The sample's look good. Especailly the video. Very cool. Being a drummer and Martail Artist I was quite impressed with the boxing drumming duo. Nice job.
It is interesting that no low light still's where shown in the high res downloads. Wonder why that is?
And stopping the 400 2.8 down to 5.6 for the sports shot?
But all in all. Nice little teaser for use to look at.
alundeb wrote:
The detail and skin texture is so smeared compared to the Nikon D800 portrait samples, and that is at the pixel level.
Canon's sample images always have massive noise reduction applied, and these are no exception. These images don't tell us anything that we didn't already strongly suspect. They're just fodder for the gullible.
I want to know if Canon has managed to improve the base-ISO dynamic range while still using off-sensor analogue-to-digital conversion. We already know this camera will be more or less the same as the D3S and D4 at very high ISOs, with the advantage of a few pixels and a higher burst rate.
Agreed... Canon samples have never been particularly impressive at 100% magnification - these are no different. The ISO1600 sample looks impressively clean though. That was about the only thing to note, IMO.
not too familiar with Canon's history of posting sample images for other cameras.. but for all the hype they tried to create with this body, seems like an odd collection of photos. at a glance i'd almost guess they didn't spend a lot of time planning this "release" out..
images 3-5 are poorly framed & not particularly sure why they shot the last two at those settings.. unless they were intent on showing us ISO800 in diff settings..
S Dilworth wrote:
... We already know this camera will be more or less the same as the D3S and D4 at very high ISOs, with the advantage of a few pixels and a higher burst rate.
I did not know that. What I saw from D4 is D3S like. And that is a maximum one stop enhancement to 5D MK II in ISO 6.400. Not very impressiv to me for a new flagship body at 25% less pixels then a 4 year old semipro body or its same generation competitor at 2.5 times the price.
William Claff has crunched the numbers for many Nikons SLRs here. Note how close the D3S and D4 curves are to the ideal FX line, which represents the maximum theoretical performance for that sensor size. At very high ISOs there is no longer room for big leaps.
His chart tells us there will never in the future of the universe be a "full-frame" camera that performs above ISO 25600 better than the D3S performs at ISO 12800: the noise inherent in light itself prevents that possibility.
At the moment, Canon has a slight high-ISO read-noise advantage, Nikon has a slight quantum-efficiency advantage, and Sony has a big low-ISO read-noise advantage (all based on their latest sensors). Beyond that, they perform more or less the same.
It's exceedingly unlikely that the EOS-1D X would be significantly better than the D3S or D4 at high ISOs. And it's not even theoretically possible for it to be one stop better. You'll just have to somehow muddle along with that level of performance. I know you can manage it!
Future advances will lie in increasing the pixel count, improving low-ISO performance, and fixing the many ways in which our cameras are poorly designed for the tasks they are expected to perform.
None of this has much to do with making photos that people want to look at.
S Dilworth wrote:
William Claff has crunched the numbers for many Nikons SLRs here. Note how close the D3S and D4 curves are to the ideal FX line, which represents the maximum theoretical performance for that sensor size. At very high ISOs there is no longer room for big leaps.
His chart tells us there will never in the future of the universe be a "full-frame" camera that performs above ISO 25600 better than the D3S performs at ISO 12800: the noise inherent in light itself prevents that possibility.
At the moment, Canon has a slight high-ISO read-noise advantage, Nikon has a slight quantum-efficiency advantage, and Sony has a big low-ISO read-noise advantage (all based on their latest sensors). Beyond that, they perform more or less the same.
It's exceedingly unlikely that the EOS-1D X would be significantly better than the D3S or D4 at high ISOs. And it's not even theoretically possible for it to be one stop better. You'll just have to somehow muddle along with that level of performance. I know you can manage it!
Future advances will lie in increasing the pixel count, improving low-ISO performance, and fixing the many ways in which our cameras are poorly designed for the tasks they are expected to perform.
None of this has much to do with making photos that people want to look at....Show more →
very interesting/helpful stuff.. thanks for posting it & explaining it more eloquently than I could of. always suspected as much but the graphs make it much clearer..
i've always felt that photographers were getting way too spoiled with the tools that we already have.. many who expect continued leaps & bounds with Canikon just aren't being reasonable.. no working pro I know that shoots primarily with a 1Ds3/1D4/D3/D3s/D3x has ever actually told me they are unhappy with their equipment - I'm sure they all boast pretty healthy financial statements. yet all that seems to turn up on the internet is negative chatter/whining..
I’m underwhelmed. Considering the pixel decrease over the 1Ds III I was expecting more. I see significant posterization in the ISO 800 shots. I’m not seeing anything much better than I can do with a 1ds III raw in post. I still have hope the AF is stellar.
+1 coming from the 1DS3, just really disappointed in the new "flagship" samples. The AF on the 1DS3 is excellent so not feeling any urge to buy the 1DX unless fashion models start sprinting down a track instead of posing statically in a studio.
Paul Tessier wrote:
I’m underwhelmed. Considering the pixel decrease over the 1Ds III I was expecting more. I see significant posterization in the ISO 800 shots. I’m not seeing anything much better than I can do with a 1ds III raw in post. I still have hope the AF is stellar.
pookipichu wrote:
+1 coming from the 1DS3, just really disappointed in the new "flagship" samples. The AF on the 1DS3 is excellent so not feeling any urge to buy the 1DX unless fashion models start sprinting down a track instead of posing statically in a studio.
in the same boat as well.. will still wait & see til it comes out for RAW samples, but for all the marketing hype they fed us I was expecting a bit more :/ i think part of me wanted to be impressed by the 1Dx, but my brain's telling me my 1Ds3+1D4 combo will be more than enough for the next few years. having these two together still seems to offer more in most real-world situations..
