Got the 1DX: Shadow recovery/DR sample
/forum/topic/1127643/2

1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end

Sneakyracer
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Total Posts: 2369
Country: United States

I agree that the 1DX is an awesome PJ cam. In fact, its the best Canon ever made no question. It of course can be used for most any type of photography. BUT, its not a high resolution monster like the 1DS3 was when it came out and now the D800/e. It is no where near cutting edge in DSLR resolution or DR. Its just an unbelievably well rounded performer with VERY high speed capabilities. The video output should be outstanding.



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

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... ;-)


Yes. But not a camera to "upgrade" to for you and me



garyvot
Registered: Apr 02, 2003
Total Posts: 3092
Country: United States

Stoffer 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?


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.


Did you have Hightlight Tone Priority enabled? This is usually the cause of visible pattern noise such as this.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15202
Country: United States

garyvot wrote:
Stoffer 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?


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.


Did you have Hightlight Tone Priority enabled? This is usually the cause of visible pattern noise such as this.


He can't have if the files say ISO100.



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

garyvot wrote:

Did you have Hightlight Tone Priority enabled? This is usually the cause of visible pattern noise such as this.


It was a 5D Mark II that I borrowed, but I was shooting ISO 100 in raw pretty much all the time as I was using a 85mm F1.2L @ F1.2 outdoor most of the time.

Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



snapsy
Registered: Feb 24, 2008
Total Posts: 3970
Country: United States

alundeb wrote:
Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com


The light loss increases with pixel density, since the microlenses to prevent the loss would have to be very fast (and expensive) to compensate for the phenomena. Here's the article: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/F-stop-blues



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



I didn't know that, but then please keep in mind that the test shot here was done with a 35mm F1.4L shot wide open @ F1.4. Does this influence the result?



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4196
Country: Norway

Stoffer wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



I didn't know that, but then please keep in mind that the test shot here was done with a 35mm F1.4L shot wide open @ F1.4. Does this influence the result?


It may influence the result, we don't know how the 1D X handles this yet. Anyway the effect is small at F/1.4 and this pixel density. The light loss for comparable sensors has been in the 0.3 - 0.4 Ev range, and the compensation only a part of that.



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

alundeb wrote:

It may influence the result, we don't know how the 1D X handles this yet. Anyway the effect is small at F/1.4 and this pixel density. The light loss for comparable sensors has been in the 0.3 - 0.4 Ev range, and the compensation only a part of that.


Hmmm, I might try the 24-105mm F/4L later this week then.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15202
Country: United States

Stoffer wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



I didn't know that, but then please keep in mind that the test shot here was done with a 35mm F1.4L shot wide open @ F1.4. Does this influence the result?


Was it just the actual shot that used the 35 1.4 or the black frame too?
Did the black frame have the body cap on and no lens mounted or did it have a lens capped 35 1.4?



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

skibum5 wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



I didn't know that, but then please keep in mind that the test shot here was done with a 35mm F1.4L shot wide open @ F1.4. Does this influence the result?


Was it just the actual shot that used the 35 1.4 or the black frame too?
Did the black frame have the body cap on and no lens mounted or did it have a lens capped 35 1.4?


The last. Oooops?



mttran
Registered: Nov 03, 2005
Total Posts: 6259
Country: United States

alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



one of the reason why you keep 1d/1ds/5d/1d2/1d3 around for fast lenses



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

mttran wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



one of the reason why you keep 1d/1ds/5d/1d2/1d3 around for fast lenses


I might have a buy a used 5Dc



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

skibum5 wrote:
Did the black frame have the body cap on and no lens mounted or did it have a lens capped 35 1.4?


OK, I just made a black frame with the body cap on for skibum5. Silly me to shoot with the lens on the camera.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15202
Country: United States

Stoffer wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
alundeb wrote:
Stoffer wrote:
[Come of think of it: Can pattern noise be more pronounced when using very fast glass as F1.2/F1.4?


Yes. When using fast glass, there is a light loss due to oblique rays that do not hit the photodiode. Since a few years ago, it is known that the camera compensates for this behind the scenes by amplifying the signal. This will bring out the read noise and FPN. There is an article about it over at dxomark.com



I didn't know that, but then please keep in mind that the test shot here was done with a 35mm F1.4L shot wide open @ F1.4. Does this influence the result?


Was it just the actual shot that used the 35 1.4 or the black frame too?
Did the black frame have the body cap on and no lens mounted or did it have a lens capped 35 1.4?


The last. Oooops?



OK, that improves read noise a tad, it now measures an actual 5.29 (instead of 5.79 with the filthy lens on! SERIOUSLY how could you THINK to take a snap with a.... LENS?!!?? mounted on the camera?!! ) for about 11.87 instead of 11.75 stops DR, not a huge difference but hey, never miss the opportunity to make a meaningless correction. So CALL IT about 11.9, MAYBE 11.8 if the well capacity number is lower than expected or 12.0 if higher than expected. So this brings it to a measured level about same as the 5D2, almost same as the 1Ds3 and a little bit better than the 5D3, although all within 1/3 of a stop probably means they wouldn't be that easy to tell apart from a practical standpoint, well maybe my low outlier at 11.6 for my particular 5D3 copy would just. The real story is in the banding. I need to look at the 1Ds3 again, the true body cap black frame made the banding seem a little worse than I thought for the 1DX but it's still better than any of the recent cams, absolutely, especially than the 5D2/50D/7D and even 5D3/1D4, but maybe not quite as good as the 1Ds3.

I'd still say the 1Ds3 wins as best ISO100 from a Canon DSLR. 1DX takes second.
1DX should easily 1Ds3 around ISO320 and up and easily so ISO800 and up.

(why the difference with the lens? it was a fast lens, faster than f/2.8 and most makers apply secret extra levels of ISO gain beyond what the claimed levels are when shooting with fast lenses to make up from sensor micro lenses not grabbing as much light as film would from super fast lenses, so instead of shooting ISO100 maybe you are really doing ISO118 or 130 or something, etc. the first black frame had a 1.4 lens on the second one did not and thus lower read noise, but OTOH signal wasn't lifted quite as high above the banding and the lesser read noise let it show more so the banding seemed a little worse than original thought, but it's still better than the recent heavy banding junk they have released for the past few years)



Stoffer
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Total Posts: 561
Country: Denmark

skibum5 wrote:
OK, that improves read noise a tad, it now measures an actual 5.29 (instead of 5.79 with the filthy lens on! SERIOUSLY how could you THINK to take a snap with a.... LENS?!!?? mounted on the camera?!! ) for about 11.87 instead of 11.75 stops DR, not a huge, difference, but hey. So call it about 11.9, maybe 11.8 is the well number is lower than expected or 12.0 if higher than expected. So this brings it to a measured level about same as the 5D2, almost same as the 1Ds3 and a little bit better than the 5D3, although all within 1/3 of a stop probably means they wouldn't be that easy to tell apart from a practical standpoint, well maybe my low outlier at 11.6 for my particular 5D3 copy would just. The real story is in the banding. I need to look at the 1Ds3 again, the true body cap black frame made the banding seem a little worse than I thought for the 1DX but it's still better than any of the recent cams, absolutely, especially than the 5D2/50D/7D and even 5D3/1D4, but maybe not quite as good as the 1Ds3.

I'd still say the 1Ds3 wins as best ISO100 from a Canon DSLR. 1DX takes second.
1DX should easily 1Ds3 around ISO320 and up and easily so ISO800 and up.



Good we got that one sorted!

I was just checking the black frame, and I can push it to +3 EV before anything notable starts to show up. Using the Faithful profile over the Standard i Lightroom 4 helps here.



pcho
Registered: Dec 25, 2002
Total Posts: 1878
Country: Australia

Haha, got my 1dx today. Will have a look at it tomorrow.

Perry



NickD
Registered: Jan 08, 2005
Total Posts: 23
Country: Australia

Are you a CPS member, do you mind telling us who the retailer was? I also have one on order and have not had any calls yet



pcho
Registered: Dec 25, 2002
Total Posts: 1878
Country: Australia

NickD wrote:
Are you a CPS member, do you mind telling us who the retailer was? I also have one on order and have not had any calls yet


Yes, I am CPS, and I was no 1 on the list and they only got 1 delivered. Apparently, Canon Australia only got 1/3 of their expected shipment. I think in Aust. CPS members don't get priority unless you are part of the media contingent.

I got mine in Melbourne.

Perry



1       2      
3
       4       5       6       end