# Canon 1D-X: "Full" 2-Stops ISO Improvment...only in JPEG??



## jrista (Jan 28, 2012)

Based on a question about f/8 AF, I was directed to Arthur Morris, a renown bird photographer. On his site is an interview between Doug Brown (another renown bird photographer) and Canon's Chuck Westfall (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/11/05/canons-top-tech-rep-on-the-eos-1d-x/). While the meat of the first part of the interview was about the 1D X's new AF system, with a pointed question about f/8 AF (left largely unanswered), there was another interesting tidbit farther down:



> DB: One of the advantages of moving to a full-frame sensor with a relatively low megapixel count is an improvement in high ISO noise levels. Canon is claiming a two stop gain in high ISO performance when compared to the 1D Mark IV. Will we see the full two stops when shooting RAW files, or is this limited to JPEG files only?
> CW: To get the full two stops of improved performance you’ll need to shoot in the JPEG format. That’s not to say that high ISO performance isn’t significantly better when shooting in RAW, because it absolutely is.



Chuck seems pointed about his indication that to get two "full" stops of improved ISO performance, you need to shoot in JPEG. I'm curious if there has been more information about that elsewhere? I'm curious what that means for RAW photographers, and what he actually means by "significantly better" if its not a full two stops better.

Arthur Morris: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/
Doug Brown: http://www.dougbrownphotography.com/


----------



## doug14 (Jan 28, 2012)

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.


----------



## sjaudio (Jan 28, 2012)

doug14 said:


> canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.



That is all a bit misleading. A JPG is simply a converted RAW file, if you're getting two more stops of ISO performance in JPG, then you have to be getting that in RAW as well.


----------



## EYEONE (Jan 28, 2012)

doug14 said:


> canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.



Talk is so cheap.


----------



## JHorvat (Jan 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> Chuck seems pointed about his indication that to get two "full" stops of improved ISO performance, you need to shoot in JPEG. I'm curious if there has been more information about that elsewhere? I'm curious what that means for RAW photographers, and what he actually means by "significantly better" if its not a full two stops better.



Probably 1D X has a better JPEG engine(better NR algorithm) than previous Canon cameras, so you have two stops improvement for in-camera JPEG but in RAW there is only 1-1.5 stop gain. Actually there is no much room for SNR improvement with current Bayer sensors because SNR is correlated with quantum efficiency(QE) and some sensors like a one in Nikon D3s has a QE of 57%.


----------



## bornshooter (Jan 28, 2012)

doug14 said:


> canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.


troll piss off to nikon then


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 28, 2012)

The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jan 28, 2012)

sjaudio said:


> doug14 said:
> 
> 
> > canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.
> ...



Sort of (by which I mean not really). As well as being less noisy, Canon's in-camera noise reduction has been improved. One could get better results by shooting RAW and processing using 3rd party noise reduction software, but the gap between class leading 3rd party software and the in-camera software has been narrowed or eliminated.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 28, 2012)

doug14 said:


> canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.



i really wonder if you have no friends or barber you can talk too?

i mean.... why all with an IQ below 70 think the world cares what they will do? ;D


----------



## Z (Jan 28, 2012)

The 2 stops of ISO performance has always been quoted as JPEG, I thought that was pretty transparent by this point. I hope that people's expectations for the 1D-X's low noise aren't too high, really. For argument's sake, let's say the 1D-X offers a 1 - 1.5 stop improvement in *raw file* noise _vs._ the 1D Mark IV. According to DxOMark, the 5D Mark II is 0.5 stops better than the 1D Mark IV for noise - therefore, 5D Mark II shooters would notice approximately a 0.5 - 1 stop improvement in raw file noise when upgrading to the 1D-X.

Of course, I plucked the '1 - 1.5 stop' idea out of the air; it could equally be a 2/3 stop improvement; we have little idea. But if you're a current model full-frame user upgrading to the 1D-X, my guess is you would be lucky to have a _full stop of raw ISO improvement_.

Personally, I'm a 7D shooter. I find myself resorting to flash more often than I would like during indoor events, which is undesireable for several reasons. I am expecting a full 2-stops of RAW ISO improvement.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2012)

Unless anyone has a raw-image to process, this thread has no poin to it...

From what I saw yesterday, the difference in chroma noise is very substantial. I made sure to turn off all NR in camera. Shooting at 12800 looks so much better than the mk4 it's crazy... And I gotta say, just comparing DxO marks is stupid. I've seen lots of examples where they rate something and it's not what you see in real life. More color-noise is better than more luminance noise, easier to remove. Besides, the LOOK of the noise is also VERY important for the final image.

From what I saw trying the 1d X yesterday, it is a huge improvement.

Another thing, high iso's are not just for shooting in the dark. It's to decrease shutterspeed in normal light, and I tried at iso 12800 in a well lit store to get very fast shutter, and it was nearly no noise at all.


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Unless anyone has a raw-image to process, this thread has no poin to it...
> 
> From what I saw yesterday, the difference in chroma noise is very substantial. I made sure to turn off all NR in camera. Shooting at 12800 looks so much better than the mk4 it's crazy... And I gotta say, just comparing DxO marks is stupid. I've seen lots of examples where they rate something and it's not what you see in real life. More color-noise is better than more luminance noise, easier to remove. Besides, the LOOK of the noise is also VERY important for the final image.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the first-hand info. Sounds like it will still be pretty good. Its certainly for the higher shutter rate that I'd be interested in higher ISO. I'm a 7D shooter, and I have such a hard time pushing to ISO 3200 because the noise there does really start eating into detail, even if you do have decent light. I'm just curious exactly what they mean by not a full two stops improvement, and whether it would be possible to remove noise in post and achieve that two full stops somehow. Would make shooting wildlife and birds around sunrise/sunset without losing key detail (i.e. feathers) a lot easier.



@everyon else: 

Amazed at how many of you actually responded to the troll!  They only have power when you notice them. Sweep em under the rug and walk all over it, and they shrivel up and waste away.


----------



## JR (Jan 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.



Isn't RAW also important for pros Brian? I would think it is as important. All this aside the 1DX needs to stack up to the D4 in that category. If it does not, then no amount of marketing will fix it and it would be disappointing for Canon - my two cents anyway...


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.



What makes you think pros don't shoot with RAW just as much as JPEG? I think most of the pros I know use RAW+JPEG, rather than just JPEG, and when asked their reason is often simply so they can copy off the jpegs onto a small memory card and deliver them directly to a customer at end of job for previewing and pick selection, allowing them some more time to work the RAWs.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.
> ...



Don't a number of pro sports photographers (football, hockey) shoot jpeg, due to the large number of images they take during games and the push to get them out to the newspapers immediately (especially for late games)?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 28, 2012)

The exact same story came out when the 1D MK IV was announced. Chuck Westfall said the 1D MK IV was 1-1/2 to 2 stops better than the 1D MK III in JPEG, but about 1/2 stop better shooting raw. It was due to the more sophisticated in camera processing that could be done using the Digic IV processor. Processing has improved, and Digic V is more powerful than Digic IV. Jpegs will improve over the 1DS MK III and 1D MK IV. 

The question I have, is how much improvement in raw over my 5D MK II? 1/2 stop or 1 stop? If I can get clean raw images at ISO 12800, thats about 1/2 stop or slightly more than my 5D MK II, but if they are clean at ISO 25,600 then there is a significant advance, which I somehow doubt.

When I bought my 5D MK II in 2008, using LR 2 allowed me to shoot at ISO 3200, but results were noisy. Now, with LR 4, I shoot ISO 6400 images and with no NR at all, they are remarkably clean. Processing software has improved noticibly in the last three years, so I've gained about 2 stops when using raw, just by spending a few dollars on software upgrades.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 28, 2012)

bigblue1ca said:


> Don't a number of pro sports photographers (football, hockey) shoot jpeg, due to the large number of images they take during games and the push to get them out to the newspapers immediately (especially for late games)?



Time is the critical factor, so PJ's do use RAW + JPEG. images are ready for online and newspaper publication immediately using jpeg, and, if a large magazine spread or other ultra high quality image is needed later, the raw can be post processed.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 28, 2012)

This is quite funny. The camera shoots in Raw, JPG is a conversion.

If the extras stops comes from Noise reduction in camera then Canon will get shafted sideways.

I'm a professional, 95% of the time I only shoot Raw. I will use Jpeg if I need to see things instantly on a Macbook on location.

In all of my cameras noise reduction is turned off, always, and I never use Noise reduction in post either. As a buyer of two models of the 1Dx I expect to see a significant improvement on the Raw files. If not I will seriously consider the smaller form factor of the 5D3 of which the only issue I had with the current model is the autofocus.

The weight of the 1Dx isn't practical for me, but it's necessary that I have a camera that focuses properly.


----------



## NoWii (Jan 28, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The question I have, is how much improvement in raw over my 5D MK II? 1/2 stop or 1 stop? If I can get clean raw images at ISO 12800, thats about 1/2 stop or slightly more than my 5D MK II, but if they are clean at ISO 25,600 then there is a significant advance, which I somehow doubt.


Why do you doubt? Between 5DmkII and 1D X, there has been nearly 4years of development. I think, that's enough for 1/2 stop. And don't forget the megapixel difference. 21mp vs 18mp, means bigger pixels and better performance. Thoose two factors togeder, could easily give us 1 stop better iso performance, so why not even more? I wouldn't be suprised if there's 3/2stops of difference.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 28, 2012)

jrista said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.
> ...



Sports pros just send their photos straight to the editors to get on the paper/web in real time - that is why they use the wireless adaptors. They dont have the time to process or even look at the pictures they are taking. That is exactly what they will be doing at the Olympics which is why Canon are pushing the 1DX so all the lens you see will be white.


----------



## elflord (Jan 28, 2012)

NoWii said:


> Why do you doubt? Between 5DmkII and 1D X, there has been nearly 4years of development. I think, that's enough for 1/2 stop. And don't forget the megapixel difference. 21mp vs 18mp, means bigger pixels and better performance. Thoose two factors togeder, could easily give us 1 stop better iso performance, so why not even more? I wouldn't be suprised if there's 3/2stops of difference.



I would doubt it because ISO performance hasn't been moving very fast. For example, according to DxOMark's website, there is less than one stop between the 1Ds (original) which is about 6 years older than the 5D Mark II. The difference in megapixels is a factor of about 2 (11mp vs 21mp).

Whenever a new camera is released (even among cameras on a more frequent release cycle), there is talk of 1-2 stop improvements in ISO performance, but the reality is very different.

If it's as good as the Nikon D3s, that would be just under a 1 stop improvement over the 5D Mark II.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 28, 2012)

Until some fantastic new tech comes along the laws of physics will stop improvements. Just like lenses haven't got any smaller in 30 years. a 35mm sensor will always be a 35mm sensor with the same floorspace for pixels.

That's why this DSLR may be the last one before pros move to mirrorless. I never thought would happen but the damn Leica rangefinder has a full frame CMOS in it.


----------



## JR (Jan 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When I bought my 5D MK II in 2008, using LR 2 allowed me to shoot at ISO 3200, but results were noisy. Now, with LR 4, I shoot ISO 6400 images and with no NR at all, they are remarkably clean. Processing software has improved noticibly in the last three years, so I've gained about 2 stops when using raw, just by spending a few dollars on software upgrades.



@Mt Spokane, i have yet to install the beta version of LR 4 (was waiting for the full verison) so I am currently using LR3. Are you saying you noticed a significant improvement in RAW processing with LR4 to the point your ISO 6400 is like your ISO 3200 with LR2? And with no NR applied? Sorry I am just very intrigued and interested by your comments and not sure I understood...

If true then I will for sure get the LR4 beta! Thanks for letting me know if you have a chance.

Jacques


----------



## jrista (Jan 29, 2012)

JR said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > When I bought my 5D MK II in 2008, using LR 2 allowed me to shoot at ISO 3200, but results were noisy. Now, with LR 4, I shoot ISO 6400 images and with no NR at all, they are remarkably clean. Processing software has improved noticibly in the last three years, so I've gained about 2 stops when using raw, just by spending a few dollars on software upgrades.
> ...



I've also been working with both LR3 and LR4 with my 7D's RAW photos. So far, it seems to be a bit of a toss-up regarding NR. The initial imports seem to be a better than with LR3, and noise starts out a little better (along with pretty much everything else). However when it comes time to actually adjust the luminance or color noise sliders, I've had mixed results. Sometimes LR4 seems better by a small margin, however sometimes it seems to be a tad worse than LR3. I'm seriously hoping they improve the algorithms for Canon cameras. LR3 was a pretty big improvement over LR2, but so far, I'm not seeing the same degree of improvement with LR4. I've also been hearing more and more lately that Canon's DPP has far better noise removal for Canon RAW than LR ever has, and their code is publicly published, so Adobe could use it at will if they so desired (which they don't seem to.)

Noise aside, LR4 does seem to have some pretty nice improvements over LR3 when it comes to exposure adjustment. Whatever they changed, boosting darks and shadows seems to have much less of an impact on noise than LR3...so there is a bonus in that respect.


----------



## JR (Jan 29, 2012)

@jrista, then Canon must have improved or changed DPP over the past 12 months because the verison i got with my 5D 12-18months ago was really bad compared to LR3. I never bothered to check if Canon made any sort of improvement to DPP, maybe I will look it up based on your comments. Interesting.

J


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2012)

JR said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > When I bought my 5D MK II in 2008, using LR 2 allowed me to shoot at ISO 3200, but results were noisy. Now, with LR 4, I shoot ISO 6400 images and with no NR at all, they are remarkably clean. Processing software has improved noticibly in the last three years, so I've gained about 2 stops when using raw, just by spending a few dollars on software upgrades.
> ...



My point is that software, all the raw software including in camera software in newer camera bodies has had a lot of improvements over the last 3+ years, so even without sensor changes, you can get better images. I do not use DXO, but Neuro says its excellent, and I believe him. I might try it on the same image to see if I see any differences.

LR2 was the current version when I bought my 5D2. LR3 was a huge improvement in processing. I took some 2500 images at a theater event last week, half with my assistant using the 7?d, and half with the 5D MK2. Light was so poor, that most of the 7D images were at ISO 3200, and noisy. However, a few hundred of my 5D MK 2 images were taken at ISO 6400 and I was suprised. i went back to LR4 and verified no NR.

There is chroma noise, of course when you view at 1:1, its obvious. It is much better, however, than I could do in 2008, and LR3 is also much better.

Here is a image, and a 1:1 with no NR so you can see the noise. 







100%crop. you can see the chroma noise, but just a little NR and its gone.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2012)

I did process the image in DPP 3.1.1 just now, turned noise sliders to zero, noise is about the same, however, the image was exposed to the right, so pulling down the highlights probably reduces the visible noise.

DPP does not have the easy controls that LR has for adjusting the tone, and I'm not all that good at working just with curves.

As said earlier, its not about LR3 or LR4, its just that all the software out there has improved and you get a better image without upgrading your equipment, so a comparison needs to be done with todays software on both cameras, and that means comparing RAW.


----------



## JR (Jan 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As said earlier, its not about LR3 or LR4, its just that all the software out there has improved and you get a better image without upgrading your equipment, so a comparison needs to be done with todays software on both cameras, and that means comparing RAW.



Got it...I see your point. I know personally I saw a big difference between DPP and LR3. One software I have not tried yet but want to is Topaz De-noise. I heard from a few poeple that it is very good but dont know how it stacks against LR3 or LR4...

Jacques


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 29, 2012)

RAW vs. RAW, and JPEG vs. JPEG? I imagine that must be what Chuck means here.


----------



## motorhead (Jan 29, 2012)

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding of where the 1Dx sits in Canons line up. Its a next generation 1D, intended for PJ,s on a tight deadline. Hence the Jpeg thing.

Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.

While not admitting it (yet?), Canon will eventually be forced to reexamine their thinking because the 1Dx fails to deliver on so many fronts for the landscapist/studio/fine art pro and serious amateur. Either that or loose customers to the Dark side.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 29, 2012)

But then this is where the 5D3 comes in.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 29, 2012)

I would take clean high iso to get my shutterspeed fast enough over twice the mp any day, and that is just common sense;

If your image is fantastically high res, you will see every bit of that juuuust to long shutter speed you used, and you'll have a useless image. I can tell you, going from mk3 to mk4 with the same size sensor but 60% increase in res, I had to double my shutterspeed, giving me the exact same noise under the same exact light. Now, the pictures that did stick with the mk4 had much better detail, but I had a lot of shots I kept, but can't use for anything due to (unexpected) motion-blur.

The 1d X will be the ultimate camera for me, no matter what I am shooting, and I can shoot things I could never dream of with the mk4. After trying this new AF, I had chills for the first time using a camera. It is just astonishing...

But if you do landscape, why would you buy a Worldclass AF-system and 12 fps? Buy a 5d2 for your landscapes, very little will surpass it.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 29, 2012)

motorhead said:


> Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.



I wouldn't worry too much about that. For me I cap out at ISO 3200 on the 1Ds3, so two stops improvement over the 1D4 is quite jump for me. ISO 12800 is more than enough. The only reason I didn't move to the 1D4 is because it wasn't full frame.


----------



## moreorless (Jan 29, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> motorhead said:
> 
> 
> > Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.
> ...



Your potentially looking at a superior ISO 3200 though I'd guess if previous ISO upgrades are anything to go by.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 29, 2012)

moreorless said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > motorhead said:
> ...



I very much felt the 1d X @ 3200 were very close to 800 on the 1d mkIV, so yeah, the two stops is probably correct. Besides, now with the new Lightroom 4, you're looking at 0,5 to 1 stop extra over the Lr3. And also MUCH better DR.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 29, 2012)

moreorless said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > motorhead said:
> ...



The 1Ds3 is hands down the best to iso 800 but by iso3200 I feel my 1D4 is better. 

The 1D4 seems (relatively) noisy at low iso but only slowly gets worse as the iso increases, whereas other bodies get worse quite quickly


----------



## nightbreath (Jan 29, 2012)

If I turn on NR in my camera I see difference even in RAW images. I used Irfan View to convert them from RAW to JPEG format and here's what I've got when ISO was set to 12'800.

If Digic 5+ is so powerful comparing to Digic 4, we might see similar NR applied in 1D X image processing, but without blurring the image. Or am I missing something?

P.S. I shot painting on my wall to compare RAW image noise.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 29, 2012)

The thing with Noise reduction is you lose detail, which you're trying to capture.

But I guess it depends on how much detail you need. I guess that's what keeps forums so active!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I would take clean high iso to get my shutterspeed fast enough over twice the mp any day, and that is just common sense;
> 
> If your image is fantastically high res, you will see every bit of that juuuust to long shutter speed you used, and you'll have a useless image. I can tell you, going from mk3 to mk4 with the same size sensor but 60% increase in res, I had to double my shutterspeed, giving me the exact same noise under the same exact light. Now, the pictures that did stick with the mk4 had much better detail, but I had a lot of shots I kept, but can't use for anything due to (unexpected) motion-blur.
> 
> ...



+1

The high MP bodies do need a tripod, good IS lens, or a faster shutter speed to actually realize the increased resolution. Even Canon mentioned this in one of their articles about shooting with the new high mp bodies. Of course, you can get lucky and hit on one of 8 or 10 at lower shutter speeds.

A higher ISO rating at existing MP lets you keep the same shutter speeds you are using and get better resolution, or it lets you increase shutter speeds if your current one is too low.

I'm expecting to hear the Nikon users scream as they adjust to a 36 mp sensor and find they need to double or triple shutter speeds to get the high resolution.


----------



## jrista (Jan 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I would take clean high iso to get my shutterspeed fast enough over twice the mp any day, and that is just common sense;
> ...



Excellent points, both! I think you guys hailed the consequence of higher resolution on the head, at least for photography where you can't or don't necessarily use a tripod.


----------



## traveller (Jan 29, 2012)

A few points:

1. According to DXO Mark, the D3s reaches its "acceptable" signal to noise value of 30dB at 3253 ISO (whilst keeping dynamic range at >9 EV and colour depth at 18bits), whereas the 5D MkII achieves this at 1815 ISO. So 3253/1815 = ~1.79; i.e. the D3s is 79% better than the 5D MkII, which is basically just over 3/4 of a stop. 

2. Nikon is implying that the D4 manages to achieve the same high ISO performance as the D3s, but with a higher pixel count. Thus, the 1D X would need to be between 3/4 and 1 stop better than the 5D MkII to match the D4. 

3. I've got a suspicion that the D3s 'cooks' its raw files at high ISO, based upon the SNR 18% graph from DXO Mark having a strange kink in it after ~ISO 9787 (also note the performance of the D3). 

Anyone want to check these calculations?


----------



## cpsico (Jan 29, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The exact same story came out when the 1D MK IV was announced. Chuck Westfall said the 1D MK IV was 1-1/2 to 2 stops better than the 1D MK III in JPEG, but about 1/2 stop better shooting raw. It was due to the more sophisticated in camera processing that could be done using the Digic IV processor. Processing has improved, and Digic V is more powerful than Digic IV. Jpegs will improve over the 1DS MK III and 1D MK IV.
> 
> The question I have, is how much improvement in raw over my 5D MK II? 1/2 stop or 1 stop? If I can get clean raw images at ISO 12800, thats about 1/2 stop or slightly more than my 5D MK II, but if they are clean at ISO 25,600 then there is a significant advance, which I somehow doubt.
> 
> When I bought my 5D MK II in 2008, using LR 2 allowed me to shoot at ISO 3200, but results were noisy. Now, with LR 4, I shoot ISO 6400 images and with no NR at all, they are remarkably clean. Processing software has improved noticibly in the last three years, so I've gained about 2 stops when using raw, just by spending a few dollars on software upgrades.


1/2 a stop in raw with a 60 percent increase in resolution is amazing if you ask me, of course it goes to show if canon would pull there head out of there hind part they could build a a camera with amazing low light image quality, but I am not sure the average consumer would buy a camera with amazing image quality over a high resolution camera.


----------



## JR (Jan 29, 2012)

traveller said:


> A few points:
> 
> 1. According to DXO Mark, the D3s reaches its "acceptable" signal to noise value of 30dB at 3253 ISO (whilst keeping dynamic range at >9 EV and colour depth at 18bits), whereas the 5D MkII achieves this at 1815 ISO. So 3253/1815 = ~1.79; i.e. the D3s is 79% better than the 5D MkII, which is basically just over 3/4 of a stop.



The Nikon D3s being only 3/4 of a stop better then the 5DmkII seems low. If your calculation are right, the hill the climb is much less then I thought...but I recall seeing some very high ISO sample from the D3s that just destroy the 5DmkII at 12800 and above. Not sure how these charts works, but something is weird here...


----------



## traveller (Jan 29, 2012)

JR said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > A few points:
> ...



Yes, there is something weird here and I think that it relates to my last point (3). If you look at the SNR 18% graph, the D3s line is higher than but parallel to the 5D MkII's line until at above ISO 6400 the D3s suddenly starts to pull away (from the D3 as well). Either the sensor's drop off in performance suddenly gets better at this point, or Nikon is starting to apply some noise reduction to their raw files.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Here's the article, or AF-guide, check out page 34 and 35. I tell you, I can't be more excited that Canon kept it at 18 giving me 21% larger pixels, and therefore (I don't know the real math of this) giving me 21% longer shutterspeed with sharp images.

http://www.canon.co.uk/Images/EOS%201D%20MK%20IV%20AF%20guide_tcm14-721275.pdf


----------



## elflord (Jan 29, 2012)

JR said:


> The Nikon D3s being only 3/4 of a stop better then the 5DmkII seems low. If your calculation are right, the hill the climb is much less then I thought...but I recall seeing some very high ISO sample from the D3s that just destroy the 5DmkII at 12800 and above. Not sure how these charts works, but something is weird here...



one thing to keep in mind is that this test only shows how well the two cameras do at 3200 and 1800 ISO. DxOMark tests how high you can crank the ISO and maintain a certain level of IQ (I think defined in terms of dynamic range and noise) 

It doesn't say anything about how well they hold up above that (how much they lose if you turn ISO higher), and there's no reason the curves should be parallel. One example is that medium format cameras do very well at low ISO but not as well at high ISO as full frames.


----------



## tt (Jan 29, 2012)

Less than 2 weeks before we find out from the embargo lifted 1DX photos being allowed on Feb 7 if the rumor's right


----------



## cfargo (Jan 29, 2012)

doug14 said:


> canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.



Good luck getting your Nikon serviced locally.


----------



## elflord (Jan 29, 2012)

traveller said:


> A few points:
> 
> 1. According to DXO Mark, the D3s reaches its "acceptable" signal to noise value of 30dB at 3253 ISO (whilst keeping dynamic range at >9 EV and colour depth at 18bits), whereas the 5D MkII achieves this at 1815 ISO. So 3253/1815 = ~1.79; i.e. the D3s is 79% better than the 5D MkII, which is basically just over 3/4 of a stop.
> 
> ...



checking the other graphs, the same pattern holds up in the other graphs -- the D3s widens the gap at high ISOs in measures such as dynamic range, tonal range and color sensitivity.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 30, 2012)

JR said:


> The Nikon D3s being only 3/4 of a stop better then the 5DmkII seems low. If your calculation are right, the hill the climb is much less then I thought...but I recall seeing some very high ISO sample from the D3s that just destroy the 5DmkII at 12800 and above. Not sure how these charts works, but something is weird here...



The 5DII seems to manage 3200 well, anything more and IQ/noise gets worse quickly.

Not so with the 1D4 which seems to top out at 12800


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 30, 2012)

elflord said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > A few points:
> ...



There is little doubt, its a trade off, high resolution and ability to crop versus low resolution and better high ISO performance. I wonder how a 22mp 5D MK III at $2800 will compare against the 36MP D800 at 3000. 

There will be those who like the higher resolution, and those who like the better high ISO sensitivity, its either-or.


----------



## JR (Jan 30, 2012)

elflord said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D3s being only 3/4 of a stop better then the 5DmkII seems low. If your calculation are right, the hill the climb is much less then I thought...but I recall seeing some very high ISO sample from the D3s that just destroy the 5DmkII at 12800 and above. Not sure how these charts works, but something is weird here...
> ...



I never realized that. I guess it goes to show how we need to learn to read behind spec sometime to get the full story! Indeed Nikon must do something to the very High ISO to make it look good - I just hope someone at Canon figured this out as well for their next line of EOS bodies !!!


----------



## JR (Jan 30, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > The Nikon D3s being only 3/4 of a stop better then the 5DmkII seems low. If your calculation are right, the hill the climb is much less then I thought...but I recall seeing some very high ISO sample from the D3s that just destroy the 5DmkII at 12800 and above. Not sure how these charts works, but something is weird here...
> ...



It is so interesting you mention this Brian because while indeed everyone claim the 5DmkII to be better at low light then the 1DIV (I guess based on DxO chart for example) I always found the 1DIV (whenever I can borough one) to be very good at very high ISO. Because I dont own both bodies, I never knew if it was the shooting environment at that time that made it look good (I am refering to ISO 6400 and above) or because it was the 1DIV...


----------



## JR (Jan 30, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is little doubt, its a trade off, high resolution and ability to crop versus low resolution and better high ISO performance. I wonder how a 22mp 5D MK III at $2800 will compare against the 36MP D800 at 3000.
> 
> There will be those who like the higher resolution, and those who like the better high ISO sensitivity, its either-or.



At one point Nikon Rumors had some ISO sample of the D800 on their site. While it was unclear if they were real of fake, the sample looked much worst then the current 5DmkII at ISO performance. For my use 21MP is more then enought for my croping need, so my trade off will be better ISO performance once I have a machine with 18-21MP...


----------



## Woody (Jan 30, 2012)

Personally, I just process comparable RAW images from the cameras of interest using the best software out there and compare afterwards. That is most relevant for me as it is based on software I like to work with.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 30, 2012)

Improvement only in jpeg files does not matter to me and *MANY* other photographers, because we only shoot in RAW.


----------



## aj1575 (Jan 30, 2012)

doug14 said:


> canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.


The grass is always greener on the other side....

....or do you think that a chance from brand A to brand B will really improve your pictures?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 30, 2012)

JR said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



I think the 5DII focusses better in very low light but the image is bettter from the 1D4 at 6400 and 12800 (which is not that low, just a room light level)


----------

