Canon 1DX or Nikon D4 versus 5D mark iii

[gregbradley]

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.

[Poita]

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.

[Octane]

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

[gregbradley]

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.



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.

[Benny L]

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 :P

Having said that the 5DIII is nothing to be sneezed at and would be a mint addition to the camera bag

[Phil Hart]

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

[gregbradley]

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.