Canon 1DX II vs. Nikon D5 in latest DXO sensor test, fanboys to freak out

[pRICE cUBE]

I am not going to spend too much time on arguing the merits of each camera. I am surprised by the 1Dx II's noise score which DXO labels "sports". This had been the domain of Nikon with the D3s, D4, and D4s.

Both models are so similar in features and close in performance that it comes down to which platform and ergonomics one prefers. Many fanboys of each manufacturer will be wasting a ton of time arguing about all this.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS...ass-leader



This is a well-deserved result for Canon, and this versatile sensor should prove attractive to a wide range of photographers, including those that work in multiple disciplines. The wide dynamic range at low ISOs should appeal to all photographers, but especially those using it for landscapes, and the low noise at high ISOs will also appeal to action and sports photographers. Although the new model is aimed primarily at that market, the increase in pixel count over its predecessor now matches that of the earlier EOS-1Ds Mk III, a model that’s still highly regarded for editorial and commercial work. It is not too much of a stretch to view the new EOS-1D X Mk II as the natural successor to that camera, and its wide range of capabilities, including DCI 4K video, make it look highly tempting. Sure, it would have been great to see a higher pixel count, but overall, the sensor performance offers photographers the versatility to tackle a wide range of assignments with just one camera.

[DP]

The Canon is sweet but my 5D Mk. II has been such a workhorse for me that I don't see myself buying another camera for a while yet. I'd love a 1 DX but when I finally leave the workforce, I would seriously consider a medium format like the Hasselblad H5!

[Billybob]

I've almost completely switched over to Nikon but the low-ISO DR and 16 fps of the Canon have my mouth watering.

Oh! They both cost over $5000.

Never mind!

miley-shocked003:

[DP]

I've paid for my Mk. II a few times over... If you can do that, then the cost is a small factor. It's been my exclusive tool although I do have an SL1 as my backup camera. Interestingly, the SL1 does a damn nice job for what I shoot. I intend on using it more for my "art" stuff (birds and other wildlife and landscape) and see how it stacks up.

[freeradical]

I'm not quite sure how small reductions in noise have any meaning any more for most people.

If you have an image stabilized lens that's giving you 3 or 4 stops of improvement, it's unlikely you'll be shooting above ISO 400 or 800 unless you're shooting sports.

[Uncle Wig]

freeradical wrote:
I'm not quite sure how small reductions in noise have any meaning any more for most people.

If you have an image stabilized lens that's giving you 3 or 4 stops of improvement, it's unlikely you'll be shooting above ISO 400 or 800 unless you're shooting sports.

Not so. Being able shoot cleanly at high ISO gives you much more latitude to use faster shutter speeds, or to stop down. Many cameras now have ISO 6400 that's easily as clean as 1600 was a few years ago - that is a huge improvement.

[pRICE cUBE]

Billybob wrote:
I've almost completely switched over to Nikon but the low-ISO DR and 16 fps of the Canon have my mouth watering.

Oh! They both cost over $5000.

Never mind!

miley-shocked003:

The previous version 1D X had dropped to 2200-2500 on eBay.

[pRICE cUBE]

DP wrote:
The Canon is sweet but my 5D Mk. II has been such a workhorse for me that I don't see myself buying another camera for a while yet. I'd love a 1 DX but when I finally leave the workforce, I would seriously consider a medium format like the Hasselblad H5!

That looks like an interesting camera.

[Billybob]

DP wrote:
I've paid for my Mk. II a few times over... If you can do that, then the cost is a small factor. It's been my exclusive tool although I do have an SL1 as my backup camera. Interestingly, the SL1 does a damn nice job for what I shoot. I intend on using it more for my "art" stuff (birds and other wildlife and landscape) and see how it stacks up.

You must get paid a bit (a lot) better than the rest of us if you've made that kind of change off a camera that's only been around 2-3 months.

Or did you get a pre-release copy?

[AllGold]

Billybob wrote:
[quote=DP]
I've paid for my Mk. II a few times over... If you can do that, then the cost is a small factor. It's been my exclusive tool although I do have an SL1 as my backup camera. Interestingly, the SL1 does a damn nice job for what I shoot. I intend on using it more for my "art" stuff (birds and other wildlife and landscape) and see how it stacks up.

You must get paid a bit (a lot) better than the rest of us if you've made that kind of change off a camera that's only been around 2-3 months.

Or did you get a pre-release copy?
If you read back earlier in the thread, he said 5D Mark II, which has been out a long time.