Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

MX and Dragon Comparison

J

Jan Reiff

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
54
Location
GERMANY
Fast test, as i was curious about the people telling me they wanna stay with MX (???) because "MX is cleaner ... "

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157645707526043/

honestly, i can´t see a noisy image again in the ISO800 Dragon, but what i see, that Dragon has simply the better image over all ISO.

if too underexposed, both are over limit, always a fun how much you can do with ADD in very worst cases, ...

in such a light situation the difference is not so big between MX and Dragon, but there is an advantage with the Dragon, not with MX, as some people want to tell me ...

this all was f1.8 on both cams, with a faster glas i would have been able to open much more on Dragon than on MX without loosing texture on the top of the pot to feed the shadows = i hope to have the highspeeds here next time -

will do exactly the same set up with the new firmware then


EDIT: no ADD was used, except the "beyond 12800" to try "rescue" what you can get out of the "Mark Knopfler" Box, that was completely in the very dark
 
thanks man, appreciate the test
 
BRAVO JAN.

However, as I always say, once you try Dragon is hard to go back.
Indeed impossible;)
 
Thanks Jan.
 
What are those horizontal stripes on Dragon shots in the "pushed_12800" image? Look at the side handle and the Knopfler box in the foreground.
 
maybe a flare, don´t know. the light on top is bit open in direction to camera (not in the frame). we saw these stripes in other footage too. it was explained here in reduser i think.
you only see this when pushing to limits you will never want to go for your film ;-) this is only demonstration to show that Dragon is not inferior to MX @ ISO800 and "low light" situations, as this is not ultra lowlight here, would say "atmospheric available light". in this scene 2 small Ledzilla would be okay to put some spots on the areas you want to see, the rest dives into "noisefree" blacks, nothing more i wanted to show here
 
thanks for the test....i would prefer raw files and these are situation that i would definitely expose differently for but there is absolutely nothing there that puts dragon ahead of mx for me....on the contrary actually....are you sure the close up of the mug/cup has the correct label? the mx shows clearly more and better detail and taking into consideration the severe underexposure (iso 2500) i am amazed that the color looks better as well....but maybe i am crazy and blind....
 
Jan Reiff said:
you mean this one ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/14643872135/in/set-72157645707526043/

Label is right, as Dragon has finer lines and lower noise

where you see better detail at the MX side ??
Click to expand...
i guess i am crazy and blind....to me the mx looks quite a bit better....especially considering that the exposure seems to be different, although i can't figure out how because the small highlight is blown in the dragon but not in mx but the rest of the exposure does not look THAT much under?
i am having a hard time discussing low rez jpegs when trying to look for differences in 30/40/50 000$ camera kits.....i would prefer to see the raw files....
but in any way if this was a blind test, i would prefer the image labeled MX.....my opinion...
 
same exposure (f.1.8), bit different distance (35mm, but to match i moved the MX)
Dragon ALWAYS looks brighter. the sensor is clearer, brighter,
 
and in the plants at the bottom you have more detail at Dragon.
the blown point: you see in the other shots the pot is not exactly at the same position, so i wouldn´t give too much on those details, things changed and moved bit when jumping to the MX, but light and exposures did stay fix.
but of course, you can start now saying Dragon has less dynamic in the highlights heh heh
 
sorry, like you are saying, the differences are there but there are also variables (like you said) that influence the image.....all this taken into consideration: i obviously agree that the pics look different but i can't with a straight face call one better then the other....again: posting raw files would definitely help and again: i don't think shooting either camera at 2500 is anything i would do unless absolutely necessary....
i am having a really hard time judging anything from online videos or jpegs....the compression just drowns out everything....but even with that in mind: i don't see any sign of higher DR, better color or more detail with either of these files....if anything dragon looks noisier to me....
i don't hitnk i can add anything to this discussion anymore, i am getting a reputation for being negative about dragon around here when i state and explain my opinion.....
jfyi: i did a blind test here on this forum and users chose the mx file over the dragon file 4:1....and that was only because some people could tell the dragon file because of the heavier noise and probably thought the question asked was which was which....when the poll stated it was 10:1...in favor of mx....this was a blind test
 
you will see the higher DR when you are in sun shooting your fashion stuff ;-)
as said, this test was only made, because so many told me Dragon is much more noisy than MX.
that´s actually untrue. the other stuff, DR, skintones, and so on shouldn´t be judged with a table lamp - that is right ;-)
 
paul schefz said:
sorry, like you are saying, the differences are there but there are also variables (like you said) that influence the image.....all this taken into consideration: i obviously agree that the pics look different but i can't with a straight face call one better then the other....again: posting raw files would definitely help and again: i don't think shooting either camera at 2500 is anything i would do unless absolutely necessary....
i am having a really hard time judging anything from online videos or jpegs....the compression just drowns out everything....but even with that in mind: i don't see any sign of higher DR, better color or more detail with either of these files....if anything dragon looks noisier to me....
i don't hitnk i can add anything to this discussion anymore, i am getting a reputation for being negative about dragon around here when i state and explain my opinion.....
jfyi: i did a blind test here on this forum and users chose the mx file over the dragon file 4:1....and that was only because some people could tell the dragon file because of the heavier noise and probably thought the question asked was which was which....when the poll stated it was 10:1...in favor of mx....this was a blind test
Click to expand...

Paul,
but why do not you rent a Dragon and make yourself a try?
Maybe something cute fashion;)
For you would be the right choice.
So you can open a thread MX vs Dragon and show us your differences, it would be very useful, with all your raw files.
It 'much more informative for you and for all of us.
 
paul schefz said:
jfyi: i did a blind test here on this forum and users chose the mx file over the dragon file 4:1....and that was only because some people could tell the dragon file because of the heavier noise and probably thought the question asked was which was which....when the poll stated it was 10:1...in favor of mx....this was a blind test
Click to expand...

Are you referring to this poll?
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?118826-epic-or-dragon-what-do-you-prefer

According to the results posted at the top of the page, people preferred MX 2:1, not 4:1 or 10:1 (I don't understand where you got that number).

Granted, it's still more than Dragon but all those people are in luck because they don't have to upgrade.
 
Brian Boyer said:
Are you referring to this poll?
people preferred MX 2:1,
... it's still more than Dragon but all those people are in luck because they don't have to upgrade.
Click to expand...
I know Jarred says stick with old Dragon if you want, but he is usually saying that when his blood pressure is high after a particularly hot thread of complaints.


Is "not upgrading" really a viable solution? It is swapping one set of problems for a DIFFERENT set of problems. The problem is timing for customers who need the fix.


I`d still like more info as to what is going on with the FIX and where the new 2000 ISO will land. Its a bigger job than they thought, I get that, but assuming red noise is fixed and they get closer to the advertised 2000 than the low number we have just now it will be great times for current owners and future.
 
That toughest thing about the MX was underexposed blue channel clumped digital noise, which you can see in the shots. Dragon doesn't have it which is a lot better when we're trying to get away from the "digital look". Still frames are great to show side by side, but noise is best examined while in motion, which is how we're using these cameras. I think the motion noise from Dragon is definitely improved over MX. Overall though, I think everyone is a little disappointed in the "improvement" in the sensitivity of the sensor, a native 640 would have been nice but it looks like we're still around 320, which makes sense since it was stated the photsites are smaller on Dragon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top