Real 1DXm2 vs 1DX high ISO performance comparison.

[Neutral]

Some time ago DPR added 1DXm2 to their comparison chart.
There 1DXm2 high ISO performance looked slightly better than 1DX.
The only one strange thing was there that 1DXm2 shots were brighter than 1DX shots.
Actually, it was required in LR to move exposure slider about 0.5 stop down for 1DXm2 and raise it about 0.2 stop up for 1DX to make them equal in brightness and the same histogram distributions.
Some people were telling that this is OK and this is just due to difference in analog gain setting in different cameras for different ISOs.

Therefore, when I got my 1DXm2 few days back I did some tests to check different things including high ISO performance.
For 1DXm2 my primary interest was better AF, especially in in dim light conditions and slightly better ISO, which was noticeable in DPR test.
My tests were done in dim light conditions using the same EF70-200 F/2.8L IS USM II lens fixed on the heavy and sturdy tripod. Once test done with first camera then it was detached from the lens and then other one was attached to the same lens on tripod. So all test conditions were identical for both 1DX and 1DXmII.

So first set of tests discovered that for the same ISO settings and same aperture value 1DX and 1DXm2 were using different exposure values, 1DXm2 was doing approximately from 1.3 to 1.67 longer exposure compared to 1DX and this difference was increasing at higher ISOs.

As result I had to do exposure corrections described above for both 1DXm2 and 1Dx to bring shots from them to the same brightness level.
For me this means that 1DXm2 high ISO comparison test presented so far at different sources using the same ISO settings and auto-exposure are not correct source for comparison ISO performance and this would be cheating people around the world. Definitely, with the same ISO settings camera that captured 1.7 more light by its sensor will have less noise in output RAW files.
On the other hand, this simply means that exposure meter on 1DXm2 does better job compared to 1DX and it does not underexpose shots, as it was the case for many Canon cameras including previous 1D series bodies. With 1Dxm2 shot histogram is now about 0.7 stops closer to the right.
But proper High ISO comparison test must be done using the same exposure time and same aperture value for given ISO at both compared cameras and only such test could give proper results.

Therefore, I did another set of test shots, first with 1DX with auto exposure and then for 1DXm2 in manual setting using exactly the same exposure and aperture as for test shots with 1DX.
This ensured that both sensors captured exactly the same amount of light for each ISO .
As result, these sensor ISO performance test shots now could be directly compared.
There were four (4) test shots for each camera - aperture 4.0 for all shots, ISO values 6400, 12800, 25600 and 51200 with shutter speeds 1/10, 1/20, 1/40, 1/80 respectively.
So all test shots had absolutely the same amount of light captured by each camera sensor for each ISO settings.
What I had at the end is something that I was expecting before but could not check that myself until I got my 1Dxm2.

As I was suspecting comparison results were not a big surprise for me – my old 1DX has slightly better high ISO performance compared to new 1DXm2.
Here are attached snapshots done by Window snipping tool from LR screen at 100% view - left side is 1DX, right side is 1DXm2. All have the same LR default NR setting, luminous NR sliders set to zero. No exposure corrections – both shot get exactly the same amount of light captured by sensors.
One real surprise for me was that all 1DX shots are perfectly sharp while some 1DXm2 shorts are slightly blurred. For both I was using one-shot AF mode with one center point surrounded by 8 expansion point.
Both were pointing at exactly the same are on the target, as lens on tripod was not moved while changing camera body attached to the lens. Shots was done using remote control and 2sec self-timer. IS was switched OFF.
This was kind of AF precision test in dim light condition.
I did not do yet AFMA for my lens on new 1DXm2 body and it could be result of that, but that would be affecting all test shots for 1DXm2, but some are more or less sharp and some not and all 1DX shots are sharper than 1DXm2 shots.
This is some kind of disappointment for me and I need to investigate that later.

 

[Neutral]

Seems that both Nikon and Canon reached their high ISO sensor technology limit at the previous cameras generation and with this cameras generation they both were not able to add something substantial better and even has slightly worse high ISO performance.

This is possibly something good for those who decided to keep their old cameras and skip this upgrade.

Seems that even Canon started to cheat customers now regarding high ISO performance to look better (by increasing exposure time for high ISO (compared to 1DX ) so that results looks better.

Would be really interesting to see DXO sensor measurements results for 1DXm2 sensor.

So far I have mixed feelings about my new toy.
Probably I need to have some treatment against my GAS.
Will see how 1DXm2 will perform in real life.

Anyway as 1Dxm2 has better exposure meter and exposing more to the right (probably due to the better exposure meter intelligence) then overall ISO results and image quality looks better in general compared to old 1DX. At lower ISOs sky is more clean and silky - looking somewhat better than with 1DX.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for your tests and comments.

I remain a happy 1D X owner.

 

[Neutral]

Thanks for your tests and comments.

I remain a happy 1D X owner.

I also might keep my 1DX as well for a while after that tests.

I believe that most happiest are people at Sony Corporation.
They obviously do not need now to hurry up to come up with the new A9 pro body using new generation stacked sensor technology and they have plenty of time to work on the new sensor to get most out of it to have better chance to jump far ahead of all the competitors.

Canon and Nikon gave Sony another 2-3 years to jump to one more sensor generation ahead of them and increase difference count from at least one generation to two (if we consider a7rII BSI sensor is a real technology jump and ignore A7R and A7S considering them as old sensor tech).

So far the best still images I am getting out of my A7RII using Canon lenses and Metabone IV adaptor.
Images IQ is just amazing.
But still have need for Canon 1DX or 1DXm2 body for fast action events.

 

[Act444]

Thanks for sharing, this is very enlightening.

It also reinforces something else I picked up on while reading reviews of the new 1DX II - the AA filter must have been strengthened compared to the original 1DX and 5D3. On DPR's test shots, the difference is noticeable - downloading the RAWs, I'm finding that the 5D3 is capturing noticeably more detail - and it's not just the 2 extra MP at work here. Even compared to the 6D (which has the same resolution) the 1DX II image is a tad softer. About .5 sharpness points were needed in DPP to get the 2 images to match - and even then, the 1D was still missing a bit of the fine detail captured by the 5D3 sensor.

Now, having said all that, the improved metering system and AF performance may very well negate that difference in low to moderate light conditions, which would still make the 1DX king for stopping action and for overall IQ with minimal post work. Considering the audience this camera is aimed at, it makes total sense. For applications where maximum detail is desired or critical, though, the 5D series is the better choice.

Again, thanks for sharing. It doesn't make my decision any easier...

 

[Memdroid]

Thanks for your tests and comments.

I remain a happy 1D X owner.

+1
The GAS got me. But I am glad I was able to myself out of it.

 

[Neutral]

Thanks for sharing, this is very enlightening.

It also reinforces something else I picked up on while reading reviews of the new 1DX II - the AA filter must have been strengthened compared to the original 1DX and 5D3. On DPR's test shots, the difference is noticeable - downloading the RAWs, I'm finding that the 5D3 is capturing noticeably more detail - and it's not just the 2 extra MP at work here. Even compared to the 6D (which has the same resolution) the 1DX II image is a tad softer. About .5 sharpness points were needed in DPP to get the 2 images to match - and even then, the 1D was still missing a bit of the fine detail captured by the 5D3 sensor.

Now, having said all that, the improved metering system and AF performance may very well negate that difference in low to moderate light conditions, which would still make the 1DX king for stopping action and for overall IQ with minimal post work. Considering the audience this camera is aimed at, it makes total sense. For applications where maximum detail is critical, though, the 5D series is the better choice.

Again, thanks for sharing. It doesn't make my decision any easier...

Thanks for sharing this info regarding AA filter
This might explain why my 1DX test images look sharper than images from 1DXm2 which has more resolving pixels. May be what I observed with my test shots has nothing to do with lens AFMA but rather with this AA filter metrics change.

 

[unfocused]

So DPR was correct?

high ISO Raw performance remains fairly similar to its predecessor, which is actually impressive considering the 1D-X II gains dual-pixel architecture for decisive video AF.

 

[Act444]

Thanks for sharing, this is very enlightening.

It also reinforces something else I picked up on while reading reviews of the new 1DX II - the AA filter must have been strengthened compared to the original 1DX and 5D3. On DPR's test shots, the difference is noticeable - downloading the RAWs, I'm finding that the 5D3 is capturing noticeably more detail - and it's not just the 2 extra MP at work here. Even compared to the 6D (which has the same resolution) the 1DX II image is a tad softer. About .5 sharpness points were needed in DPP to get the 2 images to match - and even then, the 1D was still missing a bit of the fine detail captured by the 5D3 sensor.

Now, having said all that, the improved metering system and AF performance may very well negate that difference in low to moderate light conditions, which would still make the 1DX king for stopping action and for overall IQ with minimal post work. Considering the audience this camera is aimed at, it makes total sense. For applications where maximum detail is critical, though, the 5D series is the better choice.

Again, thanks for sharing. It doesn't make my decision any easier...

Thanks for sharing this info regarding AA filter
This might explain why my 1DX test images look sharper than images from 1DXm2 which has more resolving pixels. May be what I observed with my test shots has nothing to do with lens AFMA but rather with this AA filter metrics change.

I should emphasize that I do not know for sure whether this is true - but it seems to consistently be the case that the 1DX II images, as a rule, appear to be a bit softer. Particularly since the same lens was in use in DPR's test (that was my first suspicion, maybe a softer lens was used, but it's the same 85 1.8...). The only other reason left I can think of, besides some manufacturing issue, is a stronger AA filter. It would be nice if we can get this confirmed though.

Also, even the original 1DX images appear to be a hair softer than images from the 5D and 6D series (with the 1DX II even softer), leaving me to think it's a design decision on Canon's part to implement stronger AA filters in the 1D bodies...

 

[jaayres20]

From my personal experience and the review on The Digital Picture, the 1DX II has better high ISO noise performance. When I look at your images see that the blacks on the 1DX are darker than on the 1DX II. I am sure the camera settings are the same, but for some reason the images, and tonal ranges are differing for whatever reason.

It the best IQ is the goal, then you have to choose the 5Dsr (assuming you don't need the better AF or quicker shutter, or DPAF). Sure it does not have the same high ISO performance or as much DR as the 1dx2, but with those huge MP files you can overcome any of those weaknesses in post production, and then some.

I do agree that we are at a point where gains in high ISO performance are going to be minimal until there is a break through in new sensor technology.

 

[rbielefeld]

Tests like this provide good data, but for me nothing beats how a camera performs shooting what the photographer bought the camera to shoot. I shot the 1Dx for years doing mostly birds in flight. I switched to the 1DxII and received my camera very early in the release. So, I have been shooting it for a few weeks now.

Overall, I could not be more pleased. I actually am seeing a bit better high ISO performance (high ISO for me is 800 - 6400). ISO 800 is cleaner compared to the IDx and 800 is my "base" ISO for the type of work I do. Personally, I believe before you can really judge a camera's AF ability you need to micro adjust. I shoot the 600 f/4 IS II with both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs depending on what is needed. The AF on the 1DxII is super fast and accurate with all my lens and TC combos. Is it better than the 1Dx? Yes. It does not "waiver" as much as my 1Dx did. When I shoot a burst of 30-50 images in a row and I do my job of keeping the AF point on the bird just about all the shot are tack sharp. The 1Dx would be tack on for a few shots off for a couple and then back on. I have never used an AF system like the one on the 1DxII before. It is the best I have ever used.

The 14 fps is great for my type of photography where getting the best frame out of a bird in flight sequence can be a matter of a split second. 14 fps gives me wing positions I hardly ever captured with the 1Dx. Seems like going from 12 to 14 fps should not make much of a difference but it does.

Overall, the IQ of the images coming from the new sensor are just better than the 1Dx. For me, the 1DxII is a great step forward for my type of photography and I have no regrets what so ever for trading in my old 1Dx for the new camera. For me the proof of a camera's worth is in the field. The camera has already proved itself to me.

I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII, so you know I am just not blowing smoke.

 

[wallstreetoneil]

The 'darker' blacks of the 1DX vs the 1DX_II can be a few things: LR / Adobe profile (you should see the terrible crushing black profile it applies for the 5DSR), a visual expression of the DR being slightly larger on the 1DX_II (i.e. a larger gradient of colours close to black), a pixel density / crop / magnification issue as the original post has not sized the images the same - i.e. the 1Dx_II files are shown bigger because they have more pixels in them - they would have looked 'better' if the image was shrunk / displayed at the same size as the 1DX files. As a 1DX_II owner, the biggest difference by far is in the base ISO files - here you see over a 1 stop improvement in DR. I have run tests versus a 1DC, shooting a high DR scene, and the difference is visually obvious in the darks - far more detail being available - that said, this isn't particularly why people are buying a 1DX_II to shoot at 100 ISO - but that is where the big improvement is to be found.

In terms of high ISO, you can make the end pictures look slightly better. As this post highlights, there are more megapixels in the 1DX_II - ie the OP did not resize down the larger files. Secondly, and this is extremely obvious with the 5DSR because of the massive pixel density - and that is the benefit of using selective NR to carefully trade off some of the extra pixels to clean the image with NR. The 1DX_II only has a tiny pixel density benefit over the 1DX - but it can be used - and when you combine this, and then display the images at the same size, it won't be extremely noticeable (unlike the 5DSR vs the 5D3) but that small benefit is still real in a small way. The 3rd benefit comes from the slightly improved nature of the noise is the blacks (my own tests of the the 1DX_II vs the 1DC showed this clearly - the noise is less bad). When you combine this, with NR software, the slightly higher DR and pixel density, it all adds up to a slightly better high ISO image (which is what you care about - the end image). From what I have personally seen working the files of high ISO, high DR images between the new and old 1DX, the new images are about 1/4 to 1/2 stop better at high ISO when you work the files (6400 to 51,200 iso).

So from a DR perspective, 100-400 ISO you gain a full stop, 6400-51,200 you gain 1/4 to 1/2 stop using pixel density / NR / cleaner noise tradeoff with PP (requires effort), you can easily Frame Grab 8megapixel 4K 60P frames (using any SS require to freeze the action), Metering is improved, ergonomics slightly better with the improved joystick, Silent Shutter is better, 16FPS is Liveview is near silent and awesome and the Red AF points are great - overall an improved camera - but like the 5D3 vs the 5D2, most pros still used their 5D2 with their 5D3 all day long because 96% of the time there was no difference.

For me, the 3 negatives of the 1DX_II are:
1) the in Optical Viewfinder menu items that you can display (drive mode, metering mode, WB, Program mode, etc) are displayed in BLACK not RED like the 5DSR - when it is dark YOU CAN'T SEE THEM
2) once you have seen a D5 using LEDs to display the buttons you realize what an awesome idea this was (I would actually pay, if it was possible, for Canon to retrofit this as an upgrade)
3) The Sony A7Rii sensor at 25,600 and 51,200 is still better by about 1/2-2/3 stop. That 1/2 stop really becomes obvious when jump from 12,600 to 25,600. If ISO 25,600 had that 1/2 stop, plus the Pixel density (which is pretty much the point of this original post), there would be lots and lots of 1DXs for sale - but it isn't quite there.

 

[Bennie_CanonShooter]

thanks for the wonderful review/test and the time you put into this.

I do agree on your pointers.... that the newer cameras dont have a linear path to technological advancements.

When I got my 1DX July 2013 - with the first firmware installed - the AF was terrible in low light - even though they marketed it as better - to a point, at events, I started using my trusty 1D Mark II N for these low-light shoots.

It wasnt until FW #2 that the AF matches the 1D Mark II N in speed and accuracy.

Even with FW #2 - the 1DX that time still have AF issues with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses - a very sad fact that with these newer cameras - we cant use the special focus screens anymore

All in all, the new releases that Canon made dont bring much anticipation for me anymore that I start looking to SONY A7 and now own the A7m2 and A6300 and Have used the A7R2 which much delight - so happy indeed that I hold my purchase of the 5DSR (very tempting with the current lens/body combo rebates) and waiting for the A7R3 to arrive ( will just rent the A7R2 ).

I am and was a loyal CANON user/buyer (cameras, lenses, 17" printers, video cams) but NOT anymore.

I am glad that I dont have plans to upgrade to the 1DXm2, will keep my 1DX until it quits, same for my 1D Mark II and Mark II N (as my rough up cameras) myb remove the AA filter for the Mark II N, the Mark II is now full spectrum.

I do confess, the DPAF is awesome and for that - I bought the 80D and is very HAPPY with it.

Even the touch screen on the 80D is way better than the 1DXm2 - funny but sad as to how CANON logic implements their segmentation of technology (give some, take some) - and with their 5DSR - it will be somewhat hard to imagine that CANON will give us lesser AA filters for the 1D series as it is now clear with the advent on the 5DSR product line.

 

[Act444]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

 

[rbielefeld]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Thing is I find myself using NR less often on my backgrounds (I never use NR on the bird). To me this means there is just less noise or noise that is "less intrusive" on image quality.

 

[3kramd5]

I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII

Awesome!

 

[Neutral]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
So if you rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter for your shooting then results would be definitely better and images more clean compared to 1DX and as result general perception that 1DXm2 output is better.
To make it short Canon is now better utilizing sensor by using more intelligent exposure meter which does not afraid to expose more to the right. Actually Canon just fixed issue that was somewhat irritating in previous cameras generation (underexposing) - user had to care himself about exposing to the right - now you can rely on camera meter for that.

The other factor is 1DXm2 better DR at lower ISOs so there are less noise in a shadows and in the sky, so again images look cleaner and better. I think that this difference disappears somewhere above ISO 400 or ISO 800 - I still need to check that for myself.

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

 

[GuyF]

Further DR shenanigans here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=18030856

 

[Act444]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
So if you rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter for your shooting then results would be definitely better and images more clean compared to 1DX and as result general perception that 1DXm2 output is better.
To make it short Canon is now better utilizing sensor by using more intelligent exposure meter which does not afraid to expose more to the right. Actually Canon just fixed issue that was somewhat irritating in previous cameras generation (underexposing) - user had to care himself about exposing to the right - now you can rely on camera meter for that.

The other factor is 1DXm2 better DR at lower ISOs so there are less noise in a shadows and in the sky, so again images look cleaner and better. I think that this difference disappears somewhere above ISO 400 or ISO 800 - I still need to check that for myself.

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Ah interesting. I see.

Yes, probably my biggest pet peeve about the 5D3 - its tendency to underexpose. Once recovered in post, there's a small to moderate hit taken on details, particularly in darker areas. In situations (events) where the lighting is constant, often I have to shoot in full manual to ensure pics are exposed properly. When they are, though, the IQ is simply phenomenal...

 

[Neutral]

And here is just real life 1DXm2 outdoor shot in normal light conditions

560mm (EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II USM + 1.4x III), 1/1000sec, f9.0, ISO640.
Looks good, nothing to complain, image is very clean.