5D4 image quality given 1DX2 Results

[K]

In the previous generation, the 5D3 only had better IQ over the 1DX due to resolution alone at low ISO.

Will the same hold true again? I think so.

The 1DX was better than the 5D3 at about 400 ISO and beyond. Depending of course on how picky (discerning) you are.

It is hard to imagine that Canon would show up the 1DX2 with a 5D series body. We certainty aren't getting better high ISO performance. At best, we might get a little better low ISO DR? Maybe, maybe not. Depends how they "tune" the sensor.

The 1DX2 has, for Canon, along with the 80D, shown a huge, huge leap in DR performance. ISO is improved, but not a whole lot. Which makes sense, as this is a very difficult area to improve on. And historically, a 1/3 stop per generation is typical. With 1/2 stop or more being an exceptional improvement.

All that said, we now know that unless Canon changes the way they do things - the 5D4 will be close, but not better than the 1DX2 image quality which is readily available online now. Nikon has never done it that way. They're ok with some cameras being better IQ at a lower line. Nikon obviously specialized with their D5 sensor. Going for all out high ISO performance, and giving up DR and resolution. I think that is a big mistake on their part. This is because all the D5 has going for it is the sports features. Speed and high ISO. In sports, Canon destroys Nikon. More speed, superior glass - things that matter most. As well as superior AF. And just a hair less high ISO performance, it is literally splitting meaningless hairs at that point.

Nikon I believe underestimated the number of photographers that use their flagship for events that are not sports. This is for two reasons, because the D810 is too slow, has bad high ISO, and makes gigantic files. Not to mention crappy controls for fast paced environments. Nikon lacks a 5D3 events jack-of-all-trades workhorse. D750 is kinda it now, but it's got some weaknesses. Serious pros turn to the D4S for weddings, concerts, and all events and general purpose use.

When it comes to video, Canon is slaughtering Nikon at the flagship level. Thus, the 1DX2 will be more successful than the D5.

But back to the 5D4 -- the main competitor will be the D750. 24mp. Very good sensor. But the camera feels like a plastic turd. Terrible ergonomics. Bad reputation with recalls. Nikon had a real chance to take over the event camera world, and failed. Canon, despite being horrifically slow to innovate - and given the 1DX2's performance, has only "caught up" NOT surpassed the competition, it will again come down to a choice -

Do you want the utmost in IQ, yet sacrifice in literally all other areas? Get Nikon. Happy with just a few percentage points less IQ that never show up in real world use - but gain advantage in nearly every other category? Go Canon.


As far as the rest - 5D4 will have the same 61pt system, will it be as good as the 1DX2? I doubt it. Weaker in processing or logic somehow. 24mp is what is rumored. That is good. More DR, but not as much as Nikon but close. Sounds good. 7fps.

Not much left to know if one is looking to make a decision before announcement. Unless there's some shocker surprise ( unlikely ). You pretty much know what you're getting.

The 6D2 might be the only mystery. As last time, it's sensor was better than the 5D3. It was a sort of 1/3 generation newer sensor.

 

[Kwwund]

I agree, I'm pretty unhappy with the images I've seen from the 5DIV and I'm already looking forward to the 5DV.

 

[AdamBotond]

In the previous generation, the 5D3 only had better IQ over the 1DX due to resolution alone at low ISO.

Did it? I had no idea that 5D3 had better IQ at any iso than 1DX. I suppose you just couldn't recognise the difference between these two at base iso, because 1DX widely known for more DR, less noise at any given ISO. Higher resolution means less DR and more noise generally speaking, especially when it comes to Canon.

All that said, we now know that unless Canon changes the way they do things - the 5D4 will be close, but not better than the 1DX2 image quality which is readily available online now.

Agreed, but 5D4 will certainly have better IQ by a stop or so than its prodecessor mk III, which had fairly weak high iso performance and DR for a FF rig even in 2012 (no major improvements on mk II in terms of IQ).

Nikon has never done it that way. They're ok with some cameras being better IQ at a lower line. Nikon obviously specialized with their D5 sensor. Going for all out high ISO performance, and giving up DR and resolution. I think that is a big mistake on their part.

No, it was not. It was the way to create a new flagship designed for a specific use. It is actually a very smart idea. Keep in mind, that Nikon does have DR, high ISO, high MP beasts in their lineup. Anyone who is buying D5 for landcape or studio is any out of their mind. That camera is designed to be used in low light action. Nikon gives you cheaper, better tools for studio, landscape, etc purpose in D810, D750. Canon does not have an equal alternative. So what Nikon does is giving you a flagship designed for action in low light, while Canon is introducing a flagship which is more all-around.

 

[Azathoth]

The 6D2 might be the only mystery. As last time, it's sensor was better than the 5D3. It was a sort of 1/3 generation newer sensor.

My guess is that the 6Dmk2 will basically have the 5Dmk4 sensor, 80D AF, around 4 fps and maybe a tilty lcd screen.

 

[j-nord]

The 6D2 might be the only mystery. As last time, it's sensor was better than the 5D3. It was a sort of 1/3 generation newer sensor.

My guess is that the 6Dmk2 will basically have the 5Dmk4 sensor, 80D AF, around 4 fps and maybe a tilty lcd screen.

I think we will see 5fps, they will go for a 0.5fps improvement rather than 0.5fps worse. Canon makes it a point to have minor across the board improvement. Otherwise I think you have a pretty accurate estimate of features. The 6D is kind of a guinea pig, they added GPS and Wifi last time, I'm expecting a tilty LCD screen this time. The only thing Im pretty unsure about is whether they will keep the m-pix low and under the 5DIV or go for a slight m-pix bump over the 5DIV.

 

[j-nord]

It's hard to say whether Canon will follow the 1Dx to 5DIII step down this time around. I think a lot of people are hoping Canon will shake things up a little, do something a little different than we are expecting and saw last time around.

 

[robbyjai]

IDX II low light high ISO performance is ridiculous.

shot a wedding with it... full noise at ISO 6400 did it with ease

clean as a whistle... could happily shoot at ISO 8000 with ease i reckon

retains details extremely well noise is a fine grain and clean and response extremely well to post processing

 

[unfocused]

You can't escape pixel size. Sensors of the same generation are always going to have better high ISO performance with fewer pixels (note that I said sensors of the same generation).

At 20 mp, the 1DX II will have larger pixels than the 5D IV, which is likely to come in at 24 mp. The only question is where the 6D II will fall. I believe that this time around, Canon will give the 6DII a 28 mp sensor. It will have slightly higher resolution, but slightly worse high ISO performance. This is more in keeping with the way the 6D is used.

So, the 1DX II will have the best low light performance. I believe the 5DIV will come in second and the 6DII will be third.

 

[Orangutan]

You can't escape pixel size. Sensors of the same generation are always going to have better high ISO performance with fewer pixels (note that I said sensors of the same generation).

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure I remember Neuroanatomist showing that this was a myth. If I recall correctly (and I'm not putting words in his mouth), the important factor is total surface area, and that pixel size does not matter. Or, to put it another way (again, my interpretation, not anything said by someone else) the key feature is electrons per unit area. The only reason this might not be so in practice is if manufacturing processes create some inefficiency, leakage or noise in the smaller pixels that does not exist in the larger pixels.

But I could be wrong...

 

[unfocused]

You can't escape pixel size. Sensors of the same generation are always going to have better high ISO performance with fewer pixels (note that I said sensors of the same generation).

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure I remember Neuroanatomist showing that this was a myth. If I recall correctly (and I'm not putting words in his mouth), the important factor is total surface area, and that pixel size does not matter. Or, to put it another way (again, my interpretation, not anything said by someone else) the key feature is electrons per unit area. The only reason this might not be so in practice is if manufacturing processes create some inefficiency, leakage or noise in the smaller pixels that does not exist in the larger pixels.

But I could be wrong...

You may be right, but I doubt it will change the end result. Let's assume that Canon uses the same manufacturing process on the sensors for all three cameras. The 1D X II will almost certainly have better high ISO performance than the 5D IV, which is predicted to have a 24 mp sensor. I'm simply speculating that, given a choice between high ISO performance and resolution, I believe this time around Canon will choose higher resolution over low noise for the 6D II.

 

[jeffa4444]

Missing a few points I believe.

The 5DS at 100iso up to 400iso is very clean and the resolution outstanding, the colorimagery is also better than the 6D I have, and even DXOMark said it has about 1/2 stop better DR than the 5D MKIII. The 5DS demonstrated that Canon has improved its image processing particularly at low iso, it also shows no sign of banding and if the 5D MKIV has the newer Digic 7 as seen in the G 7X MKII and on chip ADC then it could be a good 1 stop better than the 5D MKIII.
Its almost certainly going to be around 24MP and as the 6D was aimed mainly at travel & landscape it will either sit just below the 5D MKIV at 22MP or just above at 28MP, I beilive the latter. If I was Canon I would make the 6D MKII a FF version of the 80D so that puts it at 24MP. The Canon 5D MKIV should gain all the improvements the 5DS had (i.e. better 252 zone metering linked to iTR tracking, sturdier base plate, motorised mirror assembly, intervalometer, customisable menu screen, flicker detection etc) plus spot metering linked to AF points, built in, wi-fi, zebra peaking, 4K video and illuminated AF points.