MatthewK wrote in post #18143995
I use FoCal to "get in the neighborhood", and usually end up fine adjusting after taking real world photos. The other day, when shooting a squirrel, it sat still long enough for me to shoot, chimp, MFA w/ my 100-400 + 1.4x.
As a software geek I use a "binary chop" method with DotTune: i.e. start at an extreme, then halve. E.g. -20 (assume no dot), -10 (got a dot, so go half way between -20 and -10), -15 (no dot, so go halfway between -15 and -10) and so on. Once I have a dot I'll change up and down by single units a few times to be certain I've got the edge of the range, then repeat for the "+" side. At worse it usually means you only have to test 4 or 5 settings at each side to find the edge.
MatthewK wrote in post #18143995
So I turned DLO on in-camera, and sure enough, the changes ARE NOT
applied to the RAW file when you import to LR. You still have to go into DPP and enable it for each photo. I guess the only benefit to this is feature being in-camera is that you can apply it and save as JPEG?
It does make a good difference though. Here is an example; on the left is LR and sharpening/detail/masking applied, and on the right is a TIFF exported from DPP w/ DLO, and imported into LR for comparison. I tried to get the LR sharpening as similar as possible, but it took work, whereas the DLO was done in one button click. It's great, but going through DPP is cumbersome.
Oh, and the TIFF is 180MB
I have to admit that DLO does seem to make a difference. What would be nice would be a plug-in for Lightroom that could allow you to enable it (perhaps making a call to an installed copy of DPP to do the processing). Probably easier said than done though!
smythie wrote in post #18144067
I believe (but haven't seen it work) that Nikon has implemented something like that on the D5 and D500. Could be wrong though
Yea; that rings a bell. I believe MagicLantern also do it. The daft thing is that it shouldn't be hard to implement from a firmware point of view; once the user has a focused chart and turned AF off it should take a matter of seconds for the camera to automatically go through each setting, find the ends of the range, and configure the middle value.
It would also mean you'd get a consistent judgement of what was a hit or not (for those times the dot flickers a bit).
Neilyb wrote in post #18144282
Actually no, since the 1Dx2 has better DR over about ISO 800 (and way better noise control).
The 5D4 is really only a DR machine from ISO100-400. I am testing against my 1Dx (mk1) and find it is great at low ISO but the 1Dx takes over at ISO1250 (also noise wise on a 0 EV exposure), so for sure the 1Dx2 is a tad better than that (DxO scores are also showing this).
Question though: are you comparing noise by looking at both images zoomed to 100%, or comparing normalised images (i.e. two identically sized prints, both from the same amount of sensor area)?
There's a question a little earlier in this thread about AF performance of the 5D4 vs the 1Dx (Mk1). I must admit I'd be interested in the answer to that too - do you have a feel on how they compare?
George Zip wrote in post #18144359
That's weird. Are they really OOF or just marginally? Not that it really matters I guess OOF is OOF, and fairly static subjects should be 100% hit rate pretty much.
I have been amazed at the accuracy, and I am not particularly very good. Sounds like a bum camera considering the photos in your gallery.
It could simply be that the new body is within tolerance, but moderately high (e.g. +10 in MFA terms), and so is the lens (e.g. +10). Put those two together and you're likely to see poor results out of the box. With a bit of MFA tuning it should be fine. If the 1D4 sample happened to be around -10 MFA out of the box, then it and the lens would work together perfectly with no adjustments. It's just fact of life with a separate phase AF sensor and a relatively shallow DOF.