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

[elflord]

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.

I would doubt it because ISO performance hasn't been moving very fast. For example, according to DxOMark's website, there is less than one stop between the 1Ds (original) which is about 6 years older than the 5D Mark II. The difference in megapixels is a factor of about 2 (11mp vs 21mp).

Whenever a new camera is released (even among cameras on a more frequent release cycle), there is talk of 1-2 stop improvements in ISO performance, but the reality is very different.

If it's as good as the Nikon D3s, that would be just under a 1 stop improvement over the 5D Mark II.

 

[wockawocka]

Until some fantastic new tech comes along the laws of physics will stop improvements. Just like lenses haven't got any smaller in 30 years. a 35mm sensor will always be a 35mm sensor with the same floorspace for pixels.

That's why this DSLR may be the last one before pros move to mirrorless. I never thought would happen but the damn Leica rangefinder has a full frame CMOS in it.

 

[JR]

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, i have yet to install the beta version of LR 4 (was waiting for the full verison) so I am currently using LR3. Are you saying you noticed a significant improvement in RAW processing with LR4 to the point your ISO 6400 is like your ISO 3200 with LR2? And with no NR applied? Sorry I am just very intrigued and interested by your comments and not sure I understood...

If true then I will for sure get the LR4 beta! Thanks for letting me know if you have a chance.

Jacques

 

[jrista]

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, i have yet to install the beta version of LR 4 (was waiting for the full verison) so I am currently using LR3. Are you saying you noticed a significant improvement in RAW processing with LR4 to the point your ISO 6400 is like your ISO 3200 with LR2? And with no NR applied? Sorry I am just very intrigued and interested by your comments and not sure I understood...

If true then I will for sure get the LR4 beta! Thanks for letting me know if you have a chance.

Jacques

I've also been working with both LR3 and LR4 with my 7D's RAW photos. So far, it seems to be a bit of a toss-up regarding NR. The initial imports seem to be a better than with LR3, and noise starts out a little better (along with pretty much everything else). However when it comes time to actually adjust the luminance or color noise sliders, I've had mixed results. Sometimes LR4 seems better by a small margin, however sometimes it seems to be a tad worse than LR3. I'm seriously hoping they improve the algorithms for Canon cameras. LR3 was a pretty big improvement over LR2, but so far, I'm not seeing the same degree of improvement with LR4. I've also been hearing more and more lately that Canon's DPP has far better noise removal for Canon RAW than LR ever has, and their code is publicly published, so Adobe could use it at will if they so desired (which they don't seem to.)

Noise aside, LR4 does seem to have some pretty nice improvements over LR3 when it comes to exposure adjustment. Whatever they changed, boosting darks and shadows seems to have much less of an impact on noise than LR3...so there is a bonus in that respect.

 

[JR]

@jrista, then Canon must have improved or changed DPP over the past 12 months because the verison i got with my 5D 12-18months ago was really bad compared to LR3. I never bothered to check if Canon made any sort of improvement to DPP, maybe I will look it up based on your comments. Interesting.

J

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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, i have yet to install the beta version of LR 4 (was waiting for the full verison) so I am currently using LR3. Are you saying you noticed a significant improvement in RAW processing with LR4 to the point your ISO 6400 is like your ISO 3200 with LR2? And with no NR applied? Sorry I am just very intrigued and interested by your comments and not sure I understood...

If true then I will for sure get the LR4 beta! Thanks for letting me know if you have a chance.

Jacques

My point is that software, all the raw software including in camera software in newer camera bodies has had a lot of improvements over the last 3+ years, so even without sensor changes, you can get better images. I do not use DXO, but Neuro says its excellent, and I believe him. I might try it on the same image to see if I see any differences.

LR2 was the current version when I bought my 5D2. LR3 was a huge improvement in processing. I took some 2500 images at a theater event last week, half with my assistant using the 7?d, and half with the 5D MK2. Light was so poor, that most of the 7D images were at ISO 3200, and noisy. However, a few hundred of my 5D MK 2 images were taken at ISO 6400 and I was suprised. i went back to LR4 and verified no NR.

There is chroma noise, of course when you view at 1:1, its obvious. It is much better, however, than I could do in 2008, and LR3 is also much better.

Here is a image, and a 1:1 with no NR so you can see the noise.

100%crop. you can see the chroma noise, but just a little NR and its gone.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I did process the image in DPP 3.1.1 just now, turned noise sliders to zero, noise is about the same, however, the image was exposed to the right, so pulling down the highlights probably reduces the visible noise.

DPP does not have the easy controls that LR has for adjusting the tone, and I'm not all that good at working just with curves.

As said earlier, its not about LR3 or LR4, its just that all the software out there has improved and you get a better image without upgrading your equipment, so a comparison needs to be done with todays software on both cameras, and that means comparing RAW.

 

[JR]

As said earlier, its not about LR3 or LR4, its just that all the software out there has improved and you get a better image without upgrading your equipment, so a comparison needs to be done with todays software on both cameras, and that means comparing RAW.

Got it...I see your point. I know personally I saw a big difference between DPP and LR3. One software I have not tried yet but want to is Topaz De-noise. I heard from a few poeple that it is very good but dont know how it stacks against LR3 or LR4...

Jacques

 

[Edwin Herdman]

RAW vs. RAW, and JPEG vs. JPEG? I imagine that must be what Chuck means here.

 

[motorhead]

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding of where the 1Dx sits in Canons line up. Its a next generation 1D, intended for PJ,s on a tight deadline. Hence the Jpeg thing.

Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.

While not admitting it (yet?), Canon will eventually be forced to reexamine their thinking because the 1Dx fails to deliver on so many fronts for the landscapist/studio/fine art pro and serious amateur. Either that or loose customers to the Dark side.

 

[wockawocka]

But then this is where the 5D3 comes in.

 

[Viggo]

I would take clean high iso to get my shutterspeed fast enough over twice the mp any day, and that is just common sense;

If your image is fantastically high res, you will see every bit of that juuuust to long shutter speed you used, and you'll have a useless image. I can tell you, going from mk3 to mk4 with the same size sensor but 60% increase in res, I had to double my shutterspeed, giving me the exact same noise under the same exact light. Now, the pictures that did stick with the mk4 had much better detail, but I had a lot of shots I kept, but can't use for anything due to (unexpected) motion-blur.

The 1d X will be the ultimate camera for me, no matter what I am shooting, and I can shoot things I could never dream of with the mk4. After trying this new AF, I had chills for the first time using a camera. It is just astonishing...

But if you do landscape, why would you buy a Worldclass AF-system and 12 fps? Buy a 5d2 for your landscapes, very little will surpass it.

 

[wockawocka]

Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. For me I cap out at ISO 3200 on the 1Ds3, so two stops improvement over the 1D4 is quite jump for me. ISO 12800 is more than enough. The only reason I didn't move to the 1D4 is because it wasn't full frame.

 

[moreorless]

Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. For me I cap out at ISO 3200 on the 1Ds3, so two stops improvement over the 1D4 is quite jump for me. ISO 12800 is more than enough. The only reason I didn't move to the 1D4 is because it wasn't full frame.

Your potentially looking at a superior ISO 3200 though I'd guess if previous ISO upgrades are anything to go by.

 

[Viggo]

Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. For me I cap out at ISO 3200 on the 1Ds3, so two stops improvement over the 1D4 is quite jump for me. ISO 12800 is more than enough. The only reason I didn't move to the 1D4 is because it wasn't full frame.

Your potentially looking at a superior ISO 3200 though I'd guess if previous ISO upgrades are anything to go by.

I very much felt the 1d X @ 3200 were very close to 800 on the 1d mkIV, so yeah, the two stops is probably correct. Besides, now with the new Lightroom 4, you're looking at 0,5 to 1 stop extra over the Lr3. And also MUCH better DR.

 

[briansquibb]

Any pro looking to replace an aging 1Ds mkIII should be very careful if they seriously think the 1Dx is a possible replacement.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. For me I cap out at ISO 3200 on the 1Ds3, so two stops improvement over the 1D4 is quite jump for me. ISO 12800 is more than enough. The only reason I didn't move to the 1D4 is because it wasn't full frame.

Your potentially looking at a superior ISO 3200 though I'd guess if previous ISO upgrades are anything to go by.

The 1Ds3 is hands down the best to iso 800 but by iso3200 I feel my 1D4 is better.

The 1D4 seems (relatively) noisy at low iso but only slowly gets worse as the iso increases, whereas other bodies get worse quite quickly

 

[nightbreath]

If I turn on NR in my camera I see difference even in RAW images. I used Irfan View to convert them from RAW to JPEG format and here's what I've got when ISO was set to 12'800.

If Digic 5+ is so powerful comparing to Digic 4, we might see similar NR applied in 1D X image processing, but without blurring the image. Or am I missing something?

P.S. I shot painting on my wall to compare RAW image noise.

 

[wockawocka]

The thing with Noise reduction is you lose detail, which you're trying to capture.

But I guess it depends on how much detail you need. I guess that's what keeps forums so active!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would take clean high iso to get my shutterspeed fast enough over twice the mp any day, and that is just common sense;

If your image is fantastically high res, you will see every bit of that juuuust to long shutter speed you used, and you'll have a useless image. I can tell you, going from mk3 to mk4 with the same size sensor but 60% increase in res, I had to double my shutterspeed, giving me the exact same noise under the same exact light. Now, the pictures that did stick with the mk4 had much better detail, but I had a lot of shots I kept, but can't use for anything due to (unexpected) motion-blur.

The 1d X will be the ultimate camera for me, no matter what I am shooting, and I can shoot things I could never dream of with the mk4. After trying this new AF, I had chills for the first time using a camera. It is just astonishing...

But if you do landscape, why would you buy a Worldclass AF-system and 12 fps? Buy a 5d2 for your landscapes, very little will surpass it.

+1

The high MP bodies do need a tripod, good IS lens, or a faster shutter speed to actually realize the increased resolution. Even Canon mentioned this in one of their articles about shooting with the new high mp bodies. Of course, you can get lucky and hit on one of 8 or 10 at lower shutter speeds.

A higher ISO rating at existing MP lets you keep the same shutter speeds you are using and get better resolution, or it lets you increase shutter speeds if your current one is too low.

I'm expecting to hear the Nikon users scream as they adjust to a 36 mp sensor and find they need to double or triple shutter speeds to get the high resolution.

 

[jrista]

I would take clean high iso to get my shutterspeed fast enough over twice the mp any day, and that is just common sense;

If your image is fantastically high res, you will see every bit of that juuuust to long shutter speed you used, and you'll have a useless image. I can tell you, going from mk3 to mk4 with the same size sensor but 60% increase in res, I had to double my shutterspeed, giving me the exact same noise under the same exact light. Now, the pictures that did stick with the mk4 had much better detail, but I had a lot of shots I kept, but can't use for anything due to (unexpected) motion-blur.

The 1d X will be the ultimate camera for me, no matter what I am shooting, and I can shoot things I could never dream of with the mk4. After trying this new AF, I had chills for the first time using a camera. It is just astonishing...

But if you do landscape, why would you buy a Worldclass AF-system and 12 fps? Buy a 5d2 for your landscapes, very little will surpass it.

+1

The high MP bodies do need a tripod, good IS lens, or a faster shutter speed to actually realize the increased resolution. Even Canon mentioned this in one of their articles about shooting with the new high mp bodies. Of course, you can get lucky and hit on one of 8 or 10 at lower shutter speeds.

A higher ISO rating at existing MP lets you keep the same shutter speeds you are using and get better resolution, or it lets you increase shutter speeds if your current one is too low.

I'm expecting to hear the Nikon users scream as they adjust to a 36 mp sensor and find they need to double or triple shutter speeds to get the high resolution.

Excellent points, both! I think you guys hailed the consequence of higher resolution on the head, at least for photography where you can't or don't necessarily use a tripod.