1DX and 5D3 RAW files

[qwerty]

Have you considered the possibility that people shooting with a 1dx are just more adept (on average) at getting the most out of their gear? A priori, I think this is the most likely explanation for what the OP observes. A pro with a 1dx will take a better shot and post-process it better than a doofus with a 5d iii like me The reason you see more in the processed image is because there is more there to start with. I expect if you switched the cameras so that the pro had the 5d iii, you would find that the 5d iii magically started producing much better raw images (that could be pushed further).

Well, the OP has a 5DIII and a pair of 1D X bodies, and is therefore speaking from personal experience of shooting similar scenes (gymnasium sports with f/2.8 supertele primes, needing fast shutter speeds in the typically poor lighting of such venues) with both cameras personally. He's processing his own RAW files from the two cameras, and the needs of the shots often demand careful work in post (if you've shot basketball, volleyball, etc., in a gym, you're familiar with the need for high ISO, the crappy color of the inadequate-for-photography lighting, etc.). He's commented in several threads on the difference in how far he can push files from the two cameras.

So in this case, I don't think your explanation is the likely one.

I stand corrected. My bad for not noticing his signature. I have not seen his previous posts, but will take a look.

 

[privatebydesign]

The majority of my experiences are with my 1Ds MkIII's and customer (I print for other photographers) 5D MkII files, and I feel that this is an equally valid, if not more so (and the OP agreed with me), comparison due to the aforementioned same sensor but different output.

I know from hands on experience that 5D MkII RAW files are not as malleable as 1Ds MkIII RAW files.

This is not a question of DR, noise, banding, FPN or any one "issue" it is a comment on the actual finished output of the image file, the 1 series cameras just have more flexibility in them when worked by the same person.

Here is an example of a torture test where a 5D MkII would get very different results, unfortunately I don't have direct comparison shots but try this with a 5D MkII.

Image is a 1Ds MkIII shot at 1600iso and underexposed by two stops. This was then lifted in post by two stops to give an effective 6400iso at an EV of 10ish, or just past sunset light. I did noise reduction to a level many would feel excessive but I wanted to see what detail was left, as you can see from the 100% crop the individual hairs are still rendered well. Note there is zero banding, no noise and no FPN. Detail and DR have been badly impacted but the image is 100% usable at a variety of sizes.

 

[bdunbar79]

Thanks everyone for the continued discussions. Really interesting stuff so far. I've been thinking about this and I don't think it is a DR issue. It seems, like pbd is saying, the colors, contrast, other things. And I owned a 1Ds3 and I like working with those RAW files more than the 5D2 as well. Not that the 5D2 didn't produce great images (it did!) but it was the "maleability" of the RAW files as pbd says.

Good news is that I think I do have my RAW files from both the 1Ds3 and 5D3 on a trip last summer. I am going to look at those.

Neuro's right. I didn't take my 5D3 into high ISO situations not because it's not good at high ISO, it's just that objectively the skin tones were much easier to correct with the 1Dx than the 5D3, noise aside. And just going by the sensor scores/performance reviews, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[vscd]

To bring some new points to the discussion... the 1Ds Mark III and the 5D Mark II have both the same sensor, but a different CPU. The Digic III and Digic IV may differ a lot in signalprocessing. Which doesn't mean that one or another is better. The same goes to 1DX and 5D Mark III, of course they both share a Digic V+, but the 1DX has two of em.

As you all know from the Intel or AMD Market, a CPU has a lot of steps and internal improvement from one series to another, even if they share the same name (f.e. Core2).

Last but not least, the internal firmwarealghorithm may differ from cam to cam. So somethimes the raws are getting better with a firmwareupdate, no one knows why

 

[RGF]

Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal. Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ. There are a lot of different points to consider. What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog. It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

EWP

Let me pose the following, it is a question that I have wondering about for a while.

If I take the native signal from the sensor as capture let's it would be a proper exposure at ISO 800. At ISO 400 the electronics would amplify the signal "half" as much. At ISO 100 the amplification would be an "eighth. Let me take the image from ISO 800 and from ISO 100. I then increase the exposure of the ISO 100 image by 3 stops in PS.

Naively they should give very similar results, but electronic gain gives a better picture. Why? Does the electronic amplification provide a more continuous signal?

And to take this one more step further, how does statistics of counting random events which is described by a poison distribution enter into the discussion (or is the number of photons generally so large that signal noise except at very high ISO values does not matter)?

 

[CarlTN]

My neighbor / cousin-in-law...just last week, bought a 1DX with his newly earned "toy money"...and claims he has now relegated his 5D3 to his wife, with a 50 1.4 attached, to make it easier for her to carry around.

So I hope to attempt to put the 1DX to the test in low light at some point, hopefully with my 135L mounted.

I must say, holding his 1DX with 70-200 f/2.8 series 1, mounted...and then my 6D with 70-200 f/4 (non-IS), it was quite a lot more weight. Holding his was kind of like holding three bricks, mine fealt light as a feather. I would not want to walk around with that weight all day. I own one lens that is a bit more weight than a 70-200 2.8, but I use it on a monopod. I've rented superteles, and used them on the monopod also (or a tripod).

I might be seen as stupid for asking this, but it seems like much of the recent discussion in this thread, has degenerated into speaking about the 1DX's dynamic range and s/n ratio, at lower ISO. And yet, the OP shoots basketball games, etc...in less than ideal light at higher ISO. So why even discuss the low ISO capability, especially if all the independent tests indicate that higher ISO is where the 1DX really shines, and was obviously meant to be used?

It seems to me, that rather than compare the 1DX to Nikon crop bodies at low ISO, or to the 5D3 at most any ISO...that it should be compared to the Nikon D3s. I suspect the D3s would give it a serious run for its money, perhaps in the ISO range from 1000 to 25,600. Of course the file dimensions are only 12 MP from the D3s, but it would still be interesting to compare...because if the D3s really does have lower noise of both types, then the actual or practical resolution from the RAW files might be equal or even superior to the 1DX (at least as ISO goes up, perhaps above ISO 4000 or 5000).

It's interesting that the noise pattern of the 1DX might be larger and more difficult to overcome in post editing, since I've found the same true going from the 5D3's files, to my 6D. The 6D's noise, especially the luminance noise (or "grain")...is about 1/3 the size of the 5D3's...at least on these particular bodies that I've used.

 

[Loswr]

So why even discuss the low ISO capability, especially if all the independent tests indicate that higher ISO is where the 1DX really shines, and was obviously meant to be used?

Why? Because that's Mikael/ankorwatt's hobby horse that he likes to ride into every thread that he visits. :

But he was absolutely correct in stating,

no , they have not the same sensor, there are different regarding CFA , FWC , QE and read out noise

 

[bdunbar79]

My neighbor / cousin-in-law...just last week, bought a 1DX with his newly earned "toy money"...and claims he has now relegated his 5D3 to his wife, with a 50 1.4 attached, to make it easier for her to carry around.

So I hope to attempt to put the 1DX to the test in low light at some point, hopefully with my 135L mounted.

I must say, holding his 1DX with 70-200 f/2.8 series 1, mounted...and then my 6D with 70-200 f/4 (non-IS), it was quite a lot more weight. Holding his was kind of like holding three bricks, mine fealt light as a feather. I would not want to walk around with that weight all day. I own one lens that is a bit more weight than a 70-200 2.8, but I use it on a monopod. I've rented superteles, and used them on the monopod also (or a tripod).

I might be seen as stupid for asking this, but it seems like much of the recent discussion in this thread, has degenerated into speaking about the 1DX's dynamic range and s/n ratio, at lower ISO. And yet, the OP shoots basketball games, etc...in less than ideal light at higher ISO. So why even discuss the low ISO capability, especially if all the independent tests indicate that higher ISO is where the 1DX really shines, and was obviously meant to be used?

It seems to me, that rather than compare the 1DX to Nikon crop bodies at low ISO, or to the 5D3 at most any ISO...that it should be compared to the Nikon D3s. I suspect the D3s would give it a serious run for its money, perhaps in the ISO range from 1000 to 25,600. Of course the file dimensions are only 12 MP from the D3s, but it would still be interesting to compare...because if the D3s really does have lower noise of both types, then the actual or practical resolution from the RAW files might be equal or even superior to the 1DX.

It's interesting that the noise pattern of the 1DX might be larger and more difficult to overcome in post editing, since I've found the same true going from the 5D3's files, to my 6D. The 6D's noise, especially the luminance noise (or "grain")...is about 1/3 the size of the 5D3's...at least on these particular bodies that I've used.

Interesting.

 

[CarlTN]

Haha...ok .

Wow, you both pounced on my post before I even edited it...I added the stipulation "above 4000 or 5000".

Another thing I noticed on his 1DX, with the speed at 12 fps, I could not distinctly hear or feel it clicking...it just sounded like a continuous "buzz". I guess I will experiment more with that...whenever he lets me. (By contrast, the 1D4 that I rented, at 10fps, I could definitely hear distinct clicking...the vibration feel through the body was probably similar).

He likes to shoot everything in "program" mode, but I've suggested he try shutter priority, or manual mode...both with ISO in automatic.

I also wish he had bought a 300mm f/2.8...even a used series 1 would be nice. He likes shooting birds with his 600 series 1, more than other wildlife, so I doubt he'll ever get a 300.

 

[Loswr]

He likes to shoot everything in "program" mode

Isn't that how everyone uses their 1D X?

 

[CarlTN]

He likes to shoot everything in "program" mode

Isn't that how everyone uses their 1D X?

It's not how I would use it!

 

[bdunbar79]

Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help. Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape. When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume. As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape. Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise). Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck) you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors. When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise. Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise. Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level. Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal. Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ. There are a lot of different points to consider. What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog. It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

EWP

Let me pose the following, it is a question that I have wondering about for a while.

If I take the native signal from the sensor as capture let's it would be a proper exposure at ISO 800. At ISO 400 the electronics would amplify the signal "half" as much. At ISO 100 the amplification would be an "eighth. Let me take the image from ISO 800 and from ISO 100. I then increase the exposure of the ISO 100 image by 3 stops in PS.

Naively they should give very similar results, but electronic gain gives a better picture. Why? Does the electronic amplification provide a more continuous signal?

And to take this one more step further, how does statistics of counting random events which is described by a poison distribution enter into the discussion (or is the number of photons generally so large that signal noise except at very high ISO values does not matter)?

I can do this very experiment today. RAW's at 1Dx/5D3 one stop underexposed at ISO 400, then at ISO 800, 4 photos.

 

[bdunbar79]

Hehe, well this is going to be more difficult than it looks. At the same everything, again, at -1EV, 0EV, and +1EV (ISO 200, 400, 800) the 1Dx files are darker than the 5D3 files. The exposure is different. On my 1Dx I checked and have not done any AE micradjustment, just 0EV base. Can someone refresh my memory as to why this is, because I've noticed it before this test.

 

[wockawocka]

Right ladies, lets clear this up.

I own the 1DX, 5D3 and the Hasselblad H4D50 (Which has by far the smallest pixels).

It's all about the sensor and how the information is read from it.

The 5D3 is half the price of the 1DX, the 1DX has the best sensor by default.

Pixel size isn't really that relevant, my H4D50 pixel sizes are half that of the 1DX, yet produce a superior image out of the three of them. And, I can push an ISO 50 file 3-4 stops, with better highlight and shadow recovery that even the 1DX.

It's about the type and quality of the sensor and how the camera reads the information from it. It's not all about pixel size. Fat pixels help, but as an example the D800 can be pushed wayyyyy up in the shadow department yet has tiny pixels. The 7D pixels are the same at the D800 but it's IQ sucks balls.

Maybe the 1DX has gold sensor lines vs copper on the 5D3. Who cares really?

You could try to work out why this is, but frankly don't bother, go out and take some photos. Let the guys in the labs keep designing great sensors for us to take advantage of.

 

[bdunbar79]

You said, "right ladies, let's clear this up"

But upon reading your post, you have no idea either. I'm not being disrespectful it's just that you cleared up nothing. Sorry. :

 

[CarlTN]

You said, "right ladies, let's clear this up"

But upon reading your post, you have no idea either. I'm not being disrespectful it's just that you cleared up nothing. Sorry. :

Agree! And I'm no lady...sometimes barely a gentleman !!

 

[CarlTN]

Maybe the 1DX has gold sensor lines vs copper on the 5D3. Who cares really?

I tell ya what, I care...and frankly this proves how little you know about electronics and electricity transfer. Gold is actually a far inferior conductor of electricity than copper. The only reason gold is used on electrical contacts, is because it does not degrade much over time as it oxidizes (and it oxidizes very little). However, gold is very soft and malleable, and there are other materials and compounds that are less costly and/or more durable than gold, that are sometimes used at the electrical contact point (where exposure to oxidation is at its strongest...and also where the two contacts are exposed to pressure and torque as connections are tightened). Speaker connection terminals on highend audo loudspeakers are known to use rhodium, and all other manner of materials...sometimes plated onto copper, sometimes machined solid. They all have various sonic signatures, and certainly impart a signature on the electrical signal, however minute the difference might be in practical terms, where the higher current is present in such a signal.

With signals of low current and higher voltage components, such as those occurring within a digital camera, it seems to me that solid gold traces would actually inhibit signal transfer, as compared to copper.

However, silver conducts electricity better than all other materials (including copper and gold), other than hyper-cooled "superconductors". Also, silver oxide conducts electricity, while copper oxide does not. Some highend audio companies such as "Audio Note" have used silver cabling with a clear dielectric, so that you can see the silver was intentionally pre-oxidized, and thus appears more of a gold-ish color. Some audio cable companies do use gold, or else gold appears in the alloy, because they like its sonic signature.

So it seems to me, that if copper is not used, then silver should be used for signal traces within or between silicon substrates...perhaps plated with gold if the environment is exposed to a higher degree of oxidation. But solid gold only inhibits the flow of electricity compared to copper...and is not much different in its conductivity than aluminum.

 

[wockawocka]

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.

 

[vscd]

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?

We become smarter. Asking questions is what it's all about.

Apple use a different one now and it's not the same.

Apple is gay and the users don't ask questions. We all know. :-X

 

[bdunbar79]

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?

We become smarter. Asking questions is what it's all about.

Apple use a different one now and it's not the same.

Apple is gay and the users don't ask questions. We all know. :-X

But it doesn't matter. You don't NEED to know.