Got the 1DX: Shadow recovery/DR sample
/forum/topic/1127643/5

1       2       3              5      
6
       end

skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 16613
Country: United States

Stoffer wrote:
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?


One thing to keep in mind, is that above ISO100 his chart makes the 5D2 look better than it is. The 5D2 applies less gain than the 5D3 and most likely less than the 1DX for the same named ISO. You'd need to shift 5D2 graph a solid 1/3 stop to the left for sure.

His banding test, IMO, makes the 5D3 and 1DX look a bit closer than they really looked to me, looking at full screen chunk of sensor, at least with the two copies I looked at. My copy of the 5D3 is unfortunately on the very worse end of read noise and vertical banding for 5D3 (OTOH it seems to have less high iso banding than StanJ's).

Anyway, as I said, it's not breakthrough for maximum DR, basically same old. But his high iso measurements do show that the high ISO improvement is not just in SNR but also DR so it appears that one you get into over ISO1600 it should be a full match for D4 and D3s's record breaking high ISO DR. Those three are in a total class of their own up there. The 5D3 comes is next, but noticeably behind and then come all the rest.

It is a little shitty, that for the $3500 price, Canon couldn't at least have used their best new high ISO technology in the 5D3 too.... That sure would've helped distinguish itself more from the D800. At least it could have clearly beaten the D800 for highiso then instead of more like a tie until you get to super, super high ISO.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 16613
Country: United States

Also he didn't normalize them for MP count either. So that would drop the 1DX down a bit relatively and rise the 5D3 up an insignificant peep. So 1DX and 5D2 should look a little bit worse than his chart implies once you do MP count and ISO normalization.



rscheffler
Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Total Posts: 4938
Country: Canada

skibum5 wrote:

It is a little shitty, that for the $3500 price, Canon couldn't at least have used their best new high ISO technology in the 5D3 too.... That sure would've helped distinguish itself more from the D800. At least it could have clearly beaten the D800 for highiso then instead of more like a tie until you get to super, super high ISO.


My feeling is Canon's primary consideration is not how the 5DIII compares to the D800, but to the 1DX. Put the same sensor tech in the 5DIII as the 1DX and the gap between the two would become too narrow. With the 5DIII already offering very similar AF (perhaps similarly stripped down as the sensor) and 'fast enough' 6fps, what, other than build quality, will entice 1DX buyers if it doesn't have some discernible (even if small) image quality advantages over a camera nearly half the price?



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 16613
Country: United States

rscheffler wrote:
skibum5 wrote:

It is a little shitty, that for the $3500 price, Canon couldn't at least have used their best new high ISO technology in the 5D3 too.... That sure would've helped distinguish itself more from the D800. At least it could have clearly beaten the D800 for highiso then instead of more like a tie until you get to super, super high ISO.


My feeling is Canon's primary consideration is not how the 5DIII compares to the D800, but to the 1DX. Put the same sensor tech in the 5DIII as the 1DX and the gap between the two would become too narrow. With the 5DIII already offering very similar AF (perhaps similarly stripped down as the sensor) and 'fast enough' 6fps, what, other than build quality, will entice 1DX buyers if it doesn't have some discernible (even if small) image quality advantages over a camera nearly half the price?


probably so, but a business that totally dominates tends to worry more about how their products compare to external segments rather than constantly obsess over internal segmentation....



StillFingerz
Registered: Jul 29, 2010
Total Posts: 3533
Country: United States

skibum5 wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
skibum5 wrote:

It is a little shitty, that for the $3500 price, Canon couldn't at least have used their best new high ISO technology in the 5D3 too.... That sure would've helped distinguish itself more from the D800. At least it could have clearly beaten the D800 for highiso then instead of more like a tie until you get to super, super high ISO.


My feeling is Canon's primary consideration is not how the 5DIII compares to the D800, but to the 1DX. Put the same sensor tech in the 5DIII as the 1DX and the gap between the two would become too narrow. With the 5DIII already offering very similar AF (perhaps similarly stripped down as the sensor) and 'fast enough' 6fps, what, other than build quality, will entice 1DX buyers if it doesn't have some discernible (even if small) image quality advantages over a camera nearly half the price?


probably so, but a business that totally dominates tends to worry more about how their products compare to external segments rather than constantly obsess over internal segmentation....


Erm...it's not just about the MPs/IQ, if it was they would share the same sensor to meet your needs. A 1D, in this case the new 1DX is about speed, Better/faster AF (with it's own dedicated CPU) and FPS; twice as fast. You can't put two 5D3s together and get 12 FPS.

Comparing their pro top dog to the prosumer top dog...sorry is just...useless. They're both killer cameras, what Canon has to offer. Canon doesn't compare the two. Only we do. They're made for differing target markets.



skibum5
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Total Posts: 16613
Country: United States

StillFingerz wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
skibum5 wrote:

It is a little shitty, that for the $3500 price, Canon couldn't at least have used their best new high ISO technology in the 5D3 too.... That sure would've helped distinguish itself more from the D800. At least it could have clearly beaten the D800 for highiso then instead of more like a tie until you get to super, super high ISO.


My feeling is Canon's primary consideration is not how the 5DIII compares to the D800, but to the 1DX. Put the same sensor tech in the 5DIII as the 1DX and the gap between the two would become too narrow. With the 5DIII already offering very similar AF (perhaps similarly stripped down as the sensor) and 'fast enough' 6fps, what, other than build quality, will entice 1DX buyers if it doesn't have some discernible (even if small) image quality advantages over a camera nearly half the price?


probably so, but a business that totally dominates tends to worry more about how their products compare to external segments rather than constantly obsess over internal segmentation....


Erm...it's not just about the MPs/IQ, if it was they would share the same sensor to meet your needs. A 1D, in this case the new 1DX is about speed, Better/faster AF (with it's own dedicated CPU) and FPS; twice as fast. You can't put two 5D3s together and get 12 FPS.

Comparing their pro top dog to the prosumer top dog...sorry is just...useless. They're both killer cameras, what Canon has to offer. Canon doesn't compare the two. Only we do. They're made for differing target markets.


That is how canon used to think, these days believe me they compare them and make sure to clip this and that and the other thing away.



David Baldwin
Registered: Jun 28, 2007
Total Posts: 2840
Country: United Kingdom

Fascinating thread. Seems to me that the 1DX sensor performance might start to give an idea what we can expect noisewise from the 5D4, given that we have 3 years or so for the more advanced sensor design to trickle down through the Canon model hierarchy.

To those of you lucky enough to have a 1Dx congratulations, I envy you!



dshipley
Registered: Mar 03, 2009
Total Posts: 175
Country: United States

StillFingerz wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
skibum5 wrote:

It is a little shitty, that for the $3500 price, Canon couldn't at least have used their best new high ISO technology in the 5D3 too.... That sure would've helped distinguish itself more from the D800. At least it could have clearly beaten the D800 for highiso then instead of more like a tie until you get to super, super high ISO.


My feeling is Canon's primary consideration is not how the 5DIII compares to the D800, but to the 1DX. Put the same sensor tech in the 5DIII as the 1DX and the gap between the two would become too narrow. With the 5DIII already offering very similar AF (perhaps similarly stripped down as the sensor) and 'fast enough' 6fps, what, other than build quality, will entice 1DX buyers if it doesn't have some discernible (even if small) image quality advantages over a camera nearly half the price?


probably so, but a business that totally dominates tends to worry more about how their products compare to external segments rather than constantly obsess over internal segmentation....


Erm...it's not just about the MPs/IQ, if it was they would share the same sensor to meet your needs. A 1D, in this case the new 1DX is about speed, Better/faster AF (with it's own dedicated CPU) and FPS; twice as fast. You can't put two 5D3s together and get 12 FPS.

Comparing their pro top dog to the prosumer top dog...sorry is just...useless. They're both killer cameras, what Canon has to offer. Canon doesn't compare the two. Only we do. They're made for differing target markets.


I wouldn't say comparing the 1DX to the 5D3 is useless and I disagree that Canon doesn't internally compare products as Canon has a pretty long track record of removing functionality or features from their products to create so called "market segments" for their products. If Canon did not compare their products internally then the 5D2 would have had a better AF system, all EOS bodies would be able to spot meter by the selected AF point, all EOS bodies that shoot video would allow for uncompressed video out via HDMI, and the list could go on. It seems Canon is doing less of this with the 5D3 and 1DX and hopefully it continues going forward.



Jon_Doh
Registered: Apr 02, 2009
Total Posts: 121
Country: United States

Regardless of the improvements over previous Canons and shortcomings that remain, the $7,000 question is whether this camera is worth the price tag considering what's available from the competition for a lot less money?



1       2       3              5      
6
       end