Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview

[elflord]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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!