# 1DX and 5D3 RAW files



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2013)

I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2013)

I don't know, and I'd like to, but the same is true of 1Ds MkIII files and 5D MkII files, even though the 1Ds MkIII is older you can work the files to a greater degree than the 5D MkII files.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2013)

That's exactly it! And I know, going by DxOmark, the sensors have about the same DR. Either way, I'd love to learn more about other aspects of sensor tech.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2013)

I don't doubt it but the 5D3 files are already fantastic.


----------



## Northstar (May 21, 2013)

Larger pixel "wells"? Just a guess.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 21, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Larger pixel "wells"? Just a guess.



Yes, I knew they had larger pixel wells. How does this make a RAW file better? Do you know? Thanks Northstar.


----------



## tron (May 21, 2013)

*Re: 1DX, 6D and 5D3 RAW files*

May I take advantage of this thread - instead of opening a very similar one - and ask to include EOS 6D in the equation.

Can someone comment on its raw files too (in relation to 1Dx and 5D3 raw files) ?

Thanks.


----------



## Archangel72 (May 21, 2013)

Well... 22,3 Mp vs 18,1 Mp = 4,2 Mp means much larger amount of light data in less resolution for 1Dx - less noise, better DR... that's for stills, video quality is now far better in 5dMarkIII after new Magic Lantern firmware, so 3.000,00 $ more = means weaker video quality than 5DMarkIII... ooooh joy :
Why... oooo.... why ML doesn't make firmware for rest of us Canon users?
C'mon ML, give it a try... what a video quality would that be for 1Dx


----------



## Northstar (May 21, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Larger pixel "wells"? Just a guess.
> ...



I don't know, but I seem to remember reading that within each "pixel well", a percentage of said "well" gather's light and a percentage is "other stuff" (electronics circuits or whatever) 

My understanding is that better technology has increased the "gathers light" portion of the "well" as the circuitry part/percentage is reduced through tech advances....the 1dx has a larger "well" and more of that larger well gathers light because the tech is better/smaller?

I'm prob wrong...but that is my "laymen" understanding of the tech... someone please correct me if I am wrong..I am not a techie at all.

North


----------



## Act444 (May 21, 2013)

I can only speak from my own experience...the 5D3 raw files DEFINITELY offer more "wiggle room" than those taken with the crop-sensor EOS M (and my old 60D)...


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

1DX raw files have more DR in the shadows and highlights. Where the 5D3 shines is in the smaller size of the noise patterns at higher ISO. They can be filtered out to a higher degree than on the 1DX. However there are tricks you can do to make the noise less visible..such as overexposing and bringing the exposure back down in post. You can also do the same with the 5D3 but you cannot pull the exposure too far or you will destroy the highlights.

Each one has it's benefits. I shoot mostly wildlife and that involves a lot of cropping. The 5D3 can be cropped way farther than the 1DX due to the higher pixel density...and still any high iso noise is easier to filter out due to the smaller noise patterns.

However, one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance. Both cameras were purpose built and you need to choose the best one based on the overall package. DR and noise can be compensated for to some degree but other factors cannot.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 21, 2013)

> one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance



Why on earth not? If outright IQ is a major consideration RAW performance is the benchmark. Any lens can be made to work on pretty much any camera, but we can't swap sensors.

But I think we are getting off track, certainly the bit I am interested in. If I may be so bold I think my comparison is less likely to be derailed with irrelevant side issues, so here goes.

Specifically, why does a 1Ds MkIII RAW file have more "wiggle room" than a 5D MkII RAW file? They are basically the same sensor, in fact Canon rated the later 5D MkII as having slightly better higher iso performance than the 1Ds MkIII.

I can only surmise that the electronic components inside the 1 series cameras are higher quality than the ones inside the 5D series camera, but I have no proof of that. These 1 series components create less issues in the recording process and so this creates the wiggle room.

But I'd love to know the actual real reason.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

I'm not talking about lenses. I'm talking about camera features that have nothing to do with IQ. For example a sports photographer would very much need 12 fps vs 6 where a wedding photographer could care less as long as he can get good DR of a wedding dress. Sensor IQ is NOT the only factor to consider. If you are an amateur then buy what you want, as you wont notice the difference in IQ between the two.

I've used both. I own the 5D3 and tried the 1DX on Canon eval. I still dont own the 1DX..while the 12fps is nice for capturing birds in flight, the 23MP sensor on the 5D3 offers me more as well as the quieter shutter. More DR doesnt do any good if the shutter scares off your subject.

So the point is, DR between the 5D3 and 1DX is so similar most will not be able to tell the difference...Only in side by side comparison of the same shot can you really see what the difference is.

I've never owned a 1D III or a 5DII so I cant speak about those..but they are not part of this subject anyway.



privatebydesign said:


> > one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth not? If outright IQ is a major consideration RAW performance is the benchmark. Any lens can be made to work on pretty much any camera, but we can't swap sensors.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> I'm not talking about lenses. I'm talking about camera features that have nothing to do with IQ. For example a sports photographer would very much need 12 fps vs 6 where a wedding photographer could care less as long as he can get good DR of a wedding dress. Sensor IQ is NOT the only factor to consider. If you are an amateur then buy what you want, as you wont notice the difference in IQ between the two.
> 
> I've used both. I own the 5D3 and tried the 1DX on Canon eval. I still dont own the 1DX..while the 12fps is nice for capturing birds in flight, the 23MP sensor on the 5D3 offers me more as well as the quieter shutter. More DR doesnt do any good if the shutter scares off your subject.
> 
> ...


So you don't know the answer, why not just say that? You are going off on your own imagined sidetrack, there is a huge difference between RAW performance and DR, which is only one metric of a cameras output.

My question was a more direct comparison of bdunbar's original question that he agreed with and, I had hoped, less able to be sidetracked. The same (effectively) sensor in two different priced cameras the older 1 series has better wiggle room characteristics. Wiggle room IS NOT about DR, it is about IQ, specifically when RAW files are heavily reworked, noise, banding, FPN, etc etc are more controllable in 1 series cameras than 5 series cameras. The question is, specifically, WHY? What component or process is used in a 1 series RAW file that is not used in a 5 series one? Not what should I buy to shoot sports or weddings, the question is a 100% techie question.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

I wouldn't necessarily say the 1DX raw is "better". It is in some ways and not so in others. however to answer your question, consider the two sensors 23MP and 18MP both full frame. The pixels in the 18MP sensor are able to capture more photons per pixel than on a 23MP sensor. In order to produce the same exposure between the two, the 23MP sensor must be amplified internally to compensate for fewer photons. This is why the shadows sometimes suffer on the 5D3. There isnt enough photons down under to pull out shadow detail. On the high end, the 5D3 loses as well because the amplification is to high for the bright pixels.

So in a nut shell, the 5D3 has to undergo some internal amplification of the photons detected to achieve the same exposure. It's not good or bad, it's just what has to be done when you spread out the photons onto a higher pixel density sensor.

So back to one of my previous statements in that you can get the 5D3 to perform just like the 1DX and in some cases better. Just have to realize that the lower 3 stops of the DR (both cameras) comprise of less than HALF of the available DR..and that means that the 2 stops on the high end make up more than half. If you bias your exposure toward those two stops on the high end you can pull down your shadows and get similar results as the 1DX..at least as far as shadow detail is concerned. Not many people are savy enough to know how to get 5 stops of DR in their photographs and that's why there is HDR process.

I personally like the 5D3 raw files better than the 1DX, not from a DR perspective but from a noise perspective. It's just smaller, more random and easier to deal with than the 1DX. Perhaps the 1DX is better at super high ISO but I still find the noise to be bothersome compared to the 5D3. That's me and others will differ in their opinion. I wont be buying a 1DX but I'm waiting to see what the next generation will be like. Hopefully an improved photon amplification system and better signal to noise ratio. 





bdunbar79 said:


> I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 21, 2013)

That doesn't answer the question and is patently false when you use my just as valid comparison, which is why I did it.

It seems nobody knows what component or process is used in 1 series cameras than enable more severe adjustments to a RAW file than a 5 series cameras RAW file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2013)

I'm sure someone knows, just no one on these forums.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you. I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years. 10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation. The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise. It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area. I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel. To me you are just noise.

I am quite done with this.



privatebydesign said:


> That doesn't answer the question and is patently false when you use my just as valid comparison, which is why I did it.
> 
> It seems nobody knows what component or process is used in 1 series cameras than enable more severe adjustments to a RAW file than a 5 series cameras RAW file.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.



If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it? The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?


----------



## K-amps (May 21, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You underestimate Canon's desire to cripple lessor bodies to protect higher margin products... After how ML unearthed the RAW video performance from the 5d3 that Canon crippled via firmware... this belief has only gained strength. I have no evidence for this specific case, but so seems to be the general trend. Canon will not let you have the best of breed by paying half price.

While I can understand the desire to increase margin rates, they should not be done at the expense of absolute margin numbers. Meaning, what made the 5d2 such a huge success? It was a value proposition. It gave a lot more for the price point than other products (including Canon's) provided on a per dollar basis. And while Canon can think the 5d2 stole some of 1Ds3's sales, why are they ignoring the massive cash stream that the 5d2 generated? The 5D2 did a heck of a lot more to win people over to Canon than the 1Ds3 ever did... in the long term, the halo related benefits continue to give Canon additional revenue despite the 5D2 not being sold anymore... I digress.

Coming back to the topic, my vote goes to coding magic of the RAW files...


----------



## sanj (May 21, 2013)

I have had both cameras for a bit now and have collected lots of RAW from both cameras and as I get time I process them and put them in correct folders.

I NEVER COME TO KNOW WHICH CAMERA TOOK WHICH PHOTO unless I check metadata. 

My opinion: There is no difference in IQ. I may be wrong, but I would not pick either camera just for IQ. While shooting, it is a different story altogether. 

Would love for someone to post photos and educate me. Not challenging, I want to learn.


----------



## Meh (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.
> 
> Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you. I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years. 10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation. The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise. It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area. I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel. To me you are just noise.
> 
> I am quite done with this.



You can get help for your anger issues. There are experienced therapists waiting. Some even have over 30 years of experience.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

You missed the point. It's in the amplification process. If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush. Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.

But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support. No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras. The reason is the same. Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.



neuroanatomist said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.
> ...


----------



## K-amps (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> You missed the point. It's in the amplification process. If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush. Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.
> 
> But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support. No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras. The reason is the same. Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.
> 
> ...



Unless someone can show me a photo of the DAC or op-amp used to amplify the signal is different in the 5d3 vs 1dx, I am not buying the different amp theory... but I can understand larger pixels will have less noise to begin with, but to me that is a function of ISO at the end of the day. If Both bodies shoot at lets say 160 ISO (fix ISO and vary shutter speed only) for both bodies, I suspect the noise levels will be similar in the RAW files... will they not?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.
> 
> Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you. I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years. 10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation. The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise. It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area. I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel. To me you are just noise.
> 
> ...



I believe, sir, you are the one taking a patronising tone _"To me you are just noise"_ indeed! Experience, how would you know what experience I have?¹ As Neuro quite rightly points out your over simplification, is so oversimplified and patently false, it is of no value, and is certainly not the answer.

But you are not reading the words I write. Compare a same density and generation, heck it is the same sensor (effectively), 1Ds MkIII and a 5D MkII RAW file (which completely nullifies your suggestion about density and amplification) and you will see the difference. My _"little brain"_ is interested in what, exactly, makes that difference. I am not surprised there is a difference, and I am certainly not underestimating built in obsolescence or model differentiation, but there are some members here with very in depth knowledge and interest in these things and the hope was one of them might have read and understood a white paper or patent or some such technical document that would actually answer, at least in part, the specific question.

You don't have the answer, by your reply I'd suggest you didn't even understand the question. I don't know the answer either, again as Neuro suggests, I suspect nobody here does.

Note: 1. For the record I got my first paid photography work in 1978 and shot my first wedding as primary (only) shooter in 1980. For whatever that is worth.............


----------



## Meh (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.



Please explain what you mean by this statement.


----------



## Northstar (May 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> I have had both cameras for a bit now and have collected lots of RAW from both cameras and as I get time I process them and put them in correct folders.
> 
> I NEVER COME TO KNOW WHICH CAMERA TOOK WHICH PHOTO unless I check metadata.
> 
> ...




i think you're correct sanj....i would say there is no discernible difference between the two in good light with nothing moving..imo.

but i think bdun was referring to higher iso shots....and I would agree with him, the 1dx is slightly better when working a raw image in post at higher iso.....imo.

this past winter i shot a lot of hockey, and spent considerable time trying to "work" the dark areas under hockey helmets so that i could see more and better face detail...the 1dx was slightly better than 5d3 for this at iso 1600 and up


----------



## pwnagepeter (May 21, 2013)

For those interested, here is from someone who reverse engineered the CR2 raw's:

From a data container perspective there's a lot to learn.

Haven't had the time to go through everything to answer OP's question whether there really is more raw data (read: more POWER ;-)) in the 1Dx raws or not.

Please enjoy the read:
http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal. Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ. There are a lot of different points to consider. What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog. It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.



Meh said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.
> ...


----------



## polarhannes (May 21, 2013)

Thank you for sharing this information - quite interesting!



pwnagepeter said:


> For those interested, here is from someone who reverse engineered the CR2 raw's:
> 
> From a data container perspective there's a lot to learn.
> 
> ...


----------



## Northstar (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
> 
> This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.
> 
> ...



this makes sense eastwind...and i think somewhere in the supporting electronics/advanced circuits/design lies the specific answer to bdun's question.

one question though...if "better quality components/circuitry" supporting each photosite is so critical, then why does my old nikon d7000 (for $1000) have significantly better DR under iso 400 compared to a $6700 1dx when the "supporting parts" are surely of lesser quality.....does it all fall on design at that point?


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

Oh man, there are a lot of moving targets to make that comparison.  It's likely a combination of factors. However the best solution to better IQ ultimately lies in better light sensitivity per pixel and less background noise. Likely a better sensor design from the start requiring less photon amplification and processing after the image is acquired. 

Often a solution may be better suited for one particular situation but to bring it to market has to work in a variety of situations and someone makes a decision to live with less quality in order to support a wider range of operating conditions. We see that in many different products including cars where we can get incredible gas mileage but you can't deviate from sea level. Drive up a mountain and your car stalls out. They have to be made to withstand anything the consumer can throw at it and keep working. the nikon may very well have been designed with ISO 400 in mind to keep costs down whereas the 1DX may have been designed with higher ISO in mind.



Northstar said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
> ...


----------



## Quasimodo (May 21, 2013)

pwnagepeter said:


> For those interested, here is from someone who reverse engineered the CR2 raw's:
> 
> From a data container perspective there's a lot to learn.
> 
> ...



Thanks! Looking forward to read it.


----------



## Meh (May 21, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
> 
> This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.
> 
> ...



Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise". All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high. Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2013)

Meh said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.
> ...



But wait, he stated,



East Wind Photography said:


> I am quite done with this.



When an individual's metacognition is insufficiently developed to understand when s/he has moved on from a concept, others may question that individuals understanding of more complex issues.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

No actually trying to say that a poor (cheap) amplifier can introduce more noise than a higher quality one such that when it's amplified, the photons can be pulled further from the noise. All of the noise you see in an image is not due to what you are photographing, it's noise from the amplifiers within the chip including that introduced by heat.

The best amplifier in the world will not produce any noise and as such will be able to pull the photons perfectly from a noiseless background.

So it's likely the higher end cameras have higher quality amplifiers (equals less noise) and in the case of the 1DX has a chip that is capable of recording more photons per pixel. Probably one of the reasons they stayed with the 18MP sensor so they could get better high ISO performance.



Meh said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
> ...


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 21, 2013)

I was done with the insults  I limit myself to one per month whether someone deserves it or not!



neuroanatomist said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure someone knows, just no one on these forums.



"This is off our first record, most people don't own it"


----------



## qwerty (May 22, 2013)

Which begs the question... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Seriously though, can anyone give an example of an image, shot with identical exposure and lens of the same scene at the same time, and with the same post-processing, that illustrates the OP's point (1)?

DxO (don't start...) shows the 1dx having a slight but real advantage in terms of both resolution-normalized and per-pixel performance, but the levels are less than what I personally would be able to notice without analysis or a very contrived example.

Have you considered the possibility that people shooting with a 1dx are just more adept (on average) at getting the most out of their gear? A priori, I think this is the most likely explanation for what the OP observes. *A pro with a 1dx will take a better shot and post-process it better than a doofus with a 5d iii like me  * The reason you see more in the processed image is because there is more there to start with. I expect if you switched the cameras so that the pro had the 5d iii, you would find that the 5d iii magically started producing much better raw images (that could be pushed further).


(1) Note that, according to official camera discussion forum rules, if the obvious conclusion drawn from the illustrative image disagrees with anyone's biases, any conclusions drawn from it will not be considered acceptable unless the artistic merit of said image would make everyone from an Old Master to the most fringe avante-garde artist weep tears of ecstasy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2013)

qwerty said:


> Have you considered the possibility that people shooting with a 1dx are just more adept (on average) at getting the most out of their gear? A priori, I think this is the most likely explanation for what the OP observes. *A pro with a 1dx will take a better shot and post-process it better than a doofus with a 5d iii like me  * The reason you see more in the processed image is because there is more there to start with. I expect if you switched the cameras so that the pro had the 5d iii, you would find that the 5d iii magically started producing much better raw images (that could be pushed further).



Well, the OP has a 5DIII and a pair of 1D X bodies, and is therefore speaking from personal experience of shooting similar scenes (gymnasium sports with f/2.8 supertele primes, needing fast shutter speeds in the typically poor lighting of such venues) with both cameras _personally_. He's processing his own RAW files from the two cameras, and the needs of the shots often demand careful work in post (if you've shot basketball, volleyball, etc., in a gym, you're familiar with the need for high ISO, the crappy color of the inadequate-for-photography lighting, etc.). He's commented in several threads on the difference in how far he can push files from the two cameras. 

So in this case, I don't think your explanation is the likely one.


----------



## qwerty (May 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> qwerty said:
> 
> 
> > Have you considered the possibility that people shooting with a 1dx are just more adept (on average) at getting the most out of their gear? A priori, I think this is the most likely explanation for what the OP observes. *A pro with a 1dx will take a better shot and post-process it better than a doofus with a 5d iii like me  * The reason you see more in the processed image is because there is more there to start with. I expect if you switched the cameras so that the pro had the 5d iii, you would find that the 5d iii magically started producing much better raw images (that could be pushed further).
> ...



I stand corrected. My bad for not noticing his signature. I have not seen his previous posts, but will take a look.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

The majority of my experiences are with my 1Ds MkIII's and customer (I print for other photographers) 5D MkII files, and I feel that this is an equally valid, if not more so (and the OP agreed with me), comparison due to the aforementioned same sensor but different output.

I know from hands on experience that 5D MkII RAW files are not as malleable as 1Ds MkIII RAW files.

This is not a question of DR, noise, banding, FPN or any one "issue" it is a comment on the actual finished output of the image file, the 1 series cameras just have more flexibility in them when worked by the same person.

Here is an example of a torture test where a 5D MkII would get very different results, unfortunately I don't have direct comparison shots but try this with a 5D MkII.

Image is a 1Ds MkIII shot at 1600iso and underexposed by two stops. This was then lifted in post by two stops to give an effective 6400iso at an EV of 10ish, or just past sunset light. I did noise reduction to a level many would feel excessive but I wanted to see what detail was left, as you can see from the 100% crop the individual hairs are still rendered well. Note there is zero banding, no noise and no FPN. Detail and DR have been badly impacted but the image is 100% usable at a variety of sizes.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 22, 2013)

Thanks everyone for the continued discussions. Really interesting stuff so far. I've been thinking about this and I don't think it is a DR issue. It seems, like pbd is saying, the colors, contrast, other things. And I owned a 1Ds3 and I like working with those RAW files more than the 5D2 as well. Not that the 5D2 didn't produce great images (it did!) but it was the "maleability" of the RAW files as pbd says.

Good news is that I think I do have my RAW files from both the 1Ds3 and 5D3 on a trip last summer. I am going to look at those. 

Neuro's right. I didn't take my 5D3 into high ISO situations not because it's not good at high ISO, it's just that objectively the skin tones were much easier to correct with the 1Dx than the 5D3, noise aside. And just going by the sensor scores/performance reviews, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2013)

To bring some new points to the discussion... the 1Ds Mark III and the 5D Mark II have both the same sensor, but a different CPU. The Digic III and Digic IV may differ a lot in signalprocessing. Which doesn't mean that one or another is better. The same goes to 1DX and 5D Mark III, of course they both share a Digic V+, but the 1DX has two of em. 

As you all know from the Intel or AMD Market, a CPU has a lot of steps and internal improvement from one series to another, even if they share the same name (f.e. Core2). 

Last but not least, the internal firmwarealghorithm may differ from cam to cam. So somethimes the raws are getting better with a firmwareupdate, no one knows why


----------



## RGF (May 23, 2013)

East Wind Photography said:


> Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
> 
> This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.
> 
> ...



EWP

Let me pose the following, it is a question that I have wondering about for a while.

If I take the native signal from the sensor as capture let's it would be a proper exposure at ISO 800. At ISO 400 the electronics would amplify the signal "half" as much. At ISO 100 the amplification would be an "eighth. Let me take the image from ISO 800 and from ISO 100. I then increase the exposure of the ISO 100 image by 3 stops in PS.

Naively they should give very similar results, but electronic gain gives a better picture. Why? Does the electronic amplification provide a more continuous signal?

And to take this one more step further, how does statistics of counting random events which is described by a poison distribution enter into the discussion (or is the number of photons generally so large that signal noise except at very high ISO values does not matter)?


----------



## CarlTN (May 23, 2013)

My neighbor / cousin-in-law...just last week, bought a 1DX with his newly earned "toy money"...and claims he has now relegated his 5D3 to his wife, with a 50 1.4 attached, to make it easier for her to carry around. 

So I hope to attempt to put the 1DX to the test in low light at some point, hopefully with my 135L mounted.

I must say, holding his 1DX with 70-200 f/2.8 series 1, mounted...and then my 6D with 70-200 f/4 (non-IS), it was quite a lot more weight. Holding his was kind of like holding three bricks, mine fealt light as a feather. I would not want to walk around with that weight all day. I own one lens that is a bit more weight than a 70-200 2.8, but I use it on a monopod. I've rented superteles, and used them on the monopod also (or a tripod).

I might be seen as stupid for asking this, but it seems like much of the recent discussion in this thread, has degenerated into speaking about the 1DX's dynamic range and s/n ratio, _at lower ISO_. And yet, the OP shoots basketball games, etc...in less than ideal light at higher ISO. So why even discuss the low ISO capability, especially if all the independent tests indicate that higher ISO is where the 1DX really shines, and was obviously meant to be used?

It seems to me, that rather than compare the 1DX to Nikon crop bodies at low ISO, or to the 5D3 at most any ISO...that it should be compared to the Nikon D3s. I suspect the D3s would give it a serious run for its money, perhaps in the ISO range from 1000 to 25,600. Of course the file dimensions are only 12 MP from the D3s, but it would still be interesting to compare...because if the D3s really does have lower noise of both types, then the actual or practical resolution from the RAW files might be equal or even superior to the 1DX (at least as ISO goes up, perhaps above ISO 4000 or 5000).

It's interesting that the noise pattern of the 1DX might be larger and more difficult to overcome in post editing, since I've found the same true going from the 5D3's files, to my 6D. The 6D's noise, especially the luminance noise (or "grain")...is about 1/3 the size of the 5D3's...at least on these particular bodies that I've used.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> So why even discuss the low ISO capability, especially if all the independent tests indicate that higher ISO is where the 1DX really shines, and was obviously meant to be used?



Why? Because that's Mikael/ankorwatt's hobby horse that he likes to ride into every thread that he visits. :

But he was absolutely correct in stating, 



ankorwatt said:


> no , they have not the same sensor, there are different regarding CFA , FWC , QE and read out noise


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> My neighbor / cousin-in-law...just last week, bought a 1DX with his newly earned "toy money"...and claims he has now relegated his 5D3 to his wife, with a 50 1.4 attached, to make it easier for her to carry around.
> 
> So I hope to attempt to put the 1DX to the test in low light at some point, hopefully with my 135L mounted.
> 
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## CarlTN (May 23, 2013)

Haha...ok .

Wow, you both pounced on my post before I even edited it...I added the stipulation "above 4000 or 5000".

Another thing I noticed on his 1DX, with the speed at 12 fps, I could not distinctly hear or feel it clicking...it just sounded like a continuous "buzz". I guess I will experiment more with that...whenever he lets me. (By contrast, the 1D4 that I rented, at 10fps, I could definitely hear distinct clicking...the vibration feel through the body was probably similar).

He likes to shoot everything in "program" mode, but I've suggested he try shutter priority, or manual mode...both with ISO in automatic. 

I also wish he had bought a 300mm f/2.8...even a used series 1 would be nice. He likes shooting birds with his 600 series 1, more than other wildlife, so I doubt he'll ever get a 300.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> He likes to shoot everything in "program" mode



Isn't that how everyone uses their 1D X?


----------



## CarlTN (May 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > He likes to shoot everything in "program" mode
> ...



It's not how I would use it!


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

RGF said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.
> ...



I can do this very experiment today. RAW's at 1Dx/5D3 one stop underexposed at ISO 400, then at ISO 800, 4 photos.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

Hehe, well this is going to be more difficult than it looks. At the same everything, again, at -1EV, 0EV, and +1EV (ISO 200, 400, 800) the 1Dx files are darker than the 5D3 files. The exposure is different. On my 1Dx I checked and have not done any AE micradjustment, just 0EV base. Can someone refresh my memory as to why this is, because I've noticed it before this test.


----------



## wockawocka (May 23, 2013)

Right ladies, lets clear this up.

I own the 1DX, 5D3 and the Hasselblad H4D50 (Which has by far the smallest pixels).

It's all about the sensor and how the information is read from it.

The 5D3 is half the price of the 1DX, the 1DX has the best sensor by default.

Pixel size isn't really that relevant, my H4D50 pixel sizes are half that of the 1DX, yet produce a superior image out of the three of them. And, I can push an ISO 50 file 3-4 stops, with better highlight and shadow recovery that even the 1DX.

It's about the type and quality of the sensor and how the camera reads the information from it. It's not all about pixel size. Fat pixels help, but as an example the D800 can be pushed wayyyyy up in the shadow department yet has tiny pixels. The 7D pixels are the same at the D800 but it's IQ sucks balls.

Maybe the 1DX has gold sensor lines vs copper on the 5D3. Who cares really?

You could try to work out why this is, but frankly don't bother, go out and take some photos. Let the guys in the labs keep designing great sensors for us to take advantage of.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

You said, "right ladies, let's clear this up"

But upon reading your post, you have no idea either. I'm not being disrespectful it's just that you cleared up nothing. Sorry. :


----------



## CarlTN (May 23, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> You said, "right ladies, let's clear this up"
> 
> But upon reading your post, you have no idea either. I'm not being disrespectful it's just that you cleared up nothing. Sorry. :



Agree! And I'm no lady...sometimes barely a gentleman !!


----------



## CarlTN (May 23, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> Maybe the 1DX has gold sensor lines vs copper on the 5D3. Who cares really?



I tell ya what, I care...and frankly this proves how little you know about electronics and electricity transfer. Gold is actually a far inferior conductor of electricity than copper. The only reason gold is used on electrical contacts, is because it does not degrade much over time as it oxidizes (and it oxidizes very little). However, gold is very soft and malleable, and there are other materials and compounds that are less costly and/or more durable than gold, that are sometimes used at the electrical contact point (where exposure to oxidation is at its strongest...and also where the two contacts are exposed to pressure and torque as connections are tightened). Speaker connection terminals on highend audo loudspeakers are known to use rhodium, and all other manner of materials...sometimes plated onto copper, sometimes machined solid. They all have various sonic signatures, and certainly impart a signature on the electrical signal, however minute the difference might be in practical terms, where the higher current is present in such a signal.

With signals of low current and higher voltage components, such as those occurring within a digital camera, it seems to me that solid gold traces would actually inhibit signal transfer, as compared to copper.

However, silver conducts electricity better than all other materials (including copper and gold), other than hyper-cooled "superconductors". Also, silver oxide conducts electricity, while copper oxide does not. Some highend audio companies such as "Audio Note" have used silver cabling with a clear dielectric, so that you can see the silver was intentionally pre-oxidized, and thus appears more of a gold-ish color. Some audio cable companies do use gold, or else gold appears in the alloy, because they like its sonic signature.

So it seems to me, that if copper is not used, then silver should be used for signal traces within or between silicon substrates...perhaps plated with gold if the environment is exposed to a higher degree of oxidation. But solid gold only inhibits the flow of electricity compared to copper...and is not much different in its conductivity than aluminum.


----------



## wockawocka (May 23, 2013)

This is the thing. There is nothing really to clear up.

What are you going to do with the information once you have it... become engineers?

The 5D3 and 1DX have different sensors. That's why the Raw files have different qualities. It stands to reason that the more expensive flagship model gets the best stuff and quite rightly has the best IQ.

That's all that we need to know. Different sensors, different results. It's common sense and you don't have to have any tech knowledge to work that out.

If you really must know go on the DWF forum and ask Chuck Westfall why there's a difference.

Copper / Gold was figuratively speaking. But to compare.... the Generation 4 ipod had something called a Wolfson DAC inside it. This was and still is considered the best DAC and therefore led to the best sound quality on the ipod. Ever. It's why I have an old one in my car, when using FLAC files the clarity is amazing. Apple use a different one now and it's not the same. 

Canon are not only using different sensors, but different components. Higher quality components to get a cleaner image.


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> This is the thing. There is nothing really to clear up.
> 
> What are you going to do with the information once you have it... become engineers?



We become smarter. Asking questions is what it's all about.



> Apple use a different one now and it's not the same.



Apple is gay and the users don't ask questions. We all know. :-X


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

vscd said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > This is the thing. There is nothing really to clear up.
> ...



But it doesn't matter. You don't NEED to know.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

Joking aside and to wocka's credit, I know he's right. At least I have found some individuals who see the same things I do and agree with me.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> My neighbor / cousin-in-law...just last week, bought a 1DX with his newly earned "toy money"...and claims he has now relegated his 5D3 to his wife, with a 50 1.4 attached, to make it easier for her to carry around.
> 
> So I hope to attempt to put the 1DX to the test in low light at some point, hopefully with my 135L mounted.
> 
> ...



The 1dx is superior to the D3s in every regard. Is it even reasonable to compare a 2012 18mp flagship with a 2008 12mp (no longer state of the art flagship)? 
The newer D4 should be compared to the 1Dx, but unfortunatly there's a number of pros leaving Nikon due to the lock ups and problems with their D4 cameras. Nikon have seriously dropped a clanger with this cam. Late last year I was at Birds in flight workshop and there were several guys on Nikkon bitching about their new D4 cams. Both of them swapped over to their backup D3s cams within an hour of shooting. I was the only 5DIII user (no issues and lots of great photos) and two guys with 1Dx's...again no issues and lots of great shots...the AF was amazing by the way. The 1Dx was slightly better at tracking than the 5DIII


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 29, 2013)

Interesting. I have a buddy that switched to Canon due to three Nikon body failures during the same shoot. He lost a lot of money that day from lost shots and in the end he had no working cameras. That was the main reason why I made the commitment to stay with Canon. Regardless of which body is better, if you cant take the shot, what good is it?



ankorwatt said:


> Are they ? , here in Europe lot of sports photographer/agenties moved to Nikon because of the D3S , D4 and the 200-400/4 is working so well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
> The lens line 14-24 , 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 Nikon lens was also a big argument to move over to Nikon *at this time*.



Yeah, but the "this time" to which you're referring is now 5 years ago, and two camera generations back.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 29, 2013)

If memory serves me correctly the 1DX was "rushed" to market with priority given to Olympic photographers. I'm sure there were not many who actually had their hands on it or would "trust" a brand new camera for something so critical. The only option for most was older technology.



neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
> ...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> lot of Canon sport shooters went to Nikon when Canons keepers went down with the AF problems in the 1dmk3, the D3 was much better as a sport camera and Nikon followed up with D3s , compared to 1Dmk4. At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
> The lens line 14-24 , 24-70, 70-200 and 200-400 Nikon lens was also a big argument to move over to Nikon at this time. Nikon have increased the number of users from a few up to 50/50 in some events, Canon is still Nr1.



Funny, I CAN speak from experience. I shot the Big Ten track meet this year, and out of all of the sports photogs there, there was ONE Nikon shooter. Everyone else had a 1D Mark IV or 1Dx and ALL of them had a 400 f/2.8 for their primary lens.


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > lot of Canon sport shooters went to Nikon when Canons keepers went down with the AF problems in the 1dmk3, the D3 was much better as a sport camera and Nikon followed up with D3s , compared to 1Dmk4. At the Olympic Games in Beijing there where many Canon shooters moving directly to Nikon because of the low keepers they got with 1Dmk3.
> ...



And I CAN speak from experience of watching from the sidelines . Here in India there was the Indian Premier Cricket League (quite a big national level event here) and out of the 23 photogs, 19 were using the great whites (yes, I counted them from the stands and the count is correct unless anyone was using lenscoat skins for the great whites). 

Now the way I understand, the great whites cannot be mounted on the D3 or the D3s ... so I leave you to guess which cameras the pros were using.


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Clutching straws ... Are we? The largest customer base for both cameras is in the US so the sample would be more than a fair representation. Anyway, I gave you the example from India as well. 

As always though, we can agree to disagree and move on.

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> yes and, are there any problems with the lens line from Nikon , or D4 ?



Depends. Perhaps you don't think asymmetric focusing issues, lockup issues, not to mention the XQD slot (seems like a dead-end format since SanDisk abandoned support for it, time will tell) are problems. Maybe they aren't problems...after all, the D4's sensor is perfect, and that's all that matters. :



ankorwatt said:


> there are a world l outside the USA



Is India part of the USA?



J.R. said:


> Here in India there was the Indian Premier Cricket League (quite a big national level event here) and out of the 23 photogs, 19 were using the great whites (yes, I counted them from the stands and the count is correct unless anyone was using lenscoat skins for the great whites).
> 
> Now the way I understand, the great whites cannot be mounted on the D3 or the D3s ... so I leave you to guess which cameras the pros were using.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Not at all, then you do not know about the ASIAN market including China.



Now who's talking sales? :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well , as one example, in Asia, Japan the *3DX* has been sold as a status camera, nothing Canon can brag about, do you still think sales from a 18Mp are important factor for the audience here? Then I suggest a compact camera, easier, better tuned for average people to get a straight good JPG out from the camera



What's a 3DX? If Canon had released one, they'd be bragging about it, you can count on that. 

Am I to understand that you're suggesting that I should look for 'a compact camera, easier, better tuned for average people to get a straight good JPG out from the camera'? I hope I'm simply misunderstanding you...


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I'm a hobbyist who likes to shoot and learn. I'm a qualified CPA by profession and am very, very good at what I do for a living. 

What I am NOT is someone who goes around insulting people on forums whom I've never personally met. That is surely something you cannot say for yourself. 

I'd suggest you go back and read my earlier post. What I mentioned is simple fact that can be VERIFIED from the annual reports of Nikon and Canon. Too bad if you are unable to read and are only talk. The Asian market is less than 1/3 of the US and Europe market combined. If in doubt, you can check up this link that I googled for you -

http://digital-photography-school.com/canon-vs-nikon-a-financial-and-consumer-comparison-infographic

That said, I guess learning is something that is completely beyond you because you like to live in your own la-la land where you are right and everyone else is wrong. If you are what you claim to be, I would say you need professional help. Someone with your experience is usually held in high esteem by everyone around you but your behaviour borders between childish to downright nasty and makes it impossible to have a civilised conversation. 

Again, you can go back and read my earlier post ... We can agree to disagree and move on. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you can get into "who do you think you are" sort of childish behaviour.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Dude, Nikon lost like all the sport's shooter since the 90's. They've gained a few back with the d3, but It still canon haven on the sidelines. I was watching the spurs game and it was like 80% canon on the court sidelines.

Canon make's better super-teles than nikon, especially with a tele-converted combo.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 29, 2013)

The 3DX is the pirated Canon copy they made from stolen architecture plans and reverse engineering the 1DX firmware. :



neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > well , as one example, in Asia, Japan the *3DX* has been sold as a status camera, nothing Canon can brag about, do you still think sales from a 18Mp are important factor for the audience here? Then I suggest a compact camera, easier, better tuned for average people to get a straight good JPG out from the camera
> ...


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all, then you do not know about the ASIAN market including China.
> ...



Ha ha ... It is this thoroughbred professional having umpteen years of experience who has no clue what he is talking about, check out the annual report of Nikon for the year 2012 here -

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/ar2012/12annual_e.pdf

The demographics of the sales are thus-

China - 13.7%
Europe - 24.6%
US - 24.1%
Japan - 14.2%
Others - 23.3%

I hear someone likes to talk 'facts'. Tak about the Chinese market in the face of Europe and US market ... What a joke!


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> What's a 3DX? If Canon had released one, they'd be bragging about it, you can count on that.



No they can't brag about it ... It doesn't have sufficient DR


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> have I insult people



Yes


----------



## RMC33 (May 29, 2013)

Man, Mik derails threads like my 1dx/5d3 produce great images, every time! Hell even my Leica M6 does good work still~

In regards to sports, the last two base ball (minor league) and kayaking events I have shot are all Canon shooters, and a boatload of converts for a better over all system, NOT JUST THE GD SENSOR OR LENS.

Also, Bdunbar lemme know what your test ideas are to compare the two sensors, I have both bodies, a safe full of glass and a 220 ft long studio/shop I can shoot in~


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I'd say its a 1 nikon to 3 canons in sports. Not that it really matters now since nikon users are migrating back to canon for the 1Dx.


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I'll quote you your own words Mikael, you said it best  (though in a different context it but applies to your above post as well)- 



ankorwatt said:


> sorry, its not like that, you can wish or believe what you want if that is important for you


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



A country where this saying may not be familiar with you.


----------



## J.R. (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



OK ... 15 Nikon cameras and 14 Canon ... what's your point?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> no more that some of you are living in a own world regarding your equipments, and it is only cameras.
> waiting for the hockey Detroit vs Chicago, how about you?



ankorwatt, just quit man, why do you continue to argue? Just let it go. Whether you are correct or not doesn't matter and it's not worth it. 

We're discussing 5D Mark III RAW files vs. 1DX RAW files are we not?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I still don't believe you grasp what that saying means. :-X


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> We're discussing 5D Mark III RAW files vs. 1DX RAW files are we not?



Yes, absolutely. The D800 has better DR than both. :


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> ankorwatt quit?
> 
> it was not me how start the " freedom talk"
> talk to RLP
> ...



I would love to discuss it.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2013)

With regards the sports shooters choice, Mikael did make a good point, the Beijing Olympics was a low point for Canon and the terrible job they did with the AF in the 1D MkIII. He then posted an image of one session at the swimming pool. Now I don't know how many here know how the photographers allocation goes at events like this, but if it isn't a blue ribbon event then the photography pool could be made up of people as low ranking as me, a secondary shooter for a national (very small nation) paper. A picture from one event can look very different to another event, and a crop can be made to show anything.

Now the top event, the actual kill to even get in the lottery for the "free" allocation to get the worst seat in the press section, is the men's 100m final, to get an accurate count of the white to black lenses that the best of the best in that field of sports photography are using, you would need a panoramic image where you could see almost every photographer covering the best vantage point from the mens 100m final at Beijing, the worst Olympics in recent memory for Canon.

Anybody that interested could do the count here http://www.karikuukka.com/peking2008/100m/

Certainly the combination of the 1DX and MkII teles superior AF is winning a good few back to the white side.


----------



## RMC33 (May 30, 2013)

PBD, Cool photo. It's about 2:1 Canon.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 30, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> With regards the sports shooters choice, Mikael did make a good point, the Beijing Olympics was a low point for Canon and the terrible job they did with the AF in the 1D MkIII. He then posted an image of one session at the swimming pool. Now I don't know how many here know how the photographers allocation goes at events like this, but if it isn't a blue ribbon event then the photography pool could be made up of people as low ranking as me, a secondary shooter for a national (very small nation) paper. A picture from one event can look very different to another event, and a crop can be made to show anything.
> 
> Now the top event, the actual kill to even get in the lottery for the "free" allocation to get the worst seat in the press section, is the men's 100m final, to get an accurate count of the white to black lenses that the best of the best in that field of sports photography are using, you would need a panoramic image where you could see almost every photographer covering the best vantage point from the mens 100m final at Beijing, the worst Olympics in recent memory for Canon.
> 
> ...



Very cool 360 photo. Funny, but I would guess that all those 300, 400, and 500 primes we see here will, if the same picture is taken after the next olympics at the same distanse and POV, be the new 200-400 Canon lens.


----------



## Hannes (May 30, 2013)

I took this during the mens marathon last year in London. I'm not sure what you'd need to do to get a seat on that truck but I assume you had to represent a major publication. I was honestly surprised to see how many Nikon shooters were on there.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2013)

Mikael,

See it any way you want, I have seen various reports of pros dropping Nikon due to various dislikes with the D4 yet not one doing the opposite because of the 1DX.

Nobody who has used both says the Nikon super teles are in the same league as the Canon MkII's, the Nikon 200-400 is loved and hated in equal measures by different pros, it seems subject distance is an important factor in the use of the lens, if your shooting fits in with the lens focus sweet spot then you like it, if it doesn't it is a soft, expensive, slow, POS.

So far the Canon 200-400, though having a gestation period longer than a comatose elephant, has had nothing but glowing reports, including from some very Canon critical shooters.

But I really don't care, sports shooting takes less than 5% of my time and I don't own a 1DX or a 200-400! The thread was about RAW files and the 1 series ability to dig a bit deeper in them.


----------



## Skulker (May 30, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> it says more about you and your ignorance to other contrys
> tell me, which contrys have more freedom that the Nordic contrys and Germany, Holland etc , about woman's right to abort, homo marriage and to religion freedom?
> Go out and travel and discover the world
> If it is US, I have lived there 1973-75. I love and hated it because of the double moral,double standard , simplified: you could not [email protected] but smoke lot of pott and be high as rats and then go to church every sunday , auch not the life we are used to up here in the north Europe
> are we done about "free country"



What on earth has this got to do with the topic? 

I live in Europe. Would anyone else please not take this as a typical mindset.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> what we know is that Nikon has taken big market shares from Canon and where Canon few years ago was the the dominant company



Who's the 'we' that know this? Does it include anyone but you? Can you provide some data to support that claim? 

Here is the summary as of ~7 months ago (pasted from here):

_In 2007, Canon had 43% of the dSLR market, Nikon had 40%. In 2010, Canon had 44.5% of the dSLR market, Nikon had 29.8%. So, over years while Nikon was bringing us better sensors than Canon, Nikon was losing market share while Canon was gaining it. Ok, fine, but that's 2010. What about this year?

In 2Q2012 (by calendar year, they report it as 1QFY2013), Nikon had an 18% y/y growth of unit sales of dSLRs and lenses. In 2Q2012, (they report by CY, not FY), Canon had a *47%* y/y growth of unit sales of dSLRs and lenses._

Where's this 'big market share' that Canon has lost to Nikon, and when? I look forward to your analysis...and the supporting references.

EDIT: Worth adding that about a month ago, Canon issued a press release stating that they had maintained the #1 position in the dSLR market for the past 10 years, through 2012. But maybe you're better than Canon's lawyers at checking facts, Mikael.


----------



## Northstar (May 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > what we know is that Nikon has taken big market shares from Canon and where Canon few years ago was the the dominant company
> ...




One thing about those market share numbers that would be interesting to see is the market share in the full frame market, which obviously would be more "telling" of what pros shooters use.


----------



## Skulker (May 31, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> we can discuss in absurdum ..........



At last you have given an accurate account of your posts.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 31, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> We're discussing 5D Mark III RAW files vs. 1DX RAW files are we not?



Not.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 15, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> This is the thing. There is nothing really to clear up.
> 
> What are you going to do with the information once you have it... become engineers?
> 
> ...



It's amusing that you would put forth the DAC in an iPod as an example of sound quality. I'm sure it sounds better to you than whatever else you compared it to. But I have to ask, have you ever listened to highend headphones, or a sound system for that matter? You do realize that the quality of FLAC files depend on the resolution of the format of the original file they were created and converted from, correct? If that original file was merely "red book" CD quality...so what? There are other formats and mediums which far exceed that of red book. Earbuds are fine for casual listening, but for high quality, you need highend, around-the-ear, open-backed headphones (along with a dedicated headphone amp and/or DAC...or an analog source). And if the recording is not "binaural", then the stereo imaging will still take place inside your head. It won't sound as natural as if it takes place outside the head, such as with a stereo system and speakers...or else a binaural recording. Of course, it also depends on what music you are listening to. If it is "modern" "pop"...then it's a lot less critical what you listen to it on...because it is overly compressed, processed, and usually sounds like crap anyway.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2013)

Hey, how about the most simple thing (sort of):

Since we (are supposed to ) discuss 1DX and 5D3 raw files does anyone have both cameras?

I would like to see the same picture taken with the same lens, same ISO (and hoping the ISO ratings are the same and not say 10% apart...) , Av and Tv by both cameras.
Also the picture could be taken during the day and/or the night.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2013)

tron said:


> Hey, how about the most simple thing (short of):
> 
> Since we (are supposed to ) discuss 1DX and 5D3 raw files does anyone have both cameras?
> 
> ...



I've done this quite a bit. Not so much recently though.


----------



## brad goda (Jun 16, 2013)

1DsIII and 1Dx is just better sensor than 5D II and III
the 5D had the closest looking IQ 200-400iso daylight/strobe to 1D series...


----------



## tron (Jun 16, 2013)

brad goda said:


> 1DsIII and 1Dx is just better sensor than 5D II and III
> the 5D had the closest looking IQ 200-400iso daylight/strobe to 1D series...


Since a picture is worth a thousand words do you have example pictures for all that?


----------



## telemaq76 (Jan 16, 2014)

ok 6 monthes later, here i am...i owned a 5d2 then a 5d3 then a 1ds3 and Yes the raw files from 1ds3 are far better than 5d3, especially in low ISo


----------



## memoriaphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

telemaq76 said:


> ok 6 monthes later, here i am...i owned a 5d2 then a 5d3 then a 1ds3 and Yes the raw files from 1ds3 are far better than 5d3, especially in low ISo



I tend to agree with you there. I've worked with the 5D Classic, the Mark 2 and now 5D mark 3 and I also have the 1Ds3. The 5D3 is obviously heaps better on high ISO and the better allrounder but in terms of pure IQ, pleasing color/accuracy and tonality on the lower range of the ISO scale, the 1Ds3 is better to MY eyes. What an amazing image machine that is and I always find myself preferring it over the 5D3 unless I need video or ISO above 1600-2000


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.



My speculation is that there is more latitude built into the 1 series raw file.

I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to understand the properties of a CR2 file, but I am willing to bet that there is stuff buried in the code that differentiates a 1 series image over "everything else", especially when using DPP. 

It's not just DPP, though. An underexposed 1D series file can be brightened quite a bit in Lightroom with little/no apparent problems. Noise cleans up nicely, too.

"Latitude" may not be the right word, but there must be some fundamental yet major difference in the CR2 file between a 1 series and "everything else".


----------



## nightbreath (Jan 16, 2014)

Guys, do you have any observations on the 1D X and 1Ds files difference?


----------



## memoriaphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3. I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther. Why is this? Thanks for any insight.
> ...



Yup. I am totally convinced that you don't ONLY get a better body and more custom functions for the huge extra amount of $ you have to fork out for a 1D body. Image sensor, RGB and AA filters, parameters and processing should be better and more controlled, resulting in an overall better rawfile on many levels. Also, I find the 1D images (1Ds3 and 1DX) to be a bit "clearer" and crispier from scratch than anything from the 5D3 or 5D2. Fine details are a tad better rendered. The difference isn't huge but it is there.

As for the underexposed part; I have an example where I tested the shadows of the 1DX vs 5D3. I underexposed the two equally and then lifted the shadows. The difference in IQ is quite remarkable. Almost like one of those Nikon vs Canon shadow noise examples out there. I'll see if I can find the test images. So yeah...the 1DX sure can take more beating in post because the files are better built. For sure...


----------



## memoriaphoto (Jan 16, 2014)

nightbreath said:


> Guys, do you have any observations on the 1D X and 1Ds files difference?



According to my personal taste, the 1Ds3 default has a more pleasing color palette/look. Other than that, the 1DX files are probably better built and has more power in the shadows. Not to mention the ISO performance of the sensor which totally smokes the 1Ds3.

But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X


----------



## vscd (Jan 16, 2014)

memoriaphoto said:


> But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X



Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3. 







Edit: I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 16, 2014)

vscd said:


> memoriaphoto said:
> 
> 
> > But still, on lower ISO the 1Ds3 is really REALLY outstanding and files can be pushed around in post like crazy. Even compared to the mighty X
> ...



The difference in IQ or RAW files quality is way beyond my field of expertise, but the 1D3 vs. the 1Ds III is huge. My best friend has the 1D III, and I have the 1Ds 3 and 5D II, and after shooting with both I would pick the Ds files any day. Sure it is fun to shoot at the burst rate of the 1D III, but not really a fair comparison.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 16, 2014)

nightbreath said:


> Guys, do you have any observations on the 1D X and 1Ds files difference?



I've shot with both. Before I had a 1Dx I had the 1Ds3 myself. I would like to think about your question and dig up some RAW files.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 16, 2014)

I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3? Not even close to the same. From memory, I think ISO 400 and below the 1Ds3 files were certainly preferred over either the 1Dx or 5D3. I loved that camera, but my typical shooting requires higher ISO's, so I just couldn't keep it.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2014)

vscd said:


> Apart from personal taste or differing internal DIGIC-changes, there is no sign of advantages for the 1Ds3.
> 
> Edit: I choosed the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3, but the results remain the same except of a nearly not detectable advantage of 0.2 stops @ISO100.



There must be more to it than charts and graphs. I can listen to stereo amplifiers with comparable specs and they sound different.

Given a properly exposed image, I'd agree that there is little difference.

But, if the image is underexposed (accidentally or intentionally), 1D files have a lot more working room.


----------



## telemaq76 (Jan 16, 2014)

i m not a pixel peeper or a graphic/dxolab lover but i use my cams a lot for work and for fun. Sure 5dmarkIII is a good cam for the price, i was very pleased to use him I bought a 1ds3 just to test a 1d serie, cheap price on ebay. First i was dissapointed by my first tests, nothing more than my 5d. but when i began to work with seriously, especially portrait and landscape, i had a WOW effect. First time i see no banding in shadows , and you can push shadows like crazy, you keep details and great colors it s just Insane compared to a 5d3. the skin tone in portrait are perfect, nothing to edit, i kept final pictures with NO editing at all, RAw files out of body, exposition is perfect even with contrasty, backlight, hard light. And so fantastic details in hairs, , textures are crisp, i think the low pass filter are better than 5d series. I like my 5d3 for the AF and iso performance, silent mode, and lcd screen but i LOVE my 1ds3 for stunning image quality, always have that WOW effect when i take a picture at low iso, and the grain at 640 iso and more is just amazing like film grain, it s only luminance noise, no color noise, easy to manage .thank you for reading and sorry for my english if there is some errors, it s not my native langage


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 16, 2014)

memoriaphoto said:


> Yup. I am totally convinced that you don't ONLY get a better body and more custom functions for the huge extra amount of $ you have to fork out for a 1D body. Image sensor, RGB and AA filters, parameters and processing should be better and more controlled, resulting in an overall better rawfile on many levels. Also, I find the 1D images (1Ds3 and 1DX) to be a bit "clearer" and crispier from scratch than anything from the 5D3 or 5D2. Fine details are a tad better rendered. The difference isn't huge but it is there.
> 
> As for the underexposed part; I have an example where I tested the shadows of the 1DX vs 5D3. I underexposed the two equally and then lifted the shadows. The difference in IQ is quite remarkable. Almost like one of those Nikon vs Canon shadow noise examples out there. I'll see if I can find the test images. So yeah...the 1DX sure can take more beating in post because the files are better built. For sure...



Just a bit of a tangent...

I recently picked up a minty and complete original 1D for a very reasonable price. Different sensor tech that still has a following and the price was good. Enough of a reason to see what the fuss is about.

The images are way better than what I would have thought from a camera with only 4 megapixels- I was thinking 4MP point and shoot image quality. I really don't see an issue printing up to 13" x 19". Maybe more, I am still messing with it.

This camera outputs TIFF and JPEG. I had to reformat a card so it works- it wouldn't recognize a CF card formatted in a CR2 camera.

Canon's DPP works just fine with these TIFF files. Just a little bit of sharpening and it looks great.

So, why did Canon switch RAW formats when this camera from 2001 puts out a nice TIFF file? (end of small tangent) 

Well, apparently, the TIFF format sucks when things change, like camera settings. See the short rant here in the 4th paragraph: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/canon_raw.html

So, I guess that someone at Canon early on recognized the limitations of the TIFF format. 

This previously linked page (http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/) has a whole bunch of stuff that is over my head, but I can pick out parts where portions of the code are used to identify things like the camera model.

There's also a bunch of blocks with a "?" in them.

Given that Canon can easily cripple camera features with firmware, it is easy to assume that there is a bunch of stuff happening between the tags in a CR2 file and software like DPP and therefore why some feel that DPP renders the Canon image better than other software.


----------



## vscd (Jan 17, 2014)

@bdunbar79


> I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3?



If you read carefully you would've seen that I already mentioned this, but you can compare by yourself on DXO. The results don't differ that much.

I'm no pixelpeeper, but there are some legends out there which people tend to build up further and further. In fact I think the 1dx is superiorexcept of resolution, but I don't think someone has to buy it if he already has an 1ds3. The differences between the 1-series and the 5-series are even well documented:

http://www.robo47.net/media/data/martin-wieser-kamera-setup.pdf


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 18, 2014)

vscd said:


> @bdunbar79
> 
> 
> > I looked at the graphs, and why in the heck would you post graphs of the 1D3 instead of the 1Ds3?
> ...



In a thread about 1DX and 5D MkIII raw files we diverted a bit to the 1DsMkIII raw files, but I fail to see what relevance a setup PDF, in German, for a 1D MkII/n 1DsMkII has to do with anything?


----------

