Canon 1D-X: "Full" 2-Stops ISO Improvment...only in JPEG??

[jrista]

Based on a question about f/8 AF, I was directed to Arthur Morris, a renown bird photographer. On his site is an interview between Doug Brown (another renown bird photographer) and Canon's Chuck Westfall (http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2011/11/05/canons-top-tech-rep-on-the-eos-1d-x/). While the meat of the first part of the interview was about the 1D X's new AF system, with a pointed question about f/8 AF (left largely unanswered), there was another interesting tidbit farther down:

DB: One of the advantages of moving to a full-frame sensor with a relatively low megapixel count is an improvement in high ISO noise levels. Canon is claiming a two stop gain in high ISO performance when compared to the 1D Mark IV. Will we see the full two stops when shooting RAW files, or is this limited to JPEG files only?
CW: To get the full two stops of improved performance you’ll need to shoot in the JPEG format. That’s not to say that high ISO performance isn’t significantly better when shooting in RAW, because it absolutely is.

Chuck seems pointed about his indication that to get two "full" stops of improved ISO performance, you need to shoot in JPEG. I'm curious if there has been more information about that elsewhere? I'm curious what that means for RAW photographers, and what he actually means by "significantly better" if its not a full two stops better.

Arthur Morris: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/
Doug Brown: http://www.dougbrownphotography.com/

 

[doug14]

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.

 

[sjaudio]

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.

That is all a bit misleading. A JPG is simply a converted RAW file, if you're getting two more stops of ISO performance in JPG, then you have to be getting that in RAW as well.

 

[EYEONE]

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.

Talk is so cheap.

 

[JHorvat]

Chuck seems pointed about his indication that to get two "full" stops of improved ISO performance, you need to shoot in JPEG. I'm curious if there has been more information about that elsewhere? I'm curious what that means for RAW photographers, and what he actually means by "significantly better" if its not a full two stops better.

Probably 1D X has a better JPEG engine(better NR algorithm) than previous Canon cameras, so you have two stops improvement for in-camera JPEG but in RAW there is only 1-1.5 stop gain. Actually there is no much room for SNR improvement with current Bayer sensors because SNR is correlated with quantum efficiency(QE) and some sensors like a one in Nikon D3s has a QE of 57%.

 

[bornshooter]

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.

troll piss off to nikon then

 

[briansquibb]

The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.

 

[Hesbehindyou]

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.

That is all a bit misleading. A JPG is simply a converted RAW file, if you're getting two more stops of ISO performance in JPG, then you have to be getting that in RAW as well.

Sort of (by which I mean not really). As well as being less noisy, Canon's in-camera noise reduction has been improved. One could get better results by shooting RAW and processing using 3rd party noise reduction software, but the gap between class leading 3rd party software and the in-camera software has been narrowed or eliminated.

 

[Canon-F1]

canon will get f£$ked by interviews like this one, well all is dommed now, good luck guys im jumping to the Nikon boat.

i really wonder if you have no friends or barber you can talk too?

i mean.... why all with an IQ below 70 think the world cares what they will do? ;D

 

[Z]

The 2 stops of ISO performance has always been quoted as JPEG, I thought that was pretty transparent by this point. I hope that people's expectations for the 1D-X's low noise aren't too high, really. For argument's sake, let's say the 1D-X offers a 1 - 1.5 stop improvement in raw file noise vs. the 1D Mark IV. According to DxOMark, the 5D Mark II is 0.5 stops better than the 1D Mark IV for noise - therefore, 5D Mark II shooters would notice approximately a 0.5 - 1 stop improvement in raw file noise when upgrading to the 1D-X.

Of course, I plucked the '1 - 1.5 stop' idea out of the air; it could equally be a 2/3 stop improvement; we have little idea. But if you're a current model full-frame user upgrading to the 1D-X, my guess is you would be lucky to have a full stop of raw ISO improvement.

Personally, I'm a 7D shooter. I find myself resorting to flash more often than I would like during indoor events, which is undesireable for several reasons. I am expecting a full 2-stops of RAW ISO improvement.

 

[Viggo]

Unless anyone has a raw-image to process, this thread has no poin to it...

From what I saw yesterday, the difference in chroma noise is very substantial. I made sure to turn off all NR in camera. Shooting at 12800 looks so much better than the mk4 it's crazy... And I gotta say, just comparing DxO marks is stupid. I've seen lots of examples where they rate something and it's not what you see in real life. More color-noise is better than more luminance noise, easier to remove. Besides, the LOOK of the noise is also VERY important for the final image.

From what I saw trying the 1d X yesterday, it is a huge improvement.

Another thing, high iso's are not just for shooting in the dark. It's to decrease shutterspeed in normal light, and I tried at iso 12800 in a well lit store to get very fast shutter, and it was nearly no noise at all.

 

[jrista]

Unless anyone has a raw-image to process, this thread has no poin to it...

From what I saw yesterday, the difference in chroma noise is very substantial. I made sure to turn off all NR in camera. Shooting at 12800 looks so much better than the mk4 it's crazy... And I gotta say, just comparing DxO marks is stupid. I've seen lots of examples where they rate something and it's not what you see in real life. More color-noise is better than more luminance noise, easier to remove. Besides, the LOOK of the noise is also VERY important for the final image.

From what I saw trying the 1d X yesterday, it is a huge improvement.

Another thing, high iso's are not just for shooting in the dark. It's to decrease shutterspeed in normal light, and I tried at iso 12800 in a well lit store to get very fast shutter, and it was nearly no noise at all.

Thanks for the first-hand info. Sounds like it will still be pretty good. Its certainly for the higher shutter rate that I'd be interested in higher ISO. I'm a 7D shooter, and I have such a hard time pushing to ISO 3200 because the noise there does really start eating into detail, even if you do have decent light. I'm just curious exactly what they mean by not a full two stops improvement, and whether it would be possible to remove noise in post and achieve that two full stops somehow. Would make shooting wildlife and birds around sunrise/sunset without losing key detail (i.e. feathers) a lot easier.



@everyon else:

Amazed at how many of you actually responded to the troll! They only have power when you notice them. Sweep em under the rug and walk all over it, and they shrivel up and waste away.

 

[JR]

The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.

Isn't RAW also important for pros Brian? I would think it is as important. All this aside the 1DX needs to stack up to the D4 in that category. If it does not, then no amount of marketing will fix it and it would be disappointing for Canon - my two cents anyway...

 

[jrista]

The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.

What makes you think pros don't shoot with RAW just as much as JPEG? I think most of the pros I know use RAW+JPEG, rather than just JPEG, and when asked their reason is often simply so they can copy off the jpegs onto a small memory card and deliver them directly to a customer at end of job for previewing and pick selection, allowing them some more time to work the RAWs.

 

[bigblue1ca]

The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.

What makes you think pros don't shoot with RAW just as much as JPEG? I think most of the pros I know use RAW+JPEG, rather than just JPEG, and when asked their reason is often simply so they can copy off the jpegs onto a small memory card and deliver them directly to a customer at end of job for previewing and pick selection, allowing them some more time to work the RAWs.

Don't a number of pro sports photographers (football, hockey) shoot jpeg, due to the large number of images they take during games and the push to get them out to the newspapers immediately (especially for late games)?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The exact same story came out when the 1D MK IV was announced. Chuck Westfall said the 1D MK IV was 1-1/2 to 2 stops better than the 1D MK III in JPEG, but about 1/2 stop better shooting raw. It was due to the more sophisticated in camera processing that could be done using the Digic IV processor. Processing has improved, and Digic V is more powerful than Digic IV. Jpegs will improve over the 1DS MK III and 1D MK IV.

The question I have, is how much improvement in raw over my 5D MK II? 1/2 stop or 1 stop? If I can get clean raw images at ISO 12800, thats about 1/2 stop or slightly more than my 5D MK II, but if they are clean at ISO 25,600 then there is a significant advance, which I somehow doubt.

When I bought my 5D MK II in 2008, using LR 2 allowed me to shoot at ISO 3200, but results were noisy. Now, with LR 4, I shoot ISO 6400 images and with no NR at all, they are remarkably clean. Processing software has improved noticibly in the last three years, so I've gained about 2 stops when using raw, just by spending a few dollars on software upgrades.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Don't a number of pro sports photographers (football, hockey) shoot jpeg, due to the large number of images they take during games and the push to get them out to the newspapers immediately (especially for late games)?

Time is the critical factor, so PJ's do use RAW + JPEG. images are ready for online and newspaper publication immediately using jpeg, and, if a large magazine spread or other ultra high quality image is needed later, the raw can be post processed.

 

[wockawocka]

This is quite funny. The camera shoots in Raw, JPG is a conversion.

If the extras stops comes from Noise reduction in camera then Canon will get shafted sideways.

I'm a professional, 95% of the time I only shoot Raw. I will use Jpeg if I need to see things instantly on a Macbook on location.

In all of my cameras noise reduction is turned off, always, and I never use Noise reduction in post either. As a buyer of two models of the 1Dx I expect to see a significant improvement on the Raw files. If not I will seriously consider the smaller form factor of the 5D3 of which the only issue I had with the current model is the autofocus.

The weight of the 1Dx isn't practical for me, but it's necessary that I have a camera that focuses properly.

 

[NoWii]

The question I have, is how much improvement in raw over my 5D MK II? 1/2 stop or 1 stop? If I can get clean raw images at ISO 12800, thats about 1/2 stop or slightly more than my 5D MK II, but if they are clean at ISO 25,600 then there is a significant advance, which I somehow doubt.

Why do you doubt? Between 5DmkII and 1D X, there has been nearly 4years of development. I think, that's enough for 1/2 stop. And don't forget the megapixel difference. 21mp vs 18mp, means bigger pixels and better performance. Thoose two factors togeder, could easily give us 1 stop better iso performance, so why not even more? I wouldn't be suprised if there's 3/2stops of difference.

 

[briansquibb]

The 1DX is a pro camera designed for pros. Jpeg shooting is important for them which would explain the emphasis on the extra stops.

What makes you think pros don't shoot with RAW just as much as JPEG? I think most of the pros I know use RAW+JPEG, rather than just JPEG, and when asked their reason is often simply so they can copy off the jpegs onto a small memory card and deliver them directly to a customer at end of job for previewing and pick selection, allowing them some more time to work the RAWs.

Sports pros just send their photos straight to the editors to get on the paper/web in real time - that is why they use the wireless adaptors. They dont have the time to process or even look at the pictures they are taking. That is exactly what they will be doing at the Olympics which is why Canon are pushing the 1DX so all the lens you see will be white.