1DX and 5D3 RAW files

[sanj]

I have had both cameras for a bit now and have collected lots of RAW from both cameras and as I get time I process them and put them in correct folders.

I NEVER COME TO KNOW WHICH CAMERA TOOK WHICH PHOTO unless I check metadata.

My opinion: There is no difference in IQ. I may be wrong, but I would not pick either camera just for IQ. While shooting, it is a different story altogether.

Would love for someone to post photos and educate me. Not challenging, I want to learn.

 

[Meh]

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.

You can get help for your anger issues. There are experienced therapists waiting. Some even have over 30 years of experience.

 

[East Wind Photography]

You missed the point. It's in the amplification process. If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush. Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.

But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support. No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras. The reason is the same. Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it? The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?

 

[K-amps]

You missed the point. It's in the amplification process. If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush. Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.

But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support. No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras. The reason is the same. Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

No it's not false and it precisely answers your question. High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it? The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?

Unless someone can show me a photo of the DAC or op-amp used to amplify the signal is different in the 5d3 vs 1dx, I am not buying the different amp theory... but I can understand larger pixels will have less noise to begin with, but to me that is a function of ISO at the end of the day. If Both bodies shoot at lets say 160 ISO (fix ISO and vary shutter speed only) for both bodies, I suspect the noise levels will be similar in the RAW files... will they not?

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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.

I believe, sir, you are the one taking a patronising tone "To me you are just noise" indeed! Experience, how would you know what experience I have?¹ As Neuro quite rightly points out your over simplification, is so oversimplified and patently false, it is of no value, and is certainly not the answer.

But you are not reading the words I write. Compare a same density and generation, heck it is the same sensor (effectively), 1Ds MkIII and a 5D MkII RAW file (which completely nullifies your suggestion about density and amplification) and you will see the difference. My "little brain" is interested in what, exactly, makes that difference. I am not surprised there is a difference, and I am certainly not underestimating built in obsolescence or model differentiation, but there are some members here with very in depth knowledge and interest in these things and the hope was one of them might have read and understood a white paper or patent or some such technical document that would actually answer, at least in part, the specific question.

You don't have the answer, by your reply I'd suggest you didn't even understand the question. I don't know the answer either, again as Neuro suggests, I suspect nobody here does.

Note: 1. For the record I got my first paid photography work in 1978 and shot my first wedding as primary (only) shooter in 1980. For whatever that is worth.............

 

[Meh]

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

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

 

[Northstar]

I have had both cameras for a bit now and have collected lots of RAW from both cameras and as I get time I process them and put them in correct folders.

I NEVER COME TO KNOW WHICH CAMERA TOOK WHICH PHOTO unless I check metadata.

My opinion: There is no difference in IQ. I may be wrong, but I would not pick either camera just for IQ. While shooting, it is a different story altogether.

Would love for someone to post photos and educate me. Not challenging, I want to learn.

i think you're correct sanj....i would say there is no discernible difference between the two in good light with nothing moving..imo.

but i think bdun was referring to higher iso shots....and I would agree with him, the 1dx is slightly better when working a raw image in post at higher iso.....imo.

this past winter i shot a lot of hockey, and spent considerable time trying to "work" the dark areas under hockey helmets so that i could see more and better face detail...the 1dx was slightly better than 5d3 for this at iso 1600 and up

 

[pwnagepeter]

For those interested, here is from someone who reverse engineered the CR2 raw's:

From a data container perspective there's a lot to learn.

Haven't had the time to go through everything to answer OP's question whether there really is more raw data (read: more POWER ;-)) in the 1Dx raws or not.

Please enjoy the read:
http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/

 

[East Wind Photography]

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.

 

[polarhannes]

Thank you for sharing this information - quite interesting!

For those interested, here is from someone who reverse engineered the CR2 raw's:

From a data container perspective there's a lot to learn.

Haven't had the time to go through everything to answer OP's question whether there really is more raw data (read: more POWER ;-)) in the 1Dx raws or not.

Please enjoy the read:
http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/

 

[Northstar]

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.

this makes sense eastwind...and i think somewhere in the supporting electronics/advanced circuits/design lies the specific answer to bdun's question.

one question though...if "better quality components/circuitry" supporting each photosite is so critical, then why does my old nikon d7000 (for $1000) have significantly better DR under iso 400 compared to a $6700 1dx when the "supporting parts" are surely of lesser quality.....does it all fall on design at that point?

 

[East Wind Photography]

Oh man, there are a lot of moving targets to make that comparison. It's likely a combination of factors. However the best solution to better IQ ultimately lies in better light sensitivity per pixel and less background noise. Likely a better sensor design from the start requiring less photon amplification and processing after the image is acquired.

Often a solution may be better suited for one particular situation but to bring it to market has to work in a variety of situations and someone makes a decision to live with less quality in order to support a wider range of operating conditions. We see that in many different products including cars where we can get incredible gas mileage but you can't deviate from sea level. Drive up a mountain and your car stalls out. They have to be made to withstand anything the consumer can throw at it and keep working. the nikon may very well have been designed with ISO 400 in mind to keep costs down whereas the 1DX may have been designed with higher ISO in mind.

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.

this makes sense eastwind...and i think somewhere in the supporting electronics/advanced circuits/design lies the specific answer to bdun's question.

one question though...if "better quality components/circuitry" supporting each photosite is so critical, then why does my old nikon d7000 (for $1000) have significantly better DR under iso 400 compared to a $6700 1dx when the "supporting parts" are surely of lesser quality.....does it all fall on design at that point?

 

[Quasimodo]

For those interested, here is from someone who reverse engineered the CR2 raw's:

From a data container perspective there's a lot to learn.

Haven't had the time to go through everything to answer OP's question whether there really is more raw data (read: more POWER ;-)) in the 1Dx raws or not.

Please enjoy the read:
http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/

Thanks! Looking forward to read it.

 

[Meh]

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.

Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise". All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high. Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

 

[Loswr]

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

Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise". All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high. Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

But wait, he stated,

I am quite done with this.

When an individual's metacognition is insufficiently developed to understand when s/he has moved on from a concept, others may question that individuals understanding of more complex issues.

 

[East Wind Photography]

No actually trying to say that a poor (cheap) amplifier can introduce more noise than a higher quality one such that when it's amplified, the photons can be pulled further from the noise. All of the noise you see in an image is not due to what you are photographing, it's noise from the amplifiers within the chip including that introduced by heat.

The best amplifier in the world will not produce any noise and as such will be able to pull the photons perfectly from a noiseless background.

So it's likely the higher end cameras have higher quality amplifiers (equals less noise) and in the case of the 1DX has a chip that is capable of recording more photons per pixel. Probably one of the reasons they stayed with the 18MP sensor so they could get better high ISO performance.

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.

Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise". All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high. Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

 

[East Wind Photography]

I was done with the insults I limit myself to one per month whether someone deserves it or not!

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

Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise". All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high. Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

But wait, he stated,

I am quite done with this.

When an individual's metacognition is insufficiently developed to understand when s/he has moved on from a concept, others may question that individuals understanding of more complex issues.

 

[Daniel Flather]

I'm sure someone knows, just no one on these forums.

"This is off our first record, most people don't own it"

 

[qwerty]

Which begs the question... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Seriously though, can anyone give an example of an image, shot with identical exposure and lens of the same scene at the same time, and with the same post-processing, that illustrates the OP's point (1)?

DxO (don't start...) shows the 1dx having a slight but real advantage in terms of both resolution-normalized and per-pixel performance, but the levels are less than what I personally would be able to notice without analysis or a very contrived example.

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).


(1) Note that, according to official camera discussion forum rules, if the obvious conclusion drawn from the illustrative image disagrees with anyone's biases, any conclusions drawn from it will not be considered acceptable unless the artistic merit of said image would make everyone from an Old Master to the most fringe avante-garde artist weep tears of ecstasy.

 

[Loswr]

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.