# 1Dx Mk2 vs Nikon D5 First ISO Duel



## Yiannis A - Greece (Apr 24, 2016)

Dear friends,

This is a link of a French photo site, to get a first taste of an informal side by side comparison between 1Dx Mk2 and Nikon D5 ISO performance, throughout their ISO range. On my 27" calibrated EIZO pro screen it seems that they go hand by hand up to ISO 25600, with Nikon taking the lead by a questionable 1/3 - 1/2 of a stop at ISO 51200 and both looking like total useless crap above that! The only noticeable difference is that, letters look a bit smudgier on 1Dx Mk2 from ISO 6400 upwards, but then again they're jpeg images so i guess it's something to do with the in-camera conversion algorithm or whatever software related. 

From a serious amateur photographer and videographer standpoint i think that, once again, Canon is much more honest about their ISO claims and Nikon uses a ridiculous marketing trick of a 3+ million ISO to lure the "mine is much bigger than yours" enthousiast! Also, don't forget the profound downgrade of Nikon D5's low ISO performance i had recently pointed out in another topic i started in "third party manufacturers" section of the forum.

That's my two cents, here is the link, make your own thoughts and comments, don't forget that all RAW files of both cameras are available under the sample ISO pics for downloading, so you can extract your own conclusion.

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-2918/reflex-canon-1d-mark-ii-bruit-electronique-12.html

Wishing you all the best; health, luck and happiness for you and all those you love and being loved by!

Yiannis
Athens, Greece.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 24, 2016)

Thanks for sharing


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2016)

Well I have the 1Dx II arriving soon I hope, and what I see here pretty well supports what I thought.

Both Cameras would be a pleasure to have in the Bag.

I'm just happy the 1Dx II will be in my own along with the H6D 100c.


----------



## Click (Apr 24, 2016)

Thanks for sharing this link.


----------



## tpatana (Apr 24, 2016)

Awesome. To my eye, most high-ISOs from 3200 up the Nikon looks sharper, Canon has more smudge on the letters. Also Nikon seems to keep colors better.

It looks like it says something like "standard noise reduction on 800+ ISOs", I wonder if that's in-camera or post.

Could someone download e.g. 25600 for both, and do exactly same edits on LR/PS, and post to compare.


----------



## zim (Apr 24, 2016)

Excellent link, thanks

To me looks like a wash between the two up to 12800, very useable, Nikon slightly more saturated colours which is irrelevant but to the eye can give a better first impression. ISO 25600 and 51200 I'd just give to Nikon anything above is 'porridge' on both.

Strangely on the circuit board slider comparisons at the end I prefer canon over both Nikon (just) and sony (clearly)
Maybe that's a little bit of bias, I don't know.

Anyway I'm a bit excited about this translating to the 5d4!


----------



## scyrene (Apr 24, 2016)

Thanks for this Yiannis!



zim said:


> Excellent link, thanks
> 
> To me looks like a wash between the two up to 12800, very useable, Nikon slightly more saturated colours which is irrelevant but to the eye can give a better fit impression. ISO 25600 and 51200 I'd just give to Nikon anything above is 'porridge' on both.
> 
> ...



The Sony's white balance seems very green compared to the Canon.

Overall, as we'd expect, very similar between the two flagship bodies - and if the D5 is a touch better, that wouldn't be a surprise, given it's been optimised for high ISO, while Canon seem to have favoured low ISO DR a bit more this time... but anyhow it's amazing how progress is still being made in this area. I don't tend to shoot higher than ISO 6400 on the 5D3 (and even then only when desperate), but the 1DxII looks good another couple of stops higher, so that's excellent - birds in dense shade or at dusk are even more attainable now (I just need to save up for a long time!).

PS I love them describing the highest settings as 'bouillie'!


----------



## GuyF (Apr 24, 2016)

eml58 said:


> ...along with the H6D 100c.



Niiiiiice.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Apr 24, 2016)

Dear friends,

Thank you for your good words. I hope you enjoy the comparison between the two flagships.
Thanks again, have a very nice Sunday.

Yours
Yiannis


----------



## M_S (Apr 24, 2016)

For me the Nikon wins this comparison hands down. From ISO 12800 and upwards to the 50000 region it should be clearly visible, delivering more details and less smudge. The fro took a pic in the 80000 region and I have to say that one looked very good to my eyes, noisy, but still acceptable. Canon plays catchup, gets even closer with this model, but can't reach Nikon this time.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 24, 2016)

What I find most interesting in this is how competing manufacturers, doing their own R&D, releasing their own, individual, unrelated products, and are yet so close performance-wise. 
I do think Nikon has a bit of an edge here, though. Probably not enough to make anyone switch, but still noticeable.


----------



## Perio (Apr 24, 2016)

GuyF said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > ...along with the H6D 100c.
> ...



Wait for new 100MP Pentax at a quarter of the price in September.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 24, 2016)

Having downloaded some of the highest ISO files, I think the D5 cleans up more easily, with smoother noise (in Lightroom at least). *But* it wouldn't tempt me away from the 1DxII. It's such a fine difference - both are so good and even I would struggle to find uses for ISO 102400 and above - it's absolutely not worth anybody switching brands, in either direction.


----------



## jdavis37 (Apr 24, 2016)

I downloaded several of the RAW files (ISO1600 through ISO 200K) and processed each the same via Photoshop CC and ACR with all NR turned off (save for that done by the camera that cannot be disabled). In no way was I trying to conclude that cleanup and workflow could not further alter the images. I was mostly just wanting an out of camera with little post processing comparison.

I did test NR on the ISO51.6K files and tried to process both files as similarly as possible. Again this wa snot to say which could in fact be cleaned up better via a more tailored workflow.

My eyesight says this. Both camera/sensors are doing a very good job. How it compares to the current 1D-X sensor or 5D3 sensor is hard to say. Nikon claims expansion to ISO 3 million and that is pure bragging rights marketing hyperbole (as in hogwash).

People have different needs and wants from high ISO. For example if publishing web sized images only and those who may want to see feather detail in a nice enlargement (yes that would be me!). So I am not going to say ISO XXX is useless.

Overall it appears one will need to "squint" and pixel peep to see much of a difference between these cameras. Through ISO 25.6K they were very much similar. I felt the ISO 51.6K image of Nikon was just a tad cleaner but again we are talking like 1/8th of a stop type thing. Or 1/4th. Just not much. At ISO 102K though they were both equally noisy again and well beyond anything usable for what I would be doing.

I just did not see much of a difference between the 2 sets of images that says one camera is clearly better. Given Canon has added DR at the lower ISOs while Nikon has gone back in time and is now trailing the Canon, Canon users can be glad that overall perhaps the Canon sensor is a little better for a change.

Either way I did not see much difference. Perhaps with a custom workflow I would change my mind but in general I just wanted to see if anything leaped out. it didn't!


----------



## GuyF (Apr 24, 2016)

Perio said:


> Wait for new 100MP Pentax at a quarter of the price in September.



The megapixel wars continue. I'm really interested to see what Canon can produce with the proposed 120mp sensor (albeit not medium format).


----------



## GuyF (Apr 24, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> What I find most interesting in this is how competing manufacturers, doing their own R&D, releasing their own, individual, unrelated products, and are yet so close performance-wise.



And releasing products at similar prices (Nikon D5 £5199 - Canon 1DX2 £5199). It's almost as if they have an unwritten agreement.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 24, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Awesome. To my eye, most high-ISOs from 3200 up the Nikon looks sharper, Canon has more smudge on the letters. Also Nikon seems to keep colors better.
> 
> It looks like it says something like "standard noise reduction on 800+ ISOs", I wonder if that's in-camera or post.
> 
> Could someone download e.g. 25600 for both, and do exactly same edits on LR/PS, and post to compare.


I suspect that there is some field curvature and/or misalignment in these samples. I've attached a crop of the car at the bottom right. Notice how foreground objects are sharper on the Canon and the objected pinned on the background are softer. Unfortunately this means we cannot accurately assess how well the 1D-X Mark-II holds onto detail from these samples alone.

To my eyes they appear to perform very similarly and so I'd say high-ISO noise performance is not a noteworthy difference between these two bodies.


----------



## edoorn (Apr 24, 2016)

I also viewed the review at Ephotozine (which was a pretty bad review by the way), and downloaded some raw files there and here on this site as well, and played around with them. No NR and other adjustments. 

To my eyes, at high iso's, the 1DX II seems to hold details just very slightly better (minimal), but Nikon is showing finer noise at 6400 to 25.600 (didn't bother to check higher iso's yet). Maybe half a stop better. You'd have to view the files zoomed in at 100% to see this well. 

On the other side, and take this with a grain of salt because this isn't scientific testing at all and the files are probably not the best to test them, I see that Canon has more dynamic range up to 1600: pushing the files all the way to +5EV in LR shows better results in the darkest area's than the D5. At 3200 they seem to produce equal results, at 6400 and above the Nikon shows better performance in this aspect. 

So my idea is that these sensors are indeed quite different and a bit hard to compare: 1DX II is more allround and the Nikon the super duper high iso monster. I think however in practice they perform both very well and both would produce high quality results.


----------



## zim (Apr 25, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> I suspect that there is some field curvature and/or misalignment in these samples. I've attached a crop of the car at the bottom right. Notice how foreground objects are sharper on the Canon and the objected pinned on the background are softer. Unfortunately this means we cannot accurately assess how well the 1D-X Mark-II holds onto detail from these samples alone.



Hmmm good point


----------



## douglaurent (May 16, 2016)

I've compared the 4K video of the 1DX2 with the 1DC, and the 1DX2 is much NOISIER!
Usable ISO on the 1DX2 ends at 6400, while the 1DC works with 12.800 and is still okay at 25.600.
It's also a big disadvantage that there is no CLOG, so grading is a problem.

The video autofocus and4K 60fps are great, but the points above completely suck. Canon did protect their coming C500 it seems.


----------



## J.R. (May 17, 2016)

I'm with Edward that both cameras would be great to have in the bag. 

Personally, I've taken over 5,000 shots with the 1DX II ... shots taken at ISO 100 ... 4 (four) ;D


----------

