1D X ISO Shots

[bdunbar79]

I took several ISO shots with the 1D X indoors, in fluorescent light. I did 6400, 10000, 12800, 25600, and 51200. I then cropped the mug I was shooting at ISO 51200 and did no NR, and then 80% NR in Camera RAW. I then show the whole scene at 80% NR in Camera RAW.

I will post the 5D3 and 1D4 images next.

 

[bdunbar79]

Next is a large ISO 25600

 

[bdunbar79]

ISO 51200 with crops and NR applied:

 

[bdunbar79]

Same shots with the 5D Mark III: You decide.

 

[bdunbar79]

Next is 12800 and then the mug crops at 25600:

 

[bdunbar79]

Finally the whole scene at 80% NR:

 

[bdunbar79]

5D Mark III ISO 25600 no NR

 

[bdunbar79]

So if you do draw any conclusions, I would suppose you'd say the 1D X is slightly better than the 5D Mark III? I don't even think we need to do the ISO comparison test with the 1D Mark IV; we already know the answer.

 

[bdunbar79]

Can you see any difference up close?

 

[ChrisAnderson]

I had a feeling, after looking at RAW samples from the 1DX @ ISO 10,000, that my Mark III was every bit as good at higher ISOs. This sort of validates my thoughts. Granted, every shooting scenario is different and i've noticed far worse noise at these same ISO levels depending on the lighting and subject matter, but thanks for doing this controlled test!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I'd say that the differences are negligible in the real world, and that noise performance shouldn't be a consideration when picking between these two cameras.

There's lots to set the one apart from the other, but noise isn't one of those factors.

Cheers,

b&

 

[Loswr]

There's lots to set the one apart from the other, but noise isn't one of those factors.

Unless you mean the audible variety of noise - compared to the silent mode of the 5DIII, the 1D X shutter sound (even in the nominally silent mode) is loud!

 

[Kernuak]

I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

Basically, the 1DX is a speed demon. 12 FPS and unsurpassed autofocus performance.

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Unless the 6 FPS of the 5DIII isn't fast enough for what you're doing, there's no reason to spend thousands more on the 1DX. But there are those for whom 6 FPS is painfully, unusably slow, and their biggest problem right now is wiping the drool off the back of their sniny new 1DXs.

I'm just wondering when we'll see the 1DXXX with its 24 FPS framerate and buffer limited only by card space...imagine what the cinematographers will do with that!

Cheers,

b&

 

[Drizzt321]

I'm just wondering when we'll see the 1DXXX with its 24 FPS framerate and buffer limited only by card space...imagine what the cinematographers will do with that!

Take that 4K cameras!

 

[Loswr]

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Depends on your definition - if you're talking only IQ, fine. But...better sealing and 250K more shutter actuations seem like they benefit real world shooting, not to mention the improved metering.

 

[bdunbar79]

I would say there is marginally less noise in the 1D X, but nothing to really use as a reason for going with the 1D X and only visible side by side. However, to me, the colour reproduction is better in the 1D X, as the MkIII has a slight yellow tinge. Again though, that would be easy to correct and could be done with a preset to save time. Most probably wouldn't benefit from the 1D X, but those that need the features (e.g. weather sealing, speed etc.) would happily pay the extra. AF accuracy may be similar, but the reported increased AF/tracking speed of the 1D X could be the difference in getting the shot, which alone would be worth the extra to pros that have to rely on it to get the shot.

Basically, the 1DX is a speed demon. 12 FPS and unsurpassed autofocus performance.

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Unless the 6 FPS of the 5DIII isn't fast enough for what you're doing, there's no reason to spend thousands more on the 1DX. But there are those for whom 6 FPS is painfully, unusably slow, and their biggest problem right now is wiping the drool off the back of their sniny new 1DXs.

I'm just wondering when we'll see the 1DXXX with its 24 FPS framerate and buffer limited only by card space...imagine what the cinematographers will do with that!

Cheers,

b&

Exactly. I think the IQ and ISO is similar, the next logical thing to do would be to take some low light action, or just any sports for that matter. Unfortunately my first football game isn't until late August. But that really is where things will show up. Low-light, real photography, with action. I'm guessing these photos will show the advances of the 1D X. I have a night football game in late August, but that's the best I can do for low-light sports, and the soonest. If I can find a sports event soon, I will. I am going to a car show this weekend. I will shoot the car show with both cameras and process in post as normal, everything business as usual, no RAW files being posted, and do a real-world comparison. I think that would be the next most meaningful step.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Depends on your definition - if you're talking only IQ, fine. But...better sealing and 250K more shutter actuations seem like they benefit real world shooting, not to mention the improved metering.

The 5DIII already has plenty of sealing, more than enough for most camera owners. Not many people will find themselves in situations where the 1DX is adequately sealed but the 5DIII isn't. Some, but not many.

And not many people will wear out a 5DIII shutter. Those few who will are going to be CPS members and aren't going to notice the $250 or whatever fee to repair the camera plus the day or two it takes to get a loaner while the one is in for repair. They're not going to notice, of course, because it's one of many backup cameras they already have for exactly that sort of contingency.

If the metering on the 5DIII were problematic, you'd have a point...but, again, the 1DX is better while the 5DIII is just fine.

Just to reiterate: I'm not trying to claim that there's no difference between the 5DIII and the 1DX. Quite the contrary. My point is that, except for the fact that the 1DX is an unbelievable speed demon monster and the 5DIII is merely not pokey, the differences are fairly minor, especially in the real world.

And, to continue the theme: most people don't need an unbelievable speed demon monster and so don't need to spend the significantly extra money on the 1DX. That's especially since, in the film days, the 5DIII's 6 FPS would have been considered reasonably fast, and even (barely) adequate for pro sports. But you'd probably lose your job if you tried to cover the Olympics for SI with a 5DIII instead of a 1DX, and rightly so, and those're exactly the sorts of people who should be snapping up the 1DX as fast as their credit cards clear the bank.

Cheers,

b&

 

[bdunbar79]

To add on, I don't think Canon intended there to be a huge difference between the 5D3 and 1DX. I can appreciate the strengths of both. I think the real comparison would be the 1DX vs. 1D4, which the 1DX was intended to replace. I'd be really disappointed in Canon if the 1DX blew the 5D3 out of the water with regards to color, metering, and IQ. What you are paying for primarily is the speed. If I wanted AF-point spot metering I would have just kept using my 1D Mark IV. Since I'm doing college sports this year, I'd like the speed. Just as a disclaimer, that's the reason I personally bought the 1DX. I knew going in the IQ was not better than the 5D3, and it isn't. I agree that if you don't need the speed and AF-point spot metering, you really would have wasted your money over a 5D3. If you need the exceptional speed and want to enjoy 1Ds3 or 5D3 IQ, it's the way to go. You have to decide if the extra speed is worth double the price.

We'll find out however, with more testing.

 

[pedro]

There are quite a number of other differences between the 1DX and the 5DIII, but none of them are any more significant to real-world shooting than the noise difference we see here.

Depends on your definition - if you're talking only IQ, fine. But...better sealing and 250K more shutter actuations seem like they benefit real world shooting, not to mention the improved metering.

The 5DIII already has plenty of sealing, more than enough for most camera owners. Not many people will find themselves in situations where the 1DX is adequately sealed but the 5DIII isn't. Some, but not many.

And not many people will wear out a 5DIII shutter. Those few who will are going to be CPS members and aren't going to notice the $250 or whatever fee to repair the camera plus the day or two it takes to get a loaner while the one is in for repair. They're not going to notice, of course, because it's one of many backup cameras they already have for exactly that sort of contingency.

If the metering on the 5DIII were problematic, you'd have a point...but, again, the 1DX is better while the 5DIII is just fine.

Just to reiterate: I'm not trying to claim that there's no difference between the 5DIII and the 1DX. Quite the contrary. My point is that, except for the fact that the 1DX is an unbelievable speed demon monster and the 5DIII is merely not pokey, the differences are fairly minor, especially in the real world.

And, to continue the theme: most people don't need an unbelievable speed demon monster and so don't need to spend the significantly extra money on the 1DX. That's especially since, in the film days, the 5DIII's 6 FPS would have been considered reasonably fast, and even (barely) adequate for pro sports. But you'd probably lose your job if you tried to cover the Olympics for SI with a 5DIII instead of a 1DX, and rightly so, and those're exactly the sorts of people who should be snapping up the 1DX as fast as their credit cards clear the bank.

Cheers,

b&

Good thread so far. I like these real world comparisons of yours. The "real difference" between an 1Dx and a 5D3 imo is this: The 1Dx is the extreme photopress workhorse. While the other cam is the top allrounder body. That's why I go for one, and because an 1Dx is way too much money for me. But I am sure I'll have plenty of camera for a long time. Shooting a 30D the last five years...counting a little more than 40k exposures...Purchasing the cam at my 48 years, the 5D3 will do for quite some time, concerning an amount of 8k exposures per year ;-) And it will allow me to do all these low light shots at almost no light. First I'll do is to try out my 50 f/1.4. Hope retail price over here in Switzerland comes down a bit once the christmas carousel gets started...