1DX and 5D3 RAW files

[privatebydesign]

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]

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 f@ck 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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

[3kramd5]

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

Not.

[CarlTN]

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.

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]

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]

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 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.

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

[brad goda]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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