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

Started Sep 4, 2012 | Discussions
Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 31,297
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

bobn2 wrote:

Lance B wrote:

teodorian2 wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

IR has posted the IDX studio shots. I converted with ACR, NR=0, Adobe Standard, all other setting default.

6400 and 12800, 100%. Judge for yourself.

The tests done by Imaging Resource are really of no real practical value:

1) The scene is very well lit: When do anyone shoot at ISO 102400, 1/5000 s, f16 using a Nikon D4?

2) The exposure is not the same for different cameras resulting in not valid comparisions of noise,

I have to disagree. If these two cameras were to shoot a similar scene, then the aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be what was actually used and therefore the result would be as shown.

The exposure is the combination of scene luminance, shutter speed and f-number only . If the scene luminance is the same (and I can't see any good reason why it should be different if the light positions and luminance remain the same) then the only way that the exposure can be the same is if the EV (combination of shutter speed and f-number) is the same. Here it clearly isn't, so the conclusion can only be that the lighting is different or the exposure is different or both. Whatever, the difference is enough to spread doubt on the validity of this test.

No not at all. Remember, not all cameras have identical ISO at a given ISO. So, the Canon may indicate ISO 6400 but actually be ISO 6700 and the Nikon may indicate ISO6400 but actually be ISO7000 or whatever. Therefore, to get a similar exposure for both, you would need to use slightly different aperture or shutter speed.

The actual exposure is important since it directly controls the amount of noise in the image.

It matters not whether they are off by a 1/3rd of a stop or whatever, it matters what was required to get the desired result just as you would if you used either camera in a particular scene in real life. The thing is, one may have slightly different ISO equivalent requiring slightly different shutter/aperture/ISO being required, but the point is, the end result would be the same.

You have a strange idea of how the cameras would be used in 'real life'. In real life in low light you have the constraints of smallest f-number and slowest shutter speed you can use. Those are absolute, and what matters is the result that a camera gives with those constraints. ISO is irrelevant. If you are wide open, and can give a maximum of 1/30 second, you use the ISO setting that gives you that, and it might be different on different cameras.

It's not a strange idea at all, when taken into context of what I said above. These cameras ISO's are not 100% accurate, so in real life on your Nikon D4 you may select ISO6400 but actually get ISO7000, so you would need to adjust one camera's shutter/aperture combo to equal correct exposure or to be the same as the other camera on test. So, my meaning of "real life" scenario is that to get equal exposure, then one will have different shutter/aperture combos, due to the slightly differing ISO, to get the same perceived exposure. This is generally only out by a small amount

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 +13 more
Daniel Clune
Daniel Clune Veteran Member • Posts: 3,453
Re: It should be about shutter speed, not ISO-YES

In real life you would need a higher iso setting to get the same shutter speed/aperture on the 1DX assuming the light was the same when IR took theses photos.

Example of REAL LIFE would be: lets say you were shooting an event and needed 1/1250 a sec at F8. Two shooters one with a D4 and one with a 1DX, the D4 shooter would use iso 6400@f8 and the 1DX shooter would use maybe around iso 10000@f8 so both cameras would get the shutter speed and aperture needed for the shot they were taking.

So comparing iso between these cameras really needs to be done when the shutter speeds are equal at same Fstop. and ignore what the camera says the iso is. Not sure iso 10000 would get the right shutter speed on 1DX I took a guess at what it might be, but it definitley would be higher than the 6400 on the D4 .

jeminijoseph wrote:

1DX - 6400 ISO is exposed at 1/800 @f/8
D4 - 6400 ISO exposed at 1/1250 @ f/8

1DX - 12800 exposed at 1/1600 @ f/8
D4 - 12800 exposed at 1/2500 @ f/8

Still D4 is brighter. I think D4 is at least .4 stop brighter (based on some other side by side comparison posted here too)

D4's ISO 6400 is measured at 4838 (almost half stop less than actual ISO)

Based on above readings 1D will be closer to 3200! That means ISO 6400 will be very close to ISO 3200. 12800 will be very close to ISO 6400.

I remember the 'worst' high ISO camera D2X had very accurate ISO rating (check DXOMark.com. Same with Canon 10D. I think D2X was not that bad for shutter speed

I think since people are going nuts about high ISO the manufacturers decided to cheat the customers by labeling wrong ISO. It's not just Canon, Nikon is doing the same too. But this time around Canon is worse.

-- hide signature --
 Daniel Clune's gear list:Daniel Clune's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF VR Epson Stylus Photo R1900
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 58,572
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

Lance B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Lance B wrote:

teodorian2 wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

IR has posted the IDX studio shots. I converted with ACR, NR=0, Adobe Standard, all other setting default.

6400 and 12800, 100%. Judge for yourself.

The tests done by Imaging Resource are really of no real practical value:

1) The scene is very well lit: When do anyone shoot at ISO 102400, 1/5000 s, f16 using a Nikon D4?

2) The exposure is not the same for different cameras resulting in not valid comparisions of noise,

I have to disagree. If these two cameras were to shoot a similar scene, then the aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be what was actually used and therefore the result would be as shown.

The exposure is the combination of scene luminance, shutter speed and f-number only . If the scene luminance is the same (and I can't see any good reason why it should be different if the light positions and luminance remain the same) then the only way that the exposure can be the same is if the EV (combination of shutter speed and f-number) is the same. Here it clearly isn't, so the conclusion can only be that the lighting is different or the exposure is different or both. Whatever, the difference is enough to spread doubt on the validity of this test.

No not at all. Remember, not all cameras have identical ISO at a given ISO. So, the Canon may indicate ISO 6400 but actually be ISO 6700 and the Nikon may indicate ISO6400 but actually be ISO7000 or whatever. Therefore, to get a similar exposure for both, you would need to use slightly different aperture or shutter speed.

The actual exposure is important since it directly controls the amount of noise in the image.

It matters not whether they are off by a 1/3rd of a stop or whatever, it matters what was required to get the desired result just as you would if you used either camera in a particular scene in real life. The thing is, one may have slightly different ISO equivalent requiring slightly different shutter/aperture/ISO being required, but the point is, the end result would be the same.

You have a strange idea of how the cameras would be used in 'real life'. In real life in low light you have the constraints of smallest f-number and slowest shutter speed you can use. Those are absolute, and what matters is the result that a camera gives with those constraints. ISO is irrelevant. If you are wide open, and can give a maximum of 1/30 second, you use the ISO setting that gives you that, and it might be different on different cameras.

It's not a strange idea at all, when taken into context of what I said above. These cameras ISO's are not 100% accurate, so in real life on your Nikon D4 you may select ISO6400 but actually get ISO7000, so you would need to adjust one camera's shutter/aperture combo to equal correct exposure or to be the same as the other camera on test. So, my meaning of "real life" scenario is that to get equal exposure, then one will have different shutter/aperture combos, due to the slightly differing ISO, to get the same perceived exposure. This is generally only out by a small amount

The strange idea is that your exposure in low light is dictated by the ISO setting, not the slowest shutter speed and widest aperture you can use. There is no 'perceived exposure', all there is is the actual exposure, and that is what you want to be as large as possible to minimise noise. I'd guess what you mean by 'perceived exposure' is image brightness, which is set entirely by the tone mapping used in development.
--
Bob

CaryTheLabelGuy Regular Member • Posts: 113
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

It is very clear to me that the D4 is a good deal cleaner at high ISOs. When you consider the exposure differences between these two cameras, this gives the D4 an even better advantage. This test re-affirms what I've been saying about the 1Dx all along, from the samples I've analyzed.

The 1Dx is a nice camera, but still not enough to oust Nikon from the top spot in high ISOs. I suspect DxO's scores will reflect what we're seeing here as well.

 CaryTheLabelGuy's gear list:CaryTheLabelGuy's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D3S Nikon D7000 Nikon D5000 Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +19 more
jjnik Senior Member • Posts: 1,319
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

bobn2 wrote:

Lance B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Lance B wrote:

teodorian2 wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

IR has posted the IDX studio shots. I converted with ACR, NR=0, Adobe Standard, all other setting default.

6400 and 12800, 100%. Judge for yourself.

The tests done by Imaging Resource are really of no real practical value:

1) The scene is very well lit: When do anyone shoot at ISO 102400, 1/5000 s, f16 using a Nikon D4?

2) The exposure is not the same for different cameras resulting in not valid comparisions of noise,

I have to disagree. If these two cameras were to shoot a similar scene, then the aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be what was actually used and therefore the result would be as shown.

The exposure is the combination of scene luminance, shutter speed and f-number only . If the scene luminance is the same (and I can't see any good reason why it should be different if the light positions and luminance remain the same) then the only way that the exposure can be the same is if the EV (combination of shutter speed and f-number) is the same. Here it clearly isn't, so the conclusion can only be that the lighting is different or the exposure is different or both. Whatever, the difference is enough to spread doubt on the validity of this test.

No not at all. Remember, not all cameras have identical ISO at a given ISO. So, the Canon may indicate ISO 6400 but actually be ISO 6700 and the Nikon may indicate ISO6400 but actually be ISO7000 or whatever. Therefore, to get a similar exposure for both, you would need to use slightly different aperture or shutter speed.

The actual exposure is important since it directly controls the amount of noise in the image.

It matters not whether they are off by a 1/3rd of a stop or whatever, it matters what was required to get the desired result just as you would if you used either camera in a particular scene in real life. The thing is, one may have slightly different ISO equivalent requiring slightly different shutter/aperture/ISO being required, but the point is, the end result would be the same.

You have a strange idea of how the cameras would be used in 'real life'. In real life in low light you have the constraints of smallest f-number and slowest shutter speed you can use. Those are absolute, and what matters is the result that a camera gives with those constraints. ISO is irrelevant. If you are wide open, and can give a maximum of 1/30 second, you use the ISO setting that gives you that, and it might be different on different cameras.

It's not a strange idea at all, when taken into context of what I said above. These cameras ISO's are not 100% accurate, so in real life on your Nikon D4 you may select ISO6400 but actually get ISO7000, so you would need to adjust one camera's shutter/aperture combo to equal correct exposure or to be the same as the other camera on test. So, my meaning of "real life" scenario is that to get equal exposure, then one will have different shutter/aperture combos, due to the slightly differing ISO, to get the same perceived exposure. This is generally only out by a small amount

The strange idea is that your exposure in low light is dictated by the ISO setting, not the slowest shutter speed and widest aperture you can use. There is no 'perceived exposure', all there is is the actual exposure, and that is what you want to be as large as possible to minimise noise. I'd guess what you mean by 'perceived exposure' is image brightness, which is set entirely by the tone mapping used in development.
--
Bob

I always thought image exposure was 3 things: SS, F stop and ISO? So, what if in manual mode @ ISO 6400 with the same SS and same aperture on two cameras, camera A ends up with what looks like a different exposure (both visually and based on histogram) than Camera B? Doesn't that suggest that the ISO values are not actually the same? Given all of this, how can one actually compare true equivalent ISO performance in an "apples to Apples" way between 2 cameras? I'm confused :)!

ET2 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,110
Re: Canon much better in incamera jpegs

Andre De Angelis wrote:

ET2 wrote:

D4 looks like crap at highs ISO next to 1DX in comparometer

Who spends upwards of 6K on a camera to shoot JPEG?

Most sports shooter and photo journalists.

1Dx is clearly much better at high ISO in comparometer

rgralak Junior Member • Posts: 39
Re: Canon much better in incamera jpegs

ET2 wrote:

Andre De Angelis wrote:

ET2 wrote:

D4 looks like crap at highs ISO next to 1DX in comparometer

Who spends upwards of 6K on a camera to shoot JPEG?

Most sports shooter and photo journalists.

1Dx is clearly much better at high ISO in comparometer

It doesn't look that way to me. The 1Dx might be slightly better at jpeg noise reduction BUT it looks like Canon is "cheating" because, according to the EXIF data, the D1X needs a longer exposure (more light) than the D4 at the same ISO. If the D1X used the same (shorter) exposure as the D4 then I think the D4 would clearly be better. It looks like about 0.4-0.6 stops extra exposure helping the Canon.

-Ray

 rgralak's gear list:rgralak's gear list
Nikon D3S Nikon D810 Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +9 more
Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 31,297
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

jjnik wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Lance B wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Lance B wrote:

teodorian2 wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

IR has posted the IDX studio shots. I converted with ACR, NR=0, Adobe Standard, all other setting default.

6400 and 12800, 100%. Judge for yourself.

The tests done by Imaging Resource are really of no real practical value:

1) The scene is very well lit: When do anyone shoot at ISO 102400, 1/5000 s, f16 using a Nikon D4?

2) The exposure is not the same for different cameras resulting in not valid comparisions of noise,

I have to disagree. If these two cameras were to shoot a similar scene, then the aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be what was actually used and therefore the result would be as shown.

The exposure is the combination of scene luminance, shutter speed and f-number only . If the scene luminance is the same (and I can't see any good reason why it should be different if the light positions and luminance remain the same) then the only way that the exposure can be the same is if the EV (combination of shutter speed and f-number) is the same. Here it clearly isn't, so the conclusion can only be that the lighting is different or the exposure is different or both. Whatever, the difference is enough to spread doubt on the validity of this test.

No not at all. Remember, not all cameras have identical ISO at a given ISO. So, the Canon may indicate ISO 6400 but actually be ISO 6700 and the Nikon may indicate ISO6400 but actually be ISO7000 or whatever. Therefore, to get a similar exposure for both, you would need to use slightly different aperture or shutter speed.

The actual exposure is important since it directly controls the amount of noise in the image.

It matters not whether they are off by a 1/3rd of a stop or whatever, it matters what was required to get the desired result just as you would if you used either camera in a particular scene in real life. The thing is, one may have slightly different ISO equivalent requiring slightly different shutter/aperture/ISO being required, but the point is, the end result would be the same.

You have a strange idea of how the cameras would be used in 'real life'. In real life in low light you have the constraints of smallest f-number and slowest shutter speed you can use. Those are absolute, and what matters is the result that a camera gives with those constraints. ISO is irrelevant. If you are wide open, and can give a maximum of 1/30 second, you use the ISO setting that gives you that, and it might be different on different cameras.

It's not a strange idea at all, when taken into context of what I said above. These cameras ISO's are not 100% accurate, so in real life on your Nikon D4 you may select ISO6400 but actually get ISO7000, so you would need to adjust one camera's shutter/aperture combo to equal correct exposure or to be the same as the other camera on test. So, my meaning of "real life" scenario is that to get equal exposure, then one will have different shutter/aperture combos, due to the slightly differing ISO, to get the same perceived exposure. This is generally only out by a small amount

The strange idea is that your exposure in low light is dictated by the ISO setting, not the slowest shutter speed and widest aperture you can use. There is no 'perceived exposure', all there is is the actual exposure, and that is what you want to be as large as possible to minimise noise. I'd guess what you mean by 'perceived exposure' is image brightness, which is set entirely by the tone mapping used in development.
--
Bob

I always thought image exposure was 3 things: SS, F stop and ISO? So, what if in manual mode @ ISO 6400 with the same SS and same aperture on two cameras, camera A ends up with what looks like a different exposure (both visually and based on histogram) than Camera B? Doesn't that suggest that the ISO values are not actually the same? Given all of this, how can one actually compare true equivalent ISO performance in an "apples to Apples" way between 2 cameras?

That's my point.

If camera A's ISO is supposed to be ISO6400, but is actually ISO5600 and camera B's ISO is supposed to be ISO6400 but is actually ISO7000, then when you set the aperture to say f8 and 1/125sec on each camera, then one will be more exposed than the other. Now, if you are testing both cameras at ISO6400 for testing purposes, like in the test that the OP, then to compensate, one camera will have to have a slightly different aperture/shutter combo to achieve the same exposure. I would assume that the testers would alter shutter speed rather than aperture in order to keep the same DOF.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 +13 more
Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 31,297
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

bobn2 wrote:

2) The exposure is not the same for different cameras resulting in not valid comparisions of noise,

I have to disagree. If these two cameras were to shoot a similar scene, then the aperture, shutter speed and ISO would be what was actually used and therefore the result would be as shown.

The exposure is the combination of scene luminance, shutter speed and f-number only . If the scene luminance is the same (and I can't see any good reason why it should be different if the light positions and luminance remain the same) then the only way that the exposure can be the same is if the EV (combination of shutter speed and f-number) is the same. Here it clearly isn't, so the conclusion can only be that the lighting is different or the exposure is different or both. Whatever, the difference is enough to spread doubt on the validity of this test.

No not at all. Remember, not all cameras have identical ISO at a given ISO. So, the Canon may indicate ISO 6400 but actually be ISO 6700 and the Nikon may indicate ISO6400 but actually be ISO7000 or whatever. Therefore, to get a similar exposure for both, you would need to use slightly different aperture or shutter speed.

The actual exposure is important since it directly controls the amount of noise in the image.

It matters not whether they are off by a 1/3rd of a stop or whatever, it matters what was required to get the desired result just as you would if you used either camera in a particular scene in real life. The thing is, one may have slightly different ISO equivalent requiring slightly different shutter/aperture/ISO being required, but the point is, the end result would be the same.

You have a strange idea of how the cameras would be used in 'real life'. In real life in low light you have the constraints of smallest f-number and slowest shutter speed you can use. Those are absolute, and what matters is the result that a camera gives with those constraints. ISO is irrelevant. If you are wide open, and can give a maximum of 1/30 second, you use the ISO setting that gives you that, and it might be different on different cameras.

It's not a strange idea at all, when taken into context of what I said above. These cameras ISO's are not 100% accurate, so in real life on your Nikon D4 you may select ISO6400 but actually get ISO7000, so you would need to adjust one camera's shutter/aperture combo to equal correct exposure or to be the same as the other camera on test. So, my meaning of "real life" scenario is that to get equal exposure, then one will have different shutter/aperture combos, due to the slightly differing ISO, to get the same perceived exposure. This is generally only out by a small amount

The strange idea is that your exposure in low light is dictated by the ISO setting, not the slowest shutter speed and widest aperture you can use. There is no 'perceived exposure', all there is is the actual exposure, and that is what you want to be as large as possible to minimise noise. I'd guess what you mean by 'perceived exposure' is image brightness, which is set entirely by the tone mapping used in development.

No, the testing criteria is what dictates the ISO being used, you are reading things into it in order to boost your desire to find fault for some reason. The cameras were tested to ISO6400 and ISO12800 etc, so when they are set to these ISO's in order to test them to that ISO then an appropriate shutter/aperture to get a correct exposure. However, if camera A's ISO is supposed to be ISO6400, but is actually ISO5600 and camera B's ISO is supposed to be ISO6400 but is actually ISO7000, then when you set the aperture to say f8 and 1/125sec on each camera, then one will be more exposed than the other. Now, if you are testing both cameras at ISO6400 for testing purposes, like in the test that the OP, then to compensate, one camera will have to have a slightly different aperture/shutter combo to achieve the same exposure. I would assume that the testers would alter shutter speed rather than aperture in order to keep the same DOF.

-- hide signature --
 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 +13 more
coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 4,077
Re: Canon much better in incamera jpegs

Andre De Angelis wrote:

Who spends upwards of 6K on a camera to shoot JPEG?

It's not so far-fetched. You sit at a sidelines at a Manchester United - Chelsea game, fire away with your D4/1Dx, and you need to transmit those files immediately. So, JPEG.

Anyway, D4 looks little cleaner in Renato's comparison. Haven't checked exposures, apparently they're different.

coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 4,077
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

teodorian2 wrote:

1) The scene is very well lit: When do anyone shoot at ISO 102400, 1/5000 s, f16 using a Nikon D4?

Good point.

They should start doing proper low-light tests. By low-light, I mean nearly no light. Let's find where the limits of these cameras are; and at those limits, we can see pronounced differences between cameras. In 2012, there's really no point in doing high ISO comparisons at ISO 3200, every full frame is gonna look great there. But, at ISO 102k or 204k..

coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 4,077
Re: D4 vs 1Dx (Imaging Resource), RAW, ACR, 6400-12800

Lance B wrote:

These cameras ISO's are not 100% accurate, so in real life on your Nikon D4 you may select ISO6400 but actually get ISO7000, so you would need to adjust one camera's shutter/aperture combo to equal correct exposure or to be the same as the other camera on test.

Wouldn't this make more sense - you're shooting in a low light and you open up to F/1.4, then you set slowest shutter speed you can get away with. And only then you get to ISO, and it is whatever it needs to be.. and it's not terribly relevant whether it's ISO6400 or ISO7000.. ?

ImagesInstyle Contributing Member • Posts: 691
Re:Really???

what is the point in all of this??

both of them have noise at those iso, as any camera does.
neither one, wins over the other, by a long shot...it comes down to
apples and oranges..

this person likes nikon, that person likes canon...so what...

There both the top of the line cameras for there companies, so
both will yield excellent results..

if you want to see something remarkable, find anyone who has printed
a shot in a magazine at these iso, and have gotten paid for it!!

bet cha, be hard pressed to find more than 1 or 2 who can produce
that.

this comparison is like asking, which car goes fastest between a BMW or Mercedes...the
speed limit in the U.S. is only 65mph, so who cares..

buy what ever you like, and stop worrying about what the other guys camera
can do.

 ImagesInstyle's gear list:ImagesInstyle's gear list
Sony a6000
coudet Veteran Member • Posts: 4,077
Re:Really???

ImagesInstyle wrote:

what is the point in all of this??

Comparing the image quality between the two cameras.

We usually do this out of curiosity, if we have no intention of buying one of both cameras in question; or if we do intend to buy, to make a right decision. Comparing image quality, between top of the line Nikon and Canon cameras, is how many people saved a lot of money by not buying a D2h, for example. It's good.

neither one, wins over the other, by a long shot...

The one with lower noise wins.

apples and oranges..

Both apples. Both cameras intended for the same purpose.

There both the top of the line cameras for there companies, so
both will yield excellent results..

Most certainly true.

this comparison is like asking, which car goes fastest between a BMW or Mercedes...the
speed limit in the U.S. is only 65mph, so who cares..

There's no speed limit in the US, at what ISO you may use your camera, however.

Andre De Angelis Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Some posters more credible than others....

RBFresno wrote:

D4 looks like crap at highs ISO next to 1DX in comparometer

Who spends upwards of 6K on a camera to shoot JPEG?

Perhaps someone who makes a strong unsubstantiated statement like the above, yet has empty galleries and never shows examples of their own work....

1. It wasn't a statement but a question.

2. What does the fact that I have an empty DPR gallery have to do with the discussion?

Your's is inpressive BTW.

Andre De Angelis Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Canon much better in incamera jpegs

ET2 wrote:

Most sports shooter and photo journalists.

1Dx is clearly much better at high ISO in comparometer

No, the IDX cooks them better in default mode. It's obviously possible to increse in came NR and shaprpening on the D4.

OP rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,823
Re: Same size + 25600

Exactly, I mentioned that, IR changes lighting, so no way to know exactly what exposure was. DxO measures ISO ratings, we need to wait for that, it seems Canon is a bit optimistic, compared to Nikon, but the difference is typically within 1/3 stop, so not much relevant in real life.

And this is just one test, indication of performance via visual perception, not a scientific noise test. And it involves ACR as well. DxO will do it fr the sensor, but other tests have shown already that they will be close, as these samples indicate.

bobn2 wrote:

rhlpetrus wrote:

Exposure looks same (histogram).

The histogram doesn't give you a measure of exposure.
--
Bob

-- 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 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
OP rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,823
Really? Check how much detail is gone

ET2 wrote:

Andre De Angelis wrote:

ET2 wrote:

D4 looks like crap at highs ISO next to 1DX in comparometer

Who spends upwards of 6K on a camera to shoot JPEG?

Most sports shooter and photo journalists.

1Dx is clearly much better at high ISO in comparometer

-- 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 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
OP rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,823
Re: It should be about shutter speed, not ISO

bobn2 wrote:

The DxO 'ISO' ratings have very little to do with 'ISO'. What they are is the sensors saturation exposure, expressed as an ISO rating. If you use an ISO based method for photography, the exposure you get is set by the calibration of the meter at that ISO, not be the sensor's saturation capacity. So, even if two cameras have radically different DxO 'ISO' ratings, if their meters are calibrated the same, they'll give the same exposure.

Depending on the use, if ones exposes via histograms, DxO has a meaning. But I think people are reading or requiring too much. These samples are just indicators of performance. These two cameras look close. They'll probably perform similarly in the field re low light. The gap in favor of Nikon has been almost closed (the Nikon samples look a little cleaner still).
--
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 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
OP rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,823
Canon uses heavier NR in jpegs

6400, jpegs from IR, 1DX on the left:

-- 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 1 V1 Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads