Will the D1-x really be superior to the new 5DIII?

[V8Beast]

This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

In short, much more room for correction without killing the image.

In particular in cases where you want to push deep shadows and pull highlights, and do heavy dodge and burn in lightroom for example, I'm positive the D800/D4 chips will give you a clear benefit over the 5d3/1dx.

In a lot of situations you won't see sensor advantages however.

Interesting test. I suppose the conclusion is that if you make a habit of missing an exposure by 3-4 stops, the D800 is a better machine than the 5DIII. I have no problem conceding Nikon's superiority in that regard, but in all my years of shooting, I have never once missed an exposure by 3-4 stops. I'd venture to say it would be difficult to miss an exposure by 4 stops by a soccer mom using her iPhone. Heck, I feel like the world's worst photographer if I miss an exposure by 1 stop

Like you said, in many situations this sensor advantage won't be evident. I think the Nikon's flat looking files would bug me a heck of a lot more than the instances where I need to pull 4 stops of shadow recovery, which is never.

 

[cps_user]

True.

But there are cases where you surely couldd benefit from wider dr and the option to get detail in both the deepest shadow and brightest highlights. I'm sure we all have a couple of files in our archives where we had to give up on either one of them, or where we wouldve liked more leeway to mould the file to our wishes.

In this respect, I think Nikon wins this round. Their processor is both capable of great high iso and has better dr, so sensor-wise the d4 beats the 1dx, at least this is how it well might look like.

Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

This test done by a Dutch website clearly demonstrates that, in certain circumstances, the superior DR on the 800 can actually be used and seen: http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

In short, much more room for correction without killing the image.

In particular in cases where you want to push deep shadows and pull highlights, and do heavy dodge and burn in lightroom for example, I'm positive the D800/D4 chips will give you a clear benefit over the 5d3/1dx.

In a lot of situations you won't see sensor advantages however.

Interesting test. I suppose the conclusion is that if you make a habit of missing an exposure by 3-4 stops, the D800 is a better machine than the 5DIII. I have no problem conceding Nikon's superiority in that regard, but in all my years of shooting, I have never once missed an exposure by 3-4 stops. I'd venture to say it would be difficult to miss an exposure by 4 stops by a soccer mom using her iPhone. Heck, I feel like the world's worst photographer if I miss an exposure by 1 stop

Like you said, in many situations this sensor advantage won't be evident. I think the Nikon's flat looking files would bug me a heck of a lot more than the instances where I need to pull 4 stops of shadow recovery, which is never.

Realistically I don't think anyone is taking about rescuing 4 stop unexposed files but rather HDR situations using a single shot.

There are situations when better quality deep shadows would help me. For example, when I'm shooting a bride getting into or out of the car I don't particularly like to use flash as it changes the shot significantly and inverse square law of light means only the closer person will be lit. Having a single exposure for this situation would be fantastically useful.

It's not someone which will affect all photographers but it will affect some.

 

[V8Beast]

But there are cases where you surely couldd benefit from wider dr and the option to get detail in both the deepest shadow and brightest highlights. I'm sure we all have a couple of files in our archives where we had to give up on either one of them, or where we wouldve liked more leeway to mould the file to our wishes.

In this respect, I think Nikon wins this round.

Agreed on all accounts. If maximum DR is the most important factor for a photographer, then Nikon is the clear winner. Fortunately, DR is just one of many elements of performance that go into what and how I shoot, and it's not so important that I feel inclined to abandon the Canon system.

Realistically I don't think anyone is taking about rescuing 4 stop unexposed files but rather HDR situations using a single shot.

There are situations when better quality deep shadows would help me. For example, when I'm shooting a bride getting into or out of the car I don't particularly like to use flash as it changes the shot significantly and inverse square law of light means only the closer person will be lit. Having a single exposure for this situation would be fantastically useful.

Anyone can relate to the benefits of greater DR in practical, real-world situations as you describe. While the test conducted in that link is interesting from a strictly academic standpoint of gauging sensor performance, I have a difficult time relating to the method used to illustrate their point. Pulling four stops of shadow recovery is equivalent to an 16-fold increase in light, and if you haphazardly pulled that much shadow recovery in 99 percent of images, you'd end up with the ugliest, flattest POS you'd ever laid eyes on It's one thing to recover some shadow detail. It's another thing entirely to turn your shadows into midtones, which is essentially what that Dutch experiment sought to accomplish.

Now, I think a much more effective test would be if someone as qualified as yourself busted out one of these shots of a bride getting out of car, applied the necessary shadow recovery in post, then shared the before and after images the illustrate the benefits of the Nikon's DR advantage That's something everyone can relate to.

I just find the idea of intentionally underexposing an image by four stops, then trying to save it in post just for the sake of experimentation, a bit silly since it isn't a situation you'd ever encounter in real life. Unfortunately, a lot of people find bizarre experiments like that quite compelling.

 

[briansquibb]

Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.

I dont think anyone is in a position to say whether it is or it isn't yet as it hasn't been tested yet

 

[RLPhoto]

Short answer - YES (Long Answer Below).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Long Answer - YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.

I dont think anyone is in a position to say whether it is or it isn't yet as it hasn't been tested yet

No... But I think the signs are all these. My tests so far say its equal to the others in high ISO midtones and shadows, but low iso dr? It doesnt seem to be the case.

I'm not sure canon promised that though. They said the 1dx would be the best canon offered. They've been very clear on that...

 

[briansquibb]

Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.

I dont think anyone is in a position to say whether it is or it isn't yet as it hasn't been tested yet

No... But I think the signs are all these. My tests so far say its equal to the others in high ISO midtones and shadows, but low iso dr? It doesnt seem to be the case.

I'm not sure canon promised that though. Try said the 1dx would be the best canon offered. They've been very clear on that...

You have a production 1DX then? or even a pre-production model? What did you analyse to come to that conclusion? And you are comparing it with? And do you have that camera?

What tests are you doing? Against what files?

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Canon promised us the best sensor tech available when they announced 1dx and for sure, it's going to be the best ff canon dslr yet, but it's simply not the best available sensor tech on the dslr market.

I dont think anyone is in a position to say whether it is or it isn't yet as it hasn't been tested yet

No... But I think the signs are all these. My tests so far say its equal to the others in high ISO midtones and shadows, but low iso dr? It doesnt seem to be the case.

I'm not sure canon promised that though. Try said the 1dx would be the best canon offered. They've been very clear on that...

You have a production 1DX then? or even a pre-production model? What did you analyse to come to that conclusion? And you are comparing it with? And do you have that camera?

What tests are you doing? Against what files?

Comparing d4/d800 samples with 1dx samples posted the other day.

It's far from conclusive which is why I said "it doesn't *seem*", but I'd bet £50 on it right now. Certainly compared with d800 low ISO DR and probably d4 low ISO DR too.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

So I thought I'd share some more in depth thoughts about how low noise in the shadows is actually useful in a real life situation

Firstly, it's fair to say with my wedding work that I use flash as little as possible. That doesn't mean I don't use it, I do, but I don't like to use it where I can avoid it and I personally dislike mixing flash with daylight, especially to pull a whole block of shadows like the shot below.

So take this shot:

The bridal party were going from Warwick castle to the glass house on the grounds, where the reception was being held. What I wanted was the castle in the background and the party in the foreground.

When it's processed and the shadows are +2 stops and warmed, this is what you get and what I really wanted:

However, now look at the shadows at 100%:

.. which I then have to clear up with some localised NR (thank you LR4!):

The reality is that this file is perfectly fine, especially for wedding use. After NR and at the size this will be printed, it will be fantastic. However, would I *prefer* cleaner shadows for this? Absolutely. It wouldn't stand up to commercial use though.

In reality I probably could have pushed the file another 1/2 stop brighter to help the shadows, but we were working *fast* as anyone who has done an Asian wedding will know

 

[V8Beast]

Thanks for the example, Phil. Great work as always.

Here's one I dug up. There's a lot of contrast, and not much shadow detail.

This is more of what I was going for, and yes, more DR and shadow recovery would have been highly beneficial.

That said, the real culprit here is that I f'd up the exposure. I should have anticipated the backlighting and opened up the exposure by a stop. An ND grad filter would have worked wonders as well, but like you said, you can sometimes overlook these things inadvertently in the heat of the moment

 

[V8Beast]

Wrong conclusion.

The extra DR is of benefit when there is a big separation between the brightest part of your image and the darkest shadow.

Thanks for the insight. I will be sure to remember that from this point forward, as I had no prior knowledge to what DR meant. I will continue to use a camera's DR as a crutch for improper technique.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

So I thought I'd share some more in depth thoughts about how low noise in the shadows is actually useful in a real life situation

Firstly, it's fair to say with my wedding work that I use flash as little as possible. That doesn't mean I don't use it, I do, but I don't like to use it where I can avoid it and I personally dislike mixing flash with daylight, especially to pull a whole block of shadows like the shot below.

So take this shot:

The bridal party were going from Warwick castle to the glass house on the grounds, where the reception was being held. What I wanted was the castle in the background and the party in the foreground.

When it's processed and the shadows are +2 stops and warmed, this is what you get and what I really wanted:

However, now look at the shadows at 100%:

.. which I then have to clear up with some localised NR (thank you LR4!):

The reality is that this file is perfectly fine, especially for wedding use. After NR and at the size this will be printed, it will be fantastic. However, would I *prefer* cleaner shadows for this? Absolutely. It wouldn't stand up to commercial use though.

In reality I probably could have pushed the file another 1/2 stop brighter to help the shadows, but we were working *fast* as anyone who has done an Asian wedding will know

P.S I should really make the point that this doesn't happen very often. I mean it's not like us brits have any light to play with usually

 

[JR]

Comparing d4/d800 samples with 1dx samples posted the other day.

It's far from conclusive which is why I said "it doesn't *seem*", but I'd bet £50 on it right now. Certainly compared with d800 low ISO DR and probably d4 low ISO DR too.

I am not convinced the file that were leaked of the 1DX are that representative. First I hate the settings (a picture of a shinny car metalic surface does not constitute a great test in my personal view), second, I am a bit surprised these file are even available to be honest given Canon is so secretive to release any more sample. This makes me wonder if these were shot with the final firmware or just a pre-production model...

Not saying the D4 is not a great camera, but maybe we should wait till the 1DX is actually out and shipping before declairing it defeated!

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Comparing d4/d800 samples with 1dx samples posted the other day.

It's far from conclusive which is why I said "it doesn't *seem*", but I'd bet £50 on it right now. Certainly compared with d800 low ISO DR and probably d4 low ISO DR too.

I am not convinced the file that were leaked of the 1DX are that representative. First I hate the settings (a picture of a shinny car metalic surface does not constitute a great test in my personal view), second, I am a bit surprised these file are even available to be honest given Canon is so secretive to release any more sample. This makes me wonder if these were shot with the final firmware or just a pre-production model...

Not saying the D4 is not a great camera, but maybe we should wait till the 1DX is actually out and shipping before declairing it defeated!

I don't see it as defeated. I still think the 1dx will be the better camera overall.. But I don't think the 1dx sensor will be better than the d4 sensor.

I just don't think the sensor differences will be relevant to the vast majority of people - me included in the vast vast majority of cases.

I've said it before but lenses are more important than the sensor in most cases - and in that I'm glad I'm with canon for their incredible primes especially.

 

[JR]

I guess each company is taking different approach. You are right about Canon prime, they are addictive! Still cant wait for the 1dx to be out, Irregardless its relative position with the d4, it will surpass what ever i would need in a camera anyway!

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

Totally. I can't wait to get my hands on one!

 

[Deleted member 42026]

I won't be able to afford it, but the 1dx sounds like the bomb for someone like me. I shoot a fair bit of photojournalism, and that thing would likely rock.

Its an entirely different animal than a 5D mark anything.

Now when exactly will it hit the streets? .... ...

 

[JR]

I won't be able to afford it, but the 1dx sounds like the bomb for someone like me. I shoot a fair bit of photojournalism, and that thing would likely rock.

Its an entirely different animal than a 5D mark anything.

Now when exactly will it hit the streets? .... ...

Was supposed to be end of this month, but now rumored to be delayed to June...wich mean we may not get actual sample in our hands until July or even August! Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I suppose the conclusion is that if you make a habit of missing an exposure by 3-4 stops, the D800 is a better machine than the 5DIII. I have no problem conceding Nikon's superiority in that regard, but in all my years of shooting, I have never once missed an exposure by 3-4 stops.

Oh come on now, you know better than to be one of the ones tossing around the "missed exposure" nonsense which is a total red herring. If a scene has say 14 stops that you want to capture and your camera can capture 8 stops it doesn't matter what you do with the exposure it won't work out. While it's nice to be able to rescue a bad miss now and then, things happen, the real story has nothing at all to do with bad exposures and I think you know enough about shooting and cameras to know that.