#1  
Old 05-03-2012, 11:14 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,106
Canon 1DX or Nikon D4 versus 5D mark iii

Seeing as high ISO performance is a key measure wouldn't the above 2 cameras be preferrable to a 5D mark iii?

The obvious difference is the cost. But apart from that what do you feel would be better for time lapse or Milky Way shots or space landscape type shots?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,583
Hard to say, the iso performance tends to change with the temperature, and long exposures can change things as well, you'd have to actually try them I would think.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:12 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
1DX = pro body = serious dollars.

The 1DX promises to deliver an extra stop of high ISO performance over the 5D Mark III. Not sure if this is in RAW or out of camera JPGs.

The 5D series has always been the landscape camera. Given that it is 3 megapixels higher resolution (not that much difference, really), I think it would still be preferable. And, at half the price!

H
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-03-2012, 07:31 AM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita View Post
Hard to say, the iso performance tends to change with the temperature, and long exposures can change things as well, you'd have to actually try them I would think.
I didn't know ISO performance is temperature variable. Interesting. I guess I
ll assume though rightly or wrongly that the 2 Canon models react to temperature in a similar way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
1DX = pro body = serious dollars.

The 1DX promises to deliver an extra stop of high ISO performance over the 5D Mark III. Not sure if this is in RAW or out of camera JPGs.

The 5D series has always been the landscape camera. Given that it is 3 megapixels higher resolution (not that much difference, really), I think it would still be preferable. And, at half the price!

H
How long before these cameras actually see in the dark I wonder?
The 5D iii wil be the popular choice but I imagine that is mainly because of the cost of the cameras.

Is anyone using a 1D of any type or a D3 for DSLR night work?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-03-2012, 01:51 AM
Benny L (Ben)
Registered User

Benny L is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Carmel - Perth Hills
Posts: 303
1Dx hands down, seeing as I'm a photographer by trade, I've been spoilt by the 1D/s series since the 1DII. Built like the proverbial brick sh*thouse and can be used to fend off undesirable creatures in the night

Having said that the 5DIII is nothing to be sneezed at and would be a mint addition to the camera bag
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:30 PM
philiphart's Avatar
philiphart (Phil Hart)
Registered User

philiphart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,058
maybe i'm going to sound like a broken record, but i'm gonna keep banging on about this.

all three cameras feature high quality sensors operating near the limits as we understand them today. quantum efficiency, read noise, thermal noise, etc.. all likely to be damn close between the three cameras.

the difference will be entirely down to pixel size.. 16MP D4, 18MP 1DX and 22MP 5DIII. difference between 16 and 18 not much at all in pixel area, but difference between 16 and 22 is becoming significant (but not like difference between 10MP and 20MP).

on jpgs, the manufacturers may choose differing levels of in-camera smoothing/noise reduction. but on a RAW file i'll bet that performance exactly mirrors pixel size. shot noise will totally dominate and it's only a function of pixel size.. has nothing to do with anything else in camera.

full frame cameras with large pixels are as good as it gets for low light. and sensors of seven years ago not in the same league, but now they're all very close. collectively we're starting to get a little too sucked in by who's got the lowest noise sensor and the highest ISO.. when you can tell all you need to by just looking at the MP count.

rant over..

cheers
Phil
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-03-2012, 06:42 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,106
I think you are right Phil. It appears that the camera makers are using in camera noise reduction to achieve lower noise despite more pixels. They use the higher processing power of their newer camera processors to do it.

But consider this though. More pixels allows them to use more aggressive noise reduction and still obtain an excellent resolution. Its a bit opposite to the small pixels = high noise concept. But it does take the artificial step of more aggresive noise reduction.

I guess we'll know better once these new model are out in the field and a RAW image versus other camera's RAW images can be compared.

Greg.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement