D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

Started Sep 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 24,890
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

bobn2 wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote:

DxO compensates for differences in sensitivity and shutter speed (not aperture?) by plotting its data on normalized curves. Absent those and to help Renato and his comparisons, though, assuming the same Exposure (ss and f ratio) and ISO in both cameras, I think it would be fair to normalize their output by ensuring that the same unclipped highights on both cameras result in the same raw values by playing with EC in the raw converter, before attempting to draw conclusions. The EC that needed to be dialled in would itself give you a value in stops as to the combined error/difference in ss, aperture and ISO of the two cameras.

If on the other hand even Exposure is different, then what are we comparing? Too many uncontrolled variables.

Jack, I'm not really worried by all this "noise" about the meaning of what we are seeing in these samples. It's just some indication regarding performance, not some verdict on these cameras. Before the 1DX, it was clear that Nikon had the edge in high ISO. Now it still looks a bit better, but differences are not that obvious anymore.

Now, the right shooting routine will be more relevant. Proper use of ISO settings and exposure, plus PP skills, will be needed if one wants to be ahead of the pack, camera won't be the decisive criterion. Just that, as it was in film times.

Where the D4 retains an advantage is the low ISO DR and lack of pattern noise, which is a useful thing to have. However, it looks as though in most other (non IQ) ways the 1D X is a better camera, faster, better AF, etc. Probably not enough better to make it worth Nikon users switching system, but I guess it will more than stem the tide going the other way.

Correct in my view.

I was amazed how timid an 'me too' the 1D X spec was when it was announced, and flabbergasted when the D4 was even more timid. I'd though from the V1 that Nikon had the processing capacity to give a serious upgrade in pixel count and/or much faster frame rates, but they didn't.

Speed is likely related to AF, also to mechanical issues. The PDAF in the V1 is likely not ready for prime time in pro bodies (but will, eventually). Re pixel count, it;s a mouse and cat game, actually. If Nikon had come with 24MP and people were to look at the images at 100%, many would not like it. Nikon would not be able to go to 100/200 K ISO, as Canon did. They likely knew what was coming, probably had a 24MP sensor ready (coincidence, here it comes in a D600 ...), but they know how specs play in this area. Nikon wanted to remain top at IQ and has, it seems, at both low (DR/shadows as you put) and high ISO (tiny margin if at all). Canon did well, in other aspects the 1DX is possibly a better camera (but I still haven't seen a good controlled action shooting test of the AFs).

There's little incentive for users on both sides to change brands now. Maybe a few past Canon users that went with D3/D3s and still have the whoite lenses may be tempted, we have to wait and see.

-- hide signature --

Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ET2
ET2
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow