5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
- Thread starter danski0224
- Start date
- Status
I find thread very interesting. I am always curious to see how newer technology compares to older technology. I own a Canon 5D Mark III but not a 1D Mark IV. I would have thought the 5D Mark III would offer more detail and less noise being a much newer camera, I would love to see a photo comparison of these two cameras using the same lens.
danski0224, are you able to post a photo with the same lens from both cameras of the same subject? I would greatly appreciate you doing so.
danski0224, are you able to post a photo with the same lens from both cameras of the same subject? I would greatly appreciate you doing so.
Upvote
0
C
Cannon Man
Guest
That dude in the video is not a canon engineer.. Far from it. He just works for canon usa. The purpose of the presentation is to make pelple go to buy both 1D X and 5D III cameras..
Why would they mention that canon put a worse sensor to the 5D III than they could have if the purpose os to sell the camera. That is just plain common sense.
Have it be my opinion then that i see a big difference in the IQ of these cameras but it's true. Look again.
Why would they mention that canon put a worse sensor to the 5D III than they could have if the purpose os to sell the camera. That is just plain common sense.
Have it be my opinion then that i see a big difference in the IQ of these cameras but it's true. Look again.
Upvote
0
danski0224 said:
I wasn't speaking about subjectivity at all. My two points were that A) the 5D3 sensor objectively measures better across the board, but that B) literally dozens of variables that have nothing to do with the sensor could cause a 1D4 RAW file to look better then a 5D3 RAW file.
People fail to realize how many links in the imaging chain are an order of magnitude more important then the sensor differences they endlessly ponder and debate, even FF vs. crop vs. 4/3.
To give you an idea of the variables and tolerances: what you think gives the 5D3 an advantage might in fact give the 1D4 an advantage. Even Photoshop uses fast scaling algorithms for screen display that can look worse at certain magnifications. An even better example: Apple's Preview is notorious for destroying images at certain sizes. You can open an image in Preview, it looks horrible, then click full screen and it can grow by maybe 15% but all of a sudden look like gold. Or vice versa. I don't spend that much time in DPP, but it wouldn't surprise me to observe the the same.
And opening both in DPP with "neutral" settings does not eliminate settings or profiles as a variable. DPP is doing different things for different cameras even if all the human visible settings seem the same.
Bad analogy. There's a lot of nonsense that gets passed around the audiophile crowd, and I rarely ever trust a claim unless it's repeatable under blind testing conditions.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you're claiming a camera which objectively tests worse (though still very, very good...none of these cameras are ever "bad") looks better then one which objectively tests better. If you want to know if something is wrong in your 5D3 imaging chain, post RAW files (identical subject / lighting / lens / exposure).
Upvote
0
If I take a picture of the same subject using a 5D3 and a 1DIV using the same lens, how do I make the other variables the same?
It's a crop camera, so if I shoot at the same distance or if I create the same field of view in the viewfinder, the light level changes.
Should I use flash?
What ISO setting?
It's a crop camera, so if I shoot at the same distance or if I create the same field of view in the viewfinder, the light level changes.
Should I use flash?
What ISO setting?
Upvote
0
I've owned the 1d4 from the first batch here and had until I bought the 5d3 in march last year. The 1dX I've owned since august last year and to question the IQ difference is to me just to argue to argue to argue 
No doubt that the 5d is better than the 1d4, with sharpness, I can give edge to the 1d4, but color and noise is way better on the 5d3. For me personally a fullframe picture is always preferred because I like the shallow dof and smooth, clean rendering. I demands more of a lens, but the best lenses shines much more on a FF camera. The AF system is also the biggest factor in getting a sharp image when you're shooting anything that can't be done with MF (and my guess is, if you buy a 1d4 or 5d3, you're not into MF) and there also, the 5d3 is way better, especially tracking subjects and when the light dims a bit where I found the 1d4 to be pretty poor.
Then there's the 1dx.. It's the only camera I have ever been completely satisfied with, it's truly remarkable and it IS better then the 5d3, better sharpness, more accurate color (less noise when using ColorChecker-correction) much less noise at even moderate iso values and better DR. I can work the files harder without them collapsing. That on top of everything else that's better with it than the two others is what makes such an amazing tool to use.
No doubt that the 5d is better than the 1d4, with sharpness, I can give edge to the 1d4, but color and noise is way better on the 5d3. For me personally a fullframe picture is always preferred because I like the shallow dof and smooth, clean rendering. I demands more of a lens, but the best lenses shines much more on a FF camera. The AF system is also the biggest factor in getting a sharp image when you're shooting anything that can't be done with MF (and my guess is, if you buy a 1d4 or 5d3, you're not into MF) and there also, the 5d3 is way better, especially tracking subjects and when the light dims a bit where I found the 1d4 to be pretty poor.
Then there's the 1dx.. It's the only camera I have ever been completely satisfied with, it's truly remarkable and it IS better then the 5d3, better sharpness, more accurate color (less noise when using ColorChecker-correction) much less noise at even moderate iso values and better DR. I can work the files harder without them collapsing. That on top of everything else that's better with it than the two others is what makes such an amazing tool to use.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
duydaniel said:
As stated, that video was a marketing/PR piece, not a technical piece.
If you want technical, it's out there.
duydaniel said:
You seem to be drawing conclusions that aren't supported by the data. I suspect you're looking at the DxOMark Scores (which are biased in favor of their priorities, which aren't the same as everyone's).
For example, if you compare the dynamic range 'score' of the 5DIII, 1D X and 1DIV, they're not all that different. However, DxOMark only considers ISO 100 in their score. If you look at the Measurements for DR, you can see that starting at ISO 800, the 1D X has the advantage, and by ISO 3200, that advantage is nearly a full stop of extra DR.
As for noise, DxO only tests full stops. But in Bill Claff's data, you can see the jagged lines of the noise at the 'tweener' ISOs in both the 5DIII and 1DIV, whereas the 1D X is a smooth progression (with less noise than the 5DIII throughout, and less noise than the 1DIV from ISO 800 and up). That smooth progression is a result of the 1D X's better electronics. IQ from the 1D X is very slightly better than the 5DIII, and that can help, espeically when you push the files a bit in post (or look in detail at noise quality, for example in these crops from the thread you linked). IQ from both the 1D X and 5DIII is better than the 1DIV.
However, the differences are subtle. While there's not 'no difference', the IQ difference between the 1D X and 5DIII certainly not a differentiating factor between the two cameras. That's ok, though - there are plenty of differentiating factors (for most people, price being the first and foremost!).
Attachments
Upvote
0
@neuroanatomist
I never said 5D3 > 1DX IQ wise since this threat is about 1D4 and 5D3.
I have read through the 1DX vs 5D3 threats and really appreciated bdunbar79 who did very interesting tests for us.
For me, saying 1D4 > 5D3 in IQ is just an unsupported claim.
About the 1DX and 5D3,
From many sources, I conclude that the 1DX iso is more conservative than 5D3 given the same setting.
For example, with the same exposure where all parameter equaled, the 1DX yields a darker image.
+That could be because the internal true iso is lower than one in 5D3 (DxO measured iso).
+Ken Rockwell also agrees that he said the 1Dx uses half stop lower iso than the 5D3 which enable the 1DX yields cleaner but slightly darker image.
+ bdunbar79 also agrees with this in the 1Dx vs 5D3 threat (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8289.0)
I never said 5D3 > 1DX IQ wise since this threat is about 1D4 and 5D3.
I have read through the 1DX vs 5D3 threats and really appreciated bdunbar79 who did very interesting tests for us.
For me, saying 1D4 > 5D3 in IQ is just an unsupported claim.
About the 1DX and 5D3,
From many sources, I conclude that the 1DX iso is more conservative than 5D3 given the same setting.
For example, with the same exposure where all parameter equaled, the 1DX yields a darker image.
+That could be because the internal true iso is lower than one in 5D3 (DxO measured iso).
+Ken Rockwell also agrees that he said the 1Dx uses half stop lower iso than the 5D3 which enable the 1DX yields cleaner but slightly darker image.
+ bdunbar79 also agrees with this in the 1Dx vs 5D3 threat (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8289.0)
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
I may agree that there are a lot of bogus claims in the audiophile business, but have you ever auditioned a couple of amplifiers in your own home using your own support equipment?
Same goes for preamps, CD players, CD transports and outboard DA converters.
You should try it, because there really is a difference. I didn't even have to listen hard, close one eye, tilt my head to the left or "imagine" things.
I did have the opportunity to hear a system with $100k in just cables. The rest of it was pretty expensive too. Not mine, though.
Upvote
0
Ok, I took some pictures.
Nothing special and I don't have any fancy studio equipment or a tripod.
I put an X-Rite color checker passport and a $20 bill on a towel wrapped around a box. It was illuminated with a 500w halogen worklight.
The positions of the target, camera and light did not change (until the end).
I used a 100mm L macro at f/8.
ISO's were set at 400, 1600, 3200 and 6400. I let the camera set the shutter speed.
Cameras used were a 5DII, 5DIII and 1DIV.
The camera was set up on a box and the 10 second self timer was used.
Picture style set to neutral, large RAW and Jpeg. There are 32 total images, straight out of the camera.
Not the best lighting, not the most interesting target, but it was consistent.
The 1DIV was set into portrait mode at the same distance as the 5DIII to fill the frame. Then the 1DIV was put into landscape mode and moved back until the viewfinder looked the same as the 5DIII. Lighting position with respect to the target did not change.
One thing I did notice was less moire/artifacts when zoomed into Jackson in the center of the $20 in the 1dIV images. Another is the noise is smoother.
It also looks like the 5DIII needs some focus adjustment.
I am in the process of uploading these images to my dropbox- and it will take a while with my internet connection. If anyone is interested in the images, send me a PM I can send a link.
I see no point in resizing them for upload here.
Nothing special and I don't have any fancy studio equipment or a tripod.
I put an X-Rite color checker passport and a $20 bill on a towel wrapped around a box. It was illuminated with a 500w halogen worklight.
The positions of the target, camera and light did not change (until the end).
I used a 100mm L macro at f/8.
ISO's were set at 400, 1600, 3200 and 6400. I let the camera set the shutter speed.
Cameras used were a 5DII, 5DIII and 1DIV.
The camera was set up on a box and the 10 second self timer was used.
Picture style set to neutral, large RAW and Jpeg. There are 32 total images, straight out of the camera.
Not the best lighting, not the most interesting target, but it was consistent.
The 1DIV was set into portrait mode at the same distance as the 5DIII to fill the frame. Then the 1DIV was put into landscape mode and moved back until the viewfinder looked the same as the 5DIII. Lighting position with respect to the target did not change.
One thing I did notice was less moire/artifacts when zoomed into Jackson in the center of the $20 in the 1dIV images. Another is the noise is smoother.
It also looks like the 5DIII needs some focus adjustment.
I am in the process of uploading these images to my dropbox- and it will take a while with my internet connection. If anyone is interested in the images, send me a PM I can send a link.
I see no point in resizing them for upload here.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
