have mostly released of late

overall for canon, accounting for all aspects from low to high iso, dr, snr, mp, etc. overall i'd say it is their best sensor ever....



Thanks for taking your time it measure/analyze the raw files. I'm very happy with it because shadow recovery with still be pretty good in most of the cases, where it is needed. Peace.

NickD wrote:
So what is the conclusion for shooting the 1D x at ISO100, is it better or worse than the 5D II? I am confused how the camera can excel at ISO 25600 but be poor at 100?

Much better. I have some files from the 5D II where I can see pattern noise in the shadows WITHOUT having even done a single adjustment to the picture. You wont ever get that with the 1D X.

joeisayo wrote:
This camera, intended for the top sports shooters and journalists, will spend majority of its time at iso 400 and above where it seems like the best camera in the world.

According to Canon press release, the camera is also intended for studio and landscape and nature and event and wedding photographers too

i.e. everyone

Btw great info Skibum!
Your energy for looking into the huge amount of info you dig out is incredible..

thanks for the photos and observations


John