# 1DX new all-time low-light king?



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 27, 2012)

Hard to tell from one test of the sort posted, but wow, the high iso looks impressive. It's shocking, but it might actually beat the 5D3 by a good 2/3 of a stop! I'm not sure if it is even possible to build one that would do better without radically different tech. This may be the best we ever get from any standard design. High ISO appears to be insanely good on it. At worst it ties the 5D3/D800/D4 but I think it almost certainly beats them all, some by a margin not even really thought to be entirely realistic. Some insane high iso!

I really don't see the D4 being able to match this level of performance (and it has 2 less MP), although I guess the difference won't be all that large, maybe a solid 1/3 stop behind? (again with 2 less MP though).

(The sad note, for the 5D3 users, is it seems proof that Canon did in fact reserve all of their new sensor fab for the 1DX only and decided to milk the old process one more time for the 5D3 sensor, figuring they could get away with it since they bumped up the body specs so much (but they also bumped up the price so much so.... hmm. Maybe it was all about insuring 5D3 had largest profit margin for a 5 series). Seeing the D800 sensor's quality I wonder if someone in Canon marketing is not ruing their decision.)
(That said the 5D3 is still one of the very best ever at high ISO, if not quite there. At low iso it's a pretty outdated sensor at this point though, at least if you ever shoot scenes with lots of dynamic range.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 27, 2012)

gary samples said:


> the review said 1 full stop + not 2/3



Yeah but I was just going by my eye and what some others said he have even tried a little direct measurement on the samples.

Whatever the case it looks to be a stunning high iso performer, it's hard to imagine it (ever) being topped without doing something radical.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 27, 2012)

Only time I'll need the high ISO performance is in indoor basketball and track, which I will be shooting this winter upwards of 2-3 nights per week (track once/weekly). But really, have I gone above ISO 3200 on the 1D Mark IV? No because I've never tried it. I have not shot indoor sports before officially. I really need to see a comparison in photos of 1D4 vs. 1DX. I'll still get the 1DX sure, but if 1D4 still performs well enough in low light then I'll bring both cameras to the events and shoot with both. Guess then I'll do my own comparison but it's just kind of cool to see it beforehand. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2012)

> 1DX new all-time low-light king?



^^ One main reason I'm getting a 1D X. After needing to push my 5DII up to H2 earlier this month, I'll take all the improvement in ISO performance I can get.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 28, 2012)

OK where is the REAL LTRLI and what have you done with him?!


----------



## chrysek (Jun 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> > 1DX new all-time low-light king?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ One main reason I'm getting a 1D X. After needing to push my 5DII up to H2 earlier this month, I'll take all the improvement in ISO performance I can get.



me too  wish it had more megapixels but hey, cant have everything ))


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> > 1DX new all-time low-light king?
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ One main reason I'm getting a 1D X. After needing to push my 5DII up to H2 earlier this month, I'll take all the improvement in ISO performance I can get.



You're using H2? Holy crap! What the heck are you shooting?


----------



## chrysek (Jun 28, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > > 1DX new all-time low-light king?
> ...



Hey, how many times I did try to shoot without flash and there was not enough light for my 5d mark ii, so 51k iso or even H2 at times could mean huge difference in getting the shoot at all  just amazed with the high iso, hope I can get my camera now finaly after waiting ethernity ))))


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 28, 2012)

chrysek said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I've been using 6400 regularly for shooting some live music performances where the lighting is actually decent (well, it's constant and doesn't really change, although it is mixed) to keep my shutter speed up to 1/80-1/120 and I still feel I'm losing a bit too much fine detail. Granted that's peeping at 1:1 or 1:2 (or is it 2:1 for 1/2 size?), but even outputting at 1200px long edge I'd like it to be a touch sharper.

I guess it is just true, a shot you wouldn't otherwise have gotten is a good shot even if it's noisy or not as much detail. Heck, I should try going to 12800 or 25600 tonight and just convert to B&W, might give me some interesting shots. Although I don't really need to be at >=1/200 since she's not a wild crazy rock performer. Singer/piano player, so pretty static most of the time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2012)

I'd like to see a apples to apples comparison with the Nikon D3s, which is the current best low light DSLR. 
It is certainly very good, and at least 1/2 stop better than the 5D MK III, which is what we expected. At the very highest ISO's, it does pull away, in the same manner that the 5D MK III pulls ahead the MK II at ISO 25600.
I'm also interested in DR. After buying a D800 and seeing the DR at low ISO, it makes a very noticible difference in challenging light situations, I really was suprised at the difference. However, at very high ISO, it loses out to the 5D MK III on DR.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 28, 2012)

if you are shooting with the intention of converting to black and white 25600 is perfectly fine on the 5Dmk3
it looks very film like as long as you leave the noise in there looks quite ASA1600 like


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 28, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> OK where is the REAL LTRLI and what have you done with him?!



Haha, still here as always. I simply call it like I see it for good or bad. In this particular scenario, 1DX at high iso, VERY much for the good.

The 1DX high ISO performance, at least from what I can guess at from those samples, appears to be stunning, likely the best ever seen in the history of DSLRs. I'm kinda stunned actually. Never thought they'd pull a solid 2/3rds or more stops better than 5D3 there.

If this holds up it's gonna rock at high ISOs.

(I still think the D800 will easily beat it at ISO100-400 though, but I'm no longer sure the D4 will, perhaps they tie but 1DX with more MP nudges it for the win?)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 28, 2012)

Pretty nuts to think that shooting ISO4000 on this might be vaguely like shooting ISO1600 on 5D2.   
(and better than shooting ISO2500 on the 5D3 )
whoa


----------



## gary samples (Jun 28, 2012)

After going back to the review and looking at the 100% crops I see a 2/3 of a stop improvement on the mark III !!


----------



## chrysek (Jun 28, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Pretty nuts to think that shooting ISO4000 on this might be vaguely like shooting ISO1600 on 5D2.
> (and better than shooting ISO2500 on the 5D3 )
> whoa



thats good enough for me )))


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 28, 2012)

1 stop better ISO than 5d3
2 stops better ISO than 5d2
4 stops better ISO than 7D.

Canon, after all the previous disappointments, the 1DX is the best of the best again. 

Canon has some newer tech that will trickle down in the next Gen from 1Dx.


----------



## ddashti (Jun 28, 2012)

If that is indeed the case of the high ISO performance level, the 1D X will definitely be somewhat of the sole pride of Canon. There is much unannounced stuff, though. Let's see how that will fair against the 1D X.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 28, 2012)

Then again for 2x the price, i would HOPE the 1dx would have a better sensor/high ISO than the 5d3... but but but, any quesses on DR LetTheRightLensIn?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 28, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Then again for 2x the price, i would HOPE the 1dx would have a better sensor/high ISO than the 5d3... but but but, any quesses on DR LetTheRightLensIn?



I'd be surprised if it can match D800 DR. I doubt that is possible.

Other than that it's hard to say but the fact that it appears, assuming that guys test with the flower shots didn't have any hidden gotchas, that the high iso is so amazing that they must be using something totally new for the 1DX sensor so I think it's now certainly quite possible that it could be say a solid 1.5 stops better DR than the 5D2 and somewhere around D4 level DR, i.e. no match for any Exmor, but a nice step up from anything Canon has done before and match for the best non-Exmor DR. But who knows. Anyway I'd be slightly surprised if it it is not within the range of 0.5 to 2 stops better DR than the 5D2, at this point.

People have posted raw frames, but all anyone posts is supr high iso raws so I have nothing but guesses to go on.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 28, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Then again for 2x the price, i would HOPE the 1dx would have a better sensor/high ISO than the 5d3... but but but, any quesses on DR LetTheRightLensIn?
> ...



You are right - the D800 will always beat the 5DIII DR figure fromDxO because of the way they calculate it, where mps plays a significant part


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > awinphoto said:
> ...



It's only fair to compare them on a normalized basis. Funny how nobody in Canon-land cried about normalization when the Canon cameras had way more MP....

Anyway, 1DX dynamic range results are in. As a 5D3 owner I am relieved ;D. As a Canon DSLR system user I am worried :'(. 

After the stunning high iso performance levels I'd started to think they really had some new magic through and through, but only in terms of light collection and not read noise as it turns out.

They appear to have improved banding so it's not as nasty as the 5D2/7D/50D/1D4 or even 5D3 in the low ISO shadows, that is good, it's more on order of the 1Ds3/1D3/40D. So it was looking good.

But then I measured the read noise and it's absolutely nothing special at all. It's better per photosite than for the 5D3 and even, just barely, after normalization but it appears to be set to peg in only around 11.8 on DxO's normalized to 8MP chart. So it's a little disappointing they didn't get it to D4-levels of 13.1 (D4 does not use Exmor patents) or even many older Nikons at 12.2 level. Exmor levels were, of course, not expected.

Anyway it rules at high ISO but, for high DR scenes, it's very old news in terms of ISO100-200 shooting, oh well.

I am a little worried now about whether Canon will ever be able to get close to Nikon for lower ISO shooting. I really, really hope they can pull it off, at least to D4-like levels by the next round of 5D4s and all. I really don't want to switch to Nikon, but if Nikon is going to be like 3-4 stops better by then at low ISO or something....

But since this thread is about low light king, yeah the 1DX just utterly kicks ass there, I'm astounded how well it appears to do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Anyway, 1DX dynamic range results are in.



_Who's_ results are in? Anyone's but yours?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, 1DX dynamic range results are in.
> ...



Nobody else's but mine at this point but no I am not going into ten pages to defend and explain, you can just wait and see and believe it for now or not.

If you do recall though, despite all the nonsense and heaps of abuse tossed my way about how my 5D3 results (and others as well in that case) were so ridiculous, lo and behold but when DxO put out their results and someone else on here also carried it out, my results were like DxO's (and there's) to the tenth! just sayin'. But that is all I will say this time. I'm staying out of the argument. If you want to on for 30 pages about or not, whatever.

Anyway this is basically a PJ cam and it brings the AF and speed in spades along with, what seems likely to be, world-class high iso performance.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It's only fair to compare them on a normalized basis. Funny how nobody in Canon-land cried about normalization when the Canon cameras had way more MP....



Like comparing the 5DII against the D3X??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It's only fair to compare them on a normalized basis. Funny how nobody in Canon-land cried about normalization when the Canon cameras had way more MP....
> ...



5D2 vs D700 etc. :


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 1, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> After the stunning high iso performance levels I'd started to think they really had some new magic through and through, but only in terms of light collection and not read noise as it turns out.



Just curious, what's about the read-noise? Is it on the same level as 5D Mark III has?
Did you have a completely black RAW picture to perform your test?


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 1, 2012)

The 1Dx is ever so slightly less than two stops better than the 5D3, as soon as mine arrives I'll be proving it.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 1, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> The 1Dx is ever so slightly less than two stops better than the 5D3, as soon as mine arrives I'll be proving it.



As this is stated as the replacement for the 1DS3 would you test the low iso against the 1DS3 for me? Thanks in anticipation


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 1, 2012)

Sure thing Brian. TBH, I'm thinking of pulling someone in from Model Mayhem and doing comparison shots between the 5d2, 5d3, 1ds3 and h3dII-39.

If it's one thing that annoys me it's the lack of shots with people in. It's what these cameras are geared up to shoot in the mainstream. I intend to do some nice big ass portrait shots like on my site www.booheads.co.uk


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 1, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> Sure thing Brian. TBH, I'm thinking of pulling someone in from Model Mayhem and doing comparison shots between the 5d2, 5d3, 1ds3 and h3dII-39.
> 
> If it's one thing that annoys me it's the lack of shots with people in. It's what these cameras are geared up to shoot in the mainstream. I intend to do some nice big ass portrait shots like on my site www.booheads.co.uk



Many thanks

Looks like we have similar styles for portraits


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 1, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> Sure thing Brian. TBH, I'm thinking of pulling someone in from Model Mayhem and doing comparison shots between the 5d2, 5d3, 1ds3 and h3dII-39.
> 
> If it's one thing that annoys me it's the lack of shots with people in. It's what these cameras are geared up to shoot in the mainstream. I intend to do some nice big ass portrait shots like on my site www.booheads.co.uk



I too would like to see that comparison. Since I have two 5D Mark III's I would be especially interested. Also maybe down the road there will be a good 1D X vs. 1D Mark IV comparions, seperate from this comparison (different needs test) for sports shots.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 1, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> I intend to do some nice big ass portrait shots


Is that with a wide angle? 8)


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 1, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I intend to do some nice big ass portrait shots
> ...



Not a macro thanks


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > After the stunning high iso performance levels I'd started to think they really had some new magic through and through, but only in terms of light collection and not read noise as it turns out.
> ...



It's a little better read noise per photosite than the 5D3, but only a trace, after normalizing 18MP vs 22MP. There is less banding though so even though it probably won't measure any better for DR and won't really have any practical advantage in the random read noise itself, it has much less vertical pattern banding and that should make the files more pliable than the 5D3 and 5D2 files, probably getting closer to the 1Ds3. It has a touch more horizontal banding than 5D3, which has none, but not too much at all, and much less vertical.

Yeah, total black frame.

It's more read noise per photosite than the 1D4 and, by a trace, the 1Ds3 but seems to have a lot less ugly pattern junk than the 1D4 so it may be a little better than the 1D4 in terms of actual real world usable DR.


----------



## Yasmin (Jul 1, 2012)

Other than 1 stop over 5d-iii, don't forget 1Dx has 400k shutter life vs 150k of 5D-iii.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 1, 2012)

It is interesting that the benchmark (Canon) for low noise at low iso is the 2007 1DS3.

Eyeballing the 2004 1DS2 I would say that is very close to the 1DS3, just of course that it is only 16mp. I would say the 1DS2 is a little better IQ than the 1D4 and looks like less noise (through DFINE). 

Like everything, put an image through pp and the difference pretty much disappears on a 16x12 print


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

OK, so the read noise is slightly lower than I stated. It turns out the test files had a fast lens mounted and all the DSLRs cook the RAW gain books when they sense a lens faster than f/2.8 to make up for micro-lens losses from extreme angles (as fast glass provides).

So with a real, normal ISO100 black frame, no lens the actual true read noise at ISO100 on 1DX is 5.29 not 5.79 and the 8MP normalized DR (as per DxO) is then not 11.75 but 11.9 +/- about 0.1 depending on exact well depth (which I don't have recorded yet, and maybe +/- 0.2 if you also add copy variation into the mix).

OTOH the banding characteristics appear to be slightly worse than I had thought since this frame didn't lift past them quite as much. That said, the banding is still better than for all the recent banding messes from Canon of the last 3-4 years, better than 5D2,5D3,7D,1D4 but it's probably not quite as good as the 1Ds3, I'd need to go compare directly again though, so it's hard to say for sure, from I remember I think the 1Ds3 had less banding than the true 1DX ISO100 file. But as I said, I can say the 1DX, for sure, does have less banding than 5D3,5D2,7D,1D4 though so it's workable DR should be the best from Canon other than the 1Ds3 at slightly better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> OK, so the read noise is slightly lower than I stated. It turns out the test files had a fast lens mounted and all the DSLRs cook the RAW gain books when they sense a lens faster than f/2.8 to make up for micro-lens losses from extreme angles (as fast glass provides).
> 
> So with a real, normal ISO100 black frame, no lens the actual true read noise at ISO100 on 1DX is 5.29 not 5.79 and the 8MP normalized DR (as per DxO) is then not 11.75 but 11.9 +/- about 0.1 depending on exact well depth (which I don't have recorded yet, and maybe +/- 0.2 if you also add copy variation into the mix). Not that anyone will particularly notice a 0.15 stop difference in DR. ;D but just to be legit about. It's about 1/3 stop more than my 5D3 and with less banding it probably has a solid 2/3 stop advantage usable DR ISO100 compared to my 5D3, hard to say, depends how much banding bothers you.
> 
> OTOH the banding characteristics appear to be slightly worse than I had thought since this frame didn't lift past them quite as much. That said, the banding is still better than for all the recent banding messes from Canon of the last 3-4 years, better than 5D2,5D3,7D,1D4 but it's probably not quite as good as the 1Ds3, I'd need to go compare directly again though, so it's hard to say for sure, from I remember I think the 1Ds3 had less banding than the true 1DX ISO100 file. But as I said, I can say the 1DX, for sure, does have less banding than 5D3,5D2,7D,1D4 though so it's workable DR should be the best from Canon other than the 1Ds3 at slightly better.


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 2, 2012)

Taking into account all posts in this discussion, can someone make a picture with 1D X and 1Ds III in the same conditions for us to make a comparison?


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 2, 2012)

Believe me, as soon as mine arrives you'll have it.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> Taking into account all posts in this discussion, can someone make a picture with 1D X and 1Ds III in the same conditions for us to make a comparison?



...and can said picture please not be an underexposed, out-of-focus, extreme macro shot of the inside of a lens cap?

A well-composed, well-lit studio shot would be nice. You can even do something with a bare reflector to make a high-contrast scene, but do please still expose properly....

b&


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> A well-composed, well-lit studio shot would be nice.



wouldn't a well lit and staged studio scene where you can control the lighting not really be much of a dynamic range test and especially not at all a low light king test though??? maybe a poorly setup and lit studio shot? ;D

what you'd want is say some dark alley, barely there artificial lighting, model shot for the high iso and some uncontrolled, high DR landscape scene or something I'd think for the low ISO dr range comparison


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jul 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > A well-composed, well-lit studio shot would be nice.
> ...



Not at all.

You can easily get insane amounts of dynamic range in a scene in a studio. Just put a single light with a reflector on one side of the subject and nothing else.

And you can easily get low light in a studio; turn off the flash, turn off your working lights, and just use the modeling light of the flash turned down to whatever levels you need.

But the point is that it's all controlled, and you can easily yank the one camera off the tripod and put the other in its place, and use the exact same settings for both.



> what you'd want is say some dark alley, barely there artificial lighting, model shot for the high iso and some uncontrolled, high DR landscape scene or something I'd think for the low ISO dr range comparison



Waaay too many variables. Especially in the landscape.

The great thing about the studio is that it lets you control all those -- both for consistency _and_ so you can create exactly the test you want.

For example, if you want to see what the camera can do with a scene with ten stops of dynamic range, no problem -- just use a single light on, say, a Rubick's Cube on a piece of black flock velvet or suspended in midair. Use your meter to read at ISO 100 and f/32 on the lit face and f/1.0 on the shadowed face, and shoot away. Take a shot at f/32 and ISO 100, another at f/1.4 and ISO 200, and another at f/5.6 and ISO 100. (Getting that level of contrast will require a studio that isn't prone to bounce and possibly a bit of creative flagging / cutting as well.)

(And the observant photographer will read that suggestion of a test and understand why the proper answer to a scene with more dynamic range than a 5DIII's twelve-plus stops can capture is not, "Get a D800," but rather, "fix the light." Or, maybe, embrace the contrasty nature of the scene, rather than fight it -- let the highlights blow and crush the blacks!)

Cheers,


----------



## JR (Jul 3, 2012)

I agree with the original post that the low light ISO performance of the 1DX seem really good. It will be nice to compare them in similar condition with the 5D mkIII and D4 for example. Based on the sample I saw which are not the same condition as my shooting with a D4 I would say that indeed the 1DX is at least as good as the D4 for high ISO if not better. Since I don't shoot higher then 12800 it is hard for me to say. Both camera seem really close up to 12800 (D4 and 1DX I mean)...

One thing I could offer which would interest some is I found the D4 at least 1 stop better then the 5D mkIII in its ISO performance, so this says a lot on how the 1DX will likely perform.. 

Cant wait to get it!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 4, 2012)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Not at all.
> 
> You can easily get insane amounts of dynamic range in a scene in a studio. Just put a single light with a reflector on one side of the subject and nothing else.
> 
> ...



OK, I get your point. I thought you were meaning something else.




> > what you'd want is say some dark alley, barely there artificial lighting, model shot for the high iso and some uncontrolled, high DR landscape scene or something I'd think for the low ISO dr range comparison
> 
> 
> 
> Waaay too many variables. Especially in the landscape.



Yeah agreed, that is why it's easy to just to the black cap. Boom in like 60 seconds test carried out and done. No wasting of time and it's repeatable and you don't even need all teh bodies on hand at the same time (which is a biggie).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, 1DX dynamic range results are in.
> ...



No longer just mine:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41976502

and big shocker.... he gets the same thing 

(note that he did not normalize for ISO or MP so the 1DX and 5D2 look a bit better on that chart compared to the 5D3 than they do in reality, particularly note that the 5D3 DOES beat the 5D2 for high iso DR once you shift the 5D2 chart to account for it rating ISOs differently)

his charts shows that they did improve high ISO DR a lot in the 1DX though so it won't fall behind in DR there compared to D3s or D4, so yeah, ignoring a bit of color-blindness , the 1DX should be all time low light king with probably about tied for best DR at high ISO (with D3s and D4) and best luminance SNR (perhaps by 1/3 stop maybe 1/2 stop over D4???) and with many more MP than D3s (making 'grain' look much better and allowing for more NR while maintaining the same detail).


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 10, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> No longer just mine:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41976502
> 
> and big shocker.... he gets the same thing
> ...


So who's the winner? I'm interested in a camera for street portrait photography. What would be the best thing to use to get great skin tones in Canon lineup? Does the 1Ds Mk III remain the best thing for this?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 10, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > No longer just mine:
> ...



The 1Ds3 is superior ISO 50-200. Above 200 the 5D3 is better.


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > So who's the winner? I'm interested in a camera for street portrait photography. What would be the best thing to use to get great skin tones in Canon lineup? Does the 1Ds Mk III remain the best thing for this?
> ...



So I went to DXO to check the difference between 5D III and 1Ds III (yes, I heard lot of negative stuff about this web-site) and here what I saw in the results for low ISO measurements:

*Dynamic Range*: 5D Mark III loses (~2% difference at ISO 100)
*SNR*: 5D Mark III wins (~3.6% difference at ISO 100)
*Tonal Range*: 5D Mark III wins (~0.3% difference at ISO 100)
*Color Sensitivity*: 5D Mark III loses (~0.4% difference at ISO 100)

Looking at those numbers I don't clearly understand why 1Ds Mark III is so superior. Does it handles uncontrolled light better? Or is it about self-convincing? (i.e. a camera that costs 8 grand makes better images as a matter of fact).

Or am I missing something?


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 11, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...




Up to iso200
- total lack of noise
- DR
- strong colours
- no banding in the shadows


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



+8 million. You are missing something badly. You went off website specs instead of actually shooting with both and looking at your photos. Brian is 100% correct on his assessment here.


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 11, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Up to iso200
> - total lack of noise
> - DR
> - strong colours
> - no banding in the shadows



Any chance to get this kind of comparison with 1Dx? ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 11, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Up to iso200
> ...



Just waiting for my 1DX, on back order


----------



## simonxu11 (Jul 12, 2012)

Check this out
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1129607/0

From that test, I cannot see 1 stop over 5d3, at most half a stop, maybe still not as good as D3s or D4


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2012)

It looks like a stop to me over 3200 ISO. Under that its very similar but thats amazing. The grain also looks better on the 1Dx.


----------



## candyman (Jul 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> It looks like a stop to me over 3200 ISO. Under that its very similar but thats amazing. The grain also looks better on the 1Dx.




I am confused about that.
Shouldn't the 1D X ISO 6400 look like the 1D X ISO 3200 IF compared to the 5D MKIII ISO 6400? Now that would be 1 stop. Or am I wrong?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2012)

candyman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like a stop to me over 3200 ISO. Under that its very similar but thats amazing. The grain also looks better on the 1Dx.
> ...



The 5D3 @ 6400 ISO and the 1Dx @ 12,800 look simliar to me. I can see a good stop there when processing and the final photo is done.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 16, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> So who's the winner? I'm interested in a camera for street portrait photography. What would be the best thing to use to get great skin tones in Canon lineup? Does the 1Ds Mk III remain the best thing for this?



what ISOs would you be dealing with?
well lit, full sun street portraits or low light stuff?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 16, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



the main thing would be the metamerism index (the real world difference this makes I'm not sure, it might be complex, nobody has looked into it carefully) and the banding, you can dig around the shadows more with the 1Ds3 since it doesn't have as much ugly pattern banding at low ISO


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Check this out
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1129607/0
> 
> From that test, I cannot see 1 stop over 5d3, at most half a stop, maybe still not as good as D3s or D4



Yes, someone just pointed this out to me. I was about to post here that I'm no longer sure about the whole all-time SNR king stuff. Not sure what to say. One guy's test with the sunflowers showed an easy 1DX SNR advantage. Stan's test does not. Both tests seemed to be carried out well. Anyway it shows that using real world images and programs that process RAW introduce lots of variables. Not that you can use them for SNR, but the much sneered at 'fake' 'ridiculous' black frames for DR sure make things easy and results repeatable.

May as well just wait for DxO for the SNR results and we'll see whether the sunflower guy or stan's test tells the truth better. I almost wonder if it won't be closer to Stan's. The results from the other guy's files jsut seemed like such stunnigly, shockingly amazing news maybe they were too good to be true.

(EDIT: or maybe copy to copy variation?? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8028.0
Along these lines I've noted that my 5D3 has a bit worse vertical banding at low ISO than some otehr copies  OTOH it seems solid for high iso banding while Stan's copy seems to get more high iso banding than other copies I've seen. Maybe his 1DX is extra noisy? who knows)

SOmeone else tested DR at high iso and the 1DX definitely beats the 5D3 for that, at high iso, though. That test uses black frames so it should hold up well.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > So who's the winner? I'm interested in a camera for street portrait photography. What would be the best thing to use to get great skin tones in Canon lineup? Does the 1Ds Mk III remain the best thing for this?
> ...



iso50-200 is the win win zone for the 1DS3


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 16, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



We mainly shoot weddings, but in our country it's completely different story. Here are some shots that represent our style:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2012)

Now that "The Digital Picture has posted some trustworthy images, the picture is beginning to come out.
For me, the way to evaluate the high ISO is to try and read the fine print and see the fine detail. The higher resolution of the 1Ds MK III, the 5D MK II and 5D MK III give them a slight advantage. The 1D MK IV has a disadvantage at the 25600 level.
When looking at costs, my $1400 refurb 5D MK II looks pretty good. You pay a lot to get about 1/2 stop improvement. The 5D MK III is really close up to ISO 25600.
There is little doubt that the 1D X is better, but getting it just for high ISO use should be carefully thought thru.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 17, 2012)

wow at 2 things the no NR comparisons are very very close IMO not worth the extra at any rate
the hamfisted NR application from the in camera looks shocking!

and LOL at the 204800 images definately all spin there


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 17, 2012)

I've contacted a person that can compare 1Dx to 1Ds Mark III. What would be the best test scene to check performance of cameras in portrait photography?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> I've contacted a person that can compare 1Dx to 1Ds Mark III. What would be the best test scene to check performance of cameras in portrait photography?


I'd just view the comparison with the various cameras at the digital picture. Bryan is very knowledgable and has a setup to compare many different Canon cameras with each other.
The link is a couple of articles above.


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > I've contacted a person that can compare 1Dx to 1Ds Mark III. What would be the best test scene to check performance of cameras in portrait photography?
> ...



I saw this, but it won't show me real-life possibilities that I can use. I'm interested in how far I can push image colors (change saturation, lightness, tones of specific color palettes) using each camera without blowing away the IQ.

I've posted couple of sample shots 4 articles above.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 18, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...




what ISOs did you use shoot them at (EXIF is stripped) and did you raise the bright parts or darken the dark parts or was that done with reflectors?

(nice shots btw)


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > I saw this, but it won't show me real-life possibilities that I can use. I'm interested in how far I can push image colors (change saturation, lightness, tones of specific color palettes) using each camera without blowing away the IQ.
> ...



ISO 100, pushing the dark or bright parts can be applied, but not by much. Having good image quality (well-lit saturated details all over the shot) is vital in our approach.

_P.S. These are self-portraits _


----------



## sanj (Jul 18, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



I like your photos! Which lens?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 18, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > nightbreath said:
> ...



If you really like to save highlights and pull shadows in large dynamic range ISO100 shots, honestly the D800 is best at that, next best is probably D3x and then finally the D4.

1Ds3 might be marginally better than 1DX but not sure the exact difference, probably not enough to really matter but it might have just a little less banding, and both should be a little bit better than the 5D3 in that regard. All should be a little bit better than the 7D since they have less banding (although 7D are variable you might have a very good copy).

If you can do enough with the 7D to satisfy your needs in terms of dynamic range then just go for one of the Canon FF (1Ds3 and 1DX with somewhat less banding than the 5D3). If you feel like you want to be able to push and pull at least 2-3 stops more then Nikon is unfortunately where it is at (http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html).


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> then just go for one of the Canon FF (1Ds3 and 1DX with somewhat less banding than the 5D3).



So we came to my initial question  However the more I think about this the more I understand that 1Ds is not on par with possibilities of new cameras. How would you determine camera sensor performance? You said you have more banding than other 5D Mark III copies, so I assume you compared black frames shot with the same shutter speed? Then just push exposure to +4 stops?




sanj said:


> I like your photos! Which lens?



Fast primes give excellent results


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 22, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Along these lines I've noted that my 5D3 has a bit worse vertical banding at low ISO than some otehr copies



It might happen that banding becomes more or less apparent from shot to shot, because of its volatility (also it can be affected by shooting conditions, I think). Did you compare several images or just one?


----------

