# Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview



## nightbreath (Dec 31, 2011)

I've just spotted a short review of 1D X on YouTube where high ISO shot was shown on the camera screen. It's hard to tell the difference between the test shot and today's cameras performance, however if the image was taken at 204k ISO, it looks ok for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lekEon0_-lA#t=110s


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 31, 2011)

And as i've said before, when i had a go with one - i was even more than impressed with the 204k ISO.

It looked much better than the image i could expect to get from a 5D2 at 25600 ISO.

A photo journalist camera?
Yeah, and
Wedding Photographer (no flash in a church)
Wildlife photographer
Sports Photographer
Street Photographer in the dusk or night

Yep, i wouldn't pass up the offer...


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 31, 2011)

25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.


----------



## aaronofnero (Dec 31, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> 25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.



Well, yes, for professional / clean photography that is intended for the commercial and artistic prospect, I can see anything above 6400 ISO being in question. However, for Photo Journalists, I can see 25,600+ being quite useful in situations where you have little control over the lighting. When the story is precedent, and not the quality of the photo, it seems to make sense to me


----------



## Picsfor (Dec 31, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> 25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.




In your perfect world of absolutely clean shots, 51k on a 1DX comfortably matches 6400 on a 5D2. It may even improve upon it slightly.

Whilst i apologise for assuming my comment was worth any merit, it would be wise for you to remember that not all photographers work only in an ideal environment, many us have to take what opportunities we're given and work with them.

Some of us even enjoy pushing our kit to the very limit to see what it is capable of, and see if this gives us a photographic opportunity that would be missed by never going above 800 iso.

My trouble is, i come from an environment where i loaded 3200asa into an A1 then pushed it to 12800 and walked around railway yards at 3am to get hand held pictures at 1/60th with a 50mm f1.8, pictures which are of places that no longer exist. Pictures of people doing jobs and tasks that are no longer done. Yep, they're grainy - but at least they exist- where are the other pictures of those yards, those people, those practices? But best of all, the grain actually gives them some character - as opposed to some of the sterile shots i can get at 25600 with a 5D2.

Oh, and happy new year


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 1, 2012)

No, your comment was helpful. I got the message that the 1D X seemed to give the same results at an ISO setting four stops higher - even if some of us apparently were clever enough to post but not clever enough to understand what you meant, that shouldn't stop you from sharing your thoughts.

I would agree though that it would be nice to hear if that works for lower ISO values - i.e. is ISO 51200 about the same?


----------



## distant.star (Jan 1, 2012)

Ah, the power and value of images made! Thanks for talking about such things. We use the tools we have; they will differ in the future, but people will still need to look back.

I LOVE looking at pictures taken in the 1930s -- and am grateful for the folks who did what they needed to do with the tools they had.





Picsfor said:


> My trouble is, i come from an environment where i loaded 3200asa into an A1 then pushed it to 12800 and walked around railway yards at 3am to get hand held pictures at 1/60th with a 50mm f1.8, pictures which are of places that no longer exist. Pictures of people doing jobs and tasks that are no longer done. Yep, they're grainy - but at least they exist- where are the other pictures of those yards, those people, those practices? But best of all, the grain actually gives them some character - as opposed to some of the sterile shots i can get at 25600 with a 5D2.
> 
> Oh, and happy new year


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 1, 2012)

Only a few hours ago I compiled a Facebook album of 7D photos I have just taken back in my hometown, 22-40 years after growing up there and last being at the places I just photographed.

But for some of those places, I also still have digital images of FILM PRINTS I took myself in late 1987 (24 years ago) when I was a teenager, of the SAME places from the SAME angles, for the SAME views. The winter of '87-'88 was a year of record-breaking snowfall in our location, hence the photos taken. (I used an Olympus OM30 to take them, and I have no idea what film.)

So I put the old film images next to the corresponding present-day views in my FB album. I think it adds an interesting touch; I was a teenager then; I'm (early) middle-aged now.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2157469556845.83291.1849695638&type=1&l=34ea53fc64


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 1, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > 25600 on a 5D2? who ever shoots at that? being better than that isnt saying alot 25600 is completely unuseable IMO. 6400 is pretty much my absolute limit on the 5d2 with 3200 as the useable limit. As for the 1Dx id be more interested to know which iso values resemble 6400 and 3200 on the 5d2 so i can accurately gauge the real world benefit in number of stops you will gain.
> ...



LOL ok I just cant wait to see some real untouched raw files at all ISO then i'll make up my mind what suits me and my perfect world or i could by a 1Dx to impress people on the internet and shoot everything at 204 billion iso and 14fps... ok that was a bit flipant. 

Regardless a 4 stop real imporvement in ISO is pretty damn good

On a side note why is every sinlge review (almost) on youtube most interested in the burst rate only? seriously 10fps is fine I cant see 14 FPS helping in do much other than burn your shutter out quicker. probably serious sports shooters are the only people that might get a hard on over that.
I would love to see some more thorough reviews.
this one is particularly retarded if you can call it a review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg7WDWa_Idg&feature=related
the guy is on a serious youtube campaign to get canon to give him a free camera and lots of lenses

edit: LOL this guy is super lame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8hz2UIPncw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGuDX7kp-pM&feature=related


----------



## distant.star (Jan 1, 2012)

Thanks -- that kind of revisiting is a real treat, and so rare.




Fleetie said:


> Only a few hours ago I compiled a Facebook album of 7D photos I have just taken back in my hometown, 22-40 years after growing up there and last being at the places I just photographed.
> 
> But for some of those places, I also still have digital images of FILM PRINTS I took myself in late 1987 (24 years ago) when I was a teenager, of the SAME places from the SAME angles, for the SAME views. The winter of '87-'88 was a year of record-breaking snowfall in our location, hence the photos taken. (I used an Olympus OM30 to take them, and I have no idea what film.)
> 
> ...


----------



## nightbreath (Jan 1, 2012)

After a short investigation I've found few more examples of high ISO shots.

Here's how 51k ISO JPEG image made at "S" quality looks at 100%:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-2MeJoCyR0o#t=144s (time 2:24)

Here's 51k ISO image taken at "L" quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zavP1c42iSs#t=271s (time 4:31)


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 1, 2012)

Interesting, the first youtube clip was shot whilst i was standing at the counter trying out a 1DX.
Whilst they are interviewing the gentlemen who has just bought the 1D4, i was standing behind, to the left of the 2 gentlemen who are located in the right of the frame.

Their interest was very much about the video qualities of the 1DX, and they were happy to pre-order.
My interests were very much about the ISO, the focusing & ergonomics.

The Dual CF and Gigabit ethernet ports were very much matter of fact, but holding it and trying it at extremes was what i was about.

In respect of 'why they keep pushing' the 14fps - is because it is a whole new mirror mechanism that is what has facilitated the excellent video moire that they keep talking about. The 14fps is a side effect, but a welcome none the less.

My take on the 14fps is - use it like 204k ISO - when you absolutely have no choice.
For wildlife - they will be gone after frame 6, your hands will feel like they're holding a hammer jack after a few seconds. It is noisy and it creates some vibration - but if you have a high enough shutter speed, you will over come it.

As for whether or not i'll get a 1DX, the answer is, i'm already doing my sums and working out what i need to do to get one. 1DX with a 5D2 as a second body should keep me happy for a few years


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2012)

I still can't believe the 1d X is only two stops better than the mk4, it should at least been three stops, AND the two stops are with in-camera raw-conversion...

First off with microlens on FF. Only a tiny 2mp more than the mk4 with a much bigger sensor and two years of development (I'm guessing 4 years). New processor, and still we only get the same difference as between the mk3 and mk4, and the mk4 was 60% (!!!) increase in resolution on the same sensor, something doesn't add up......


----------



## KeithR (Jan 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I still can't believe the 1d X is only two stops better than the mk4, it should at least been three stops



Why "should" it have been? Sounds unrealistic to me to expect that straight off the camera. Anyway, two stops is pretty spectacular in itself.

As to it "only" being with in-camera processing, I'll bet you right here and now that I can out-process any in-camera jpeg engine, and on that basis I'll bet that closer to three stops _is_ doable _with good hands-on conversion and post processing thrown into the mix_.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2012)

I actually sa a quote saying that it wouldn't be as much as two stops when converted from raw. 

Do you think two stops is much when you JUST read my post? Explain that please...

Again, the mk4 and mk3 have the same size sensor, way smaller than FF. So based on previous cameras two stops is what you get from the next generation with the SAME SENSORSIZE. That is NOT the case here. It also states that the microlenses is used for the first time on a FF sensor, which must be to better the lightgathering to each pixel, now, with a fraction higher res, and less than on the 1ds3 and 5d sensor, it seems the microlens stuff could just as well have been skipped. Look at the 5d and the 5d2, same size sensor, no microlens, yet the 5d2 is WAAAAY better at higher iso's AND with nearly TWICE the res.

So I would very much like explained for what reason the 1d X is only two stops better than my mk4 withe the "same" res on a way smaller snesor and being two years older.... And that's just when we jump over the fact that the X sensor has been in the making since the release of 5d2....


----------



## elflord (Jan 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Again, the mk4 and mk3 have the same size sensor, way smaller than FF. So based on previous cameras two stops is what you get from the next generation with the SAME SENSORSIZE.



Where do you get this from ? According to the DxOMark numbers, the difference is less than 1 stop: 1078 and 1320 for the 1D Mark III and IV, 1480 and 1663 for the 1Ds Mark II and III. If Moore's law really held for camera sensors, the rebel T3 would handily beat the 5D Mark II. 



> That is NOT the case here. It also states that the microlenses is used for the first time on a FF sensor, which must be to better the lightgathering to each pixel, now, with a fraction higher res, and less than on the 1ds3 and 5d sensor, it seems the microlens stuff could just as well have been skipped. Look at the 5d and the 5d2, same size sensor, no microlens, yet the 5d2 is WAAAAY better at higher iso's AND with nearly TWICE the res.



The 5D classic is 6 years old. If it works the way you say it does, with a stop improvement every two years, it should be getting handily beaten by micro 4/3 cameras.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2012)

You're missing the point. The MFT being better than the 5d2 , lol. This depends on a lot of other things than the sensor, how about the rest of the computing in camera? Do you really think they use the same software and the same computing power in a $300 compact as they do in a flagship pro-body? And besides, the pixels still are smaller and smaller, whilst the 1d X uses 20% bigger pixels than the mk4. With micro lenses to more effective use of the light available. The pixels on the X is even bigger than the 5d2. And while the 5d original had much larger pixels than the 5d2, the latter was waay better. 5d being 6 years, well yeah, but the 5d2 was only released three years later.

You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade, the way Canon pretty much always does. Instead of really taking the advantage of the available tech.

What I am very excited about is the new AF system. Let's just cross our fingers that Canon haven't done the same as the last time they "started from scratch".. Owning a early mk3 wasn't the greatest experience....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade, the way Canon pretty much always does. Instead of really taking the advantage of the available tech.



That's called marketing and generating sustainable profit. 



Picsfor said:


> In respect of 'why they keep pushing' the 14fps - is because it is a whole *new mirror mechanism that is what has facilitated the excellent video moire* that they keep talking about. The 14fps is a side effect, but a welcome none the less.



A new mirror mechanism that improves moire? Can you explain? For video shooting, the mirror goes up, and stays up. How can that affect moire? The only connection I see is 12 fps goes to 14 fps with mirror lockup; all that means is the electronics can handle a data flow slightly faster than the mirror can move. 

I think they 'push' it because it's a bigger number, and bigger is better from a marketing standpoint. They 'push' 12/14 fps. They 'push' the 61-point AF system. They 'push' the 252-zone metering. They have to push those bigger numbers even harder, because the number most people look at first - megapixels - has gotten smaller.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade, the way Canon pretty much always does. Instead of really taking the advantage of the available tech.
> ...



Yes, I agree with that, but I'm still allowed to think it's BS from a customer p.o.v. I hate spending $6800 on a camera every two years, only to know that they COULD have done it better, and that I pay that kind of money from a small upgrade. Having that said, the improvements that are done are great ones. I for one always buy a camera from AF-system first second and third, then the fps and noise levels. So you can imagine me being a bit upset with the mk3, now, the mk4 is a MASSIVE upgrade, but still, one shot and or slow moving subject in indoor light makes it miss a lot, and if there's a lightsource on the sides or behind the subject it's hardly perfect. So if they can make this truly better with the X, I can live with the noise. Adobe needs to update and keep ut with Lr also. Then we're gettin somewhere...


----------



## elflord (Jan 1, 2012)

Viggo said:


> You're missing the point. The MFT being better than the 5d2 , lol. This depends on a lot of other things than the sensor, how about the rest of the computing in camera? Do you really think they use the same software and the same computing power in a $300 compact as they do in a flagship pro-body?



I did say the 5D (classic), not the Mark II. Processing power is an example of something that really does follow Moore's law (computer processors have doubled in speed every 2 years for the last 40 years). So yes, you would expect the processors in a consumer level 2011 camera to beat the processors in a 2005 pro level camera.

But I don't believe this should matter a whole lot anyway -- DxOMark looks at the raw files, not jpegs.

Anyway, for better or worse, the overwhelming pattern is that newer small sensor cameras don't beat older big sensor cameras. 

The overwhelming trend is that ISO performance is more or less directly proportional to sensor area -- so a full frame camera will be about 2 stops better than a micro 4/3 camera and 1-and-some stops better than APS-C. It takes a long time to close that gap -- even the best APS-C sensors (e.g. the new Nikons and the Sonys) still can't beat the 5D classic in DxOMarks ISO test.

So maybe you know something that I don't, but whenever I hear someone talk about how the new camera is 2 or 3 stops "better" than the old one, an alarm bell goes off (especially when the new camera has yet to be run through objective benchmarks). 



> You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade,



For the consumer lines, I would buy this. But for the flagship, they hurt the brand (which has implications for the lower end products) if the product fails to impress.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 1, 2012)

elflord said:


> > You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade,
> 
> 
> 
> For the consumer lines, I would buy this. But for the flagship, they hurt the brand (which has implications for the lower end products) if the product fails to impress.



I read the whitepaper for the mk4 and 1d X, and although they usually brag in everywhich way possible about their new flagship, they use their old as example of why it wasn't any good at this and that. And it doesn't take the customers to tell them this, they already knew when they released the product. So with the 1d X it's all brag brag brag now, but when the 1dx mkII comes out, read the whitepaper and see what the mkII does so much better than the X. This is what I mean, and I don't think that they are lacking the tech NOW to make the 1d x mkII, they just don't need to, and it's a way of getting people to buy it when they release it. So when I get the X and find something wrong with it, I can't but help that it shouldn't have been like that, but then Canon gave me the reason I needed to get the mkII in two years... And for a rebel, well, fine, you don't need to sell your mother to pay for it, but when it comes to the 1-series, most of us think that is quite a bit of cash, and we don't want to buy the latest, we want to buy a camera that works. If it works, we don't need new ones....


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 3, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Yes, I agree with that, but I'm still allowed to think it's BS from a customer p.o.v. I hate spending $6800 on a camera every two years, only to know that they COULD have done it better, and that I pay that kind of money from a small upgrade.


Then why spend $6800 on a new camera? Why not just buy the previous model for a cheaper price when the new one comes out?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 3, 2012)

Ryusui said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I agree with that, but I'm still allowed to think it's BS from a customer p.o.v. I hate spending $6800 on a camera every two years, only to know that they COULD have done it better, and that I pay that kind of money from a small upgrade.
> ...



That scenario likely fits a lot of people. However, for some photographers, the ability to get a shot that they could not get before might mean a big payday that makes the cost of the camera body look like chump change.

I'm not going to judge what someone else buys based on my needs for a camera body. I was, however, ready to buy a 1D MK IV when the actual RAW images were made available, and the high ISO, which is what I need, was inferior to my 5D MK II.

I'll wait and see on this one as well. If its two stops better than a 5D MK II, that is amazing (I'm in doubt). It would upgrade all of my lenses by two stops. For me, thats not even possible, but if it were, it would cost 10X the cost of a 1Dx.

Certainly, the image on the rear LCD is not useful in judging the high ISO capability. Its a jpeg image and might have a ton of NR that washes away any fine details. That was the case with the 1D MK IV, and the RAW images told the real story.


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Certainly, the image on the rear LCD is not useful in judging the high ISO capability. Its a jpeg image and might have a ton of NR that washes away any fine details. That was the case with the 1D MK IV, and the RAW images told the real story.



+1 on that! We need to see real RAW image to judge. When I shoot high ISO with my 5D mkII (ISO 1600 and above) the image always looks fine on the rear LCD, it is when I look at it on my computer that reality often strikes unfortunately ???


----------



## handsomerob (Jan 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Certainly, the image on the rear LCD is not useful in judging the high ISO capability. Its a jpeg image and might have a ton of NR that washes away any fine details. That was the case with the 1D MK IV, and the RAW images told the real story.



Well said!


----------

