Upvote
0
briansquibb said:neuroanatomist said:So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), I'd guess we can expect somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 stop improvement, partly from improved on-sensor NR (pre-RAW) and partly from the gapless microlenses. I'll certainly take 1/3 to 1/2 stop...but that doesn't sound nearly as good as 2 stops, and Canon's marketing department knows that, which is why they use the 1D IV jpg as a baseline.
Are you ignoring the real life evidence that the 1D4 is giving at least 1 stop over the 5DII or are you saying that the 1DX will give 1/2 stop less than the 1D4?
neuroanatomist said:So, that means that comparing the 1D X to 5DII (FF to FF) and comparing RAW image (which we haven't yet seen from the 1D X), I'd guess we can expect somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 stop improvement, partly from improved on-sensor NR (pre-RAW) and partly from the gapless microlenses. I'll certainly take 1/3 to 1/2 stop...but that doesn't sound nearly as good as 2 stops, and Canon's marketing department knows that, which is why they use the 1D IV jpg as a baseline.
neuroanatomist said:What evidence is there that the 1D IV outperforms the 5DII by at least 1 stop for ISO noise on RAW images?
NotABunny said:To me it looks like Canon is making technological leaps in this period, changing platform (DIGIC 5), sensor technology, lenses and flash technology. The only catch is that a lot of photographers can't see it because they would not benefit from it, because they work with a controlled environment.
NotABunny said:So, the 5D3 will have at least the same noise levels as the 1Dx (except if the technology used in the sensor is too expensive for a camera price below $5000).
briansquibb said:Posted this in another thread too - look at the exif of this picture that I took this evening in a dull hall and come to your own conclusions
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/b09g8538x.JPG
briansquibb said:I am getting usable photos at iso12800 - and there was no noise reduction applied.
Picsfor said:I fully expect the 5D3 to make 12800 a working ISO, if not 25600...
briansquibb said:NotABunny said:To me it looks like Canon is making technological leaps in this period, changing platform (DIGIC 5), sensor technology, lenses and flash technology. The only catch is that a lot of photographers can't see it because they would not benefit from it, because they work with a controlled environment.
Are you talking about studio shooters here? rather than landscapers or street togs?
I would guess those are the 3 main categories of use for the 5DII?
NotABunny said:Not only, but anyone who can control the conditions of their shooting. A landscape shooter can take the time (including doing it in different days) to shoot a scene, plus the landscape doesn't move. An event is non-repeatable (unless it's staged, in which case it goes in the other category: controlled).
neuroanatomist said:briansquibb said:Posted this in another thread too - look at the exif of this picture that I took this evening in a dull hall and come to your own conclusions
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/b09g8538x.JPG
briansquibb said:I am getting usable photos at iso12800 - and there was no noise reduction applied.
Ahhh, I see. There aren't exactly lots of shadows or smooth detail in that linked image which make it a great one to compare noise.
And no noise reduction. Because shrinking a 16 MP image to a 0.5 MP image doesn't reduce noise. At all.
dilbert said:I would like to see a real ISO 50 rather than an underexposed ISO 100.
dilbert said:I would like to see a real ISO 50 rather than an underexposed ISO 100.
pedro said:and about 1 stop compared to a 7D
willrobb said:For the 7D though, I found it excellent up to ISO 640, good at 800, 1000 was pushing it a bit and by 1600 I found it to not be so good, sometimes fine, bit more often than not way too noisy for me.
Well yes, that's one possible explanation...Maybe I just had a dud