Sheldon N wrote:

I think that's what people love about the 1D X, it does the job of going out in the real world and capturing photos better than pretty much anything else available.



I think in the real world you'd be hard pressed to see any difference compared to a 5D III unless you shoot at ISO 12800+ and even then we are talking about 2/3 stop. Other than speed I'd say the 5D III can capture shots pretty much as well in 99% of occasions. It's like the EOS 3 vs EOS 1V comparison. EOS 3 is 95% of the camera at half the price and it's a pretty good fit here. Not saying the 1D X isn't the best camera Canon's made, because it is, but seeing the 1D IV replaced by it and the price increase $2K is a bit galling.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sheldon N wrote:

I think that's what people love about the 1D X, it does the job of going out in the real world and capturing photos better than pretty much anything else available.



I think in the real world you'd be hard pressed to see any difference compared to a 5D III unless you shoot at ISO 12800+ and even then we are talking about 2/3 stop. Other than speed I'd say the 5D III can capture shots pretty much as well in 99% of occasions. It's like the EOS 3 vs EOS 1V comparison. EOS 3 is 95% of the camera at half the price and it's a pretty good fit here. Not saying the 1D X isn't the best camera Canon's made, because it is, but seeing the 1D IV replaced by it and the price increase $2K is a bit galling.

I bought a 1DX instead of a 5DIII becaue I need 10+ fps. It delivers. I'd prefer to pay less, but it is what it is. You buy one or not. I shoot the 1DX alongside a 1DIV. In most circumstances, the 1DX delivers better results.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sheldon N wrote:

I think that's what people love about the 1D X, it does the job of going out in the real world and capturing photos better than pretty much anything else available.



I think in the real world you'd be hard pressed to see any difference compared to a 5D III unless you shoot at ISO 12800+ and even then we are talking about 2/3 stop. Other than speed I'd say the 5D III can capture shots pretty much as well in 99% of occasions. It's like the EOS 3 vs EOS 1V comparison. EOS 3 is 95% of the camera at half the price and it's a pretty good fit here. Not saying the 1D X isn't the best camera Canon's made, because it is, but seeing the 1D IV replaced by it and the price increase $2K is a bit galling.

It also replaced the 1Ds3. And that body was a lot more expensive than the 1DX

curious80 wrote:
Its wrong to claim that the Sony FF sensors are "better" than 1DX sensor (btw I am a big fan of recent Sony sensors). Based on DxoMark numbers 1DX is now the absolute best high ISO camera beating not only the Sony sensors but even the previous high-ISO champ i.e. D3s. Whereas the Sony sensors including D600 and D800 are the best low-ISO high resolution cameras. Which one is "better" depends on which aspect is more important to you. There is no clear winner.


That's not the case when you factor in color selectivity, which relates to how well the colors are separated+hold up to any post-processing. That's why the High ISO DxoMark score is higher for the D3s/D4's than the 1DX. If the D3s/D4 had the same less-selective CFA as the 1DX then they would produce even higher SNR values than they do today.

Lars Johnsson wrote:

It also replaced the 1Ds3. And that body was a lot more expensive than the 1DX

I never had any interest in a studio camera and it was a kick in the guts to see the price of admission into a 1 series increase so much. I would have been less perturbed if the 5D III had filled the gap better by being 8fps and say 27-30MP, even if that meant it were $4K

There is a lot of interesting discussion as usual about the newest offerings from Nikon and Canon. I think many of us non professionals here hang on every word and try to soak it all up hoping to find what equipment might enable us to be the best we can. As I read and try to understand the discussions about the shadows, the various reviews, and the charts on DXO, etc., it all can make you question your equipment choices. Sometime through the fog in my shallow brain though, I realize that as the pros here hunt for that final small percentage of equipment gain, what should be important to some of the rest of us is a different set of values. For me, I think it comes to what camera can:
1. Reliably focus spot on in the most conditions with me as the operator
2. Meter most accurately in demanding situations
3. Get closest to an accurate AWB (even though I always shoot raw, WB is a pain if too far gone)

So while I love to read the measurements and find DXO very interesting, the 1DX somehow provided me with consistently better files than what I got from the D4 and d800. User error, most likely! Some files were just perfect, just not what I could count on in every situation from the new Nikon's. At 40x60 the d800 metal print has a bit more detail than the 40x60 from the 1DX, but the 1 DX is in the bag because it never surprises me with an OOF random shot or a complete overexposure in a series of shots.
Regards,
Greg

Greg -- I'm with you 100%. That's exactly why I abandoned my 2-year sideline attempt with Nikon.

Your points actually apply to greater degree if you are doing assignments and can't have a re-do (not that you'd want one anyway!). I had several alarming event experiences where the Nikon D7000 failed me on exposure and AF. Luckily, or prudently, I had an additional day where I could pick up the important lost shots and finish the assignment using a humble 60D and 15-85.

I'm not a fan of the Nikon programming of Matrix Metering and center AF point is not precise enough.

I know Nikon can be made to work (I've seen plenty of impressive evidence of that), but it wasn't reliable for my approach, lighting, or subjects.

I find I can rely on Canon and it's never let me down as long as I do my part technically. And the better Canon models just make it easier and easier -- that's what it's about.

Sometimes it's not the photographer, it's the gear! There has to be a meshing between the two, but the gear has to be reliable for the specific photographer, regardless of brand.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not saying the 1D X isn't the best camera Canon's made, because it is, but seeing the 1D IV replaced by it and the price increase $2K is a bit galling.

I agree, from a 1D4 owner perspective the $2K price increase was really hard to take considering you are also giving up a lot of reach. Hoping the 7D2 see's some solid upgrades and comes close to replacing it. Would make a nice combo with the 1DX.

Canon 1D X: The best of Canon’s full-frame sensors?
If it was i would be jumping to replace my 1Ds3
While the 1dx is an improvenment i dont consider it that much of an improvent for
image quallity (not talking about the entire camera system)

Have a look at the chip works article regarding the technology in canon FF Sensor

chipworks . com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/24/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

while some of us take DXO marks results with a grain of salt i dont have a lab of people crunching numbers but i think DXO results are inline with the chipworks findings. For now I think i will hang on to my 1dsIII until "impressive" improvements are made to the sensor..then i will shell out $#k for another high res 1D like body. It will be an interesting marketing exercise to see a "1DsIV" with D800e like resolution and sensor results but selling for 2 or 3 times the cost of a D800...

charld wrote:
...to see a "1DsIV" ...

I think it'll be a 1DsX.

Something for the Mk4 guys worried about reach.
Shooting the X and Mk4 side by side with the Mk4 full frame and cropping the X provides similar results in terms of quality.
Yes the file is smaller but the quality is every bit as good as the full frame mk4 image.
The X is far more croppable than the mk4.. Hence sold both my Mk4s..

dehowie wrote:
Something for the Mk4 guys worried about reach.
Shooting the X and Mk4 side by side with the Mk4 full frame and cropping the X provides similar results in terms of quality.
Yes the file is smaller but the quality is every bit as good as the full frame mk4 image.
The X is far more croppable than the mk4.. Hence sold both my Mk4s..

Care to share some side by side examples of this?

What surprises me all of the time is the overall ratings, not the graphs. I've always found them confusing.

Overall scores:
1dx 82
1ds3 80

Look at the graphs of these cameras. The 1dx is a lot better or a bit better at everything except a tiny reduction in DR at ISO100 and that's only worth 2 points on their overall scale?

Now add the d800 in. The 1dx is pretty much as good at everything - better at high ISO, worse at low ISO DR, small difference on low ISO colour sensitivity - and the d800 gets a score of 95? So they are massively biasing low ISO DR.

Now look at the sports scores. The D800 sports (low light ISO) *beats* the 1dx - 2853 vs 2786 - when clearly you can see that the 1dx is massively better at high ISO. The SNR graphs are the same and the 1dx has equivalent DR at ISO1600 and wins from there.

Now remove the 1ds3 and add the d3s. It has the same score (82) as the 1dx and the same profile on pretty much all the graphs (although the 1dx wins a bit on high ISO after 3200), but it has a sports score of 3253 ISO - which is more than the 1dx. (unless you look at the colour sensitivity graphs maybe)

Huh?

I'm not saying their numbers don't mean anything or they're made up and I'm sure they have a formula, but if you look at those scores and take them at face value, you'd buy a d800 since what they're effectively saying is that it's better at high ISO than the 1dx.... and it's not ... and you'd buy a d3s since it's also better at high ISO .... and it's also not unless you look at the colour sensitivity graphs.

I just don't get where their numbers come from sometimes.

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
What surprises me all of the time is the overall ratings, not the graphs. I've always found them confusing.

Overall scores:
1dx 82
1ds3 80

Look at the graphs of these cameras. The 1dx is a lot better or a bit better at everything except a tiny reduction in DR at ISO100 and that's only worth 2 points on their overall scale?

Now add the d800 in. The 1dx is pretty much as good at everything - better at high ISO, worse at low ISO DR, small difference on low ISO colour sensitivity - and the d800 gets a score of 95? So they are massively biasing low ISO DR.

Now look at the sports scores. The D800 sports (low light ISO) *beats* the 1dx - 2853 vs 2786 - when clearly you can see that the 1dx is massively better at high ISO. The SNR graphs are the same and the 1dx has equivalent DR at ISO1600 and wins from there.

Now remove the 1ds3 and add the d3s. It has the same score (82) as the 1dx and the same profile on pretty much all the graphs (although the 1dx wins a bit on high ISO after 3200), but it has a sports score of 3253 ISO - which is more than the 1dx. (unless you look at the colour sensitivity graphs maybe)

Huh?

I'm not saying their numbers don't mean anything or they're made up and I'm sure they have a formula, but if you look at those scores and take them at face value, you'd buy a d800 since what they're effectively saying is that it's better at high ISO than the 1dx.... and it's not ... and you'd buy a d3s since it's also better at high ISO .... and it's also not unless you look at the colour sensitivity graphs.

I just don't get where their numbers come from sometimes.

It's also strange and funny that the Nikon D3s has a much better sport score-low light iso than the latest Nikon D4
And if you look at DXO for lenses it's ten times worse..............

What no one fails to mention the suberb autofocus of the 1Dx.
It smokes anything out there at the moment, and all of canons predessors.
And I know that Autofocus is not part of the DXO testing process.

But for all the people that say, wow now I can keep the 1Ds III or that the things are just as good with the 5D III, well they are'nt comparing apples to apples.

A great camera all around! No regrets selling my Mark IV for the upgrade.

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
What surprises me all of the time is the overall ratings, not the graphs. I've always found them confusing.

Overall scores:
1dx 82
1ds3 80

Look at the graphs of these cameras. The 1dx is a lot better or a bit better at everything except a tiny reduction in DR at ISO100 and that's only worth 2 points on their overall scale?

Now add the d800 in. The 1dx is pretty much as good at everything - better at high ISO, worse at low ISO DR, small difference on low ISO colour sensitivity - and the d800 gets a score of 95? So they are massively biasing low ISO DR.

Now look at the sports scores. The D800 sports (low light ISO) *beats* the 1dx - 2853 vs 2786 - when clearly you can see that the 1dx is massively better at high ISO. The SNR graphs are the same and the 1dx has equivalent DR at ISO1600 and wins from there.

Now remove the 1ds3 and add the d3s. It has the same score (82) as the 1dx and the same profile on pretty much all the graphs (although the 1dx wins a bit on high ISO after 3200), but it has a sports score of 3253 ISO - which is more than the 1dx. (unless you look at the colour sensitivity graphs maybe)

Huh?

I'm not saying their numbers don't mean anything or they're made up and I'm sure they have a formula, but if you look at those scores and take them at face value, you'd buy a d800 since what they're effectively saying is that it's better at high ISO than the 1dx.... and it's not ... and you'd buy a d3s since it's also better at high ISO .... and it's also not unless you look at the colour sensitivity graphs.

I just don't get where their numbers come from sometimes.

The overall core should be ignored beacuse it has a weighting.

The low light ISO score should also be ignored because of the way it is calculated. A limit is defined for 3 different measurements. What ever measurement that goes below the limit first, defines the low light ISO. This doesn't match with reality, because in reality you can trade the noise vs color in processing. If the low light ISO were to mean anything, it should be calculated as a weighting between SNR, DR anc Color Sensitivity.

I am not defending the scores, they should be ignored, but just if you wonder how they get there....

For the lens tests, I have no idea how they get results that don't match other test sites or experiences. IMO, DXO ar capable of measuring sensors, but not lenses. Their horrible lens measurements should not be used as an argument against their sensor measurements.

Back to the 1DX, it really has the best high ISO Dynamic Range in the world. The read noise at high ISO can be calculated back to 1.3 e-, and that is the lowest read noise for any DSLR to date.

alundeb wrote:
I am not defending the scores, they should be ignored, but just if you wonder how they get there....

For the lens tests, I have no idea how they get results that don't match other test sites or experiences. IMO, DXO ar capable of measuring sensors, but not lenses. Their horrible lens measurements should not be used as an argument against their sensor measurements.

Back to the 1DX, it really has the best high ISO Dynamic Range in the world. The read noise at high ISO can be calculated back to 1.3 e-, and that is the lowest read noise for any DSLR to date.

Thanks.

To be honest I don't "care" about the scores. I don't "care" what number they gave it. What irks me is that their reasoning just seems a bit crazy. And I'd feel the same if I was into Nikon.

I'm all for people having the right *information* to make their decision. That's why I always point people to graphs and say "ignore the numbers". And also say "make sure it's the sensor which is the most important thing for you".