1D X Mark III DR measurements up at Photons to Photos

Bill Claff has posted dynamic range measurements of the 1D X Mark III and they show meaningful improvement at low ISOs compared to the Mark II, and a slight improvement over the 5D4/R sensor. High ISO performance is roughly the same, purely numerically, but it's likely that there's further improvement in noise quality (fineness and uniformity) like in the 90D/M6II sensor. When it comes to the competitors, the D5 is still a high-ISO king, although at the expense of a major, roughly 2 EV, disadvantage at ISO 100. The D850 is all but equal to the 1DX3, except for its native base ISO of 64, as are the Z6 and Z7. The α9 Mark II sensor has a tiny advantage at medium-to-high ISOs, but loses to the 1DX3 in the lower range. It also drops to 12-bit processing whenever you so much as look at it funnily, so there's that. As for the α7R Mark IV, its performance is again practically identical to the new 1DX. All in all, this seems to be a great sensor and should bode well for the R5 and R6, too!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
no
So they didn't break the law of physics. Nice, we wouldn't want them to get arrested by the Sony DR police :LOL:
no, they did not. however the low light ISO numbers seem quite backwards to me.. I hope it was an error :(

Camera ModelMaximum
PDR
Low Light
ISO
Low Light
EV
Canon EOS 1D X Mark II10.46518910.70
Canon EOS 1D X Mark III11.26491510.62
 
Upvote 0
no

no, they did not. however the low light ISO numbers seem quite backwards to me.. I hope it was an error :(

Camera ModelMaximum
PDR
Low Light
ISO
Low Light
EV
Canon EOS 1D X Mark II10.46518910.70
Canon EOS 1D X Mark III11.26491510.62

See the note to the graph"Note that the x-axis is ISO Setting and not a "measured" value. Keep this in mind particularly when comparing to the Ideal lines." The isos are those read off from the camera and we know that those are different from the real ones. DxO plots graphs of measured vs camera reported isos, and they can be quiet a bit out. Also Claff doesn't report the errors in his measurements, and the low light isos are within 5% of each other, which I would guess is within experimental error the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
See the note to the graph"Note that the x-axis is ISO Setting and not a "measured" value. Keep this in mind particularly when comparing to the Ideal lines." The isos are those read off from the camera and we know that those are different from the real ones. DxO plots graphs of measured vs camera reported isos, and they can be quiet a bit out. Also Claff doesn't report the errors in his measurements, and the low light isos are within 5% of each other, which I would guess is within experimental error the same.
Yes, my impression that the low light iso number isn’t accurate. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0