# 1DX Review



## rocketdesigner (Oct 25, 2011)

Very good, 1DX review just posted by engadget:

http://engt.co/t3OZ8F 

Interestingly, points out noise at the higher ISO points ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2011)

Wait, you mean ISO 51,200 isn't going to be perfectly noise-free? Forget it, then - I no longer want a 1D X. :


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2011)

Noise doesn't show up in prints, like it does on a lcd monitor, however, contrast is weaker and detail is lost. If I could get good quality images with minimum noise and lots of detail and contrast at ISO 12,800 i would be a huge improvement over my 5D MK II.

I'm sure that Canon only shows images taken with jpeg and huge amounts of NR. They did the same with the 1D MK IV, and when reviewers finally obtained raw images, the real advance over the 1D MK III was about 1/2 stop, but the noise was easier to minimise with NR. With the larger and better sensor, a 2 stop improvement over the 1D MK III using RAW is possible, but, would ISO 12,800 be as good as ISO 3200 on my 5D MK II?

It will be a while before we find out. Having this sensor on a 5D MK III would be great!


----------



## rocketdesigner (Oct 25, 2011)

dilbert said:


> The review is useless.
> 
> If I didn't know better, I'd say this posting was just an attempt to get hits on someone's website(s).
> 
> Skip this, it contains nothing new, interesting or novel.



Actually it is not a waste of time. Very good video (albeit by a canon rep) outlining features and ergonomics of the body.

This unit is a beast ... may have to sell my Camry to get this Ferrari.


----------



## branden (Oct 25, 2011)

This review only further reinforces how much worse than useless Engadget is.


----------



## idigi (Oct 25, 2011)

The best part of the review is between 2nd and 5th seconds.


----------



## Woody (Oct 25, 2011)

Pattern noise?


----------



## keith_cooper (Oct 25, 2011)

From my own POV, until a review includes real images, it's just a rehash of Canon marketing info 

Not expecting to see any real images, not produced by Canon until some time shortly before delivery...

Others may be more impressed by a shutter firing away at 14 fps... YMMV ;-)


----------



## nikkito (Oct 25, 2011)

you really expect to see extreme clean images at 51.200 ISO???


----------



## Meh (Oct 25, 2011)

Image noise goes up with higher ISO, fact of life. Of course images at 51,200 are going to be noisy... but if those noisy images are usable, if only just barely, and you wouldn't have gotten the shot at lower ISO then it's a useful ISO setting. I'm not saying it will be useful, have to wait and see what the real world images look like. Even the marketing images Canon will show will be optimum and controlled situations.

Realistically, if the 1DX or any new body, gets even even a full stop of better ISO performance (i.e. ISO 3200 of the new body look as good as ISO1600 on its predecessor) then it's a significant improvement. In general as technology matures, big advances from one generation to the next get harder to achieve. If what Canon has claimed so far is even part way true they've made some significant improvements. Whether worth the upgrade to any given user depends on their needs and preferences.

Other than a non Canon employee getting to touch the 1DX and tell us about that, there's nothing new in the Engaget review but still worth the read and a quick look at the product shots.


----------



## pedro (Oct 25, 2011)

great. so what will the 5diii or whatever they call it be like? Looking forward...Cheers.


----------



## fred_jb (Oct 25, 2011)

Meh said:


> Image noise goes up with higher ISO, fact of life.



Well that's one way of looking at it.

I would prefer to look at it as the noise being reasonably constant (within limits) but the signal being reduced due to the lower light levels available when you have to use higher ISO settings. The end result is a lower signal to noise ratio (SNR) leading to a noisier image. The post-capture ISO amplification applied gets you back to the correct image brightness, but as it boosts signal and noise equally, cannot do anything to correct the already impaired SNR, hence the noise that was there all along becomes relatively more visible.

Impaired SNR is the natural result an under-exposed sensor which of course is what you get if you use an ISO setting higher than base ISO. The exposure meter may say you are not under-exposed, but that is because it is adjusted in advance to allow for the amount of post capture ISO amplification which is going to be applied later. By going above base ISO you are effectively accepting under-exposure at the sensor.

I would therefore say that high ISO noise performance is a somewhat mythical concept, as in reality the performance at any ISO setting is largely dictated by the SNR ratio at base ISO. The better this is to start with, then the better the results as you start losing signal due to low light levels. 

Fred


----------



## Chris_BC (Oct 26, 2011)

Meh said:


> Realistically, if the 1DX or any new body, gets even even a full stop of better ISO performance (i.e. ISO 3200 of the new body look as good as ISO1600 on its predecessor) then it's a significant improvement. In general as technology matures, big advances from one generation to the next get harder to achieve. If what Canon has claimed so far is even part way true they've made some significant improvements. Whether worth the upgrade to any given user depends on their needs and preferences.



One stop is _not_ going to cut it. Canon is claiming two stops, and they've done two other things that will be problematic. 

First, they've allowed they 1Ds to languish for over four years. Considering the 1DX won't be available until March it will be about 4 1/2 years. 

Second, in spite of all the lower megapixel fans on this forum, the fact that the 1DX is 3 megapixels below both the 1Ds MKIII and the 5D MKII is going to require large gains in high ISO noise performance. The most likely reason for Canon 'downsizing' the sensor megapixel wise is to finally leap ahead of Nikon in terms of noise performance. The perception among many is that Nikon has enjoyed about a one stop advantage over Canon in noise at high ISO in the top end cameras. The actual difference could be debated but for the 1DX to achieve its goal it needs two full stops of improvement.

It also needs at least one stop of increased dynamic range, if not 1.5 to 2 stops. This is another area where according to DXO Mark and other testers Canon has been lagging behind Nikon. Again the step backwards in megapixels and the *long* delay in bringing out a 1Ds replacement is going to need to be justified with big gains in other areas, as is the omission of features like full time auto focus during video recording.


----------



## Meh (Oct 26, 2011)

@Chris_BC

Good points. Given the slight drop in MP rather than an increase over the last generation FF sensor, the increase in standard ISO range, the fact that technology has progressed, and Canon's statements I would also hope for more than 1 stop increase. My comment was meant more generally... that a full stop improvement over a predecessor body is a significant improvement. Two or more stops would be even better of course. As far as what body to compare to as the predecessor we could just as easily compare to the 1D4 since that was the most recent 1-series body but your point is still valid because the increase to 18MP FF from 16MP APS-H alone should result in improvements even if there were no other tech advancements. How much improvement in noise and DR will "cut it" will depend on the user.


----------



## Meh (Oct 26, 2011)

fred_jb said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Image noise goes up with higher ISO, fact of life.
> ...



Yes, SNR is what matters most to what we see as image noise and you're absolutely right, ISO amplification happens after the sensor is exposed and amplifies the recorded signal at each pixel which includes the noise component... the camera doesn't know what the true signal was and how it was affected by the noise. When shooting in low light the input signal is much lower so the SNR is in turn lower and the image looks noisy.

On the issue of thinking of noise as a constant, that depends what kind of noise we're talking about. There is noise from the electronics (read noise) which is fairly constant and photon noise (aka shot noise) that is not constant. Both contribute to the total noise (random variation) in the recorded signal.

Photon noise scales as the square root of input so the noise goes up with input signal in absolute terms (not constant) but is a smaller percentage of the input (higher SNR). With very low light levels (dark shadows, night photos) photon noise can be significant.

Read noise is fairly constant for a given ISO setting and is in the range of around 2-20 electrons for most CMOS sensors. Again, in dark scenes when the input signal is low (which is when we use higher ISO) the read noise becomes much more significant relative to the input signal (lower SNR) and we can see the noise in the dark areas of the image.

Even when we look at an image we can't "see" or know that a particular pixel (or any area in the image) was supposed to be say 500 photons but was recorded as 495 or 510. What we see is the unnatural variation in adjacent pixels or groups of pixels that wasn't in the true input. So say a group of 20 pixels were supposed to all be 500 photons but they were recorded due to noise anywhere from 470 to 530 we can see that variation and because it's random variation we know intuitively that the image isn't supposed to look that way and it's therefore noise.


----------



## sbryson (Oct 26, 2011)

I had a quick play with the 1DX at the Canon Pro Solutions show yesterday. Absolute monster. I wish I could get 100% crops showing noise comparisons the best I could do was take a friend who is a D3S owner. Going purely by what we could see in the LCD _(no memory cards allowed I should have taken the laptop and plugged it into that! And I don't know if the jpg preview on the lcd has noise reduction on or how much) _the 1DX at 51k ISO outperforms the D3S at 12,800.

As for video, I believe each recording mode includes an option to make all frames a keyframe.

I was told by a rep there that the 200-400mm, to his knowledge, is in prototype stage only and might not even actually make production. This contradicts a canon rumour post from today. Personally, since Canon had a 200-400mm mock up in a cabinet which was always surrounded by punters asking about info on it I can't see this not making production.


----------



## bycostello (Oct 26, 2011)

I look at canon show yesterday.. very nice... not sure mrs will let me have one though...


----------



## unruled (Oct 26, 2011)

if one looks at every generation of even crop camera's, there is typically about a 1 stop gain in each generation increment. My 40d for example, compared to a 60d.

Fullframe Im sure on this body will easily do 2 stops better with the massively significant changes they have made to signal processing and sensor design. 51k may not be super usable for many people, but for some it will. One also shouldnt ignore how amazingly good noise reduction in lightroom/photoshop have become. ISO is always a compromise, but if you really need to nail a shot in the dark, I doubt theres better than this 1dx or d3s.


----------



## keith_cooper (Oct 26, 2011)

*Some other comments from the London show*

Chris Miller shared some of his thoughts about using the 1D X at the show yesterday.

No cards allowed, but he was able to make some (limited) image quality observations

https://plus.google.com/u/0/104131608705810814739/posts/dpDxu2MCCKW

In other comments I've heard, it seems that the Canon people were asked quite often about whether the 1D X was 'really a 1Ds3 replacement' - no revealing answers I'm afraid...


----------



## torger (Oct 26, 2011)

For high ISO low light shots most noise is photon shot noise and is unavoidable, it is a physical property of light.

However, the indication that there may be visible pattern noise (read noise from the electronics) worries me, this is a killer concerning useful dynamic range and has been a problem with Canon cameras, for example the 5Dmk2. I really hope that Canon can do as good dynamic range as seen in Nikon's (Sony's) newer sensors, which do not have any significant pattern noise problem.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Oct 26, 2011)

LOL, you know it's an Engadget "review" when commentators inevitably compare the product to their iFruit. Nothing new here, move along. Pre-production firmware makes the high ISO observations useless at this point.


----------



## Picsfor (Oct 26, 2011)

Having now had a play, I can comfortably say the ISO really is something else, the AF is also something else. Ergonomics a nice improvement and that gigabit connector socket is not to be sneezed at. Several other features, but I'll leave it all for my blog


----------



## John Thomas (Oct 27, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> Having now had a play, I can comfortably say the ISO really is something else, the AF is also something else. Ergonomics a nice improvement and that gigabit connector socket is not to be sneezed at. Several other features, but I'll leave it all for my blog


And your blog is... where?


----------



## Picsfor (Oct 27, 2011)

I'll post once i've posted...


----------



## John Thomas (Oct 27, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> I'll post once i've posted...



Can you post other things like:

- How is the shutter/mirror sound in comparison with older models? (louder etc.)
What options do we have WRT this?

- How heavy is / feels?

TIA


----------



## Picsfor (Oct 27, 2011)

http://500px.com/Picsfor/blog/17468

Here is the link to my post on both items.

Regards shutter/ mirror noise - it was no louder than older models until you ramped it up to the 12/ 14fps. Then i think the speed of operation just couldn't be overcome. That might be a hindrance with wildlife, golf and tennis, but nothing else. So little did i notice it, i forgot to put in in my review - i was just impressed by the fact you could - and for 10 seconds.

Shutter options came in at single, low speed multiple shooting at 6fps (maybe 7) and hi speed shooting at 12/ 14 fps.

Weight is covered, slightly heavier than a 5D2 with battery grip, but improved ergonomics over come this.


----------



## John Thomas (Oct 28, 2011)

Thanks Andrew for the review and for the clarifications!
One more: Are you just saying that you can leave the AF system 'alone' to choose the subject and track it, without back/front-focusing and/or choosing something else?


----------



## Picsfor (Oct 28, 2011)

pretty much.

The trick is the large number of genuine cross hairs - 41 of them. But the real boost is those new additional double cross hairs. These include the usual '+' type of cross hair, but now also include the 'x' cross as well.

This is what really makes the lock so strong. Double the ways of keeping the intended target locked while it is moving. Of course, i couldn't get any one to run around or weave like a footballer, but the speed at which the camera just locked on every thing was just astounding. I was using the 'right cluster' (that is the best way of describing it) as i panned round the hall. Had about 20 focus points in it. The focus points lit up and went out light christmas tree lights and beeped merrily away - hence my statement that 'if their had been music they may have beeped to a rhythm'

But the strangest thing was - they didn't seem to get in the way of the seeing the subject. That was really strange, so much more unobtrusive than the 1D3 AF system.

Must remind you that with AI Servo, the trick is to lock on to the right subject in the first place, but once locked...


----------

