# What ISO improvement is likely to be expected in an upcoming 5D3?



## pedro (Nov 21, 2011)

Sorry, don't want you to get bored. Just a question. In a post here I read this:
5D2 is about 2 stops better in High Iso than 60D, and about 1 stop compared to a 7D

So, shooting a 30D I will wait out the new body. What are your expectations? Will 25600 by its native ISO? Will it go up till 204k or what do you think?

Cheers, Pedro


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 21, 2011)

pedro said:


> Sorry, don't want you to get bored. Just a question. In a post here I read this:
> *5D2 is about 2 stops better in High Iso than 60D, and about 1 stop compared to a 7D*



so the same comment suggests that there is 1 stop difference between 60D and 7D, while they both feature exactly the same sensor?

no way


----------



## AndersBorg (Nov 21, 2011)

The 7D and the 60D are equal in terms of high ISO noise. They both use the same 18 megapixel sensor.

I dont know how much better the 5Dmk2 are, but we can expect the mk3 to be even better at high ISO.


----------



## JR (Nov 21, 2011)

Well that is the question that veryone wants to know. At this point I am not sure we can assess what kind of ISO improvement will there be for the 5D3 if any!

The D800 might be a good indication when it come out. My point is if Canon decide to make the 5D3 the high MP cameras in the 28-36MP range everyone wants, I am not sure about the technology to make such sensor better at ISO then the current one. The 1DX is supposed to be the ISO king hopefully.

I say this with reserve of course. If for example the D800 has similar ISO performance then the D700 which only has 12MP and is currently the best in class, then yes Canon better bring on ISO improvement or loose market share...Many of us would like to see a high MP cameras with amazing ISO for low light, but we might have to get two different camera to get both worlds...

Very speculative at this point...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 21, 2011)

All previous models have had improvements in high ISO capability, so it seems likely that the 5DIII will as well. It certainly shouldn't perform any worse, with three years' development (or more!) over the 5DII.


----------



## AJ (Nov 21, 2011)

My prediction for noise improvement of 5D3 over 5D2, on a pixel-by-pixel basis: there will be none.

1Dx will be the high iso cam. 5D3 will be the high mpix cam.


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 21, 2011)

As someone already pointed out in another thread, if Canon/Nikon can manage to keep similar low-light performance (of the 5DII/D700) with 36MP, it will be a breakthrough. I would rate this highly unlikely.

If Canon keeps the pixel count rather 'low', say in the 24-28MP range, it is very likely that we will get the same low-light abilities of the 5DII, if not better. That could be the sweet spot for Canon, offering the perfect balance between excellent IQ and great low-light performance. Add it a new, decent AF system and voila! That would be a worthy successor to the mighty 5DII and the perfect camera for many of us. But not for all of us, there are a lot of people hoping for much more pixels, say 36MP 

I believe that Canon will be able to match whatever Nikon brings to the table with this new generation of DSLRs. 1Dx seems very promising and D4 won't be too far behind/ahead. It would simply be amazing if they can offer better low-light performance than the D3s with 50% more pixels. Interesting times ahead, I should keep on saving for it!!


----------



## pwp (Nov 21, 2011)

With the Nikon D800 checking in at 36MP, I'd be very surprised if the 5DIII was anything less than this. The Canon marketing dept would insist. 

With 36MP it's doubtful there would be anything more than a very modest improvement in high iso performance over the very respectable 5DII. But hey, the 5DIII may be a game changer yet again for Canon and stun us with specs that will keep 5D series shooters happy for years.

The big winners with the emerging 36MP cameras will be Sandisk & Lexar...they'll be ramping up production of their 64Gb CF cards in keen anticipation of a sales spike. I'm gobsmacked how fast I can fill 32Gb on the 1DIV!

Paul Wright


----------



## JR (Nov 22, 2011)

AJ said:


> My prediction for noise improvement of 5D3 over 5D2, on a pixel-by-pixel basis: there will be none.
> 
> 1Dx will be the high iso cam. 5D3 will be the high mpix cam.



+1

I saw somewhere in one of the post here today that the 1DX will have 2 stop better ISO then the 1D mk IV. Not sure if this was for JPEG or RAW but I beleive the 5D mk II is slightly better then the 1D mk IV for ISO performance by about ~1/2 stop or so. So if the 1DX is ~1 1/2 stop better ISO then the curent 5DII, where does this leave us for the 5DIII. Surely it cannot be better then the 1DX, so maybe we will get 1/2 stop ISO improvement?

Does this make sense? Hope I got the math right! ???


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

JR said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > My prediction for noise improvement of 5D3 over 5D2, on a pixel-by-pixel basis: there will be none.
> ...



A 5DII is fine to 3200 and OKish at 6400

Posted this in another thread too - look at the exif of this picture that I took this evening in a dull hall and come to your own conclusions

http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/b09g8538x.JPG


----------



## JR (Nov 22, 2011)

Nice...since you have both the 5DII and a 1D4, you feel your 1D4 has better ISO performance then?

We see so many test reports where sometime results vary (refering to size of the pixel for example) that having both camera at your disposable is probably easier for you to assess....


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

I am getting usable photos at iso12800 - and there was no noise reduction applied.

The 5D2 is about the same at iso 3200, maybe 6400 if I am lucky.

The 7D equivalent is 1600/3200

Brian


----------



## JR (Nov 22, 2011)

...so I guess the 1DX will be an even bigger ISO improvement for me then I originally thought! Man March 2012 feels like lightyears away!


----------



## Picsfor (Nov 22, 2011)

As a long time (Almost as long as it has been out) 5D2, owner and user, and some one who loves to push the high ISO settings, i can assure you that the 1DX is far far superior to the 5D2 with its high ISO capabilities.

Forget the numbers that a played out, the 1DX has an ISO of 51K that certainly matches the 5D2 at 6400 if not 3200.
Really - they showed a print of a scene that i have an almost identical version of taken on my old A1 with 100asa film, a tripod, cable release and several seconds of my time.

I took shots with the 1DX and compared the same shot with my 5D2 - oh no i didn't, because my 5D2 couldn't work in such low light, nor could it focus in such low light. The 1DX really is on a different planet from the 5D2 where low light is concerned, and my 5D2's frequently see 6400 (even in daylight) and are no strangers to 25600, which always needs a bit of treatment.

I fully expect the 5D3 to make 12800 a working ISO, if not 25600...


----------



## willrobb (Nov 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I am getting usable photos at iso12800 - and there was no noise reduction applied.
> 
> The 5D2 is about the same at iso 3200, maybe 6400 if I am lucky.
> 
> ...



I agree with Brian about the 5DmkII. I often used it for magazine spreads at 3200 no problems, at 6400 I'm happy with it for the web.

For the 7D though, I found it excellent up to ISO 640, good at 800, 1000 was pushing it a bit and by 1600 I found it to not be so good, sometimes fine, bit more often than not way too noisy for me. Maybe I just had a dud, I know a lot of people were very happy with the 7D, but I found the images too noisy, even at low ISO with the images from the 5DmkII and 7D at full size, I found a lot of noise in the shadows for the 7D and the images were overall quite soft.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

JR said:


> I saw somewhere in one of the post here today that the 1DX will have 2 stop better ISO then the 1D mk IV. Not sure if this was for JPEG or RAW but I beleive the 5D mk II is slightly better then the 1D mk IV for ISO performance by about ~1/2 stop or so. So if the 1DX is ~1 1/2 stop better ISO then the curent 5DII, where does this leave us for the 5DIII. Surely it cannot be better then the 1DX, so maybe we will get 1/2 stop ISO improvement?



The 2-stop improvement touted by Canon for the 1D X compared to the 1D IV is not all it's cracked up to be, or put another way, it's a clever marketing ploy. First off, Chuck Westfall stated that to get that 2-stop improvement, you must be shooting jpg. Also, it's comparing an APS-H sensor to FF - that difference is about 2/3 of a stop. I'd estimate that the jpg engine improvements are on the order of a full stop. 

So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), I'd guess we can expect somewhere between *1/3 and 1/2 stop improvement*, partly from improved on-sensor NR (pre-RAW) and partly from the gapless microlenses. I'll certainly take 1/3 to 1/2 stop...but that doesn't sound nearly as good as 2 stops, and Canon's marketing department knows that, which is why they use the 1D IV jpg as a baseline.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

willrobb said:


> For the 7D though, I found it excellent up to ISO 640, good at 800, 1000 was pushing it a bit and by 1600 I found it to not be so good, sometimes fine, bit more often than not way too noisy for me. Maybe I just had a dud, I know a lot of people were very happy with the 7D, but I found the images too noisy, even at low ISO with the images from the 5DmkII and 7D at full size, I found a lot of noise in the shadows for the 7D and the images were overall quite soft.



I use my 7D for wildlife so I am shooting in reasonable light - just high shutter speeds. My 7Ds give very sharp images so perhaps there is something wrong with yours?


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), I'd guess we can expect somewhere between *1/3 and 1/2 stop improvement*, partly from improved on-sensor NR (pre-RAW) and partly from the gapless microlenses. I'll certainly take 1/3 to 1/2 stop...but that doesn't sound nearly as good as 2 stops, and Canon's marketing department knows that, which is why they use the 1D IV jpg as a baseline.



Are you ignoring the real life evidence that the 1D4 is giving at least 1 stop over the 5DII or are you saying that the 1DX will give 1/2 stop less than the 1D4?


----------



## pwp (Nov 22, 2011)

JR said:


> since you have both the 5DII and a 1D4, you feel your 1D4 has better ISO performance then?



When the light is low, where do I go? It's the 1DIV every time. 

5DII is very good but the MkIV keeps delivering the goods when the 5DII is struggling. 

This is my experience. YMMV.

Paul Wright


----------



## JR (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), ...



Indeed I cant wait to see RAW files comparison from the 1DX. Unfortunately I suspect this will not happen until it is released, unless dpReview or someone else gets an early copy and doing some test now due to be publish with the release in March 2012...


----------



## JR (Nov 22, 2011)

This is the best I can do with ISO 12800. Taken during the day inside the house. No other light. 110mm f2.8 1/250s...when I zoom in on the raw file I can obviously see noise. It has noise reduction of 50 from Lightroom...


----------



## JR (Nov 22, 2011)

Sorry, this was taken with my 5D mk II of course! With night shots of evening shots inside the quality become mediocre though as I need to apply too much noise correction to make it work in those condition, but to get a high shutter speed during the day, it seem to work...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), I'd guess we can expect somewhere between *1/3 and 1/2 stop improvement*, partly from improved on-sensor NR (pre-RAW) and partly from the gapless microlenses. I'll certainly take 1/3 to 1/2 stop...but that doesn't sound nearly as good as 2 stops, and Canon's marketing department knows that, which is why they use the 1D IV jpg as a baseline.
> ...



What evidence is there that the 1D IV outperforms the 5DII by at least 1 stop for ISO noise on RAW images? You referenced DxOMark in regards to AF (still waiting for a link to that) - I can't find anywhere DxO reviews or rates AF performance, but they do compare sensor performance. For the 1D IV vs. 5DII, the low-light ISO ratings are 1320 for the 1D IV and 1815 for the 5DII - i.e., *the 5DII is about 1/2-stop better than the 1D IV *(note - that's consistent with slightly better on-sensor NR coupled partly offsetting the FF advantage of greater total light gathered).

Not 'real-world' enough for you? How about the TDP review - "_Differences in noise between the 1D III, 1D IV and 5D II samples up through ISO 6400 are minor and insignificant to my eyes..._" In the noise crops in the TDP review, I can see the lack of difference between the 5DII and the 1D IV. Where is this 'at least 1-stop advantage over the 5DII' you're talking about?

OTOH, in low light the 1D IV has a definite advantage in terms of AF sensitivity, and if that enables you to get the shot in those situations where you need ISO 6400, that certainly makes it the go-to camera as pwp states.


----------



## torger (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), I'd guess we can expect somewhere between *1/3 and 1/2 stop improvement*, partly from improved on-sensor NR (pre-RAW) and partly from the gapless microlenses. I'll certainly take 1/3 to 1/2 stop...but that doesn't sound nearly as good as 2 stops, and Canon's marketing department knows that, which is why they use the 1D IV jpg as a baseline.



We'll see. My guess is that difference will show at high ISO, and then I expect it to be at least as good as Nikon D3s, or else Canon have certainly failed. The D3s is according to dxomark about 2/3 stops better than 5D2 in a print (i e taking into account noise reduction by averaging over the higher res on 5D2), and considerably better than that at extremely high ISOs. Dxomark does not take into account pattern noise though which can change the result a bit, the 5D2 would perform a bit less good then.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> What evidence is there that the 1D IV outperforms the 5DII by at least 1 stop for ISO noise on RAW images?



I have posted pictures from the 1D4 at iso12800 without pp or NR. If you feel that the 5DII can match these then please show me

As a long term user of the 5DII I have never managed the equivalent over iso 6400. That to me says that the 1D4 delivers 1 stop faster than the 5DII. How else can you interpret that?

My photos are the real world, the evidence is in front of me - I have posted these real world pictures and yet you refer to a lab test as real world experience. I no longer consider iso 6400 as high iso with the 1D4. I have 7D, 5DII and 1D4. The 7D doen't cut it for usable high iso, the 5DII has been eclipsed and the 1D4 has taken the crown. I use all 3 models on a regular basis and I see the results from all three models. I know what their strengths are and also their weaknesses - this is how I choose which model to use for which photo.

This forum is not some high school debating society - it is a forum for passing on experience and their hopes and wishes for new features on upcoming equipment. My real world experience is on the table for all to see. I am a user and therefore what I do and where I have problems will apply to all forum members - and I expect to learn from them too.

IMHO the 5DII will have to at least match the 1D4 iso capability to stay in the game probably the AF too from other comments made on this and other simmilar threads. Fps? Well maybe up to 5 would be nice.


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 22, 2011)

For some reasons which defy history (, most likely the need to feel that people pay through their teeth for top technology), people believe that the 1D line must have the absolutely best sensor possible. But as far as history shows, the inferior lines had similar noise levels per unit area of sensor. Why? Because it's probably not justifiable to design several sensors (for DSLRs), due to technological and cost reasons.

So, the 5D3 will have at least the same noise levels as the 1Dx (except if the technology used in the sensor is too expensive for a camera price below $5000). There is also another factor to consider: is the new Canon technology able to scale to resolutions in the 30s MP? Only they can answer that, but I would guess that they would not leave the mortal event photographers go without a camera capable of similar noise performance.

To me it looks like Canon is making technological leaps in this period, changing platform (DIGIC 5), sensor technology, lenses and flash technology. The only catch is that a lot of photographers can't see it because they would not benefit from it, because they work with a controlled environment.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> To me it looks like Canon is making technological leaps in this period, changing platform (DIGIC 5), sensor technology, lenses and flash technology. The only catch is that a lot of photographers can't see it because they would not benefit from it, because they work with a controlled environment.



Are you talking about studio shooters here? rather than landscapers or street togs?

I would guess those are the 3 main categories of use for the 5DII?


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 22, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> *So, the 5D3 will have at least the same noise levels as the 1Dx* (except if the technology used in the sensor is too expensive for a camera price below $5000).



I seriously doubt that. 1Dx is created for sport photogs who need the ultimate low-light performance to stop action under any light conditions. 5DIII however will be aimed to a much different market. This doesn't mean it won't have great low-light capabilities, but it will simply not be in the same league as the 1Dx.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

I think the 5DIII has got to be at least good at 12800 to match the current 1D4 - more from a marketing point of view than from a real world need. Studio shooters will have good lights, landscapers have tripods and longer shutter speeds.

I wouldn't have thought extreme low light performance would be high up the design list as the higher the ISO the lower the IQ. As the 5dxx range is about high IQ then high ISO is probably not working in the right direction.

What I would like to see is first class IQ at ISO 1600 with good IQ/low noise at iso12800


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Posted this in another thread too - look at the exif of this picture that I took this evening in a dull hall and come to your own conclusions
> 
> http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/b09g8538x.JPG





briansquibb said:


> I am getting usable photos at iso12800 - and there was no noise reduction applied.



Ahhh, I see. There aren't exactly lots of shadows or smooth detail in that linked image which make it a great one to compare noise. 

And no noise reduction. Because shrinking a 16 MP image to a 0.5 MP image doesn't reduce noise. At all.


----------



## pedro (Nov 22, 2011)

Picsfor said:


> I fully expect the 5D3 to make 12800 a working ISO, if not 25600...



Thanks for posting your opinon. Quite revealing to me. And yes picsfor, hope it'll have a working ISO of 25600 and as some other poster mentioned: Hope Canon will follow their track laid by the 1Dx and keep the MP's at 24-28 or better 24 including sensor improvements trickled down from the 1Dx technique. If the 1Dx is a league of its own, why not add an 1Dsish body to it...? So a 5D3 could remain within a decent MP count. Even though the asian notion is not to fall behind competition (related to a rumored D800 36 MP monster), hope they keep to the formula presented with the 1Dx...the slow down the MP race a bit. But that's my two cents.


----------



## NotABunny (Nov 22, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > To me it looks like Canon is making technological leaps in this period, changing platform (DIGIC 5), sensor technology, lenses and flash technology. The only catch is that a lot of photographers can't see it because they would not benefit from it, because they work with a controlled environment.
> ...



Not only, but anyone who can control the conditions of their shooting. A landscape shooter can take the time (including doing it in different days) to shoot a scene, plus the landscape doesn't move. An event is non-repeatable (unless it's staged, in which case it goes in the other category: controlled).


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Nov 22, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Not only, but anyone who can control the conditions of their shooting. A landscape shooter can take the time (including doing it in different days) to shoot a scene, plus the landscape doesn't move. An event is non-repeatable (unless it's staged, in which case it goes in the other category: controlled).



Just a minor quibble, but what about landscape photos taken from an airplane? Given the expense and the aviation factors- it's not always possible to have a lot of control over the scene. AF, IQ *and * resolution are all important with aerial photography.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Posted this in another thread too - look at the exif of this picture that I took this evening in a dull hall and come to your own conclusions
> ...



and the point of your email was.........

you saw a glossy black dog in the other thread, with shadows. Faced with real life pictures your only response is to try and score points?? The best way to do that is to show evidence to the contrary - which of course you haven't got.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

dilbert said:


> I would like to see a real ISO 50 rather than an underexposed ISO 100.



Good point! The current iso 50 gives better IQ (according to some lab tests) but a native ISO50 could be stunning


----------



## Meh (Nov 23, 2011)

dilbert said:


> I would like to see a real ISO 50 rather than an underexposed ISO 100.



Isn't it the opposite... ISO50 is ISO100 overexposed by 1 stop then pulled back 1 stop via software?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 23, 2011)

I suppose that would work, though it definitely doesn't make sense to do that. An alternative would be to just expose at ISO 100, as normal...at this extreme low end of the ISO scale there will only be a problem if shooting a super-fast lens, but if the highlights are blown out you can't save them by pulling back an ISO 100 file. It would be better to just pull back brightness (which is all that ISO is controlling, after all, via an analogue for sensitivity, i.e. gain) in your favorite software package, or use an ND filter. It's definitely a (rare) problem, but the basic fact is that to get the higher ISO settings the baseline for sensor sensitivity seems to need to be set higher.

Since we've come this far, here's some amusing (but informative) reading, not for the easily offended though:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1081982


----------



## KeithR (Nov 23, 2011)

pedro said:


> and about 1 stop compared to a 7D



Errr... it _ain't_, you know. Not even close. 

A 7D will happily give a 5D Mk II a run for its money at high ISO.


----------



## KeithR (Nov 23, 2011)

willrobb said:


> For the 7D though, I found it excellent up to ISO 640, good at 800, 1000 was pushing it a bit and by 1600 I found it to not be so good, sometimes fine, bit more often than not way too noisy for me.



*1600 ISO*











*3200 ISO*










*6400 ISO*















*8500 ISO* (6400 ISO underexposed then pushed on conversion):







*12800 ISO*





*The forum software has reduced the size of these - click on 'em to see all the "noise". Oh, and before anyone bothers, yes they're small anyway - you can take my word (or not) that they look superb printed big; and yes, not much shadow in them, but they're still in crappy light for the most part (Exif's in all of them).*



> Maybe I just had a dud


Well yes, that's _one_ possible explanation...


----------



## torger (Nov 23, 2011)

Here's a comparison to look at:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=canon_s100&masterSample=img_0074.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=canon_s100&slot0Sample=img_0074.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=canon_eos7d&slot1Sample=canon7d_iso6400.acr&slot2Camera=nikon_d3s&slot2Sample=nikond3s_iso6400.acr&slot3Camera=canon_eos5dmkii&slot3Sample=img_0057.acr&x=-0.0959289424730138&y=0.03266440092941393

where you can see that the difference between 7D and 5Dmk2 is not very large. The 5D is a liiiittle better. Measurement-wise it is about one stop at 18%, and one stop more to D3s. The compact camera s100 is about two stops worse than the 7D, so there we see very real differences. Note that the D3s in this comparison looks a bit better than it is compared to 5Dmk2 due to more saturated colors in the raw conversion.

A large part of high ISO noise is photon shot noise which has no pattern, and thus is quite acceptable. Noise is usually less visible and disturbing in a print than one might think when looking at a 100% crop. I rarely use noise reduction when processing raws since it kills color and detail, and the noise is not so disturbing in the print.

Also note that if you don't mind short DoF there is a possibility on the fullframe to gather more light in the same amount of time. For example if you need 50/1.2 on the 7D for a certain view, you can use 85/1.2 on the 5Dmk2 to get the same view and then you have the option with shorter DoF (more light), in this case about a stop or so, which means that you may be able to use ISO1600 on your 5D with 85mm while you need ISO3200 on the 7D with 50mm. If you need the same DoF there will be no difference though, since you then need to use a smaller aperture on the 5D.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 23, 2011)

KeithR said:


> *The forum software has reduced the size of these - click on 'em to see all the "noise". Oh, and before anyone bothers, yes they're small anyway - you can take my word (or not) that they look superb printed big; and yes, not much shadow in them, but they're still in crappy light for the most part (Exif's in all of them).*


These represent cases of covering up noise with random detail and JPEG posterization, to me. Can't tell much about the noise other than that it doesn't overcome these effects, and the actual information in the JPEGs, at web rez.

If you printed these exact images "big" you'd either be seeing the benefits of said posterization and the low rez, or you'd be using the original files which we don't have before us to compare with. But point taken - for web use, at least, these are fine (although the football lion shot is such that, even in the embedded size, it looks grainy).


----------



## bycostello (Nov 24, 2011)

if the 1dx is anything to go by, it sounds like you could almost shoot in the dark!!


----------



## pakosouthpark (Nov 24, 2011)

bycostello said:


> if the 1dx is anything to go by, it sounds like you could almost shoot in the dark!!



is there any examples out yet?


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 24, 2011)

pakosouthpark said:


> bycostello said:
> 
> 
> > if the 1dx is anything to go by, it sounds like you could almost shoot in the dark!!
> ...



I still don't know how I feel about the 1DX. Half of me wants to believe the people who seem to say @it's perfect at 51200. But the other half looks at the only 2-stops better than 1D. Which is only a stop better than the 1Ds. Which may make it as good at a D3s/x. So i'm gonna wait and see when it's out...


----------

