More 1Dx full samples

Just to illustrate what I mean.. Here is an image taken with my 7 year old (then new) 20D just 1 stop below natural ISO...

IMG_0823.jpg


What if I told you that was 80% crop?... nice uh?
Now look at that lion again, 2 stops below natural ISO ability... now crop it to 80%... Not so good now is it...
 
The level in your 20d is up the spout Ivan...............
 
More comparisons.. This time from my "finally - managed - to - get - a - working - copy - after - 4 attempts" 1DMKIII. Again, 1 stop below maximum natural ISO. Overcast day.
Full image
GGO_Full.jpg


and 100% crop
GGO_100Crop.jpg


As you can see at ISO 1600 (1DMKIII will do 3200 before expansion)...Plenty of detail there.
Under-exposed or not... at 2 stops below maximum natural ISO, I will be expecting the kind of low noise, fine detail resolution I have shown in these examples.... Sadly, that lioness is a mess when viewed at 100%
 
your expecting the lioness picture taken in poor lighting at iso 12800 to be the same quality as a mkIII at iso 1600 taken in pretty much perfect conditions (overcast I find perfect) I wouldnt expect that.. would be amazed if it could :)
 
You missing the point Tony.
I would expect it to look a hell of a lot better than it does. It is, after all, 2 full stops below maximum natural ISO.
Had I taken that lioness image, it would have gone straight to the bin. How in the name of all that's holly they braved it out and, posted it as a sample, is beyond all reason. And if this is the best Canon can muster with this new camera... I pass thank you very much.

Also, that was taken in the wooden area of the HCT which can get pretty dark, specially on overcast days. .. (ask anyone who has been to the HCT (hawk conservancy trust) in Andover) .
Now, it was not as dark conditions as the lioness image but, trust me, it was far from perfect lighting conditions…

The examples I've posted demonstrates what Canon was able to do with (what at the time was) high ISO settings. Now, I could post some 1DMKIV high ISO images but, that camera promised 12800 maximum natural ISO and, it did not deliver what I expected. Hence, no point in doing so.

Canon is saying " look we can do really stupidly high ISO" and... Well, they can't really. Not if we do like for like comparisons.

I can do ISO stupid by pushing exposure on any morden-ish camera and will more or less end up with the same results.
Then the say... "look we have excellent tech in our new flagship camera that will get exposure spot on" and... Well, even if we take the dialled EC in to consideration, that Lioness image still is well underexposed. So, errr.... Not quite that brilliant.... is it.

Remember that, for this "brilliant" tech, you are paying a hefty premium.

Now granted the selectable 61 AF points, Muti-exposure, and other goodies will be useful. But, for me, (unless they get that high ISO and state of the art AE/AF servo right), what's there now, is not good enough to justify the upgrade.


PS: Before anyone starts .. yes I know I missed focus on the eyes.
 
Last edited:
Is it just me or is high ISO becoming the new megapixel race?
Quality of light is still surely more important than quantity of light?
 
Edtog said:
Is it just me or is high ISO becoming the new megapixel race?
Quality of light is still surely more important than quantity of light?
Click to expand...

Well, we need high ISO because Each year less light reaches the surface of the Earth. Now, if you going to claim 51200 ISO performance, be sure you can deliver the goods. Is not good to me if at 100% everything turns to mushed potato!:thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:
IGADIZ said:
You missing the point Tony.
I would expect it to look a hell of a lot better than it does. It is, after all, 2 full stops below maximum natural ISO.
Click to expand...

I think you're being a little unrealistic about ISO improvements - after all, isn't the scale non-linear, so an improvement of 1 stop from an already high point is actually a massive jump? Or am I getting confused? :)
 
Are Canon claiming its natural/native to shoot at the maximum Iso rating of the camera? Surely that's a maximum (before real death or glory expansion stuff) and it would/should be regarded as the "you're really pushing it" stakes, as opposed to "do this all the time" stuff.
My old 5d/1d have maximum Isos (as we all have) but I wouldnt normally use them if I wanted a clean noise free image, for me they would be a last resort.
And to be really fair, does anyone remember what Iso 400 (let alone 1600) film was like, grain the size of golf balls in 35mm colour stock, admittedly it was a few years ago but there's only so much light a sensor can catch before amplification is going to mess it up.
Brings me back to what I said a few weeks ago, just how far do you think a new release improves day to day stuff over a previous model.

Matt
 
Last edited:
The owl image was taken 1 stop below maximum ISO and it looks great (even at 100%).. Moreover at ISO 3200 the 1DMKIV performs great. So, I would expect the same performance from the 1Dx at 2 stops below its maximum rated ISO. Yet it fails to deliver and no, I don't think I've been too demanding or unrealistic.
If you took an image at ISO 800 with the 1DMKIII or one at ISO 3200 with the 1DMKIV and it looked like that, you will be horrified!.. Same applies here.
 
IGADIZ said:
The owl image was taken 1 stop below maximum ISO and it looks great (even at 100%).. Moreover at ISO 3200 the 1DMKIV performs great. So, I would expect the same performance from the 1Dx at 2 stops below its maximum rated ISO. Yet it fails to deliver and no, I don't think I've been too demanding or unrealistic.
If you took an image at ISO 800 with the 1DMKIII or one at ISO 3200 with the 1DMKIV and it looked like that, you will be horrified!.. Same applies here.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously think that Canon would launch a brand new flagship camera - at £5.3k, with a much larger sensor, gapless microlenses, and much better processing engine - that was worse than the 1D4? That would actually be quite hard to do.

The question is not whether it's better or not, because it unquestionably is. The only question is how much. The other important thing is how well can it servo-track at 12fps.

My hunch is that Canon has made no mistakes with this camera and it will set a new standard in all areas for quite some time, but there's no way it's going to be a step backwards in anything.
 
IGADIZ said:
The owl image was taken 1 stop below maximum ISO and it looks great (even at 100%).. Moreover at ISO 3200 the 1DMKIV performs great. So, I would expect the same performance from the 1Dx at 2 stops below its maximum rated ISO. Yet it fails to deliver and no, I don't think I've been too demanding or unrealistic.
If you took an image at ISO 800 with the 1DMKIII or one at ISO 3200 with the 1DMKIV and it looked like that, you will be horrified!.. Same applies here.
Click to expand...

OK... I get it now ;) The 1Dx is basically an overpriced junk for what it costs, and canon needs to discount it significantly for us to consider it. I fully agree, I won't buy one until it's <£2k. Canon please take immediate action.:rules:
 
daugirdas said:
OK... I get it now ;) The 1Dx is basically an overpriced junk for what it costs, and canon needs to discount it significantly for us to consider it. I fully agree, I won't buy one until it's <£2k. Canon please take immediate action.:rules:
Click to expand...

At last, someone that speaks my language :lol:
Now, Canon... aren't you bragging about listening to your costumers?....:rules:
 
IGADIZ said:
Now, Canon... aren't you bragging about listening to your costumers?....:rules:
Click to expand...
Are you saying the 1Dx is a case of the Emperors New Clothes then? :D
 
HoppyUK said:
Do you seriously think that Canon would launch a brand new flagship camera - at £5.3k, with a much larger sensor, gapless microlenses, and much better processing engine - that was worse than the 1D4? That would actually be quite hard to do.

The question is not whether it's better or not, because it unquestionably is. The only question is how much. The other important thing is how well can it servo-track at 12fps.

My hunch is that Canon has made no mistakes with this camera and it will set a new standard in all areas for quite some time, but there's no way it's going to be a step backwards in anything.
Click to expand...


It won't be the first time they get it spectacularly wrong (ask 1DMKIII early adopters) but, and I am sure, if they do mess it up this time, it will be the last. Costumers won't tolerate :bat: another fiasco.
 
IGADIZ said:
It won't be the first time they get it spectacularly wrong (ask 1DMKIII early adopters) but, and I am sure, if they do mess it up this time, it will be the last. Costumers won't tolerate :bat: another fiasco.
Click to expand...

The problem with the 1D3 was the AF, fixed ages ago. You're complaining about the 1DX's image quality, apparently on the basis of one picture.

Why don't you answer my question, without going off an another irrelevant rant? How can the 1DX's IQ possibly be worse than the 1D4?
 
How does these 1Dx samples fare compared to the high ISO D4 samples?
 
KIPAX said:
your expecting the lioness picture taken in poor lighting at iso 12800 to be the same quality as a mkIII at iso 1600 taken in pretty much perfect conditions (overcast I find perfect) I wouldnt expect that.. would be amazed if it could :)
Click to expand...


Good post, it always amazes me when folk compares good light images to crap light images a bit like chalk n cheese, on has to wonder sometimes!!
 
HoppyUK said:
The problem with the 1D3 was the AF, fixed ages ago. You're complaining about the 1DX's image quality, apparently on the basis of one picture.

Why don't you answer my question, without going off an another irrelevant rant? How can the 1DX's IQ possibly be worse than the 1D4?
Click to expand...

I don't think I like your tone.
Since you have come to slap me in the face. Let me return the favour.
Had you read through the thread instead of racing towards your 14K post, you would have found the answers you seek.
Now, I am going to let this one slide but, in future, I will expect you to address me with the respect I deserve. Otherwise, I will be taking issue and you will definitely find yourself on my ignore list.
Have a nice day!
 
Wilky said:
Good post, it always amazes me when folk compares good light images to crap light images a bit like chalk n cheese, on has to wonder sometimes!!
Click to expand...
I am sorry but, if we are to believe Canon PR machine, this camera with it's claimed extended 204800 ISO, is supposed to see in the dark... Leaves little room to excuse a crapy low light image
 
Wilky said:
Now I know your barking mad......
Click to expand...
Come back in 50 years and repeat that back to me.. or for that matter, to the scientist working on this.
 
Last edited:
Wilky was right... :(
 
Oh goody two people on my ignore list...
 
Moderators feel free to close the thread...sadly, acording to hoppyuk and wilky, having an opinion that differs from the norn turns me into a ranting madman.
I would have rather liked for these two to argue the point. Instead they have chosen personal attack ( I guess because they are incapable of actual intelligent debate).
 
Sorry Ivan, I don't see any personal attacks here, maybe you are reading between the lines which can easily be done.

They are offering an opinion along with Tony (Kipax) but you seem to think their opion holds no bearing either.

I think we need to wait and see what 'real' images look like, especially something for Tony's work under floodlights before we nail this camera to the cross.

I don't know Hoppy but I can vouch for Wilky (Martin) and say he is a genuine bloke with good integrity, I am sure Hoppy (Richard) is exactly the same.
 
tiler65 said:
Sorry Ivan, I don't see any personal attacks here, maybe you are reading between the lines which can easily be done.

They are offering an opinion along with Tony (Kipax) but you seem to think their opion holds no bearing either.

I think we need to wait and see what 'real' images look like, especially something for Tony's work under floodlights before we nail this camera to the cross.

I don't know Hoppy but I can vouch for Wilky (Martin) and say he is a genuine bloke with good integrity, I am sure Hoppy (Richard) is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I am not going to get into a tit for tat.
Suffice to say I took offence at having my posts described as "irrelevant rants" by HoppyUK and being labelled as "barking Mad" by Wilky. To me that's a personal attack, your millage may vary.
 
Getting back on topic i wonder why Canon have only gone for 18mp rather than the 23 like the 5d mk3 Neither of these cameras intrest me as i need a crop body or at leased 40mp ff .
some of the sample's are very very good and to me they all should be tops in iq i look at image 10 and its just poor to me.
Rob.
 
Because that's what us working photographers want, it's perfect, anything more would be unusable and slow the workflow down too much. 16-18mpx is perfect :)
The world doesn't need more megapixels, if you do then that's why God invented medium/large format or the D800 which will probably out resolve most lenses anyway..
Also it's something to do with marketing, so Canon can say they have the fastest fps in the world.
14fps in the real world is applicable in .00001% of jobs.
 
Edtog said:
Because that's what us working photographers want, it's perfect, anything more would be unusable and slow the workflow down too much. 16-18mpx is perfect :)
The world doesn't need more megapixels, if you do then that's why God invented medium/large format or the D800 which will probably out resolve most lenses anyway..
Also it's something to do with marketing, so Canon can say they have the fastest fps in the world.
14fps in the real world is applicable in .00001% of jobs.
Click to expand...

I have been designed at the DNA level to disagree with mostly everything and everybody on any forum. :p Today a mutation has occurred because I have to agree somewhat with the sentiment stated above, even though I'm not actually one of those working photographers. More like one of those not working enough types because I'm crap at business. :'( ;)

I'm sure there will be a percentage of people where some mega monster pixel SLR will be an advantage and actually need it, as well as a larger percentage who think they need it. We may yet see one by Canon and they can rejoice at its arrival when it lands. In the meantime I am one who is relieved that this particular model is sub 20 mp. :woot:
 
Strange how we all require diffrent things from a camera 16-18 mpx on ff is far from perfect for wild life / birding as the sample shots prove :) the D800 is indeed a strong camera for this but hopefully Canon will update the 7d soon.
Rob.
 
GyRob said:
Strange how we all require diffrent things from a camera 16-18 mpx on ff is far from perfect for wild life / birding as the sample shots prove :) the D800 is indeed a strong camera for this but hopefully Canon will update the 7d soon.
Rob.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. As an owner of 16MP FF (weak AA filter) camera I feel that mine is perfectly adequate for landscapes, capable of massive prints, portraits, and some action, not exceeding ISO1600 (3200 max). Wildlife is no go without uber long lenses (fast 400mm++) though - I can't do anything that I could reach even with the 40D.
The new one will obviously excel at lower noise / higher iso, sensor coating and cleaning, and much faster burst rate (effectively also replacing the 1DIII). To me this is an evolutionary update, but that's fine - when the price drops to affordable level.

At the moment I am going to bet that this will outresolve 5DIII out of the water even with less MP. D800 is an altogether different beast, and a very attractive one, minus the wrong lens mount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top