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.
1DX and 5D3 RAW files
- Thread starter bdunbar79
- Start date
- Status
I don't know, and I'd like to, but the same is true of 1Ds MkIII files and 5D MkII files, even though the 1Ds MkIII is older you can work the files to a greater degree than the 5D MkII files.
Upvote
0
That's exactly it! And I know, going by DxOmark, the sensors have about the same DR. Either way, I'd love to learn more about other aspects of sensor tech.
Upvote
0
Northstar said:
Yes, I knew they had larger pixel wells. How does this make a RAW file better? Do you know? Thanks Northstar.
Upvote
0
Re: 1DX, 6D and 5D3 RAW files
May I take advantage of this thread - instead of opening a very similar one - and ask to include EOS 6D in the equation.
Can someone comment on its raw files too (in relation to 1Dx and 5D3 raw files) ?
Thanks.
May I take advantage of this thread - instead of opening a very similar one - and ask to include EOS 6D in the equation.
Can someone comment on its raw files too (in relation to 1Dx and 5D3 raw files) ?
Thanks.
Upvote
0
Archangel72
Amateur on horizon!!! Brace yourselves for impact!
Well... 22,3 Mp vs 18,1 Mp = 4,2 Mp means much larger amount of light data in less resolution for 1Dx - less noise, better DR... that's for stills, video quality is now far better in 5dMarkIII after new Magic Lantern firmware, so 3.000,00 $ more = means weaker video quality than 5DMarkIII... ooooh joy :
Why... oooo.... why ML doesn't make firmware for rest of us Canon users?
C'mon ML, give it a try... what a video quality would that be for 1Dx
Why... oooo.... why ML doesn't make firmware for rest of us Canon users?
C'mon ML, give it a try... what a video quality would that be for 1Dx
Upvote
0
bdunbar79 said:
I don't know, but I seem to remember reading that within each "pixel well", a percentage of said "well" gather's light and a percentage is "other stuff" (electronics circuits or whatever)
My understanding is that better technology has increased the "gathers light" portion of the "well" as the circuitry part/percentage is reduced through tech advances....the 1dx has a larger "well" and more of that larger well gathers light because the tech is better/smaller?
I'm prob wrong...but that is my "laymen" understanding of the tech... someone please correct me if I am wrong..I am not a techie at all.
North
Upvote
0
1DX raw files have more DR in the shadows and highlights. Where the 5D3 shines is in the smaller size of the noise patterns at higher ISO. They can be filtered out to a higher degree than on the 1DX. However there are tricks you can do to make the noise less visible..such as overexposing and bringing the exposure back down in post. You can also do the same with the 5D3 but you cannot pull the exposure too far or you will destroy the highlights.
Each one has it's benefits. I shoot mostly wildlife and that involves a lot of cropping. The 5D3 can be cropped way farther than the 1DX due to the higher pixel density...and still any high iso noise is easier to filter out due to the smaller noise patterns.
However, one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance. Both cameras were purpose built and you need to choose the best one based on the overall package. DR and noise can be compensated for to some degree but other factors cannot.
Each one has it's benefits. I shoot mostly wildlife and that involves a lot of cropping. The 5D3 can be cropped way farther than the 1DX due to the higher pixel density...and still any high iso noise is easier to filter out due to the smaller noise patterns.
However, one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance. Both cameras were purpose built and you need to choose the best one based on the overall package. DR and noise can be compensated for to some degree but other factors cannot.
Upvote
0
Why on earth not? If outright IQ is a major consideration RAW performance is the benchmark. Any lens can be made to work on pretty much any camera, but we can't swap sensors.
But I think we are getting off track, certainly the bit I am interested in. If I may be so bold I think my comparison is less likely to be derailed with irrelevant side issues, so here goes.
Specifically, why does a 1Ds MkIII RAW file have more "wiggle room" than a 5D MkII RAW file? They are basically the same sensor, in fact Canon rated the later 5D MkII as having slightly better higher iso performance than the 1Ds MkIII.
I can only surmise that the electronic components inside the 1 series cameras are higher quality than the ones inside the 5D series camera, but I have no proof of that. These 1 series components create less issues in the recording process and so this creates the wiggle room.
But I'd love to know the actual real reason.
Upvote
0
I'm not talking about lenses. I'm talking about camera features that have nothing to do with IQ. For example a sports photographer would very much need 12 fps vs 6 where a wedding photographer could care less as long as he can get good DR of a wedding dress. Sensor IQ is NOT the only factor to consider. If you are an amateur then buy what you want, as you wont notice the difference in IQ between the two.
I've used both. I own the 5D3 and tried the 1DX on Canon eval. I still dont own the 1DX..while the 12fps is nice for capturing birds in flight, the 23MP sensor on the 5D3 offers me more as well as the quieter shutter. More DR doesnt do any good if the shutter scares off your subject.
So the point is, DR between the 5D3 and 1DX is so similar most will not be able to tell the difference...Only in side by side comparison of the same shot can you really see what the difference is.
I've never owned a 1D III or a 5DII so I cant speak about those..but they are not part of this subject anyway.
I've used both. I own the 5D3 and tried the 1DX on Canon eval. I still dont own the 1DX..while the 12fps is nice for capturing birds in flight, the 23MP sensor on the 5D3 offers me more as well as the quieter shutter. More DR doesnt do any good if the shutter scares off your subject.
So the point is, DR between the 5D3 and 1DX is so similar most will not be able to tell the difference...Only in side by side comparison of the same shot can you really see what the difference is.
I've never owned a 1D III or a 5DII so I cant speak about those..but they are not part of this subject anyway.
privatebydesign said:
Upvote
0
So you don't know the answer, why not just say that? You are going off on your own imagined sidetrack, there is a huge difference between RAW performance and DR, which is only one metric of a cameras output.East Wind Photography said:
My question was a more direct comparison of bdunbar's original question that he agreed with and, I had hoped, less able to be sidetracked. The same (effectively) sensor in two different priced cameras the older 1 series has better wiggle room characteristics. Wiggle room IS NOT about DR, it is about IQ, specifically when RAW files are heavily reworked, noise, banding, FPN, etc etc are more controllable in 1 series cameras than 5 series cameras. The question is, specifically, WHY? What component or process is used in a 1 series RAW file that is not used in a 5 series one? Not what should I buy to shoot sports or weddings, the question is a 100% techie question.
Upvote
0
I wouldn't necessarily say the 1DX raw is "better". It is in some ways and not so in others. however to answer your question, consider the two sensors 23MP and 18MP both full frame. The pixels in the 18MP sensor are able to capture more photons per pixel than on a 23MP sensor. In order to produce the same exposure between the two, the 23MP sensor must be amplified internally to compensate for fewer photons. This is why the shadows sometimes suffer on the 5D3. There isnt enough photons down under to pull out shadow detail. On the high end, the 5D3 loses as well because the amplification is to high for the bright pixels.
So in a nut shell, the 5D3 has to undergo some internal amplification of the photons detected to achieve the same exposure. It's not good or bad, it's just what has to be done when you spread out the photons onto a higher pixel density sensor.
So back to one of my previous statements in that you can get the 5D3 to perform just like the 1DX and in some cases better. Just have to realize that the lower 3 stops of the DR (both cameras) comprise of less than HALF of the available DR..and that means that the 2 stops on the high end make up more than half. If you bias your exposure toward those two stops on the high end you can pull down your shadows and get similar results as the 1DX..at least as far as shadow detail is concerned. Not many people are savy enough to know how to get 5 stops of DR in their photographs and that's why there is HDR process.
I personally like the 5D3 raw files better than the 1DX, not from a DR perspective but from a noise perspective. It's just smaller, more random and easier to deal with than the 1DX. Perhaps the 1DX is better at super high ISO but I still find the noise to be bothersome compared to the 5D3. That's me and others will differ in their opinion. I wont be buying a 1DX but I'm waiting to see what the next generation will be like. Hopefully an improved photon amplification system and better signal to noise ratio.
So in a nut shell, the 5D3 has to undergo some internal amplification of the photons detected to achieve the same exposure. It's not good or bad, it's just what has to be done when you spread out the photons onto a higher pixel density sensor.
So back to one of my previous statements in that you can get the 5D3 to perform just like the 1DX and in some cases better. Just have to realize that the lower 3 stops of the DR (both cameras) comprise of less than HALF of the available DR..and that means that the 2 stops on the high end make up more than half. If you bias your exposure toward those two stops on the high end you can pull down your shadows and get similar results as the 1DX..at least as far as shadow detail is concerned. Not many people are savy enough to know how to get 5 stops of DR in their photographs and that's why there is HDR process.
I personally like the 5D3 raw files better than the 1DX, not from a DR perspective but from a noise perspective. It's just smaller, more random and easier to deal with than the 1DX. Perhaps the 1DX is better at super high ISO but I still find the noise to be bothersome compared to the 5D3. That's me and others will differ in their opinion. I wont be buying a 1DX but I'm waiting to see what the next generation will be like. Hopefully an improved photon amplification system and better signal to noise ratio.
bdunbar79 said:
Upvote
0
That doesn't answer the question and is patently false when you use my just as valid comparison, which is why I did it.
It seems nobody knows what component or process is used in 1 series cameras than enable more severe adjustments to a RAW file than a 5 series cameras RAW file.
It seems nobody knows what component or process is used in 1 series cameras than enable more severe adjustments to a RAW file than a 5 series cameras RAW file.
Upvote
0
No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.
Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you. I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years. 10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation. The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise. It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area. I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel. To me you are just noise.
I am quite done with this.
Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you. I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years. 10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation. The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise. It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area. I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel. To me you are just noise.
I am quite done with this.
privatebydesign said:
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
You underestimate Canon's desire to cripple lessor bodies to protect higher margin products... After how ML unearthed the RAW video performance from the 5d3 that Canon crippled via firmware... this belief has only gained strength. I have no evidence for this specific case, but so seems to be the general trend. Canon will not let you have the best of breed by paying half price.
While I can understand the desire to increase margin rates, they should not be done at the expense of absolute margin numbers. Meaning, what made the 5d2 such a huge success? It was a value proposition. It gave a lot more for the price point than other products (including Canon's) provided on a per dollar basis. And while Canon can think the 5d2 stole some of 1Ds3's sales, why are they ignoring the massive cash stream that the 5d2 generated? The 5D2 did a heck of a lot more to win people over to Canon than the 1Ds3 ever did... in the long term, the halo related benefits continue to give Canon additional revenue despite the 5D2 not being sold anymore... I digress.
Coming back to the topic, my vote goes to coding magic of the RAW files...
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
