Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 27 Apr 2016 (Wednesday) 14:46
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1D X Mark II Owners Unite! Discuss & Post Photos

 
GyRob
Cream of the Crop
9,954 posts
Joined Feb 2005
N.E.LINCOLNSHIRE UK.
May 08, 2016 06:50 |  #436

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17999563 (external link)
The jpg engine in-camera is SUBSTANTIALLY better these days than what was in the 1d4, 5d2, etc. In fact if you tweak enough of your settings, you will be hard pressed to get much better results shooting raw vs jpg. I have spent a season of NBA to come to this conclusion. The only time that you might significantly do better with raw is during high DR shooting.

I agree - I do shoot raw + jpg but rarely touch the raw and im almost at the point It will be jpg only as the IQ is way above what we use to get .

My 5Dsr jpeg files are as good as I could wish for and My 1dxmkII is just the same as long as I get the exposure about right and i check that quite a lot while out birding .

Yes Raw may save the day if you screw up but Don't screw up :)

Rob.


"The LensMaster Gimbal"
http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh1.htmexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
MedicineMan4040
The Magic Johnson of Cameras
MedicineMan4040's Avatar
Joined Jul 2013
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by MedicineMan4040.
May 08, 2016 07:29 |  #437

Very interesting. I've not considered jpg for a looooooooong time. Might be time to rethink that.

When I look at the noise in this pic I'm not offended at all, which is to say I wasn't so motivated by it to
apply any denoising routies. Is this the 'pleasant' film grain look some talk about?

Canon EOS-1D X Mark II
EF400mm f/4 DO IS II USM +2x III
ƒ/8.0 800.0 mm 1/1000 6400 Flash (off, did not fire)

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7690/26615647720_59b3e84523_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GxW9​MW] (external link)Another Towhee (external link) by MedicineMan4040 (external link), on Flickr

flickr (external link)
Vid Collection: https://www.youtube.co​m/user/medicineman4040 (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2007
Lincolnshire,UK
May 08, 2016 08:15 |  #438

GyRob wrote in post #17999603 (external link)
I agree - I do shoot raw + jpg but rarely touch the raw and im almost at the point It will be jpg only as the IQ is way above what we use to get .

My 5Dsr jpeg files are as good as I could wish for and My 1dxmkII is just the same as long as I get the exposure about right and i check that quite a lot while out birding .

Yes Raw may save the day if you screw up but Don't screw up :)

Rob.

So, in real terms, are you regular raw shooters finding the JPEGs as good or near enough to your raw files with the latest bodies or just good enough not to go the extra mile in raw to be worthwhile?

What I'm most interested in is where we can expect a JPEG engine to correct WB in parts of the image where the major area is different WB for instance wedding venue, main area lit with LEDs and side area (small areas) lit with tungsten. A sort of pixel by pixel white balance system driven by the majority pixels. In auto, of course, giving us the option of accepting it or auto-correcting.


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.ukexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Luxx
Senior Member
466 posts
Joined Jan 2013
St Louis
May 08, 2016 08:41 |  #439

Ok...and maybe someone can do a poll....

I'm looking at photos on this thread and I'm thinking that it looks like the 1dxii has 1.5 stops better low light performance than 1dx or 5d3. Is that true?




LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
umphotography's Avatar
Joined Oct 2007
Gig Harbor, Washington
May 08, 2016 09:04 |  #440

Luxx wrote in post #17999676 (external link)
Ok...and maybe someone can do a poll....

I'm looking at photos on this thread and I'm thinking that it looks like the 1dxii has 1.5 stops better low light performance than 1dx or 5d3. Is that true?


I see 2 stops on the 5D3 with much much improvement in darks and shadows. Probably a stop over current 1Dx

anyone else feel thats about right


Mike
www.umphotography.comexternal link
GEAR LIST
Facebookexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott_online
Senior Member
Joined Aug 2009
May 08, 2016 09:05 |  #441

Luxx wrote in post #17999676 (external link)
Ok...and maybe someone can do a poll....

I'm looking at photos on this thread and I'm thinking that it looks like the 1dxii has 1.5 stops better low light performance than 1dx or 5d3. Is that true?

Re. the 1DX1, I think that depends on whether you are talking quantitatively or qualitatively.

Quantitatively, the initial tests show that there isn't much difference between the 1DX1 and 1DX2. E.g. see here: http://photography-on-the.net ...hp?t=1458944&goto=n​ewpost

Qualitatively (and this is just my opinion), I think the noise in the 1DX2 files is (a) more aesthetically pleasing and (b) cleans up better, which means that you may see an effective improvement of around 1 stop compared to the 1DX1 and maybe 2 stops compared to the 5D3/SR.

It's highly subjective though...


flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
TeamSpeed's Avatar
32,398 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Joined May 2002
Northern Indiana
May 08, 2016 09:07 as a reply to LincsRP's post |  #442

How do you correct wb in parts of the raw today? I didn't think you could. I shoot a custom wb per venue, and in jpg, using one of the leveling tools, I can make a slight adjustment if needed.

I used to be a die hard raw shooter, but with the advent of the new jpg engine in the latest bodies, I rarely go to the raw now and that includes a majority of indoor shots in low light.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
robamy
Senior Member
robamy's Avatar
917 posts
Joined Oct 2008
Chepachet, RI
May 08, 2016 09:07 |  #443

If interested here is a 4k screen grab. Just awesome :-)

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/26284580344_9c38eb6abe_b.jpg
[IMAGE'S LINK: https://flic.kr/p/G3Fk​ZJ] (external link)4k screen grab (external link) by A & R Photography (external link), on Flickr

flickr https://www.flickr.com​/photos/robamyphotos/ (external link)
YouTube https://www.youtube.co​m .../UCXHzc4eU2AfHUCuGW​31GNdA (external link)
Vimeo https://vimeo.com/roba​myvideos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
GyRob
Cream of the Crop
9,954 posts
Joined Feb 2005
N.E.LINCOLNSHIRE UK.
May 08, 2016 09:20 |  #444

LincsRP wrote in post #17999649 (external link)
So, in real terms, are you regular raw shooters finding the JPEGs as good or near enough to your raw files with the latest bodies or just good enough not to go the extra mile in raw to be worthwhile?

What I'm most interested in is where we can expect a JPEG engine to correct WB in parts of the image where the major area is different WB for instance wedding venue, main area lit with LEDs and side area (small areas) lit with tungsten. A sort of pixel by pixel white balance system driven by the majority pixels. In auto, of course, giving us the option of accepting it or auto-correcting.

For me as I mostly shoot birds so jpegs are good enough, Weddings may well be a different matter and I can see why most would shoot RAW because of the different light, Auto WB is close enough for me or I can simply adjust the colour balance to put it were I want as its not quite as important .

Rob.


"The LensMaster Gimbal"
http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh1.htmexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2007
Lincolnshire,UK
May 08, 2016 09:21 as a reply to TeamSpeed's post |  #445

No, I don't think you can either. I'm a firm believer in custom WB but I feel we should be now able to see a JPEG engine with the ability to do pixel by pixel WB in auto.

It was mooted that compacts or P&S as we call them had it in some form or another and when I shoot my s120 in green auto box it does a bit towards this.


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.ukexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
Joined Mar 2007
Lincolnshire,UK
May 08, 2016 09:21 as a reply to robamy's post |  #446

Fantastic image and quality.


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.ukexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
GyRob
Cream of the Crop
9,954 posts
Joined Feb 2005
N.E.LINCOLNSHIRE UK.
May 08, 2016 09:43 as a reply to Scott_online's post |  #447

Scott (a) more aesthetically pleasing and (b) cleans up better, which means that you may see an effective improvement of around 1 stop compared to the 1DX1 and maybe 2 stops compared to the 5D3/SR.

Its highly subjective though...[/QUOTE
wrote:

Yes I think once you equalize the 1dxmkII and 5Dsr up or down so the image is the same size the mkII is a stop + better on the jpeg

Rob.


"The LensMaster Gimbal"
http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh1.htmexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
tonyxcom
Member
Joined Jul 2008
Vallejo CA
May 08, 2016 09:47 |  #448

jwcdds wrote in post #17999451 (external link)
I guess the logic escapes me at the moment as to how the Mark II is viewed as crippled by CF when you admit to never hitting the buffer on the 1DX. If Canon had stuck with dual CF cards, would this even be discussed?

I would venture to guess that MOST of the Mark II sales will go to professional sports/action shooters or journalists who don't bother shooting RAW. They shoot primarily JPG and the faster they can get the image uploaded, the faster they complete their job and get paid. And with JPG, you can shoot at 14fps all day long, even with CF. That is until your card fills up or you run out of battery. CFast makes no difference to those who the camera is primarily targeting.

The CFast was really only introduced so that 4k/60fps video can be achieved. It just happens that it greatly benefits the the Mark II stills shooter in clearing the buffer, which really is only enough for 43-59 RAW files if you believe the camera LCD readout. (1DX buffer reads 26-35 RAW files.)

I think that's why Canon offered the Premium Kit from the get-go. They realize many pros want to write to 2 cards. So instead of forcing them to buy 2 CFast cards, they provide a free (included) 64gb card to go with whatever CF card is already in your possession. That's ~1700+ RAWs in 64gb space. ~6400+ JPGs. I'd hate to be the pro sports shooter sorting through 6400 jpgs trying to send out to the publisher. :lol:

I think realistically, the only people that may have a legitimate gripe of not having dual CFast are those who want to record 4k/60fps and want to write to both cards at the same time. (I admit I have not even read the new manual yet. Is dual-video writing even a feature/function?)

I guess I just see the CF slot as the bottleneck in the system. It's like buying a sports car but one of the tires is the spare so you can only do 55. I haven't read the video section of the manual either so I don't know if the options to write to both cards exists.


1DXmkII / 7DmkII / 100-400mkII / 70-200mkII / 24-70mkI / 24-70F4L / 16-35mkI / 50ART / 40STM / 50STM / 1.4xIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
aehric
Member
aehric's Avatar
Joined Jul 2015
Asheville, NC, USA
May 08, 2016 09:57 |  #449

tonyxcom wrote in post #17999746 (external link)
I guess I just see the CF slot as the bottleneck in the system. It's like buying a sports car but one of the tires is the spare so you can only do 55. I haven't read the video section of the manual either so I don't know if the options to write to both cards exists.

I just tried it out and it does not let me record to multiple cards simultaneously for video. It goes to whichever card is currently selected for playback.


Canon EOS 5D Mark III, EOS 6D, EOS 1D X Mark II | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 50mm f/1.8, EF 8-15mm f/4L USM | Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT

LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
wallstreetoneil's Avatar
Joined Nov 2014
Toronto Canada
May 08, 2016 10:02 |  #450

aehric wrote in post #17999755 (external link)
I just tried it out and it does not let me record to multiple cards simultaneously for video. It goes to whichever card is currently selected for playback.

that is how all Canon's 7D, 5D and 1D work to my knowledge - c100 & c300 are different


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

933,215 views & 12008 likes for this thread
1D X Mark II Owners Unite! Discuss & Post Photos
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00488 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is returntovendor
798 guests, 352 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017