5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

[HurtinMinorKey]

But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?

Because the 18Mpix (larger pix) is better for stills. The only reason to have the 22Mpix in the FF is so you can do better line skipping video at 1080p.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?

Because the 18Mpix (larger pix) is better for stills. The only reason to have the 22Mpix in the FF is so you can do better line skipping video at 1080p.

Correct....thank you. Which says exactly my point....the still images taken with the 1Dx will be a better IQ than the 5Dx. That 22Mpix sensor is NOT going to equal or surpass the 1Dx 18Mpix sensor in IQ. If it did, Canon would have put it in the 1Dx and been able to claim higher Mpixels and IQ.

They aren't stupid, they'd win both mindsets with that.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.

How/why are you so sure that they won't offer a clean HDMI out? Nikon did it with the D800, why does it seem so out of the question for Canon to follow suit?

I can understand if you're suggesting it based on the idea that the 5D series is a still camera at heart, and a clean HDMI out may be a feature that only a small percentage of buyers would use. But to suggest Canon is deliberately releasing a crummy camera just sounds kind of crazy. The next 5D is one of the most anticipated cameras of all time and people have been waiting on it for years. Canon would have to be run by a bunch of morons to only make minor updates.

This is a rumors forum, you can't be certain of anything...

A Canon rep was quote a while back when demoing a 1DX that the 1DX didn't not have uncompressed HDMI out because Canon's video division didn't want that to happen. They didn't want the stills division to allow that. Simple as that. So they did very deliberately cripple that. Perhaps the D800 will make the higher up change his mind but you'd think they would've already known and had it in the 1DX then.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Am I to expect the same 61pt AF system that's in the 1D X?

Considering what Nikon offers, you should be expecting that only even more considering how resting on their laurels and holding as much back as possible and milking out every last penny rather than charging forward and blowing Nikon out of the water (which they easily could have done a few times over the last few years) and arrogant about their position they have become, quite possibly not. But you can hope. Maybe, maybe, maybe, Nikon/Sony have put enough fear into them to wake them up again.

I seriously doubt the 5D? camera will have the same AF and metering as the full 1Dx system.

Again, from the Canon doc on the 1DX, the AF and metering system have a dedicated Digic 4 processor. For the 5Dx to have this AF system, it would necessitate having similar processing power. At minimum, that means the 5Dx would have to be dual processor (Digic 5 for the images, video, and all other functions), and Digic 4 for the AF and metering.

An 18Mpix FF image on a 1Dx at 12 fps is going to push (excluding all other items), 216Mpix thru those two Digic 5 processors. A 5Dx, based on the rumored specs, at 22Mpix and 7fps, will push 154 Mpix thru the processor(s). I do not believe a single Digic 5 can push that pixel load, and handle all other camera functions alone.

If it could, then the 1Dx should be able to push approx 300Mpix thru (based on the 5Dx needs handled by a single Digic 5) and still handle all other functions (except the aforementioned AF and metering using the Digic 4). Now, if that is correct, then the 1Dx should not have to resort to JPEG only in the 14 fps burst mode, it should be able to handle RAWs (the mirror lockup in that burst mode has zero to do with the JPEG only ability of that mode, its the data being pushed that limits it). By estimation and basic scaling of the processors, the 1Dx should have nearly 80Mpix additional bandwidth available for processing.

So, based on this model, the 5Dx would have to have 3 processors to handle the estimated pixel load, the camera functions, and the 1Dx AF and metering. I don't think that is going to happen. As a result, I believe the AF and metering will be a subset of the 1Dx that does not require it's own dedicated processor.

Don't get me wrong my friend, I would LOVE for you to be right and it did have the full-on 1Dx AF and metering. I just think that's beyond what this body will have.

So far none of the bodies with dual-digic have pushed 2 as much as single digic cameras. Some as low as 1.6x factor or less I think. If we called it 1.7x factor (and used 14fps instead of 12fps) then you might say 6.7 fps at 22MP or certainly 7fps if they re-used the 18MP sensor.

In the past I believe the AF was either controlled by the main CPU (which generally hadn't been the digics, but an additional chip AFAIK) or an additional AF only CPU.

On the 1DX they will use a Digic iv as the AF chip.

Most of the rumors have mentioned single digic V for image throughput and some have also mentioned digic iv for AF. Who knows if any of this stuff is for real, the 22MP or 7fps either.

Anyway I don't think 3 digics, if it came to that, shoud be a shock in the general sense (coming from Canon, yes, perhaps). How much do you think a digic iv costs? they use them in the lowest of lowest priced Canon P&S cameras. And, I forget, but I thought they added a separate CPU for AF even in the 7D, although not a digic chip.

Why is it so insane to think (other than because of the sort of company Canon has become)? Other companies do it. If you think it is all insane, in principle (in reality, perhaps you are correct), you've had too much of the Canon kool-aid.

 

[Smith]

You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.

How/why are you so sure that they won't offer a clean HDMI out? Nikon did it with the D800, why does it seem so out of the question for Canon to follow suit?

I can understand if you're suggesting it based on the idea that the 5D series is a still camera at heart, and a clean HDMI out may be a feature that only a small percentage of buyers would use. But to suggest Canon is deliberately releasing a crummy camera just sounds kind of crazy. The next 5D is one of the most anticipated cameras of all time and people have been waiting on it for years. Canon would have to be run by a bunch of morons to only make minor updates.

This is a rumors forum, you can't be certain of anything...

Are you being serious ? Canon has a very long history of purposely crippling their features to protect their other products. With the C300 and their new push towards high end video they will be even more protective than in the past. Nikon has no video market to protect so they can do whatever they want. The only limitation for Nikon is if they start affecting the sales of Sony's video market.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the 22MP lets them get better video quality and you don't lose 4MP (not that it matters so much, although at some point it becomes a slippery slope and since we had hoped to gain some even....) then why not? Seriosult what different does 18MP vs 22MP make for SNR and DR? Zero for DR and like what maybe 1/10th stop? 1/6th stop at worst for SNR? Who cares about that? Nobody can see the difference between a fraction of a stop difference for noise.

I hear you, but......

Based on what you're saying, why not put the 22Mpix sensor on the 1Dx? It certainly had to be ready last fall (in reality for this March release). If the noise is that little and there is no DR difference as you state....

It is a bit odd. But I think it's either that:

1. the 22MP is something entirely made up and not based in reality, someone was ooh look 3x3 bin for video I bet it will use that and made up all this 22MP, 7fps stuff and sent it in and everyone else copied

or

2. it will be 22MP but the 1DX didn't use it because they felt they needed to hit 12fps (14fps without mirror) and digic 5+ couldn't quite handle it or maybe it added just a bit too much extra heat to handle it or maybe some new ADC readout from the best low ISO DR couldn't run quite that fast with their tech, etc. OR maybe some types of pros were already complaining that 18MP was annoyingly large to deal with and they were afraid to push it even a bit higher without having them totally flip out on them and yet all the same Canon really did want 22MP badly enough for certain video reasons so they thought it worth it to spend money making two different sensors even though they are so close in MP?

It does seem odd to me they would go to the expense to make a new sensor when they are seemingly so close though. Then again the 5D did use it's own sensor and I guess 12.7 and 16.2MP are somewhat close too but I thought Canon was happy with the savings from re-using the 1Ds3 sensor but maybe they simply felt something about it important enough on the video side of things???

All I know is that every tech paper I have ever seen strongly, strongly hints that any loss in high iso performance when the MP counts are so close (18MP vs 22MP) wouldn't really be noticeable to the eye, just some modest fraction of a stop, so I think it has to be due to some other reason.

Let's go further.....if we are to assume the 5Dx has a single Digic 5 to support 22Mpix at 7 fps and a single Digic 4 dedicated to the AF per the 1Dx specs (as you have stated you believe the 1Dx AF will be in this camera), then the two Digic 5 processors in the 1Dx should be able to handle 22Mpix full RAW at 14fps.

Although no dual digic body, so far, has ever had 2x the throughput as the single digic models, the scaling might not work quite so well due to various little things to let them get the full 2x.

But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?

As I speculated above.
And why would the 1DX need better sensor performance? It's more of the high speed above all else cam.

 

[simonxu11]

D800 ISO test from ISO50-ISO25600
http://info.xitek.com/pzreview/hwtest/201202/14-75122.html

I cannnot find an English version although the website above claims it is from facebook

First pic is ISO3200, second is ISO6400

@6400 is very useable to my eyes

 

[Lee Jay]

Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance?

Smaller pixels perform better at high-ISO all the way until read noise starts to dominate (which is way, way out there for most sensors). These were shot at the same ISO, same shutter speed, same f-stop, same focal length, both use the same sensor area, both were shot in raw and processed in the same software. The pixel area is different by a factor of 16. The processed images on the far right column tell the story - the smaller pixels preserved more detail with less noise than the bigger pixels did even though they were set at their maximum ISO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20test%20results.jpg

 

[sublime LightWorks]

It is a bit odd. But I think it's either that:

1. the 22MP is something entirely made up and not based in reality, someone was ooh look 3x3 bin for video I bet it will use that and made up all this 22MP, 7fps stuff and sent it in and everyone else copied

or

2. it will be 22MP but the 1DX didn't use it because they felt they needed to hit 12fps (14fps without mirror) and digic 5+ couldn't quite handle it or maybe it added just a bit too much extra heat to handle it or maybe some new ADC readout from the best low ISO DR couldn't run quite that fast with their tech, etc. OR maybe some types of pros were already complaining that 18MP was annoyingly large to deal with and they were afraid to push it even a bit higher without having them totally flip out on them and yet all the same Canon really did want 22MP badly enough for certain video reasons so they thought it worth it to spend money making two different sensors even though they are so close in MP?

It does seem odd to me they would go to the expense to make a new sensor when they are seemingly so close though. Then again the 5D did use it's own sensor and I guess 12.7 and 16.2MP are somewhat close too but I thought Canon was happy with the savings from re-using the 1Ds3 sensor but maybe they simply felt something about it important enough on the video side of things???

All I know is that every tech paper I have ever seen strongly, strongly hints that any loss in high iso performance when the MP counts are so close (18MP vs 22MP) wouldn't really be noticeable to the eye, just some modest fraction of a stop, so I think it has to be due to some other reason.

Let's go further.....if we are to assume the 5Dx has a single Digic 5 to support 22Mpix at 7 fps and a single Digic 4 dedicated to the AF per the 1Dx specs (as you have stated you believe the 1Dx AF will be in this camera), then the two Digic 5 processors in the 1Dx should be able to handle 22Mpix full RAW at 14fps.

Although no dual digic body, so far, has ever had 2x the throughput as the single digic models, the scaling might not work quite so well due to various little things to let them get the full 2x.

But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?

As I speculated above.
And why would the 1DX need better sensor performance? It's more of the high speed above all else cam.

Gets you thinking, doesn't it?

Regarding your last statement, of why the 1Dx would need better performance....because Canon clearly said in the 1Dx press release it was a merging of the 1Ds and the 1D to produce the best camera possible. I seriously doubt that Canon wants to put an IQ crown on a camera that is not the successor to it's 1Ds.

In effect, it would be repeating the same thing it did when the 5Dmk2 came out....steal the IQ crown from the 1Ds and put it on a camera that was not in it's 1D pro line. A camera, mind you that did not have weather sealing, had 3rd world AF and metering, and a whole host of other features missing.

Does Canon what to put it's IQ crown on a camera that costs $3k or on it's flagship camera that costs $6800? For sake of argument, if the new 5Dx has better IQ than the 1Dx, has the 1Dx's AF and metering, and shoots 7fps, is there ANY reason to by the 1Dx for studio use? Or wedding use?

I can't think of a single reason (lone exception is if you shoot a lot of outdoor weddings and want the weather sealed body).

Again, I hope it's all true on the rumored specs and it is all that (and more) for $3k. I just have a hard time believing that, knowing what I do about marketing, etc. Canon would be guilty of telling the world "The 1Dx is the best we can offer, $6800." and then turn around 6 months later and whip out a 5Dx with 85% of the 1Dx features and better IQ at $3000.

That is a tough sell to me.

BTW, thx for a really good discussion on this, much appreciated.

 

[wickidwombat]

damn 12800 looks pretty useable IMO big drop in IQ next stop up but i'd probably be happy shooting that puppy in the 3200 to 12800 range. topaz denoise would clean that up just fine

 

[simonxu11]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

 

[sublime LightWorks]

Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance?

Smaller pixels perform better at high-ISO all the way until read noise starts to dominate (which is way, way out there for most sensors). These were shot at the same ISO, same shutter speed, same f-stop, same focal length, both use the same sensor area, both were shot in raw and processed in the same software. The pixel area is different by a factor of 16. The processed images on the far right column tell the story - the smaller pixels preserved more detail with less noise than the bigger pixels did even though they were set at their maximum ISO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20test%20results.jpg

Ok, let's say this is correct (I'm not buying this as I can point to 1000 other examples of images taken where this is not the result). Can you explain why comparisons of exactly the same RAW images taken with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 3200 are so much cleaner than the 7D? The 7D has a far smaller pixel, but tests done on many sites comparing it to the 5Dmk2 clearly show the degraded IQ on the 7D at the same high ISO levels. And the 3Mpix difference between the 5Dmk2 and the 7D is not enough to account for that.

The 7D is also newer and has a newer sensor than the 5Dmk2. How would you explain that based on what you referenced and posted?

DPReview has examples of this in their 7D review and analysis. And since I own both the 5Dmk2 and the 7D, I can tell you in the real world, the 7D cannot hold a candle to the 5Dmk2 at ISO 1600 or above.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar

Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

And, I'm still waiting for a link to a RAW comparison that shows the images.

Serious RAW tests I guess we will have to wait for. Everything Ive seen so far is pretesting.
However this thread confirms that D800 at least is clearly better than my 5D2. But this we knew from the beginning since there are tests available for D7000 and D800 has similar pixels. Check out D7000 tests and you will get a pretty good picture of how much better D800 is at high ISO than 5D2 (at least 0.5 stop)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40549327

There are other information to that points in the same direction if you search for it but for final details of performance it's better to wait for serious tests.

Appreciate the link.

My only pick at that is the images have been re-sized, which renders them with an averaging of the noise, not a true noise image. If I am shooting a 36Mpix camera and I have to resize the image to get it to look as good as my 5Dmk2, then what am I getting for 36Mpix?

I agree with you, a RAW, one-to-one comparison under identical conditions is whats needed. Until that happens, we will not know.

As for some of the comments running around here saying smaller pixels have less noise at high ISO's......some one needs to tell that to my PhaseOne 33Mpix back. I can assure you, it will laugh out loud for hours.

Now, for the record, I have and I am entertaining a move to Nikon as I like a LOT of what I see in the D800. I shoot two Canon bodies and a D800 with a D4 works very nicely in what I do, along with my PhaseOne that the wife is unaware of. : (if you guys don't hear from me again, call the cops and point her out as a suspect).

 

[wickidwombat]

And, I'm still waiting for a link to a RAW comparison that shows the images.

Serious RAW tests I guess we will have to wait for. Everything Ive seen so far is pretesting.
However this thread confirms that D800 at least is clearly better than my 5D2. But this we knew from the beginning since there are tests available for D7000 and D800 has similar pixels. Check out D7000 tests and you will get a pretty good picture of how much better D800 is at high ISO than 5D2 (at least 0.5 stop)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40549327

There are other information to that points in the same direction if you search for it but for final details of performance it's better to wait for serious tests.

Appreciate the link.

My only pick at that is the images have been re-sized, which renders them with an averaging of the noise, not a true noise image. If I am shooting a 36Mpix camera and I have to resize the image to get it to look as good as my 5Dmk2, then what am I getting for 36Mpix?

I agree with you, a RAW, one-to-one comparison under identical conditions is whats needed. Until that happens, we will not know.

As for some of the comments running around here saying smaller pixels have less noise at high ISO's......some one needs to tell that to my PhaseOne 33Mpix back. I can assure you, it will laugh out loud for hours.

Now, for the record, I have and I am entertaining a move to Nikon as I like a LOT of what I see in the D800. I shoot two Canon bodies and a D800 with a D4 works very nicely in what I do, along with my PhaseOne that the wife is unaware of. : (if you guys don't hear from me again, call the cops and point her out as a suspect).

i'm interested to hear how you have kept the phase one under the radar...

is that a medium format in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

 

[dunkers]

Seeing as we've transitioned into talking about the D800, can somebody explain to me what exactly "uncompressed HD signal out" means?

I've seen people talking about this all over, but nobody explains what it actually is and what it is useful for. As far as I'm aware, signal sent through HDMI is already uncompressed. So what is the all the fuss about, or is it a one of those features that nobody has any idea what it is and just brags about it?

 

[sublime LightWorks]

In the past I believe the AF was either controlled by the main CPU (which generally hadn't been the digics, but an additional chip AFAIK) or an additional AF only CPU.

On the 1DX they will use a Digic iv as the AF chip.

Most of the rumors have mentioned single digic V for image throughput and some have also mentioned digic iv for AF. Who knows if any of this stuff is for real, the 22MP or 7fps either.

Anyway I don't think 3 digics, if it came to that, shoud be a shock in the general sense (coming from Canon, yes, perhaps). How much do you think a digic iv costs? they use them in the lowest of lowest priced Canon P&S cameras. And, I forget, but I thought they added a separate CPU for AF even in the 7D, although not a digic chip.

Why is it so insane to think (other than because of the sort of company Canon has become)? Other companies do it. If you think it is all insane, in principle (in reality, perhaps you are correct), you've had too much of the Canon kool-aid.

Definitely not drinking the Canon kool-aid, far from it.

Let's drive on that idea of 3 processors. Could all that fit in a 5D body? I'm thinking no, but.....it's possible. Looking at the circuit board images of the 1Dx, I have a hard time thinking that hardware is going to fit in a 5D body. Gotta remember, that 1Dx has the advantage of the room offered by the built-in grip.

In the 7D it uses the dual Digic's for the AF as well....check the specs and the circuit board layout...nothing indicates another AF processor in addition to the Digics.

 

[Lee Jay]

Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance?

Smaller pixels perform better at high-ISO all the way until read noise starts to dominate (which is way, way out there for most sensors). These were shot at the same ISO, same shutter speed, same f-stop, same focal length, both use the same sensor area, both were shot in raw and processed in the same software. The pixel area is different by a factor of 16. The processed images on the far right column tell the story - the smaller pixels preserved more detail with less noise than the bigger pixels did even though they were set at their maximum ISO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20test%20results.jpg

Ok, let's say this is correct (I'm not buying this as I can point to 1000 other examples of images taken where this is not the result). Can you explain why comparisons of exactly the same RAW images taken with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 3200 are so much cleaner than the 7D?

Because the comparison isn't done correctly. It's not done with the same sensor area used. It's done with both at 100% or both full-frame. Neither is correct if you're talking about pixel density. If you change nothing but pixel density, you have to assume the same amount of sensor area is used. If you do that, you'll find your 7D out-performs your 5DII. The reason the 5DII is better overall is because it has more sensor area.

Incidentally, those images I posted were from the 5D and the Canon S3IS compact. The compact won easily when the 5D didn't have the advantage of it's massively larger sensor.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

And, I'm still waiting for a link to a RAW comparison that shows the images.

Serious RAW tests I guess we will have to wait for. Everything Ive seen so far is pretesting.
However this thread confirms that D800 at least is clearly better than my 5D2. But this we knew from the beginning since there are tests available for D7000 and D800 has similar pixels. Check out D7000 tests and you will get a pretty good picture of how much better D800 is at high ISO than 5D2 (at least 0.5 stop)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=40549327

There are other information to that points in the same direction if you search for it but for final details of performance it's better to wait for serious tests.

Appreciate the link.

My only pick at that is the images have been re-sized, which renders them with an averaging of the noise, not a true noise image. If I am shooting a 36Mpix camera and I have to resize the image to get it to look as good as my 5Dmk2, then what am I getting for 36Mpix?

I agree with you, a RAW, one-to-one comparison under identical conditions is whats needed. Until that happens, we will not know.

As for some of the comments running around here saying smaller pixels have less noise at high ISO's......some one needs to tell that to my PhaseOne 33Mpix back. I can assure you, it will laugh out loud for hours.

Now, for the record, I have and I am entertaining a move to Nikon as I like a LOT of what I see in the D800. I shoot two Canon bodies and a D800 with a D4 works very nicely in what I do, along with my PhaseOne that the wife is unaware of. : (if you guys don't hear from me again, call the cops and point her out as a suspect).

i'm interested to hear how you have kept the phase one under the radar...

is that a medium format in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

LOL....the method I used is called "don't say what your annual bonus actually was the past two years so you can sock away 1/3 of it, and make sure you get her something sparkly just in case." Very effective, and works better than a B-2 bomber on a moonless night.

 

[Smith]

Seeing as we've transitioned into talking about the D800, can somebody explain to me what exactly "uncompressed HD signal out" means?

I've seen people talking about this all over, but nobody explains what it actually is and what it is useful for. As far as I'm aware, signal sent through HDMI is already uncompressed. So what is the all the fuss about, or is it a one of those features that nobody has any idea what it is and just brags about it?

This is a very common mistake that is repeated all over the net. You are absolutely correct that there is no such thing as compressed HDMI. Thus saying "uncompressed HDMI" is a misnomer. It comes about because people are trying to differentiate between compressed H.264 video, used internal to the camera, and the HDMI video stream which by definition is uncompressed. What people sometimes correctly convey is that an HDMI stream is "clean" since it can and is purposely crippled in Canon's implementation.

If you're unfamiliar with HDMI feeds of DSLRs this page gives a decent preview of how Canon purposely puts garbage into the feed to protect their video market.

http://atomos.activehosted.com/kb/article/ninja/ninja-tests-with-popular-dslr-cameras