OFFICIAL: Canon 1D X announced

K6AZ wrote in post #14035136
Something tells me there is going to be a difference in the 1D X sensor. The general theory was that Canon 'crippled' the 5D2 to protect sales of 1Ds3 bodies. Since the 5D body will no longer have the 'crippled' AF I would expect there to be some difference in IQ.

The 5d3 will stay at the same high resolution.

I can see the 1Dx gaining an f-stop from the lower resolution (easily) and another f-stop from more expensive and/or newer processes when making the sensor (less convincing but possible). Another f-stop from improved NR software (in the eye of those who sell the camera, of course) and there is your 3 f-stops.

uOpt wrote in post #14037036
The 5d3 will stay at the same high resolution.

I can see the 1Dx gaining an f-stop from the lower resolution (easily) and another f-stop from more expensive and/or newer processes when making the sensor (less convincing but possible). Another f-stop from improved NR software (in the eye of those who sell the camera, of course) and there is your 3 f-stops.

So you're saying the three stops is in camera rendered JPGs? I suppose that would make some sense. Guess we will have to wait until both hit the streets.

I am sure the AF will be much better, quicker and much more responsive on the DX than on the 5d3 plus it will offer more customization. I bet linking exposure to the active AF point will only be on the DX. I am sure the DX AF will preform quicker and more accurately in the most challenging low light environments. Canon has never put all the features of the 1D series AF in any lower level body. I am sure the 1DX will be a very nice camera. If money was no object I would get one to shoot along with my 1D4. I will never sell my 1D4 to get a 1DX as I really like the 1.3 crop.

butterfly2937 wrote in post #14037675
I am sure the AF will be much better, quicker and much more responsive on the DX than on the 5d3 plus it will offer more customization. I bet linking exposure to the active AF point will only be on the DX. I am sure the DX AF will preform quicker and more accurately in the most challenging low light environments. Canon has never put all the features of the 1D series AF in any lower level body. I am sure the 1DX will be a very nice camera. If money was no object I would get one to shoot along with my 1D4. I will never sell my 1D4 to get a 1DX as I really like the 1.3 crop.

I've loved my 1D4 but if it is the end of the line for APS-H I may part with it. I'm waiting for a few more bits of information before I finally decide on that.

As far as the AF perhaps Canon has finally decided to compete with Nikon? I suppose we will find out when Canon puts detailed information on both bodies up.

K6AZ wrote in post #14037726
As far as the AF perhaps Canon has finally decided to compete with Nikon?

Jesus, say it's so!
I'm wanting a "no doubt it's the best" body soon. I'm so tired of this one doing that better than that one.

K6AZ wrote in post #14037189
So you're saying the three stops is in camera rendered JPGs? I suppose that would make some sense. Guess we will have to wait until both hit the streets.

Well the jpeg question is interesting.

Traditionally Canon said that the cameras and DPP contain the same noise reduction. But can that be true? Obviously they don't have the NR for all cameras and all firmware revisions in there to pick from. To me it looks like there is one NR algorithm in there.

So if Canon has invested time and money into better NR algorithms and they are used in the 1Dx, will they be in DPP so that Rebel users can use them, too?

uOpt wrote in post #14037036
The 5d3 will stay at the same high resolution.

I can see the 1Dx gaining an f-stop from the lower resolution

Relative to the 5D2/5D3? No. Not even close. The resolution difference gets you less than a third of a stop.

umphotography wrote in post #14031246
Jeff Ashcroft reports that the 5D3, to his eyes is at least 2-2 1/2 stops iso improvement over the 5D2. My source that has had a 1Dx in his hands says the same thing but more like 3 stops improvement. The 1Dx is supposed to be better than the 5D3. If reports are true and the 1Dx exceeds a 5D3 by 1 stop,,,you have your answer.

that answer has more holes than a wheel of swiss cheese.

umphotography wrote in post #14034354
I have.. I can get the same results in Post

post can't change the minimum focusing distance or improved IS performance that the mark II offers. i am happy w/ my mk I copy that i've had since 07 or so, but starting thinking about updating when i used a friend's.

kcbrown wrote in post #14038362
Relative to the 5D2/5D3? No. Not even close. The resolution difference gets you less than a third of a stop.

Noise and pixel size might not go together linearly.

I think it's more likely that new process and higher resolution combine for 1 f-stop, I said that I could imagine that it's more.

uOpt wrote in post #14039662
Noise and pixel size might not go together linearly.

But they do. Shot noise decreases with the square root of the area of the pixel, and signal averaging decreases the noise by the ratio of the areas, so the end result is exactly the same as far as the physics of the light goes. And that is all you can really attribute directly to the pixel size itself.

The rest is entirely implementation dependent.

That is most certainly possible.

kcbrown wrote in post #14040258
But they do. Shot noise decreases with the square root of the area of the pixel, and signal averaging decreases the noise by the ratio of the areas, so the end result is exactly the same as far as the physics of the light goes. And that is all you can really attribute directly to the pixel size itself.

Yeah but the effectively light collecting area of a pixel might not be the simple division of sensor size by resolution.

If there is some ineffective or less effective area between the pixels or on the borders of a pixel then decreasing resolution would improve signal/noise better than linear.

(disclaimer: again I'm not saying this is likely. We are speculating here whether the huge improvements claims are possible at all)

uOpt wrote in post #14041218
Yeah but the effectively light collecting area of a pixel might not be the simple division of sensor size by resolution.

If there is some ineffective or less effective area between the pixels or on the borders of a pixel then decreasing resolution would improve signal/noise better than linear.

That's possible, but I expect that to be a relatively minor effect, thanks to gapless microlens arrays and such. Additionally, if that had a major effect, then point'n'shoot cameras would be much worse at ISO 100 than they really are.

kcbrown wrote in post #14041623
That's possible, but I expect that to be a relatively minor effect, thanks to gapless microlens arrays and such. Additionally, if that had a major effect, then point'n'shoot cameras would be much worse at ISO 100 than they really are.

I agree that this is a more likely outcome.

Will be interesting to compare this sucker for real when it's out.

Tried one today for a minute at a trade show in the UK.

Ok it's not a true test but the ISO at 25k whilst noisy when zoomed in looked pretty damn good to me.