This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
p.34 #1EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
PhilDWedding wrote:
I think this is unlikely if I'm honest. I'm expecting the 1dx to be a "little bit" better than the d3s, according to Canons own view of the two stop increase compared to the 1d4.
That would make it 1 stop better than the 5d2 and about 1-2 stops better than the 5dc.
ISO3200 -> ISO25,600 is 3 stops and I doubt that... but we'll see I suppose.
yeah sadly he is dreaming if you he thinks the 1D X will have 25,600 looking like 3200 on the 5D2
3 real stops is, for one, better than the 2 stops they mention! and even for 2 stops they say it's a combo of better real performance and better jpg NR so....
Ralph Conway wrote
If Iso 25.600 compares to 5D MKs 3.200That would make it 1 stop better than the 5d2 and about 1-2 stops better than the 5dc.
ISO3200 -> ISO25,600 is 3 stops and I doubt that... but we'll see I suppose.
yeah sadly he is dreaming if you he thinks the 1D X will have 25,600 looking like 3200 on the 5D2
3 real stops is, for one, better than the 2 stops they mention! and even for 2 stops they say it's a combo of better real performance and better jpg NR so....
Oct 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM
p.34 #2EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
I think this is unlikely if I'm honest. I'm expecting the 1dx to be a "little bit" better than the d3s, according to Canons own view of the two stop increase compared to the 1d4.
That would make it 1 stop better than the 5d2 and about 1-2 stops better than the 5dc.
ISO3200 -> ISO25,600 is 3 stops and I doubt that... but we'll see I suppose.1 Stop better than the 5D2 at ISO 3200 unprocessed is realistic, but at the maximum I would expect, and still very difficult to get to. It will mean a sensor effiiciency of 66%, The D3s gets to 57% (sensorgen.info)
However, the read noise signature of the 5DII is not pretty, showing in as banding and blotching at 12800 and above. The potential for multiple stop improvements lies in at what extreme ISO you can get an image that doesn't look like crap. That may well be 2-3 stops better than the 5DII.
Lastly, we have been disappointed by Canon marketing claims...Show more →
yeah they certainly could get a good 3 stops better true not banded DR out of it than the 5D2 if they really did fix it up, but they are still using the same A/D non column type
but mid-gray SNR is no way going 3 stops better
PhilDWedding wrote
Ralph Conway wrote
If Iso 25.600 compares to 5D MKs 3.200That would make it 1 stop better than the 5d2 and about 1-2 stops better than the 5dc.
ISO3200 -> ISO25,600 is 3 stops and I doubt that... but we'll see I suppose.
However, the read noise signature of the 5DII is not pretty, showing in as banding and blotching at 12800 and above. The potential for multiple stop improvements lies in at what extreme ISO you can get an image that doesn't look like crap. That may well be 2-3 stops better than the 5DII.
Lastly, we have been disappointed by Canon marketing claims...Show more →
yeah they certainly could get a good 3 stops better true not banded DR out of it than the 5D2 if they really did fix it up, but they are still using the same A/D non column type
but mid-gray SNR is no way going 3 stops better
Oct 19, 2011 at 12:23 PM
p.34 #3EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Hard for me to get excited about this, certainly not to the point of replacing my 1Ds MarkIII. FPS is nice for the sports, wildlife photographers, unimportant for the landscape and architecture I do. More ISO unimportant for me, I never go above 800 anyhow and almost never go even that high. Don't know enough about DIGIC 5 to know how significant it will be. All in all there are some nice refinements but not the blockbuster I was expecting four years after the 1DsIII was introduced and the price seems really high for what it is. The only thing that might tempt me would be if after a year or so of experience there's a general consensus that IQ is noticeably better than the 1DsIII.
Seems kind of funny or ironic or weird or something that Canon originally was the big mpx company, Nikon was the less mpx, better noise company. Then Nikon joined Canon with more mpx at the high end. Now Canon joins former Nikon with fewer mpx.
Edited on Oct 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM · View previous versions
Seems kind of funny or ironic or weird or something that Canon originally was the big mpx company, Nikon was the less mpx, better noise company. Then Nikon joined Canon with more mpx at the high end. Now Canon joins former Nikon with fewer mpx.
Edited on Oct 19, 2011 at 12:35 PM · View previous versions
Oct 19, 2011 at 12:27 PM
p.34 #4EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
DanielPaul wrote:
If the 5D-follow-up is the new MP king (meaning 36MP+), it will not be the pure IQ king. More MP != more IQ. It would win in things like resolving power, ability to crop, and all the things that are guaranteed with more MP. But with that would be more noise, artifacts, and all the things that come with making pixels smaller.
but since when is it fair to compare cams at the pixel level?
you need to do normalized comparisons
also before you think higher MP is so utterly ruinous look at crops taken from same absolute area of 5D2 and 7D sensor and the 7D gives a touch better SNR than 5D2! In fact if you shoot a far off bird with both and then downsample the 7D bird to the 5D2 bird pixel size you will get the bird from the 7D cam to have slightly better SNR and LESS artifacting since the demoasic errors have been averaged away by the downsample!
If the 5D-follow-up is the new MP king (meaning 36MP+), it will not be the pure IQ king. More MP != more IQ. It would win in things like resolving power, ability to crop, and all the things that are guaranteed with more MP. But with that would be more noise, artifacts, and all the things that come with making pixels smaller.
but since when is it fair to compare cams at the pixel level?
you need to do normalized comparisons
also before you think higher MP is so utterly ruinous look at crops taken from same absolute area of 5D2 and 7D sensor and the 7D gives a touch better SNR than 5D2! In fact if you shoot a far off bird with both and then downsample the 7D bird to the 5D2 bird pixel size you will get the bird from the 7D cam to have slightly better SNR and LESS artifacting since the demoasic errors have been averaged away by the downsample!
Oct 19, 2011 at 12:28 PM
p.34 #5EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Ralph Conway wrote:
But I still love it.
I hope they get it all sorted out. Happy times.:-) To be honest: I was talking about native ISO. That is, what the sensor does. 5D II does not support ISO 12.800. That is just calculated and imho a marketing gag (or: better a bad image than none).
I guess, Canon would not have set D1Xs native ISO to 51.200 if one can not use the images done.
That is the really improvement that blows away all competitors. Next to AF and 12 FPS.
Let´s wait for the pictures.
Ralph
native iso is just marketing gag too
heck nikon had an ISO6400 cam almost a decade ago
on a 5D2 the ISO1600 is the last true ISO where the extra amping does any good, beyond that it just clips off more highlights each stop up while not controling noise any better, same for most canon models, although the 7D and probably 1D4 do make ISO3200 a touch better than ISO1600
PhilDWedding wrote
To be honest, 5dii shows poor quality in the shadows much lower than 12800... But I still love it.I hope they get it all sorted out. Happy times.
I guess, Canon would not have set D1Xs native ISO to 51.200 if one can not use the images done.
That is the really improvement that blows away all competitors. Next to AF and 12 FPS.
Let´s wait for the pictures.
Ralph
native iso is just marketing gag too
heck nikon had an ISO6400 cam almost a decade ago
on a 5D2 the ISO1600 is the last true ISO where the extra amping does any good, beyond that it just clips off more highlights each stop up while not controling noise any better, same for most canon models, although the 7D and probably 1D4 do make ISO3200 a touch better than ISO1600
Oct 19, 2011 at 12:30 PM
p.34 #6EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate ...
Agree 100%.
Canon switched sides in the MP debate and now big pixels rule again !
Sorry to see you hanging on the wrong side of the debate .
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate ...
Agree 100%.
Canon switched sides in the MP debate and now big pixels rule again !
Sorry to see you hanging on the wrong side of the debate
.Oct 19, 2011 at 12:41 PM
p.34 #7EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
jorkata wrote:
Agree 100%.
Canon switched sides in the MP debate and now big pixels rule again !
Sorry to see you hanging on the wrong side of the debate .
Hello old pal, nice to see you again! But I can't hear what you say, 'cause the can(y)on between us is so BIIIIIG!
alundeb wrote
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate ...Canon switched sides in the MP debate and now big pixels rule again !
Sorry to see you hanging on the wrong side of the debate
.Hello old pal, nice to see you again! But I can't hear what you say, 'cause the can(y)on between us is so BIIIIIG!
Oct 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM
p.34 #8EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
I did not expect that a sensor collects 240% of the light falling on it. I just expect, that this new sensor registers 3times less light falling on it than before. That is what is necessary to get a 3 stop ISO improvement with the 5D in Reference. The 5D MK II does not react on 100% of the incomming light.There is no reason to continue the resolution debate, since you have obviously never experienced how people react to images with detail level at 200MP equivalent.
Yes I did. And it was amazing. What now?
Your comments about image noise reveal that you know little about it. There is plenty of literature. This is a bit technical, but covers the main aspects:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/
Thank you. As far I can remember I did nothing mention anything about image noise. I was talking abou how great a comparable 5D MK II ISO 3.200 noise level would be to me if comparable to ISO 51K of 1DX.
Ralph Conway wrote
High resolution makes stunning images? That is new for me. We are far above 35mm since 6 MP. And there are millions of stunning images from the midtwenties, the 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th, 70th, 80th, 90th and the first three years of this century. And after, too.I did not expect that a sensor collects 240% of the light falling on it. I just expect, that this new sensor registers 3times less light falling on it than before. That is what is necessary to get a 3 stop ISO improvement with the 5D in Reference. The 5D MK II does not react on 100% of the incomming light.
Yes I did. And it was amazing. What now?
Your comments about image noise reveal that you know little about it. There is plenty of literature. This is a bit technical, but covers the main aspects:
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/
Thank you. As far I can remember I did nothing mention anything about image noise. I was talking abou how great a comparable 5D MK II ISO 3.200 noise level would be to me if comparable to ISO 51K of 1DX.
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:20 PM
p.34 #9EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
jorkata wrote:
Canon switched sides in the MP debate and now big pixels rule again !
Complete nonsense.
Canon switched sides in the MP debate and now big pixels rule again !
Complete nonsense.
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:22 PM
p.34 #10EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
I will join your euphoria in my own way, I am happy that not all photographers use high resolution as a tool to produce stunning images, which means we can differentiate our aesthetic expressions and all be happy
Most of the time I use high resolution as a tool to produce mediocre images. When is Canon going to introduce a stunning image feature?
I will join your euphoria in my own way, I am happy that not all photographers use high resolution as a tool to produce stunning images, which means we can differentiate our aesthetic expressions and all be happy
Most of the time I use high resolution as a tool to produce mediocre images. When is Canon going to introduce a stunning image feature?
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:32 PM
p.34 #11EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
After working with the d7000 and the 7d I find your findings to be wrong. Also the buffer on the d7000 is crap.
I highly doubt you'll see your desired bodies from canon ( the ones you list). How many product lines would that be?
Rebel, xxd, 5 series, 3 series, 1 series, 7 series.
skibum5 wrote:
and yet nikon keeps putting better and better AF into all their models, i see say the D7000 even tracks better than the 7D
come on, 5D needs serious best effort AF
anyway:
1DX 18MP, super speed 12-14fps, FF, giant brick
5D3 34MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series level AF at the worst, FF, compact with optional grip
or maybe the latter split to
5D3 38MP4-6fps, prior 1 series level AF, FF, video with a bit of line skipping but a little better than on current models
3D 26-28MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series AF at worst, FF, flawlessly sampled video
5 and 3 series small bodies with optional...Show more →
I highly doubt you'll see your desired bodies from canon ( the ones you list). How many product lines would that be?
Rebel, xxd, 5 series, 3 series, 1 series, 7 series.
skibum5 wrote:
justruss wrote
I expect the 5D follow-up to get better AF-- but not 1-series quality. There's plenty of complaining about the 5Dmk2 here in terms of AF... but for the vast, vast majority of uses, even those professional ones-- and notably those this camera is designed for (not sports)-- the AF is great.come on, 5D needs serious best effort AF
anyway:
1DX 18MP, super speed 12-14fps, FF, giant brick
5D3 34MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series level AF at the worst, FF, compact with optional grip
or maybe the latter split to
5D3 38MP4-6fps, prior 1 series level AF, FF, video with a bit of line skipping but a little better than on current models
3D 26-28MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series AF at worst, FF, flawlessly sampled video
5 and 3 series small bodies with optional...Show more →
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:36 PM
p.34 #12EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate, since you have obviously never experienced how people react to images with detail level at 200MP equivalent.
How do people react? I do not believe I have seen any kind of 200MP image from a camera. What should I expect?
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate, since you have obviously never experienced how people react to images with detail level at 200MP equivalent.
How do people react? I do not believe I have seen any kind of 200MP image from a camera. What should I expect?
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:38 PM
p.34 #13EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
If it is, (and AF is working, too :-) - sorry, could not let it without) THIS 1DX breaks all borders in any professional needs except resolution. What needs very few (nobody in my mind).
It sat a new standard that will be good enough for all times of photographie.
That there can be done more does not mean there is a need for.I will join your euphoria in my own way, I am happy that not all photographers use high resolution as a tool to produce stunning images, which means we can differentiate our aesthetic expressions and all be happy
But I don't understand how you expect a sensor to collect 240% of the light falling onto it, that is what is necessary to get 3 stops ISO improvement with 5dII 3200 as a reference
Uh, what?
Canon didn't claim 3 stops.
If they did though, it could be achieved by raising the quantum efficiency 50% (from 40% to 60%, which is a bit above where the D3s is) and then dropping the read and amp noise by 75%. Now, a 3 stop improvement in a single sensor generation is insane, but it's not as if it's a complete absurdity. 2 stops is entirely possible, in some ways I'd expect no less.
Ralph Conway wrote
Maybe I am a dreamer. But I was not disapointed before. At "native" 6.400 5D MK II images are very stunning (with a little overwork). 3.200 images are without. I expect 1DX pictures usefull at native (51.200), too. And very fine without additional work on the raw file at 25.600. Yes, I expect full 3 stops compared to 5D MK II. Canon would not have made it "native" 50K else.If it is, (and AF is working, too :-) - sorry, could not let it without) THIS 1DX breaks all borders in any professional needs except resolution. What needs very few (nobody in my mind).
It sat a new standard that will be good enough for all times of photographie.
That there can be done more does not mean there is a need for.
But I don't understand how you expect a sensor to collect 240% of the light falling onto it, that is what is necessary to get 3 stops ISO improvement with 5dII 3200 as a reference
Uh, what?
Canon didn't claim 3 stops.
If they did though, it could be achieved by raising the quantum efficiency 50% (from 40% to 60%, which is a bit above where the D3s is) and then dropping the read and amp noise by 75%. Now, a 3 stop improvement in a single sensor generation is insane, but it's not as if it's a complete absurdity. 2 stops is entirely possible, in some ways I'd expect no less.
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:40 PM
p.34 #14EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Whiteknight time
The buffer is horrible, yes. But it's not as horrible as initially thought. you get a second and a half of shooting in RAW/RAW+JPEG Fine, versus just over a second on a 60D and 2 seconds on a 7D. And it clears faster than the 60D with UHS-I cards. In other words, it's actually better than its direct competition and competitive with the class above.
It does track well. I shoot wakeboarding and capoeira quite often, and my in focus rate is nice and high, often higher than a couple of the 7D shooters at the lake (though that's obviously anecdotal). It tracked as well as the D300s I tried, though initial lock on was definitely slower and it has more of a tendency to focus on the background until you get used to the larger sensors (the sensors at each point are bigger than the D300 equivalent).
Whiteknight over.
I agree with you on the product lines though - I expect there'll be 6-7 DSLRs in the lineup, though the bottom two may get eaten by mirrorless cameras sooner rather than later.
RobertLynn wrote:
After working with the d7000 and the 7d I find your findings to be wrong. Also the buffer on the d7000 is crap.
I highly doubt you'll see your desired bodies from canon ( the ones you list). How many product lines would that be?
Rebel, xxd, 5 series, 3 series, 1 series, 7 series.
and yet nikon keeps putting better and better AF into all their models, i see say the D7000 even tracks better than the 7D
come on, 5D needs serious best effort AF
anyway:
1DX 18MP, super speed 12-14fps, FF, giant brick
5D3 34MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series level AF at the worst, FF, compact with optional grip
or maybe the latter split to
5D3 38MP4-6fps, prior 1 series level AF, FF, video with a bit of line skipping but a little better than on current models
3D 26-28MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series AF at worst, FF, flawlessly sampled video
5 and 3 series small bodies with optional grips
the truly serious sports shooters need 8fps min so they have to get 1DX so 1Dx is protected for it's main target market (although the way canon talks they make it sound like they want the 1Ds crowd to all get 1DX instead of D800/5D3/3D but I don't see how that will hold up)
The buffer is horrible, yes. But it's not as horrible as initially thought. you get a second and a half of shooting in RAW/RAW+JPEG Fine, versus just over a second on a 60D and 2 seconds on a 7D. And it clears faster than the 60D with UHS-I cards. In other words, it's actually better than its direct competition and competitive with the class above.
It does track well. I shoot wakeboarding and capoeira quite often, and my in focus rate is nice and high, often higher than a couple of the 7D shooters at the lake (though that's obviously anecdotal). It tracked as well as the D300s I tried, though initial lock on was definitely slower and it has more of a tendency to focus on the background until you get used to the larger sensors (the sensors at each point are bigger than the D300 equivalent).
Whiteknight over.
I agree with you on the product lines though - I expect there'll be 6-7 DSLRs in the lineup, though the bottom two may get eaten by mirrorless cameras sooner rather than later.
RobertLynn wrote:
After working with the d7000 and the 7d I find your findings to be wrong. Also the buffer on the d7000 is crap.
I highly doubt you'll see your desired bodies from canon ( the ones you list). How many product lines would that be?
Rebel, xxd, 5 series, 3 series, 1 series, 7 series.
skibum5 wrote
justruss wrote
I expect the 5D follow-up to get better AF-- but not 1-series quality. There's plenty of complaining about the 5Dmk2 here in terms of AF... but for the vast, vast majority of uses, even those professional ones-- and notably those this camera is designed for (not sports)-- the AF is great.come on, 5D needs serious best effort AF
anyway:
1DX 18MP, super speed 12-14fps, FF, giant brick
5D3 34MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series level AF at the worst, FF, compact with optional grip
or maybe the latter split to
5D3 38MP4-6fps, prior 1 series level AF, FF, video with a bit of line skipping but a little better than on current models
3D 26-28MP, 6.3fps, prior 1 series AF at worst, FF, flawlessly sampled video
5 and 3 series small bodies with optional grips
the truly serious sports shooters need 8fps min so they have to get 1DX so 1Dx is protected for it's main target market (although the way canon talks they make it sound like they want the 1Ds crowd to all get 1DX instead of D800/5D3/3D but I don't see how that will hold up)
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:51 PM
p.34 #15EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Ralph Conway wrote:
Thank you. As far I can remember I did nothing mention anything about image noise.
I was talking abou how great a comparable 5D MK II ISO 3.200 noise level would be to me if comparable to ISO 51K of 1DX.
Thank you. As far I can remember I did nothing mention anything about image noise.
I was talking abou how great a comparable 5D MK II ISO 3.200 noise level would be to me if comparable to ISO 51K of 1DX.
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:51 PM
p.34 #16EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
tonywong88 wrote:
Most of the time I use high resolution as a tool to produce mediocre images. When is Canon going to introduce a stunning image feature?
I can't help you there.
alundeb wrote
I will join your euphoria in my own way, I am happy that not all photographers use high resolution as a tool to produce stunning images, which means we can differentiate our aesthetic expressions and all be happyI can't help you there.
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:56 PM
p.34 #17EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Michael Porter wrote:
How do people react? I do not believe I have seen any kind of 200MP image from a camera. What should I expect?
Many people start to interact with the image, going in and out, getting familiar with it on different levels.
alundeb wrote
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate, since you have obviously never experienced how people react to images with detail level at 200MP equivalent.Many people start to interact with the image, going in and out, getting familiar with it on different levels.
Oct 19, 2011 at 01:58 PM
p.34 #18EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
ausemmao wrote:
Uh, what?
Canon didn't claim 3 stops.
If they did though, it could be achieved by raising the quantum efficiency 50% (from 40% to 60%, which is a bit above where the D3s is) and then dropping the read and amp noise by 75%. Now, a 3 stop improvement in a single sensor generation is insane, but it's not as if it's a complete absurdity. 2 stops is entirely possible, in some ways I'd expect no less.
My response was directly to Ralph, I know Canon didn't claim 3.
You are wrong, raising QE 50% only improves noise by approximately 1/2 stop. You need a doubling (100% increase) to improve one stop.
And again, reducing read noise by 75% does not improve midtone SNR at ISO 3200. It does help at ISO 51200 though.
Uh, what?
Canon didn't claim 3 stops.
If they did though, it could be achieved by raising the quantum efficiency 50% (from 40% to 60%, which is a bit above where the D3s is) and then dropping the read and amp noise by 75%. Now, a 3 stop improvement in a single sensor generation is insane, but it's not as if it's a complete absurdity. 2 stops is entirely possible, in some ways I'd expect no less.
My response was directly to Ralph, I know Canon didn't claim 3.
You are wrong, raising QE 50% only improves noise by approximately 1/2 stop. You need a doubling (100% increase) to improve one stop.
And again, reducing read noise by 75% does not improve midtone SNR at ISO 3200. It does help at ISO 51200 though.
Oct 19, 2011 at 02:05 PM
p.34 #19EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
alundeb wrote:
How do people react? I do not believe I have seen any kind of 200MP image from a camera. What should I expect?Many people start to interact with the image, going in and out, getting familiar with it on different levels.
Is it like sex? That's what it sounds like to me, just like sex.
Michael Porter wrote
alundeb wrote
There is no reason to continue the resolution debate, since you have obviously never experienced how people react to images with detail level at 200MP equivalent.Is it like sex? That's what it sounds like to me, just like sex.
Oct 19, 2011 at 02:26 PM