Just got our Dragon

[Marc Ruiz]

Finally got our first Dragon upgrade!

Started testingIt's pretty awesome! Great job Red.

EDIT: 96 HRS LATER

So my quick out of the box test seems to have done more harm than good...

So I have done the blackshading to default and documented all the settings...

Without further adieu...R3D of 2000 ISO with Match: https://www.dropbox.com/s/y3ekuymyaa...D.0000176F.R3D

R3D of 2000 ISO with NO Match: https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0wu84n253...D.0000143F.R3D

Large JPEG with Settings: https://www.dropbox.com/s/aedea0jsqy...2000%20iso.jpg

I hope this dispels some concerns and answers some questions

Thanks

Marc

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Congrats, how long was yours at Red for the upgrade?

 

[Burke Doeren]

Awesome!

What lens did you use in the match test?

 

[Marc Ruiz]

Chad: They received it on Dec 30 and I got it returned to me yesterday so they did it pretty close to 7 business days!

Burke: I am using a Cp.2 SS Zeiss 35 at 1.5

 

[Burke Doeren]

Great lens choice Marc!

Have fun with your new DRAGON (I'm sure that goes without saying).

 

[Gunleik Groven]

nJoy!

 

[Shadi Abu Sharar]

Congrats .

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Nice!

 

[Niko Pueringer]

Thanks for posting a shot! Always nice to see extreme tests like this.

People have thrown around the idea that 2000 ISO is as clean as 800 ISO on MX, but this shot looks too noisy for that comparison. Any idea as to why? Black shading? Color/gamma space?

 

[Bob Gundu]

Thanks for posting a shot! Always nice to see extreme tests like this.

People have thrown around the idea that 2000 ISO is as clean as 800 ISO on MX, but this shot looks too noisy for that comparison. Any idea as to why? Black shading? Color/gamma space?

How can you tell the noise from those two images? I see a low light scene that looks like it should.

 

[Niko Pueringer]

How can you tell the noise from those two images? I see a low light scene that looks like it should.

By looking at it. It's noisy.

Phil's match shots have finer noise and are very similar in terms of available light. I'm wondering what's causing the difference.

I've also read that 2000 ISO on Dragon is similar in grain to 800 ISO on MX. That may be true in brighter setups where the sensor isn't starved for light, but I'm starting to think that's not the case when it comes to low-light.

 

[Andy Roberts]

When I first saw this image (#2), I thought, "That's noisy and does nothing for the Dragon's otherwise good reputation." Maybe there is a black shading or sensor temp issue on this camera at time of shooting.

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

Thanks for posting a shot! Always nice to see extreme tests like this.

People have thrown around the idea that 2000 ISO is as clean as 800 ISO on MX, but this shot looks too noisy for that comparison. Any idea as to why? Black shading? Color/gamma space?

Yeah but it's a bit unclear and may depend.... I saw a crop comparison between MX and DRAGON floating around this forum that have noise that look surprisingly similar (found it, here it is http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?109565-Dragon-Epic-comparison). The noise looks quite similar in that ISO3200 test, Dragon looks a hair better but it is hard to tell if that is just because the noise is lower contrast due to the gamma curve. On the other hand that test was cropped 1:1 so perhaps the pixels have similar noise levels but there are more of them so the noise will at least definitely be finer since it is 6K and the sensor is a bit bigger. I'm not holding my breath that Dragon will be as good for low light as Sony and others, though, but it should excel in DR and resolution.

 

[Will Keir]

awe yeah!

Finally got our first Dragon upgrade!

Started testing

It's pretty awesome! Great job Red.

I do see the noise, a texture that the shot with only black did not have.

How can you tell the noise from those two images? I see a low light scene that looks like it should.

 

[Matt Ryan]

The blacks in this shot weren't brought down properly. You're seeing noise because the blacks are lifted... Phil's was cleaner because he had proper levels set. The back wall and surrounding area in that photo should be near black for proper levels. Relax guys, Dragon is better than MX in lowlight and for noise.

That pre-lit match shot should almost be black except for the window...

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

I'm not holding my breath that Dragon will be as good for low light as Sony and others

Have you ever did tests with F65 (or F55 for that matter) in extreme low light like this? If not, please do and tell what you think about that chroma noise in the blacks. I was more impressed by the Canons, quite frankly.

 

[Andy Roberts]

I think the Dragon is just fine. I just think something about these shots was done incorrectly. Phil's was done correctly.

 

[Kyle Popovich]

Just beautiful, It's amazing that the light can hit the wall behind her as well. Was the outdoor lighting only coming from a street lamp?

 

[Noah Yuan-Vogel]

The blacks in this shot weren't brought down properly. You're seeing noise because the blacks are lifted... Phil's was cleaner because he had proper levels set. The back wall and surrounding area in that photo should be near black for proper levels. Relax guys, Dragon is better than MX in lowlight and for noise.

That pre-lit match shot should almost be black except for the window...

That depends. Lifted blacks can often compresses shadows and reduces shadow contrast which actually can reduce the appearance of noise. bringing the blacks down may actually increase contrast and increase the visibility of noise.

It is likely Dragon is better than MX for low light, but I'm a little worried it is only very slightly so, and MX isn't great in low light to begin with compared to most of the competition.

 

[Denis Buhot]

It is likely Dragon is better than MX for low light, but I'm a little worried it is only very slightly so, and MX isn't great in low light to begin with compared to most of the competition.

Worried, too...