Pixel Perfect wrote:
pcho wrote:
Haha, got my 1dx today. Will have a look at it tomorrow.

Perry

Good work Perry. Got my 5D III a few weeks ago through work.

Apologies for hijacking this thread

Congrats Whayne, 5dmklll is a fantastic camera. It will tonight before I can have a play with the 1dx. A whole new learning curve for me :-)

Perry

skibum5 wrote:
it's pretty darn hard to compare using real world shots cameras shooting different subjects under different lighting at different times with raw converters cooking the books differently and pretty easy (and much quicker and much less waste of a time) and repeatable to do a quick measurement test

Exactly! Why waste time looking at a bunch of stupid pictures when a quick scientific test will answer the question.

Thank you for your informative analysis. I'm interested in your pattern noise comparison with the 1DsIII files when you get around to it.

For those wondering: It is certainly not like you never can lift the shadows without running into problems. Here is a quick snapshot where I pushed the shadows +4 EV in Lightroom with the Adjustment Brush (the bright spot). Colors holds up pretty great, so as long as you're not working on a dark area without much detail, it is not something it loose sleep over.

Edit: I can see a bit of pattern noise when I zoom in, but not enough to break down in tears.

Stoffer wrote:
For those wondering: It is certainly not like you never can lift the shadows without running into problems.

Irrelevant. The inside of the lens cap still looks like crap, which proves this camera is unusable by real photographers. /s

garyvot wrote:
The inside of the lens cap still looks like crap,

You believe so because you have only seen Canon lens hoods. Sony made sensors you can push 18 stops because they also designed the coolest lens cap interiors:

gdanmitchell wrote:
alundeb wrote:
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

Not for me, since the 5D2 does beautiful work already for my photography and I don't need the higher speed or beefier (read, "heavier") construction of the 1DX for my work. For those who need such features in their cameras, the 1DX looks like it will be a very fine camera, indeed. (If I needed a new body right now, it would be a 5D3. If I were a Nikon shooter, I would be looking at a D800.)

The whole business about poor low ISO DR performance is largely a forumtographer meme that is almost entirely irrelevant to real photography.

The entire digital photography camera market seems to be firing on all cylinders right now. A bunch of manufacturers are making really excellent cameras, lenses, and other gear - and not just Canon and Nikon at this point. We see very interesting and compelling developments in the rangefinder-style cameras as well, great stuff is happening in the MF format space, and more. Photographers today are more empowered by and less limited by their equipment than at any point in the history of the medium. It is a great time move beyond the forumtographer mode of searching for and fretting about this and that little difference in specs, to select a camera, and get on with the work of making compelling photographs using this gear.

Dan

+ Infinity

A question to the lens cap photographers: since sRAW appears to be derived from all the original pixels rather than a crop of the RAW, it potentially could have somewhat better noise performance. Can shadows in sRAW be raised more before banding shows up than in the RAW?

skibum5 wrote:
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.


thanks for the analysis!


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.

+1 from what i've seen/heard/read so far.. need to get the cam in my hands for a bit soon

Arun Gupta wrote:
A question to the lens cap photographers: since sRAW appears to be derived from all the original pixels rather than a crop of the RAW, it potentially could have somewhat better noise performance. Can shadows in sRAW be raised more before banding shows up than in the RAW?

kind of in terms of the random noise but not really for the banding and not quite as much as a well treated full RAW that then gets properly filtered and downscaled so it doesn't do anything magical for you, all it does is take less space, but since it comes from the RAW and since out of the camera you can do more advanced processing, ultimately, it does worse than the best you could do with the RAW

skibum5 wrote:
Arun Gupta wrote:
A question to the lens cap photographers: since sRAW appears to be derived from all the original pixels rather than a crop of the RAW, it potentially could have somewhat better noise performance. Can shadows in sRAW be raised more before banding shows up than in the RAW?

kind of in terms of the random noise but not really for the banding and not quite as much as a well treated full RAW that then gets properly filtered and downscaled so it doesn't do anything magical for you, all it does is take less space, but since it comes from the RAW and since out of the camera you can do more advanced processing, ultimately, it does worse than the best you could do with the RAW

I've been down the sRAW path before, when the 5D2 was new and I thought I wouldn't need 21Mp files for event work and that this approach would let me shoot at higher ISO speeds as Arun Gupta suggests.

I have regretted shooting this in every project I have used it with (in particular for Microsoft shoot where I captured an image of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that was published across two pages in Fortune magazine).

Beyond the fact that you are throwing away sensor data and resolution, you also lose the ability for other RAW converters to work at their best. An sRAW image has already been de-mosaiced by Canon in-camera, using Canon's color profile and noise processing; this affects the resulting sRAW image in some very fundamental ways.

I strongly recommend you think twice about using sRAW.

so is the inside of the lenscap the new "brickwall"? lol

When I first got my 5d2 I compared mRAW to RAW and decided I liked the noise characteristics of the mRAW a lot more. Tighter grain, etc. Reading your post prompted me to compare mRAW to RAW again on my new 5d3 and I found just the opposite. Tighter grain and a lot more detail. Check out the up arrows on the cardboard Amazon box, the size on the shoe box, and the size on the plastic tupperware. I think I'll probably just leave the camera on regular RAW from now on.

I should note that these are ISO 25,600, f/2.8, 16-35mm II, at 35mm. I'm downsampling the regular RAW to the mRAW size. I added zero sharpening and NR in post.





garyvot wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Arun Gupta wrote:
A question to the lens cap photographers: since sRAW appears to be derived from all the original pixels rather than a crop of the RAW, it potentially could have somewhat better noise performance. Can shadows in sRAW be raised more before banding shows up than in the RAW?

kind of in terms of the random noise but not really for the banding and not quite as much as a well treated full RAW that then gets properly filtered and downscaled so it doesn't do anything magical for you, all it does is take less space, but since it comes from the RAW and since out of the camera you can do more advanced processing, ultimately, it does worse than the best you could do with the RAW

I've been down the sRAW path before, when the 5D2 was new and I thought I wouldn't need 21Mp files for event work and that this approach would let me shoot at higher ISO speeds as Arun Gupta suggests.

I have regretted shooting this in every project I have used it with (in particular for Microsoft shoot where I captured an image of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that was published across two pages in Fortune magazine).

Beyond the fact that you are throwing away sensor data and resolution, you also lose the ability for other RAW converters to work at their best. An sRAW image has already been de-mosaiced by Canon in-camera, using Canon's color profile and noise processing; this affects the resulting sRAW image in some very fundamental ways.

I strongly recommend you think twice about using sRAW.

garyvot wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
Arun Gupta wrote:
A question to the lens cap photographers: since sRAW appears to be derived from all the original pixels rather than a crop of the RAW, it potentially could have somewhat better noise performance. Can shadows in sRAW be raised more before banding shows up than in the RAW?

kind of in terms of the random noise but not really for the banding and not quite as much as a well treated full RAW that then gets properly filtered and downscaled so it doesn't do anything magical for you, all it does is take less space, but since it comes from the RAW and since out of the camera you can do more advanced processing, ultimately, it does worse than the best you could do with the RAW

I've been down the sRAW path before, when the 5D2 was new and I thought I wouldn't need 21Mp files for event work and that this approach would let me shoot at higher ISO speeds as Arun Gupta suggests.

I have regretted shooting this in every project I have used it with (in particular for Microsoft shoot where I captured an image of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that was published across two pages in Fortune magazine).

Beyond the fact that you are throwing away sensor data and resolution, you also lose the ability for other RAW converters to work at their best. An sRAW image has already been de-mosaiced by Canon in-camera, using Canon's color profile and noise processing; this affects the resulting sRAW image in some very fundamental ways.

I strongly recommend you think twice about using sRAW.


Yeah, in the end, it's been a few years since I've used it. I think the Nikon crop modes make more sense. You can get extra fps which you can't from mraw and sraw and you get 100% full RAW quality so they'd be perfect to use when shooting some animal that doesn't come close to filling up FF, you get the same shot but with less space and maybe more fps.

nswelton wrote:
When I first got my 5d2 I compared mRAW to RAW and decided I liked the noise characteristics of the mRAW a lot more. Tighter grain, etc. Reading your post prompted me to compare mRAW to RAW again on my new 5d3 and I found just the opposite. Tighter grain and a lot more detail. Check out the up arrows on the cardboard Amazon box, the size on the shoe box, and the size on the plastic tupperware. I think I'll probably just leave the camera on regular RAW from now on.

Good illustrations, thanks. Pretty much exactly what I have found. It also changes the color rendering (in addition to the mushy grain pattern).

I'll be placing my order for one on Monday or Tuesday.

Anyone with a 1Ds3 Vs 1Dx side by side image comparison?
Really want to see if there's anything to gain in ISO100-ISO800 range.

ps-- I am in Boston/MA with 1DS3, PM me if you have 1DX.

I don't know about the quality of this guys measurements, but it looks like dynamic range is a touch greater on ISO 200 than ISO 100.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=41976502

Where is Skibum5?

D. Diggler wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
it's pretty darn hard to compare using real world shots cameras shooting different subjects under different lighting at different times with raw converters cooking the books differently and pretty easy (and much quicker and much less waste of a time) and repeatable to do a quick measurement test

Exactly! Why waste time looking at a bunch of stupid pictures when a quick scientific test will answer the question.

Because "looking at a bunch of stupid pictures" can quickly tell you whether or not "the question" and its answer have any meaning in actual photography or are instead simply of theoretical interest.

gdanmitchell wrote:
D. Diggler wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
it's pretty darn hard to compare using real world shots cameras shooting different subjects under different lighting at different times with raw converters cooking the books differently and pretty easy (and much quicker and much less waste of a time) and repeatable to do a quick measurement test

Exactly! Why waste time looking at a bunch of stupid pictures when a quick scientific test will answer the question.

Because "looking at a bunch of stupid pictures" can quickly tell you whether or not "the question" and its answer have any meaning in actual photography or are instead simply of theoretical interest.

So can a test. It's a bit silly to suggest that a test showing say a 1.5 stop or a 3 stop difference will leave any experienced photographer with absolutely zero clue what that would mean in the real world.

And people interested in more DR didn't just decide to become interested in that on some spread sheet, they shoot things in the past, they see things that don't work out, they are like, gee having more DR would be cool.

If a test says that one graphics card lets a game run at 3fps and another lets it run at 30fps, I don't think you need to directly test both cards yourself to realize the huge real world difference you will experience in game play there unless maybe you've never played a game before in your life.