October 20, 2014, 04:23:04 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AlanF

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 73
61

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso  )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

He doesn't say that the 1DX is half a stop better, he says that Canon is cheating by having the real iso on the 1DX half a stop lower than the reading it is set at, relative to the 5DIII, so you think it is half a stop higher than it really is.

"Consumer warning

My 5D Mark III is about a half-stop faster at any given ISO setting than my 1D X.

In other words, at any given ISO, my 5D Mark III gives the same image with a half-stop less exposure. In other other words, my 5D Mark III actually runs at a half-stop higher ISO than marked, or my 1D X is actually running a half-stop slower than marked, or somewhere in between.

It's common for camera makers to cheat a little here, since Canon needs to make the 1D X look like it has better high ISO performance than the 5D Mark III. In this case, it's stacked the deck a little, since when anyone compares at the same indicated ISOs, the 1D X appear to have a half-stop advantage since it's really only operating at a half-stop less ISO than the 5D Mark III at any given ISO. When comparing images, you won't notice unless you shoot at the same manual exposure, in which case my 1D X is a little darker than my 5D Mark III, or if you get both to match, you'll notice that your 5D Mark III only needed about a half-stop less exposure."

Alan,

The best way to find out if the ISO on a 1dx is much better then on the 5d3 is by using them both. Just as camera makers cheat, it's the same for reviewers who try to explain differences based on poor test and reading manuals but not by using them extensively next to each other.

I read in the mentioned reviews for instance that the AF system of both cameras would be astoundingly the same with the exception of itr. So we forget that the spread of the af points of those 2 cameras is totally different? We forget that the battery voltage of those 2 cameras is different? The itr would be the only difference? But itr only works in af group or af 61 point mode. So even comparing this to the modern systems of nikon would be the same? The same when nikon can only automatically ( no switch off possibility) apply this to all focus point mode.

I'm not the only one on CR that finds the high ISO on the 1dx at least a stop better then the 5d3. I use max 6400 auto ISO on the 5d3, but on the 1dx it's 25600. That's the practical experience I have with both cameras. It's not that I want to say that the 1dx is a much better camera compared to the 5d3. I even use the 5d3 more then the 1dx. I know which camera I take when I want to do a shoot. That's always dependent on the object and my knowledge of the differences of those cameras. But high ISO and superior AF is a big advantage of the 1dx compared to the 5d3. No reviewer can convince me that those to cameras would be the same for this 2 issues. But that's all practical experience with both cameras for using them after a longer period.

Francois
Is the 1-stop improvement in JPEG or RAW?

62

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso  )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

I think Ken Rockwell says the 1D X is half a stop better than the 5D III, although someone with both cameras like FEBS might know better.

He doesn't say that the 1DX is half a stop better, he says that Canon is cheating by having the real iso on the 1DX half a stop lower than the reading it is set at, relative to the 5DIII, so you think it is half a stop higher than it really is.

"Consumer warning

My 5D Mark III is about a half-stop faster at any given ISO setting than my 1D X.

In other words, at any given ISO, my 5D Mark III gives the same image with a half-stop less exposure. In other other words, my 5D Mark III actually runs at a half-stop higher ISO than marked, or my 1D X is actually running a half-stop slower than marked, or somewhere in between.

It's common for camera makers to cheat a little here, since Canon needs to make the 1D X look like it has better high ISO performance than the 5D Mark III. In this case, it's stacked the deck a little, since when anyone compares at the same indicated ISOs, the 1D X appear to have a half-stop advantage since it's really only operating at a half-stop less ISO than the 5D Mark III at any given ISO. When comparing images, you won't notice unless you shoot at the same manual exposure, in which case my 1D X is a little darker than my 5D Mark III, or if you get both to match, you'll notice that your 5D Mark III only needed about a half-stop less exposure."

63
Lenses / Re: DxO and DPReview Getting Lazy?
« on: August 26, 2014, 03:45:43 PM »
You have lost me - not only are the graphs clearly different, the Sigma is on a 5DIII and the Canon on a 5DII!?

64

1Dx is at least 1 stop better for noise compared to 5D3.

Is that true - DxO rates the 1DX only 0.28 stops better (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___795_753 )? And Ken, bless his heart, Rockwell, rates both very similar ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/5d-mkiii-vs-1dx.htm#iso  )? Perhaps someone who has both could enlighten.

65
Canon General / Re: Lens Cleaning Techniques/Opinions
« on: August 23, 2014, 07:24:17 PM »
Yes Mitch I was just kidding, thought I would join in the humour!

Cheers, Graham.

No sense in wasting whiskey.  I should probably really clean my lenses that way to give me a fantastic excuse to drink a bit every so often.  Lol.

And I do hope you're kidding about following my directions.
Those of us who have a sense of humour get misunderstood by those with a sense of humor, especially as we drink whisky and they drink whiskey.

66
Great shot!

67
I had my first outing with the 300/28 II + 2XTCIII  this afternoon since coming back from Canada on Tuesday where I was using the Tamron 150-600mm. The Canon feels a bit heavier! Here are two mugshots of an Egyptian goose. Why can't I see those fantastic bee eaters or have a bird of prey come and sit next to me?

68
You lucky man - I am jealous of that shot Mac!

69
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma and Tamron OS/VC quirks
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:38:28 PM »
My 150-600 doesn't have that problem or indeed any that others have reported.  My former 100-400L used to drift in IS.

70
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:27:15 AM »
    No, for example a 36MP FF and 18MP FF using the same manufacturing technology, the 18MP FF will have better low-light properties as which pixel received more light than the 36MP FF.

Not true either - the world is awash with examples that prove the opposite: Nikon's D7000 has clearly superior how light performance to the D300; the Canon 70D is much better than the 30D; the 1D Mk IV is far superior to the 1D II!n.

And so on.

Smaller pixels do not mean inferior low noise performance.

Even DxO gets it:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/More-pixels-offset-noise

To draw conclusions about pixel size and noise you must compare sensors with the same technology.  We know, for example, current Nikon sensors have much better S/N than equivalent Canon at low ISO. So comparing Nikon with Canon is misleading.

The DXO article says that the Canon 350D and 1Ds have identical sized pixels (6.4 micron) and identical S/N, which could be interpreted as it is pixel size that determines S/N. It then goes on to say that at the same field of view the 1Ds has better S/N than the 350D when both images are printed at the same size.  That is not due to the pixel size but results from the larger sensor of the 1Ds.

71
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 21, 2014, 05:47:49 PM »
There is a very recently started ongoing, now 11-page, thread on the topic - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22161.0

72
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 21, 2014, 02:42:19 PM »
It's not really the size of the sensor that counts, it's the size of the pixel.

That's precisely back to front, Don - pixel size doesn't matter one little bit in terms of a sensor's light-gathering abilities, in any practical sense. Sensor size is the whole story, at any given "state of the art".

Jon Rista must've explained this about a million times on here - and he's completely, demonstrably right. Simply put, a big window lets in more light than a small one, whether it's made up of one pane of glass, or many - a perfect sensor analogy in this context.

That is a perfect sensor analogy: have a sensor made of one pane and it will have superb signal to noise and absolutely zero resolution.

73
Animal Kingdom / Re: Tamron 150-600mm bird pics
« on: August 20, 2014, 08:33:38 AM »
Very nice shots, Alan. Which body (5D or 70D) were these shot with? Do you prefer one or the other for use with the Tammy?

On the 5DIII. I prefer the 5DIII in general, but in practice there is little difference between the two. The better noise and IQ of the 5DIII balances the 70D's greater reach so both produce images of similar quality and resolution when you are cropping a small bird. For moon shots, which are basically monochrome, the 70D gave marginally better resolution in my tests, agreeing with jrista in his very careful analysis.

74
Animal Kingdom / Re: Tamron 150-600mm bird pics
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:35:06 PM »
Thanks Don, you have posted some great photos with the 150-600mm in the Bird Portrait's thread.

75
Animal Kingdom / Re: Tamron 150-600mm bird pics
« on: August 19, 2014, 08:20:23 PM »
Neotropic cormorant
Neotropic cormorant flying (at Lahave)

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 73