Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications  (Read 20546 times)

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2016, 09:11:35 am »

There is nothing like shooting.

I was under the impression that you were mostly into landscape.
Cheers,
Bernard

Then you really don't know my photography. And the answer to your question is self evident.
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2016, 09:22:28 am »

Then you really don't know my photography. And the answer to your question is self evident.

Ah ok, I just spent 10 minutes going through the folios on your site... great images... 95% of them landscape. But I guess your site isn't representative of your work then. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2016, 09:47:16 am »

Id post my findings having lived with and used the camera.. (and paying for it- actually I purchased a 2nd one if that tells you anything) but seriously.. its such an anti Canon forum and there are so many Nikon fan boys waiting to pounce that it just isn't worth it. Id rather spend my time enjoying my photography.

It's not an anti-Canon forum.

It's a landscape photography forum. Therefore, any gear is mostly going to be looked at with respect to its suitability for landscape and nature photography - a field in which high dynamic range and low-ISO image quality is of great importance.

For the last few years, Canon has fallen behind on that front, so has received a lot of criticism.. But, before that, when DR was more-or-less equal, it was Nikon who were getting bashed, firstly for lack of a full-frame body until the D3, then for lack of a high-resolution option (other than the overpriced D3x), while Canon was in the limelight due to the high-resolution (for the time) 1Ds3 and 5D2, which, for the first time, allowed us to ditch MF film.

Now that Canon's sensors appear to be in the ballpark again, with the 80D showing similar ISO-vs-DR to Nikon and Sony crop sensors, and the 1Dx2 appearing to use the same on-sensor ADC technology, that will likely change. Although it may be a while before that trickles around to landscape photographers, since the high-resolution 5Ds was only released last year and we'll have to wait until the 5Ds2 comes around with a new sensor.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2291
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2016, 10:09:25 am »

It's a landscape photography forum.

It's not - it's a photography forum.

...  with a host of subforums including at least two dedicated to 'landscape' as well as iPhone, computers, lighting, motion and even a coffee corner.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2016, 10:31:49 am »

It's not - it's a photography forum.

...  with a host of subforums including at least two dedicated to 'landscape' as well as iPhone, computers, lighting, motion and even a coffee corner.

There's 'landscape' in the title and web address for a reason...
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 2291
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2016, 11:14:21 am »

There's 'landscape' in the title and web address for a reason...

If one were to follow your logic and powers of deduction then it would also follow that there's a defining reason why my name is that of The Lord.

Stop being silly.

Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2016, 11:20:24 am »

If one were to follow your logic and powers of deduction then it would also follow that there's a defining reason why my name is that of The Lord.

Stop being silly.

It's called 'Luminous Landscape'. Most of the articles are about landscape, nature and other non-action photography, when they're not specifically about gear (which also tends to be reviewed from a landscape/non-action perspective). There are two forums dedicated to landscape and nature photography, and precisely none dedicated to any other type of photography.
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2016, 03:19:41 pm »

If one were to follow your logic and powers of deduction then it would also follow that there's a defining reason why my name is that of The Lord.

Stop being silly.

Manoli,


Be nice. We have a reputation for courtesy in this forum. So don't get too personal, and don't ask for the impossible :)

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 03:23:02 pm by eronald »
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

Chris L

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2016, 12:53:51 pm »

Id post my findings having lived with and used the camera.. (and paying for it- actually I purchased a 2nd one if that tells you anything) but seriously.. its such an anti Canon forum and there are so many Nikon fan boys waiting to pounce that it just isn't worth it. Id rather spend my time enjoying my photography.

Hey Josh, forget all the haters, what is your experience with the camera? Hows the files? Increased DR? Have you pulled an 8 mgpxl still from the video footage like they said is possible? have you used Autofocus while filming video? Hope you can shed some light for us.
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2016, 06:52:32 pm »

Hey Josh, forget all the haters, what is your experience with the camera? Hows the files? Increased DR? Have you pulled an 8 mgpxl still from the video footage like they said is possible? have you used Autofocus while filming video? Hope you can shed some light for us.

I am working on a review of the camera - stand by for that....Ill just say for now...

The files from the 1DX MKII are superb. The increased ISO capabilities are pretty incredible and I think the vast majority of people will be pretty amazed at how clean the files are. I have not pulled an 8mpx. still from video as that isn't my cup of tea. I have only dabbled with the auto focus with video (I'm not a video guy). For stills though its the best AF of any camera I have ever used. Think of the camera as a hot rod version of the original 1DX. A few more pixels, vastly improved high ISO capabilities, better AF and I really appreciate the extra cross types out to the edges for wildlife, a couple of extra frames per second, and better DR.




Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2016, 07:48:19 pm »

Please do post your review or a link to your review when it is ready. I am a Canon user with many lenses I like, my workhorse is the 6D, which is fine because I have been shooting mostly manual focus or situations that can use simple AF.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2016, 07:40:30 pm »

I am curious to see a showdown between the 1Dx Mk II and the Nikon D5.

Even though I recently switched to Nikon, I still like Canon products (well, many of them). In looking at the specs online, I think Canon 1Dx Mk II is going to be the better overall buy than the Nikon D5. At least as far as video capabilities go.

As far as image quality/low ISO, I'm pretty sure the Nikon D5 will be ahead of the newer Canon, most likely only negligibly, but ahead nonetheless. Canon will have the edge in FPS, but I think Nikon's autofocus system is going to be better (marginally), its image quality will be better (marginally), and its high ISO capabilities will be better (probably marginally as well).

I expect the Canon 1Dx Mk II To be significantly better in its 4K video capabilities. Therefore, if any photographer is going to use 4K, to any appreciable degree, the 1Dx II will be the choice to get.

If, however, 4K video capabilities are only of anecdotal interest, I think the Nikon D5 will eclipse the 1Dx Mk II in extreme action/low light situations. But that's just a guess.

It will be nice to see Canon's flagship camera at or near the top. Right now, quality wise, this is the current state of competition among them:

  • Of the top 10 FF cameras being made, Nikon has 5, Sony 4, and Canon's only entry (its best, the 5DSr) is at the bottom  :-[
  • Of the top 10 APS-C cameras being made, Canon doesn't have a single entry in the top 10, while Nikon owns the top 5, straight, with Sony and Pentax splitting 2 and 3 apiece, respectively.
    (And that doesn't even include the recent D500 which is about to be released ...)
  • Prime lens-wise, Canon only has 2 of the top-10 prime lenses (the 400 and 600, which don't break the top 5), while Nikon has 4 (the 200, 300, 400, and 600, two of which are in the top 5), with Leica and Zeiss each having 2 as well.
  • Canon does have some awesome zoom lenses, with 4 out of the top 10, including the class-leading 200-400, with Nikon having 4 also, with Sigma making 2 of the best zooms out there.
    (Sources: SenScore | LenScore)
Again, I will be very eager to see the qualitative difference between the two flagships, after the full reviews/tests get made across the board.

(I think it is already a foregone conclusion that the D500 will blow the 7D II out of the water ...)

Jack
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #52 on: April 23, 2016, 07:47:05 pm »

John a few observations.
Quote
As far as image quality/low ISO, I'm pretty sure the Nikon D5 will be ahead of the newer Canon, most likely only negligibly, but ahead nonetheless.

Whilst its speculation to compare - I would disagree with this based on my experience with both cameras at this point in time. My thoughts might change as I get more time with the D5 (having only handled and used this camera very briefly). 1DX MKII I feel at this point has the edge in the mid range ISO area 800-6400. Which really is where it matters most. I think the D5 will have the edge at the very top ISO's.

Quote
Canon will have the edge in FPS, but I think Nikon's autofocus system is going to be better (marginally), its image quality will be better (marginally), and its high ISO capabilities will be better (probably marginally as well).

We know Canon beats the Nikon by 2FPS. Neither here nor there. I suspect though Canon also has the edge in Auto focus, Again based on my limited time with both cameras. The Nikon seemed to hunt more in back light situations than the Canon.

Quote
I expect the Canon 1Dx Mk II To be significantly better in its 4K video capabilities. Therefore, if any photographer is going to use 4K, to any appreciable degree, the 1Dx II will be the choice to get.

Agreed

Quote

Of the top 10 FF cameras being made, Nikon has 5, Sony 4, and Canon's only entry (its best, the 5DSr) is at the bottom  :-[

These ratings that only take into account sensor scores are like only measuring horsepower in a car. Its not the full picture. When Im lying in the snow in -20 in a blizzard photographing a back lit subject in low light with a long lens. Thats when the real measure of the camera is found for me and in my experience.

Just some thoughts and observations based on my initial experiences with the D5 (limited experience) and the 1DX MKII (still limited at this point).
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2016, 09:18:43 pm »

John a few observations.
Whilst its speculation to compare - I would disagree with this based on my experience with both cameras at this point in time. My thoughts might change as I get more time with the D5 (having only handled and used this camera very briefly). 1DX MKII I feel at this point has the edge in the mid range ISO area 800-6400. Which really is where it matters most. I think the D5 will have the edge at the very top ISO's.

We know Canon beats the Nikon by 2FPS. Neither here nor there. I suspect though Canon also has the edge in Auto focus, Again based on my limited time with both cameras. The Nikon seemed to hunt more in back light situations than the Canon.

Agreed

These ratings that only take into account sensor scores are like only measuring horsepower in a car. Its not the full picture. When Im lying in the snow in -20 in a blizzard photographing a back lit subject in low light with a long lens. Thats when the real measure of the camera is found for me and in my experience.

Just some thoughts and observations based on my initial experiences with the D5 (limited experience) and the 1DX MKII (still limited at this point).


Appreciate the feedback sir.

Since you're using both, I am anxious to learn of your opinions over time.

When I first switched to Nikon, I was more comfortable with my Canon ergonomics, and didn't fully-adjust to my D810 for awhile.

Now, after several months, I am quite pleased with the handling of the D810, though I would welcome some changes that I mentioned in the other thread.

Anyway, after you get used to the D5, and use it for enough time for it to be second nature as well, I would welcome reading your feeback.

Your photography is exceptional, so appreciate you taking the time to post. (The fact that you're being given these cameras to test speaks for itself.)

Jack
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2016, 02:15:31 am »

As far as image quality/low ISO, I'm pretty sure the Nikon D5 will be ahead of the newer Canon, most likely only negligibly, but ahead nonetheless.

I would expect the opposite.

Canon has finally incorporated A/D conversion onto the sensor itself, and is using this technology in the 1Dx2 sensor. The other sensor they used it on - the 80D - showed immediate and drastic image quality improvements over its predecessor. This is evident on this chart here. As you can see, the ISO-vs-DR curve - representing the SNR at any given ISO - is much more linear and no longer plateaus at lower ISOs, while remaining the same at higher ISOs. This indicates a much lower read noise contribution to overall noise; almost all the noise is due to photon shot noise.

On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here. The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.

For the first time in years, Canon will likely have an offering which exceeds its Nikon counterpart in image quality.

Quote
Canon will have the edge in FPS,

That's already announced.

Quote
but I think Nikon's autofocus system is going to be better (marginally),

Why would you think that? Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable.

Quote
I expect the Canon 1Dx Mk II To be significantly better in its 4K video capabilities. Therefore, if any photographer is going to use 4K, to any appreciable degree, the 1Dx II will be the choice to get.

If, however, 4K video capabilities are only of anecdotal interest, I think the Nikon D5 will eclipse the 1Dx Mk II in extreme action/low light situations. But that's just a guess.

For this segment of the market, video is a very big thing - likely even bigger than the ability to shoot at ISO 102400.

It's a photojournalists camera. Increasingly, photojournalists need to shoot video clips as well as stills, as more and more magazines and newspapers move online, or even to an online-only model.

In future years, a journalism-oriented camera which doesn't shoot top-quality video is going to get increasingly left behind.

Quote
(I think it is already a foregone conclusion that the D500 will blow the 7D II out of the water ...)

If it didn't, that would be a problem. It's a pro-oriented body - essentially a D5 with a crop sensor, for applications where pixel density matters - against a high-end, but hardly top-level body released more than 18 months earlier.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2016, 04:13:47 am »

Hi,

I guess we will know more when Bill Claff or DxO have data for the 1DX MKII.

With regard to the 7DII, a new version may be around the corner, I guess now that Canon has a new CMOS sensor in the 80D.

Best regards
Erik


I would expect the opposite.

Canon has finally incorporated A/D conversion onto the sensor itself, and is using this technology in the 1Dx2 sensor. The other sensor they used it on - the 80D - showed immediate and drastic image quality improvements over its predecessor. This is evident on this chart here. As you can see, the ISO-vs-DR curve - representing the SNR at any given ISO - is much more linear and no longer plateaus at lower ISOs, while remaining the same at higher ISOs. This indicates a much lower read noise contribution to overall noise; almost all the noise is due to photon shot noise.

On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here. The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.

For the first time in years, Canon will likely have an offering which exceeds its Nikon counterpart in image quality.

That's already announced.

Why would you think that? Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable.

For this segment of the market, video is a very big thing - likely even bigger than the ability to shoot at ISO 102400.

It's a photojournalists camera. Increasingly, photojournalists need to shoot video clips as well as stills, as more and more magazines and newspapers move online, or even to an online-only model.

In future years, a journalism-oriented camera which doesn't shoot top-quality video is going to get increasingly left behind.

If it didn't, that would be a problem. It's a pro-oriented body - essentially a D5 with a crop sensor, for applications where pixel density matters - against a high-end, but hardly top-level body released more than 18 months earlier.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2016, 10:04:51 am »

I would expect the opposite.

Well, bully for you.

Your expectations are yours.

Mine are that Canon has under-delivered time and again.



On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here. The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.

How laughable.

You're comparing the 80D's "improvements" to Canon's own previous shortcomings ::)

Why don't you try comparing Canon's new 80D to Nikon's old D7200, HERE, so you can be on point as to a discussion about how Canon's new might compare to Nikon's new ;)

Canon's new still can't "get it up" to where an old Nikon is, so as I said, Canon under-delivers, yet again.



On the other hand, Nikon appears to be using an off-sensor A/D converter or other noisy approach for the D5. This is demonstrated here. The D5 has about half a stop better SNR at high ISO than the D4s, representing lower photon shot noise and likely higher QE. This likely represents a few years of sensor evolution since the previous model. Its high-ISO performance, however, is more-or-less identical to that of the 42MP Sony A7r2 sensor. But, at lower ISOs, the D5's SNR plateaus out to below the D4s and A7r2 curves, indicating significant read noise contribution (ignore the plateauing of DR below ISO 100 for all these sensors - it's because the native ISO of the sensor is 100 and lower ISOs are really just an ISO 100 image pulled by a stop). Perhaps it is cheaper, or can be done using older fab plants, saving the newer ones for the bodies/sensors which really need newer/finer fabrication processes to best fulfil their primary application (e.g. crop sensors, high-res sensors and sensors designed for low ISO). Regardless, it leads to SNR that is worse at low ISOs, and equal to the competition at best at high ISO. And, at high ISO, Canon sensors have always done very well compared with their peers from the same time (e.g. 1Dx vs D4), in terms of RAW output.

Once again, you're being ridiculous. You're now comparing Nikon to Nikon (and Sony).

The subject, sir, is Nikon compared to Canon :o

And HERE is that comparison of old.

As I said, I think they will be comparable, but that Nikon will have the edge. Time will tell.



For the first time in years, Canon will likely have an offering which exceeds its Nikon counterpart in image quality.

Based on all of the current, relevant facts and comparisons (not Canon vs. Canon, but Canon vs. Nikon), I doubt it.



Why would you think that? Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable.

Do I need your permission to think something?

I said I think Nikon's AF system would be better than Canon's, marginally, and then you asked me "why" I would think that ... and then went on to say how Nikon's AF was better than Canon's last time too, albeit marginally :-[

Based on the specs, I think the same thing will happen again this year.



For this segment of the market, video is a very big thing - likely even bigger than the ability to shoot at ISO 102400.

It's a photojournalists camera. Increasingly, photojournalists need to shoot video clips as well as stills, as more and more magazines and newspapers move online, or even to an online-only model.

It's also a wildlife photographer's camera.



In future years, a journalism-oriented camera which doesn't shoot top-quality video is going to get increasingly left behind.

True.



If it didn't, that would be a problem. It's a pro-oriented body - essentially a D5 with a crop sensor, for applications where pixel density matters - against a high-end, but hardly top-level body released more than 18 months earlier.

Canon's 7D Mark II and its brand new 80D BOTH FALL SHORT of the old Nikon D7200 ... and I can't imagine Nikon's not elevating beyond its own elder/paler model with the highly-anticipated, brand new "has everything on it" D500.

So you think what you want to think and, if it's okay with you, I will think what I want to think.

But at least put up the appropriate graphs ... and you may find yourself drawing different conclusions ;)

Jack
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2016, 11:01:16 am »

How laughable.

You're comparing the 80D's "improvements" to Canon's own previous shortcomings ::)

Why don't you try comparing Canon's new 80D to Nikon's old D7200, HERE, so you can be on point as to a discussion about how Canon's new might compare to Nikon's new ;)

Canon's new still can't "get it up" to where an old Nikon is, so as I said, Canon under-delivers, yet again.

Might I remind you that Canon's crop sensor is 1.6x crop, whereas Nikon's is 1.5x crop?

Nikon's crop sensor is 14% larger than Canon's. Of course it's going to perform better.

D5 vs 1Dx2 is different. The sensors are the same size. Moreover, while Canon has updated their sensor to on-chip A/D conversion, Nikon appears to have gone backwards.

Quote
Once again, you're being ridiculous. You're now comparing Nikon to Nikon (and Sony).

The subject, sir, is Nikon compared to Canon :o

And HERE is that comparison of old.

As I said, I think they will be comparable, but that Nikon will have the edge. Time will tell.

Based on all of the current, relevant facts and comparisons (not Canon vs. Canon, but Canon vs. Nikon), I doubt it.

Nice. You're comparing a brand-new Nikon to a four-year-old Canon based on technology that everyone already knows is deficient compared to the best in sensor tech. You really have no grasp of logic, do you?

We're comparing change between generations of sensors - in Nikon's case based on measured results, in Canon's case based on what we know they've done technology-wise in the new sensor, and extrapolating from another range of Canon sensors that also uses the new technology.

In Nikon's case, the D5 falls more than a stop short at low ISO compared to the D4s. This is measured fact.

The same chart also shows that the D5's high-ISO performance is about half a stop better than that of the D4s. But the same set of data also shows that the D5's sensor is no better at high ISO than the Sony A7r2. Therefore, Nikon has sacrificed low-ISO performance, but this sacrifice has not gained them a lead at high ISO against other sensors which have not made this sacrifice.

In Canon's case, the 1Dx falls just over a stop short of the D4 (released around the same time) at low ISO, while matching it almost exactly at high ISO (apart from the ones pushed in firmware). But that was produced using the old Canon off-sensor ADC. Look at what happens when you add two years of progress, plus an on-sensor ADC, to a Canon sensor. It's gained over a stop at low ISO, and the relationship between ISO and DR has become linear - just like all the other sensors with on-sensor ADC. The 1Dx2 has had four years of refinement over the 1Dx, and also uses on-sensor ADC.

Now look at the new D5 vs the four-year-old 1Dx. Low-ISO performance is more-or-less identical. The D5 is just over half a stop better at high ISO.

But that's against a four-year-old sensor. The new 1Dx2 sensor uses on-chip ADC. The 80D vs 70D comparison shows that this linearises the lower part of the graph to match the upper ISO portion. Just applying that change - and nothing else - to the old 1Dx sensor would net a DR of over 11.5 at ISO 100 by their scale (which uses a 20:1 SNR as the noise threshold), putting it well over the measured 9.36 of the D5. Even applying a much more conservative 1-stop improvement at low ISO, that puts it at 10.07 - again, better than the Nikon. As for high-ISO performance, it's almost impossible for Canon not to have made a half-stop improvement in four years, which would match the new Nikon.

Need I make it any clearer? Spell it out syllable-by-syllable in capital letters?


Quote
Do I need your permission to think something?

I said I think Nikon's AF system would be better than Canon's, marginally, and then you asked me "why" I would think that ... and then went on to say how Nikon's AF was better than Canon's last time too, albeit marginally :-[

Based on the specs, I think the same thing will happen again this year.

When did I say that the D4's AF beat the 1Dx's? The D4s beats the 1Dx. But it's also two years newer, and is a model Canon didn't release a competing model against.

Quote
It's also a wildlife photographer's camera.

It's also a camera for a lot of action-related things - most of which are essentially photojournalism in some form. Whether the thing you're shooting is a high-speed car chase, a soccer match or a cheetah running down an impala, the output is usually to media of some form, and, increasingly, that also means video output for web or broadcast, not just newspaper and magazine prints.
Logged

John Koerner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
  • "Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
    • John Koerner Photography
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2016, 01:11:28 pm »

Might I remind you that Canon's crop sensor is 1.6x crop, whereas Nikon's is 1.5x crop?

Nikon's crop sensor is 14% larger than Canon's. Of course it's going to perform better.

Might I remind you that better = better, does it not?



D5 vs 1Dx2 is different. The sensors are the same size. Moreover, while Canon has updated their sensor to on-chip A/D conversion, Nikon appears to have gone backwards.

I disagree.

I am pretty sure Nikon leadership is smarter than you.

As I showed on another thread the D810 owns the low ISO area (or did at its release), and Nikon is therefore letting the D810/D900 handle the "low ISO fans" ... while creating the D5 to own the high-action/high-ISO department ...

Nikon hasn't "gone backwards," what they've done is create two different, specialized tools, each leading the pack in their respective areas, as this graph shows ;)

Nikon owns the base ISO and the high ISO territory ... while Canon is "champion of the middle" :-\



We're comparing change between generations of sensors - in Nikon's case based on measured results, in Canon's case based on what we know they've done technology-wise in the new sensor, and extrapolating from another range of Canon sensors that also uses the new technology.

"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You are projecting some "new" leadership in Canon, who (in fact) now has only 1 camera in the top 10 of two classes (the 5DSr), which means Canon only occupies 1 spot in 20 available spaces, and it occupies the bottom rung of FF DSLRs at the moment ... while not a single Canon shows on the top 10 of APS-Cs ...

Nikon, meanwhile, owns 10 of 20 possible "top spots" in DSLR camera positions ...

My thinking is Canon will fall short again, based on the overwhelming evidence.



In Nikon's case, the D5 falls more than a stop short at low ISO compared to the D4s. This is measured fact.

The same chart also shows that the D5's high-ISO performance is about half a stop better than that of the D4s. But the same set of data also shows that the D5's sensor is no better at high ISO than the Sony A7r2. Therefore, Nikon has sacrificed low-ISO performance, but this sacrifice has not gained them a lead at high ISO against other sensors which have not made this sacrifice.

In Canon's case, the 1Dx falls just over a stop short of the D4 (released around the same time) at low ISO, while matching it almost exactly at high ISO (apart from the ones pushed in firmware). But that was produced using the old Canon off-sensor ADC. Look at what happens when you add two years of progress, plus an on-sensor ADC, to a Canon sensor. It's gained over a stop at low ISO, and the relationship between ISO and DR has become linear - just like all the other sensors with on-sensor ADC. The 1Dx2 has had four years of refinement over the 1Dx, and also uses on-sensor ADC.

Now look at the new D5 vs the four-year-old 1Dx. Low-ISO performance is more-or-less identical. The D5 is just over half a stop better at high ISO.

Again, I think you are failing to realize what Nikon is doing: leaving base ISO scores to the D810 (and, soon, D900), while making the D5 the tool of choice in the high ISO world ...

You are stuck in the insanity of believing "one" camera will ever be "the best at everything" ... which isn't going to happen.

Nikon is committed to producing the best base ISO camera, which it did, and producing the best high ISO camera, which it did, leaving the rest to be mediocre.

The D500 will be the best APS-C, the D5 the best high-ISO/action FF, and the D900 will once again be the best base ISO FF (that is my prediction).



The same chart also shows that the D5's high-ISO performance is about half a stop better than that of the D4s. But the same set of data also shows that the D5's sensor is no better at high ISO than the Sony A7r2. Therefore, Nikon has sacrificed low-ISO performance, but this sacrifice has not gained them a lead at high ISO against other sensors which have not made this sacrifice.

In Canon's case, the 1Dx falls just over a stop short of the D4 (released around the same time) at low ISO, while matching it almost exactly at high ISO (apart from the ones pushed in firmware). But that was produced using the old Canon off-sensor ADC. Look at what happens when you add two years of progress, plus an on-sensor ADC, to a Canon sensor. It's gained over a stop at low ISO, and the relationship between ISO and DR has become linear - just like all the other sensors with on-sensor ADC. The 1Dx2 has had four years of refinement over the 1Dx, and also uses on-sensor ADC.

Now look at the new D5 vs the four-year-old 1Dx. Low-ISO performance is more-or-less identical. The D5 is just over half a stop better at high ISO.

But that's against a four-year-old sensor. The new 1Dx2 sensor uses on-chip ADC. The 80D vs 70D comparison shows that this linearises the lower part of the graph to match the upper ISO portion. Just applying that change - and nothing else - to the old 1Dx sensor would net a DR of over 11.5 at ISO 100 by their scale (which uses a 20:1 SNR as the noise threshold), putting it well over the measured 9.36 of the D5. Even applying a much more conservative 1-stop improvement at low ISO, that puts it at 10.07 - again, better than the Nikon. As for high-ISO performance, it's almost impossible for Canon not to have made a half-stop improvement in four years, which would match the new Nikon.

Need I make it any clearer? Spell it out syllable-by-syllable in capital letters?

No. You just need to wake up and smell the coffee ... and finally recognize what's really happening



It's also a camera for a lot of action-related things - most of which are essentially photojournalism in some form. Whether the thing you're shooting is a high-speed car chase, a soccer match or a cheetah running down an impala, the output is usually to media of some form, and, increasingly, that also means video output for web or broadcast, not just newspaper and magazine prints.

You said, "Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable," which was essentially parroting what I said about the new AF systems: Nikon's will be better again (and it is), though only marginally.



It's also a camera for a lot of action-related things - most of which are essentially photojournalism in some form. Whether the thing you're shooting is a high-speed car chase, a soccer match or a cheetah running down an impala, the output is usually to media of some form, and, increasingly, that also means video output for web or broadcast, not just newspaper and magazine prints.

We agree on the video disparity favoring Canon ... only.

On the rest, we disagree. Completely.

Do carry on though :D

Jack
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 01:14:52 pm by John Koerner »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Canon announce the EOS-1DX MKII - Full Specifications
« Reply #59 on: April 24, 2016, 03:19:36 pm »

Might I remind you that better = better, does it not?

In this case, no it does not. I'm using the performance of the crop sensor to gauge the performance of Canon's on-chip ADC, not the performance of the sensor as a whole.

In this case, better = better per unit area of sensor, not per whole sensor. Otherwise you could just say that medium format trumps everything, by virtue of being larger (practicality and lens availability aside), despite CCD sensors being, area-for-area, worse than almost any CMOS sensor currently on the market.

Quote
I disagree.

I am pretty sure Nikon leadership is smarter than you.

You haven't the slightest clue who I am, so don't presume anything.

Quote
As I showed on another thread the D810 owns the low ISO area (or did at its release), and Nikon is therefore letting the D810/D900 handle the "low ISO fans" ... while creating the D5 to own the high-action/high-ISO department ...

You haven't shown anything except empty rhetoric. Where is the data that backs up your claims?

So far, none of the graphs you've posted actually back up anything you've said - all of them have basically compared the D5 to old Canon cameras, then somehow drawn the conclusion that, since they're better than the old cameras, they're also better than the new one.

Quote
Nikon hasn't "gone backwards," what they've done is create two different, specialized tools, each leading the pack in their respective areas, as this graph shows ;)

Then explain why the D4s has measurably better low-ISO performance than the D5, while only losing by half a stop at high ISO. You'd expect at least a half-stop improvement in several years of sensor evolution anyway, so it's hardly that they've sacrificed ISO 100-1600 just to gain half a stop at high ISO. That's going backwards by any measure.

Like every other company, Nikon is trying to maximise its profits, not create the best sensor or the best camera. This means making optimal use of its resources.

Nikon does not make its own sensors - it designs them and gets someone else to make them. On-sensor ADCs add an extra layer of complexity to the sensor. More complex sensors require more advanced fab plants, which sell their services for a higher price and so cost Nikon more money. These sensors are necessary for a non-action camera where detail is everything. For a low-resolution action camera, which primarily lives at ISO 800 and up, it just makes for a much-more-expensive sensor without greatly benefiting its primary purpose. So, skimp on the unnecessary parts of the sensor and pocket the change.

Quote
Nikon owns the base ISO and the high ISO territory ... while Canon is "champion of the middle" :-\

Your graph doesn't show anything about the 1Dx2, nor can anything about the 1Dx2 be inferred from it. All it shows is that a brand-new Nikon sensor beats the 1Dx and 5Ds at high ISO (being about the same at low ISO) and the D810 beats both at low ISO.

We are looking at the performance of the 1Dx2 as compared to the D5, not the 1Dx and not the 5Ds. The 1Dx2 sensor is not the 1Dx sensor, and not the 5Ds sensor.

All we know for sure about the sensor at the moment is that:
- It is a 20MP sensor
- It uses on-sensor A/D conversion

Also, from being 4 years newer, it would be reasonable to assume that high-ISO performance has been improved significantly - say, by about a stop - as this is a general trend that occurs with every camera.

It is demonstrated, from the 70D/80D example, that on-sensor ADC linearises the low-ISO SNRs to match the relationship seen in the higher ISOs. If that were applied to the 1Dx sensor, even with no other changes, it would already give a DR of 11-12 stops (by the 20:1 SNR threshold). So, just that one change, without any other upgrade to the four-year-old sensor, would have the sensor beating the D5 below ISO 800 and matching it up to 1600. Then it only needs half a stop of high-ISO improvement - very reasonable over 4 years - to beat the D5 at high ISO as well.

There's almost no way the D5 can have a better sensor than the 1Dx2, assuming the measurements on the website are correct and what Canon has told us about the new sensor is also correct.

Quote
"We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

You are projecting some "new" leadership in Canon, who (in fact) now has only 1 camera in the top 10 of two classes (the 5DSr), which means Canon only occupies 1 spot in 20 available spaces, and it occupies the bottom rung of FF DSLRs at the moment ... while not a single Canon shows on the top 10 of APS-Cs ...

Nikon, meanwhile, owns 10 of 20 possible "top spots" in DSLR camera positions ...

I'm not projecting anything onto Canon. I'm merely pointing out what Canon has already demonstrated in the recent 80D - a huge improvement in low-ISO SNR. The numbers are there in front of you, for everyone to see. And the new 1Dx2 sensor uses the same technology, so one would expect the same jump in performance.

Past statistics are meaningless when one side introduces technology that significantly alters their cameras. They hold some weight when you're talking about slow, evolutionary change, but the shift to on-chip A/D conversion is not evolutionary change.

Just look back a few years and see how badly Nikon sensors were trailing Canon. Canon had the 1Ds2, 1Ds3 and 5D2, while Nikon couldn't even produce a full-frame sensor, or a half-decent CMOS. If you made a list back then, pretty much all the top sensors were Canon. Then Nikon got their hands on Exmor and everything changed.

Quote
My thinking is Canon will fall short again, based on the overwhelming evidence.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.

Quote
Again, I think you are failing to realize what Nikon is doing: leaving base ISO scores to the D810 (and, soon, D900), while making the D5 the tool of choice in the high ISO world ...

They're not doing that at all. They're segmenting cameras by application, not by ISO capability. That would be a pretty dumb way to segment cameras, since action photographers still shoot ISO 100-400 in good light, and non-action photographers still shoot high ISO when shooting non-action in dark conditions.

Quote
You are stuck in the insanity of believing "one" camera will ever be "the best at everything" ... which isn't going to happen.

I never said that. Quit putting words into my mouth so you can argue against straw men.

Quote
Nikon is committed to producing the best base ISO camera, which it did, and producing the best high ISO camera, which it did, leaving the rest to be mediocre.

The D500 will be the best APS-C, the D5 the best high-ISO/action FF, and the D900 will once again be the best base ISO FF (that is my prediction).

Are you a Nikon executive?

If not, how do you know what Nikon is committed to producing? All that can be assumed is that Nikon is committed to maximising its profit.

Even if they were committed to producing the best of everything doesn't mean that they are actually going to achieve it. There are other companies out there who are equally keen on beating Nikon, and have many times the resources (Sony and Canon).

Quote
No. You just need to wake up and smell the coffee ... and finally recognize what's really happening

Either you have no grasp on logic, or no grasp on mathematics.

Quote
You said, "Sure, the D4s was better than the 1Dx - but it's also a year-and-a-half newer. D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable," which was essentially parroting what I said about the new AF systems: Nikon's will be better again (and it is), though only marginally.

What do you think 'D4 and 1Dx were more-or-less comparable' means? IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE EQUAL, not that the D4 is marginally better than the 1Dx.

The D4s doesn't count. Canon didn't bother releasing a competitor against it.

In other words:
D4 = 1Dx
D4s = no Canon equivalent
D5 = 1Dx2

On what basis are you saying Nikon's will be better, anyway? There's no track record of one company's action camera having better AF than the other's, when both were released around the same time. D3 = 1D3, D3s = 1D4, D4 = 1Dx, so it's likely that D5 = 1Dx2.

Quote
We agree on the video disparity favoring Canon ... only.

On the rest, we disagree. Completely.

Do carry on though :D

Jack

You can't argue with fanboys.

For the record, I primarily shoot Sony.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up