Brayn just posted the IQ charts and we thank him.
I have a question, why does the ISO chart from the 1D X appear smaller than the 5D II or 5D III's. They are all FF.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=4
Printable View
Brayn just posted the IQ charts and we thank him.
I have a question, why does the ISO chart from the 1D X appear smaller than the 5D II or 5D III's. They are all FF.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=4
Deleted...
Doesn't he typically do that to stack them over each other so you can see the two side by side?
I was curious how the 1DX stacked up against my 7D, but the 7D images compare the 7D vs. 5DmkIII, not 1DX. That's not a bad comparison, but not the one I would expect on the 1DX page.
He fills the frame with the test chart. The sensors are the same size, but the resolution is different. That's why the 5DIII at 22 MP appears slightly larger than the 5DII at 21 MP, and why the 1D X at 18 MP appears smaller than both. You see the same thing if you compare any pair of cameras with the same sensor format but different MP counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Yep, neuro nailed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Let me try and get my head around this from a different angle and tell me if this is accurate;
The 1D X in the largest format makes a pic 5184 x 3456 while the 5D III makes one 5760 x 3840. To get the crop he takes a sample out of the picture that is the identical size from each. Because the 1D X is starting with a smaller pic the crop will appear smaller.
The MP count comes in to play in that it changes the size of the picture.
Is this correct?
Basically, yes. Bryan fills the frame with the test chart. If a camera has a lower resolution output, its image will appear smaller by comparison.
I think if you didn't realize this, the crops could be misleading. Unlike lenses ISO comparisons which are the same length if shot with the same camera body your comparison would be fairly equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
For instance the 1D IV crop vs the 1D X or any full frame camera, the 1D IV is 1.3 times further away. The dynamic really changes if you want to make the comparison to see if the 1D IV image quality is as good as the IQ of the 1D X picture cropped to match the 1D IV.
Knowing how the crops are done I am thinking the 1D IV may actually win in the crop competition, and clearly the 5D's are ahead.
I think a fair comparison to determine which body has the best IQ would be equally sized pictures, framed from the exact same distances with the exact same lenses.
I was wondering how the 1DX would stack up against the 5D2 and 5D3, perhaps winning due to a weaker AA filter, but that doesn't seem to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
At least that will stop me from considering it an upgrade option, I'll just keep my 5D2 until something with significantly better IQ is released [by Canon].
And it does make me wonder why they didn't plan a 1DY that is identical to the 1DX but trades some FPS for more MPs (and gets rid of the AA filter).
Instead we get the 1DC with 4K video! But I'll leave the discussion of when more MPs are coming to CanonRumors ;-)
Although I just can't help but wonder about not offering an upgrade path to 5D2 owners, people who chose image quality above, well, AF and speed!
I'd like a higher IQ body, or a 100-400 and 16-35 with the same quality as the two newer 70-200 IS, but Canon let's me sit and wait instead of buy.
Oops, developed into more of a rant about Canon's product strategy than I intended, so I'll stop now ;-)
It would be good to see the Nikon 800 in this line up.
The 5D III wins on the resolution chart, yes... but what did you expect? Being a 7D owner, I more impressed by the 7D vs 1DX resolution chart because there, there is sensor resolution advantage but still the 1DX images look quite sharper.
What's also very nice IMHO is the noise chart. If one does the following, click on 5D III 12800 ISO, click on the 1DX and click on the 1D IV, there will be a little band in the middle where you can appreciate the improvement. For me, knowing that's unprocessed, it's pretty good.
I'm looking forward to having the complete review by Brian.
Cheers,
S.
I did a few test shots comparing the 1D X, 5DII, and 7D. First one compares noise, second compares colors (and noise). Clicking on the tiny images takes you to the Flickr page, Actions > Show All Sizes gets you to the original size downloads (>10 MB).Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin500
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8016/7...91f04d19_n.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7...b210838e_n.jpg
Humm.... Looking at the ISO resolution comparison if seems to me that the 5DMKIII is only marginally better than the 1DX, while the 1DX has 1-2 stops of ISO noise advantage over the 5DMKII (and I assume MKIII as these two seem identical). As I'm no expert at these distinctions, I'll be interested to hear what Bryan and others think. The ISO advantage might make the 1DX more tempting to those (like me) who don't necessarily drool over 12 fps etc... I find the noise with the 5D's to be unacceptable around the 1600-3200 range depending on the subject. An extra usable f-stop is worth a lot (just look what is costs in a lens - especially a supertele).
IMO, the 1D X has about a 1.5-stop advantage in ISO noise performance over the 5DII. Plus, the quality of the noise seems smoother and more homogeneous with the 1D X. I preferred not going over ISO 3200 on the 5DII, I am ok with ISO 12800 on the 1D X - to me, that's a great capability!
Thanks for all this --- it's a very good comparison. In wildlife photography I am always fighting shutter speed vs. ISO noise. I used to consider ISO 3200 on my 1D3 as an emergency setpoint, when there isn't enough light and there's no other choice. (I'm guessing that the 1D3 is pretty similar to the 7D in noise). Now I can happily cruise to 6400 without being bothered, and make 12800 the emergency setting. That's definitely a massive jump. I've already noticed that my shots at ISO 400 are glass-smooth, not needing any noise reduction at all.
John,
Thanks for all of the time-consuming testing!
I agree, it looks like the 1DX is about 1.5 stops better than the 5DII, and that the 5DII is about 1 stop better than the 7D. The 1Dx noise does look cleaner than the 5DII and 7D noise. I have to say that for those that would like the extra reach and don't plan on going above ISO 3200, or ISO 6400 with NR in post, the 7D still appears quite capable for the money.
The 1D MKIV, can shoot nicely at around ISO 6400, and up to about 12,800 with some NR in post. It looks like the 1DX can comfortably shoot at 12,800 or a whole stop better than the MKIV, and up to approximately 25,600 with some NR applied.
All 3 cameras seem to handle the color noise better than the shadow noise.
Rich
John; thanks for the samples. What is your thoughts on how much headroom you have to work with in post processing. For instance I have noticed that out of the camera the 1D IV and the 5D II have about the same noise. But the 1D IV noise can be improved more in PP. Same thing with highlights, with the files from the 1D IV it is much easier to recover highlights than the 5D II.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I guess the question is this, how much of the 1D X improvement appears to be in camera file improvement, compared to overall improvement with the picture file you get? Do you think that 1.5 stop advantage is carried all the way through post?
Rick
Thanks for this. I'm almost surprised by the 7D results. I'm normally quite disappointed by my pictures at 6400 and even sometimes at 3200. But here, looking at them without looking at the ISO, I found the 3200 and 6400 not so bad. You didn't apply any noise reduction right? Of course I'm looking at that on my laptop so it might explain...
@Steph - correct, no NR applied.
Actually, I think it gets a little better. With NR, it's more like 2 full stops better. On the 5DII, I kept it to ISO 3200 with 6400 used only if absolutely necessary. With the 1D X, those values are ISO 12800 and 25600, respectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk