62 replies to this topic

[lafilm]

This debate is over. Downloaded files from James Miller and viewed the clip.

It's obvious (it's not even close) the 1 DX is superior to the 5D3. It's much sharper out of box/higher ISO. James hints at even more sharpness in post for 1 DX. I agree the 5D3 should and could have had the 1 DX specs. However, it doesen't. You will notice the difference between the Canon's on a 60 ft screen. Wide shots with the 1 DX will cut with the C300. If you don't care about full frame, get the GH 2. For the internet, it won't matter.

[EOSHD]

More sharpness but it does have a few cute things going - weaker anti-aliasing on the horizontal axis, the filter not same in all directions, you might find aliasing an issue when you sharpen in post versus the 5D Mark III If you compare both the 5D Mark III sharpened in post to the same optimally sharp footage from the 1D X they will be very close I think.

They're close enough as it is actually.... I am not going to be parting with $6000 any time soon. It is a lot of money for a camera without peaking.

[lafilm]

It is quite a bit more money. It certainly does not have all the features of the new Sony. As far as the battle of the Canon's, it depends on whether you have time to sharpen each scene in post. Extra work. There's something to be said about a product that works straight out of the box. Saves money, but time is money. Seems to me minus the 4K 1 DC, the Canon 1 DX is the best full frame DSLR in the world. Wanted to purcahse the D4, but again (sadly) much to soft. Looking forward to serious low light tests with the 1 DX to see if its 2 stops on the 5D3.

[jcs]

The anisotropic antialiasing of the 1DX makes the image look 'funny'- like something is wrong with the lens or image processing: not natural. The 5D3 footage, while softer, looks natural (and sharpens well in post).

[richg101]

I like the colours on the 1D a bit more. looks like a completely different profile. i'd like to see this test with a softer more warm lens like an old schneider curtagon or xenon.

[HurtinMinorKey]

It looks like the 5d3 was shot with less light, maybe later in the day.

[lafilm]

Did you download the files from Miller? I understand the anisotropic antialiasing, however, it seems to work fine. I fail to see anything "funny" about the image. Not at all...maybe its just perception (or your computer/monitor), but it looks great to me. The 5d3 was under exposed in this video. Yes, the colors are much different as well. Out of the box superior, like the D800 (with less moire). Again, this post manipulation is very time consuming. Not on a 5 minute Vimeo video for fun, but try it on a 100 minute feature film where it counts (distribution) and see the endless frustration with you/editor.

[Per Lichtman]

Question: For those that are purchasing the D4 for stills as well as (on the video side) the higher available ISOs (as compared to the 1DX, in video mode only) andu such, and not for a full frame style DOF look, is the video in the crop mode sufficiently sharp to warrant using the D4 for such video at the extreme ISOs?

Canon told me at an event that video mode would not exceed ISO 25,600 on the 1DX and there are documentary style scenes I would like to shoot at ISOs that exceed that.

[lafilm]

It's true the D4 looks sharp in crop mode, but none of these DSLR's, (including the 1 DX) is going to look great at ISO 25,000 +. They will for stills under the right circumstances, but definitely not video. The noise levels will make the footage worthless for doc work. If you want extreme ISO's, you'll have to look at the C300. That being said, the 1 DX is the single best low light full frame DSLR availible right now. The D4 is great in low light as well, but remember it's soft. We'll have to see if the 4K 1 DC DSLR ups the game. Should be close.

[Per Lichtman]

As Canon confirmed for me at a recent 4K event, none of their cameras (C300, C500, Cinema 1D, 1DX, 5DMkIII) can exceed ISO 25,600 in video mode. That means the D4 is the only mass produced current-generation camera that can do six digit ISOs in video mode. Even the D3s, in 720P, could sometimes shoot results I was happy with in that range. My main question is whether the D4 can do that in 1080P or whether the crop mode results in a noise increase that would mean the D3s (even at 720P) is still the better option for that.

The six digit video mode ISOs on the D3s completely outperformed those on the 1DMkIV and I was looking forward to seeing if the 1DX could match the D3s at 1080P in that regard, until Canon informed me that the camera would not shoot that way (unlike the earlier model).

[EOSHD]

ISO 25,600 is mind-blowing enough in video mode. Not a limitation of any one camera rather the limitation of 2012! Actually limitation is probably wrong word...

[EOSHD]

It's true the D4 looks sharp in crop mode, but none of these DSLR's, (including the 1 DX) is going to look great at ISO 25,000 +. They will for stills under the right circumstances, but definitely not video. The noise levels will make the footage worthless for doc work. If you want extreme ISO's, you'll have to look at the C300. That being said, the 1 DX is the single best low light full frame DSLR availible right now. The D4 is great in low light as well, but remember it's soft. We'll have to see if the 4K 1 DC DSLR ups the game. Should be close.

The noise is greatly magnified in crop mode on the D4, you won't want to be shooting much above ISO 800 with it.

[Per Lichtman]

I am not saying that ISO 25,600 is bad - I am saying that (like any other performance characteristic for a camera) it is possible to take advantage of increases. The higher ISO on the D3s were enough of an advantage for it to be at the top of the list of rentals for very specific shoots. The 1DMkIV could shoot at those ISOs as well (and in 1080P mode, even if the actual resolution recorded was much lower than 1080P) and I was happy with the noise for some of the kinds of footage I wanted to shoot.

So if that was the case several years ago, and the newer Canon cameras cannot shoot at those higher ISOs in video mode (even though both Canon and Nikon had models that could in a previous generation) then the limitation really is the camera, not the year.

To be clear: I am not saying that people often benefit from the higher ISOs in video mode, but sometimes people do. It seems odd to no longer support them on the 1DX and Cinema 1D and that is all I was saying.

So if the older cameras can still do it and the newer ones cannot, what is that saying, exactly?

[lafilm]

I've not seen the D4 for video (in person) but my buddy who works at a post house told me the only time the D4 is sharp is in crop mode, not full frame. Watching Bloom's tests seemed to confirm that. Did you have a different experience?

[EOSHD]

Correct D4 is only sharp in the most extreme 2.7x crop mode. In that mode you get a sensor which is effectively Nikon J1 sized on a $6000 camera. It is not worth getting for video, only if you need it for stills.

[lafilm]

Thanks. I didn't realize it was in fact the 2.7 crop. It really a shame about the video.

[lafilm]

2nd test: confirms what we thought;

[lafilm]

3rd test: Even more so. 1DX is bext full frame DSLR.

[matt2491]

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the 1DX and 5D3 images. At least not a $3000 difference.

I just rewatched the original MOV downloaded from Vimeo. I actually think the 5D3 has some advantages over the 1DX in the anti-aliasing department. Some of the 1DX video was quite harsh-looking due to the extra sharpening. You just can't sharpen detail that doesn't exist! Halos were more prominent as well. Anyway, both are good cameras with similar yet slightly different characteristics.

[moebius22]

3rd test: Even more so. 1DX is bext full frame DSLR.

For that price, it better be.