Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera
Thread started 06 May 2016 (Friday) 01:02
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1DX2 vs 1DX comparison (exposure/shadow pushing)

 
sploo
premature adulation
2,164 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2011
West Yorkshire, UK
May 06, 2016 11:03 |  #16

Bassat wrote in post #17997618 (external link)
Full disclosure here, I will never be able to afford a 1DX, or 1DXII. That said, what is the point of such comparisons? Does anyone regularly shoot at -5 EC? I'm guessing that most folks who've been around digital photography for any length of time realize that proper exposure is key at any ISO, and more so at higher ISO.

Throughout POTN, there are shots from 6 year old crop cameras at 12,800 that show very little noise. I've made shots from a 6D at 102400 (controlled settings) that showed very little noise. I find my 6D files relatively easy to work with a 25,600. A 5-stop increase would be ISO 128,000. Is that ever necessary? A 5 stop underexposure would be at shot at ISO 800. Who would do that on a camera capable of decent ISO 12800 JPG files?

Is this a useful comparison, or is it just semantics?

There's already a number of other good replies, but yes; essentially a high DR capable system means that you have the opportunity to hold some detail in bright highlights (i.e. not clip them) whilst still retaining usable detail in shadow areas. A fairly easy-to-test example of this would be an architectural shot, where you're taking an image inside a building (especially something like a castle or old stately home) and there are views out of the window on a bright day). The DR in that scene will likely be large, so to hold some detail in the view out of the window means you'll get a very dark exposure (out of the camera) and will then need to lift the shadows by several stops to get something that looks "right".

So, "proper" exposure really depends on the shooter's intention, mixed with the capability of the gear. On the 5D3 the proper settings would be to accept some clipping in highlights in order to obtain some usable shadow details (or bracket). On an A7Rii you'd get away with holding much more highlight detail.

Note that a 5-stop push on ISO 25,600 would be ISO 819,200. I.e. lots! I have pushed shadows on an 80D ISO 6400 shot by probably a couple of stops - pleasingly they were (just) acceptable for the intended use. Push a 5D3, 60D or 7D (mark I) file by a few stops and things tend to go bad fairly quickly.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
sploo
premature adulation
2,164 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2011
West Yorkshire, UK
May 06, 2016 11:13 |  #17

Bassat wrote in post #17997639 (external link)
(reminder to self - think BEFORE posting)

No worries at all: you asked a very valid question (and in a way that was clear and polite) - that's what a forum's for!

jwcdds wrote in post #17997663 (external link)
Will do. My question to you, do you want "true low light" or just "crank up the iso"? By true low light, I mean situations where it's a dark corner of a poorly lit room where there's a scarcity of light to begin with. Whereas I've seen some people just reduce aperture and crank up iso, but it's still sunny-16 out and there's ample light for iso100 type. :lol:

Good question. I guess "real" high ISO would make sense, though maybe the same shot you took originally, but with a really fast shutter speed + maybe an ND filter if it's easier?

I guess that high ISO shooting (for me anyway) is mostly done under interior lighting at night, so that sort of shot would be fine too. It would be interesting to see if there really are great steps forward between the two bodies.

BTW If you could spare half an hour to run through a specific shooting set up (monitor + tripod required) I'm sure Bill Claff would appreciate 1Dx2 results for his site. I supplied him data for the 80D and it wasn't too bad to do. I see he has D5 data, but no 1Dx2. Here's the original 1Dx against the D5: http://www.photonstoph​otos.net ...20EOS%201D%20X,Niko​n%20D5 (external link)


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,337 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
May 06, 2016 13:40 |  #18

To kind of fill out my perspective on this.... I've been using SLRs for about 40 years. I have shot to preserve highlights. I have shot to preserve shadow detail. I just didn't think it was possible to do both in one shot (without the digital advent of HDR). Perhaps that is just my film upbringing. With film, if you want more DR, you shot slides, not prints. That is my experience, anyway. And... I still can't afford a 1DX. How much of this kind of stuff can I do with my 6D?


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
May 06, 2016 14:04 |  #19

Bassat wrote in post #17997880 (external link)
To kind of fill out my perspective on this.... I've been using SLRs for about 40 years. I have shot to preserve highlights. I have shot to preserve shadow detail. I just didn't think it was possible to do both in one shot (without the digital advent of HDR). Perhaps that is just my film upbringing. With film, if you want more DR, you shot slides, not prints. That is my experience, anyway. And... I still can't afford a 1DX. How much of this kind of stuff can I do with my 6D?

Well, the 6D can do just about as much (maybe even a little more) than the 1DX. At the very least, you'll have a lot less banding noise artifacts than previous Canon cameras. My 5D3 fell apart VERY fast, I would say banding started creeping into my shadows when I pushed beyond 2-2.5 stops and I had to stop.

The darker the shadows, the more banding/noise artifact pop up. I've been comfortable pushing about 3-3.5 stops (on average) from the 1DX shadows. But it's kind of personal preference/tolerance as to how much noise you're willing to tolerate when recovery.


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
May 06, 2016 14:17 |  #20

sploo wrote in post #17997767 (external link)
Good question. I guess "real" high ISO would make sense, though maybe the same shot you took originally, but with a really fast shutter speed + maybe an ND filter if it's easier?

I guess that high ISO shooting (for me anyway) is mostly done under interior lighting at night, so that sort of shot would be fine too. It would be interesting to see if there really are great steps forward between the two bodies.

I'll try later this evening to see if i can get the room dark enough for true low-light. For now, I just pulled the blinds and was only able to get 1/500s, f/5.6, iso6400 and went up from there in full stop increments. So I got 6400, 12800, 25600, 51200, 102400. I'll post those comparisons tonight to keep the format consistent and post the results above. But if I find time, I'll try to load up some comparison sooner. :)


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
31,927 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed.
May 06, 2016 16:25 |  #21

If you still have your 7D2, it would be pretty funny to see an out of camera JPG at ISO 16000 from it vs the 1DX2 using the same picture style, WB, and high ISO NR. The 7D2, I predict, will be so very gritty, but the 1DX2 will be surprisingly useful. 2nd thought, perhaps you shouldn't, I don't have $3.5K to pick up the 1DX2 at this time. :D


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
May 06, 2016 17:11 |  #22

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17998017 (external link)
If you still have your 7D2, it would be pretty funny to see an out of camera JPG at ISO 16000 from it vs the 1DX2 using the same picture style, WB, and high ISO NR. The 7D2, I predict, will be so very gritty, but the 1DX2 will be surprisingly useful. 2nd thought, perhaps you shouldn't, I don't have $3.5K to pick up the 1DX2 at this time. :D

I'm going to do it just for giggles to see. ;)


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
May 06, 2016 18:39 |  #23

sploo wrote in post #17997767 (external link)
I guess that high ISO shooting (for me anyway) is mostly done under interior lighting at night, so that sort of shot would be fine too. It would be interesting to see if there really are great steps forward between the two bodies.

Hm... Reviewing the hi ISO RAWs in LR here at work. at iso 12800, slight advantage to the Mark II. However, at 25600, the noise is about equal. Mark II still has better detail retention in the blacks/shadows. At 51200 and 102400... they're all equally crappy. The Mark I actually starts to have more contrast so that's my initial off-the-cuff assessment.


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
johnf3f's Avatar
3,683 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Apr 2010
Wales
May 06, 2016 19:57 as a reply to jwcdds's post |  #24

I am interested in your observations as I am trying not to get too tempted by a 1DX2!
Currently lusting after a 500 F4 Mk2 (even more expensive!) but wont be out of date so soon - I hope!


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
May 06, 2016 20:48 |  #25

johnf3f wrote in post #17998153 (external link)
I am interested in your observations as I am trying not to get too tempted by a 1DX2!
Currently lusting after a 500 F4 Mk2 (even more expensive!) but wont be out of date so soon - I hope!

Haha. Yeah, this will be interesting to see.

I just took another comparison, less light to work with but same scene. Haven't had a chance to upload it (as I'm about to head home).

I reviewed the image "zoomed in" from the back LCD and I can see why people were initially gob-smacked about the high ISO performance. The iso25600 preview images on the 1DX start to look 7-ways of atrocious. But the preview images on the 1DX2 look cleaner/better, giving you the perception that high iso performance is significantly improved. (This could very well mean that the JPG engine has been improved by that much. But looking at my own side-by-side shots from earlier today, at the RAW level, in terms of noise-level/quality, I wouldn't really say there's much improvement. More detail retained in the blacks, yes.

Well, stay-tuned. I won't likely get to the comparison photos for another 3-4 hours (sorry, gotta put the kids to sleep first).


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott_online
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2009
May 07, 2016 00:43 |  #26

jwcdds wrote in post #17998192 (external link)
Haha. Yeah, this will be interesting to see.

I just took another comparison, less light to work with but same scene. Haven't had a chance to upload it (as I'm about to head home).

I reviewed the image "zoomed in" from the back LCD and I can see why people were initially gob-smacked about the high ISO performance. The iso25600 preview images on the 1DX start to look 7-ways of atrocious. But the preview images on the 1DX2 look cleaner/better, giving you the perception that high iso performance is significantly improved. (This could very well mean that the JPG engine has been improved by that much. But looking at my own side-by-side shots from earlier today, at the RAW level, in terms of noise-level/quality, I wouldn't really say there's much improvement. More detail retained in the blacks, yes.

Well, stay-tuned. I won't likely get to the comparison photos for another 3-4 hours (sorry, gotta put the kids to sleep first).

Perception is important in photography!

If you look at the noise levels on a graph, I don't think you'll see a large improvement compared to the 1DX but my own experience is that the high-iso noise on the 1DX2 cleans up better (whether that's done in-camera or in post) with the result that I'm seeing a 'real-world' benefit of around 1 stop compared to the 1DX - possibly more depending on the scene.


flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
May 07, 2016 00:49 |  #27

sploo wrote in post #17997767 (external link)
Good question. I guess "real" high ISO would make sense, though maybe the same shot you took originally, but with a really fast shutter speed + maybe an ND filter if it's easier?

I guess that high ISO shooting (for me anyway) is mostly done under interior lighting at night, so that sort of shot would be fine too. It would be interesting to see if there really are great steps forward between the two bodies.

johnf3f wrote in post #17998153 (external link)
I am interested in your observations as I am trying not to get too tempted by a 1DX2!
Currently lusting after a 500 F4 Mk2 (even more expensive!) but wont be out of date so soon - I hope!

Scott_online wrote in post #17998345 (external link)
Perception is important in photography!

If you look at the noise levels on a graph, I don't think you'll see a large improvement compared to the 1DX but my own experience is that the high-iso noise on the 1DX2 cleans up better (whether that's done in-camera or in post) with the result that I'm seeing a 'real-world' benefit of around 1 stop compared to the 1DX - possibly more depending on the scene.

I just posted my own high-ISO comparison between my 1DX2 and my 1DX.

http://photography-on-the.net ...showthread.php?p=17​997419

Results aren't quite what I had expected. :D


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
MedicineMan4040's Avatar
Joined Jul 2013
May 07, 2016 02:19 |  #28

Just stopping by this thread to say thanks for a lot of time and effort in these comparisons.
I have rudimentary knowledge of the true workings of digital photography and by reading threads
like this maybe I'll sponge up a basic understanding.


flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,164 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Nov 2011
West Yorkshire, UK
May 07, 2016 04:01 |  #29

Bassat wrote in post #17997880 (external link)
I have shot to preserve highlights. I have shot to preserve shadow detail. I just didn't think it was possible to do both in one shot (without the digital advent of HDR).

That's essentially the basis of dynamic range (the ratio between the largest and smallest signal you can record, whereby the small signals are "loud" enough to be above the noise floor).

Whenever you dial in an exposure in a high DR scene you'll be placing some highlight detail at the "100%" point for your camera (anything in the scene that's brighter will be clipped). From there, it's all about what level of shadow detail still retains something useful; there's always some quantity of noise in the system, so if anything below 50% was drowned out by noise you have 1 stop of DR. If you're good down to 25% then it's 2 stops, 12.5% is 3 stops and so on.

Even on a Sony Exmor sensor, there will come a point where the signal is too small vs the noise - the issue that Canon's had, up until the 80D and 1Dx2, relates to noise that reduces the amount of DR. The noise is generally only a problem at lower ISO levels, as beyond about ISO 800 other sources of noise dominate (and so Canon have been competitive in the high ISO arena, just not at lower ISOs).

For any really high DR scene though, you're always having to compromise; i.e. how much highlight detail am I willing to clip in order to get usable detail in the shadow areas I want. The compromise is less on a 1Dx2 and 80D than a 6D or 7D2 (which are in turn better than the 5D3 and 7D1).

Alternatively, as you note - you can bracket and blend multiple shots (HDR).

For reference though, I understand slide film (ISO 50 Velvia anyway) was probably only about 6 stops. DXOMark puts the A7Rii at just under 14.


jwcdds wrote in post #17998352 (external link)
I just posted my own high-ISO comparison between my 1DX2 and my 1DX.

http://photography-on-the.net ...showthread.php?p=17​997419

Results aren't quite what I had expected. :D

Indeed! Perhaps the raw convertor will be improved over time. Perhaps DPP will do a better job right now?


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,337 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
May 07, 2016 04:44 as a reply to sploo's post |  #30

I guess it just never occurred to me to try to get all the DR in the captured digital image. My method, which works for me :), is to ETTR to the point where what is lost is not needed, such as white walls, and process the image in LR. If I have the high-end right, I can set LR shadow and black sliders to kill some of the noise in the darker areas. That does come at the expense of some of the details.

I can see that it would be much better to get as much as possible in-camera. Is it possible to do that 'on-the-fly', or do you guys just do this kind of thing for staged work?


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

9,252 views & 18 likes for this thread
1DX2 vs 1DX comparison (exposure/shadow pushing)
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00163 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is RoMEo1
973 guests, 479 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016