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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 02 Feb 2016 (Tuesday) 06:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1DX II review

 
DarthVader
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,508 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Death Star
     
Feb 02, 2016 06:49 |  #1

http://www.andyrouse.c​o.uk/index.php?b=1 (external link)


Nikon/Fuji.
Gear is important but skills are very important :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mathmans
Senior Member
267 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Apr 2014
     
Feb 02, 2016 08:02 |  #2

Outstanding. ISO 10.000 image is so clean.
Well, let's wait for some other reviews and RAW samples before we start a mass hysteria.


My photos:
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/149610703@N05/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,063 posts
Gallery: 1508 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9791
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Feb 02, 2016 08:08 |  #3

Typical review, just glowing this and that and some web-sized images that look great, but none of the processing revealed on how those images turned out that way.

I want to see a torture test by someone who's not sponsored to give a glowing representation of a product.

I want to see under-exposed ISO 51,200, and see the shadow lifting and how the colors and detail respond.
I want to see exposure at ISO 100, for only highlights, and then raise shadows in post.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,523 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2305
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Feb 02, 2016 08:36 |  #4

Darthvadar

exactly what i needed to see. Holy smokes look at that 32000 ISO Image...look at the 10000 ISO image......AWESOME


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,523 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2305
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Post edited over 3 years ago by umphotography.
     
Feb 02, 2016 08:43 |  #5

Jeff got his hands on one last weekend.....2 stops over a 5D3....take a look at some of those wedding images.....impressive for low light work......https://www.facebook.c​om (external link) ...506625567?hc_locati​on=u


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,402 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Feb 02, 2016 08:46 |  #6

MalVeauX wrote in post #17882844 (external link)
Typical review, just glowing this and that and some web-sized images that look great, but none of the processing revealed on how those images turned out that way.

I want to see a torture test by someone who's not sponsored to give a glowing representation of a product.

I want to see under-exposed ISO 51,200, and see the shadow lifting and how the colors and detail respond.
I want to see exposure at ISO 100, for only highlights, and then raise shadows in post.

Very best,

Indeed. I particularly like "One thing that is noticeable is the incredible lack of noise in the shadows, something that has always plagued DSLRs". Dude, I think you missed "made by Canon" from the end of that sentence.

Still, that article is the second reference I've seen to significant high ISO improvements, and the third to improved shadow noise. Here's hoping the raw files back that up (at least for the shadow noise) and that it's trickle down tech for Canon's future (cheaper) bodies.

It also occurs to me that (on paper at least) there isn't a massive difference between the AF on the Mk I and Mk II. Perhaps that means a 5D4 will get most of the Mk II's AF system (like the 5D3 and Mk I). That would be nice - especially combined with a sensor with improved shadow noise/DR.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,402 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 460
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Feb 02, 2016 08:49 |  #7

umphotography wrote in post #17882871 (external link)
Darthvadar

exactly what i needed to see. Holy smokes look at that 32000 ISO Image...look at the 10000 ISO image......AWESOME

Surely they're way too low res to make a judgement (unless there's some hires versions I haven't spotted)?

Until we see independent reviewers compare Mk I raws against Mk II raws we don't really know just how much of a difference there is, whether the difference is mostly the jpeg engine, and whether (if it is the jpeg engine) it's just noise reduction that some may find too aggressive (i.e. too aggressive when set to a level that meets the ISO improvement claims).


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DarthVader
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,508 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Death Star
     
Feb 02, 2016 09:51 |  #8

Hoping this is the cause of his statement:

http://www.digitalcame​raworld.com …-ii-hands-on-review/#null (external link)

" The EOS-1D X Mark II is designed for high-speed shooting and low-light performance, and you can only achieve this with more modest pixel counts. Many sports take place in less than perfect lighting, and Canon’s new sensor has an important innovation. The A/D converter circuitry, which translates captured light values into digital data, has now been integrated with the sensor itself. This shortens the signal path and reduces image noise – not just at higher ISOs but also further down the ISO range. This extends from ISO 100-51,200, which is the same as the previous model, but with expansion settings from ISO 50-409,600 – the highest setting is one stop higher than the old 1D X. "


Nikon/Fuji.
Gear is important but skills are very important :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,577 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4992
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited over 3 years ago by TeamSpeed. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 02, 2016 10:15 |  #9

MalVeauX wrote in post #17882844 (external link)
Typical review, just glowing this and that and some web-sized images that look great, but none of the processing revealed on how those images turned out that way.

I want to see a torture test by someone who's not sponsored to give a glowing representation of a product.

I want to see under-exposed ISO 51,200, and see the shadow lifting and how the colors and detail respond.
I want to see exposure at ISO 100, for only highlights, and then raise shadows in post.

Very best,

Why 51K underexposed? That isn't the common issue on any camera? Shadow issues usually occur at lower ISOs where DR is a factor. If you are shooting at 51K and underexposing, then you are playing football in a cave. where they don't allow flash photography and you have to run fast shutters to stop action. I do a ton of high ISO shots, and 51K with underexposure is very, very dark, and there is simply not a common condition to shoot within. Even inside some of the darker hgh school gyms won't require underexposed 51K.

All we need to see whether the shadow noise is managed better or not is to shoot a landscape at ISO 400 where there is sun/fluffy clouds, yet architecture that is buried in the shadows. Or run the raw through rawanalyze or rawdigger to compare against prior bodies. Then a few at ISO 25600 with no post processing would be good.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
palad1n
Goldmember
Avatar
1,745 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2276
Joined Jun 2013
     
Feb 02, 2016 10:23 |  #10

I´am always suprised how people makes statements about high iso capabilities based on 800x800 image... Let´s wait for RAW images.


Website (online) : www.lukaskrasa.com (external link)
Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/​photos/105393908@N03/ (external link)
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.c​om/lukaskrasaphoto/ (external link)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/​lukaskrasacom (external link)
Lukas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,476 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 574
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Feb 02, 2016 10:23 |  #11

Early reports, jpeg outputs etc always make these early assessments dicey. I see some comments from Canon and Jeff that make me cautiously optimistic on the DR front.

I also think the f/8 AF and performance comments there may be bigger than folks are suspecting.

Like I've said, if Canon catches up on DR/banding they are on top in everything else.

I'm looking forward to the real assessment when production cameras are tested, and I'm hopeful for future 5D4 potential.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,577 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4992
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Feb 02, 2016 10:29 |  #12

Just playing with underexposed ISO 200 JPG results at 1/2 size (2700 on the long end), pulling up the shadows in JPG are quite clean. This is a good sign by itself. Take any shadow image from a raw converted to JPG and bring up the dark areas 2+ stops, and the noise becomes apparent pretty quickly. I can still make out blades of grass after massaging the JPG, while having the compression factor to deal with.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David83
Goldmember
Avatar
1,037 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 957
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Fredericksburg ,Va
     
Feb 02, 2016 11:15 |  #13

another review! with samples..small ones! LOL

http://scottkelby.com/​42048-2/ (external link)


Sony A9 / Sony A7RIII / Sony 70-200mm F2.8 G Master / Sony 24-70mm F2.8 G Master / Sony 85mm 1.4 G Master / Sony 50mm 1.8 =)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,541 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5581
Joined Sep 2007
     
Feb 02, 2016 11:26 |  #14

kelby and rouse are sponsored guys from canon, kelby will tend to give a somewhat balanced review, however rouse is a self admitted non techie, I just cant take his review seriously.

I didnt read anything about how low can it shoot in low light. The nikon does -4ev, does canon have the same spec?


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,577 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4992
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
Post edited over 3 years ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 02, 2016 11:44 as a reply to  @ Charlie's post |  #15

Here are the official specs, everything is there:
https://www.usa.canon.​com …ras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-ii (external link)

Here is an interview video on the tech specs
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17883019


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

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

21,129 views & 34 likes for this thread
1DX II review
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Avishakya
1051 guests, 351 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.