Official specs: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

idkdc wrote in post #17895679
Wedding season is summer. Reason why um won't wait and you can.

Yup. we take off in June. 22 so far

alliben wrote in post #17895649
mwsilver, do yourself a favor and look up "IMO" before you embarrass yourself any further.

Hey. I missed the IMO on my cell phone screen. That was my error. But I don't think I need to be instructed by you and the only one who should be embarrassed is you for you unkind remark. We try not to insult each other on this site..

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17895637
Here is his original post, clearly it is his opinion. Somehow that got missed in both replies?

Also, I always assume it's somebody's opinion when they post something, even if they say it is fact. Unless they are a designated foremost authority on something or have substantiated their claim with other references, their "fact" is still "opinion".

Yep, I completely missed the IMO on my smallish cell phone screen oh well, not the first time I've screwed up

mwsilver wrote in post #17895834
Hey. I missed the IMO on my cell phone screen. That was my error. But I don't think I need to be instructed by you and the only one who should be embarrassed is you for you unkind remark. We try not to insult each other on this site..

You're erroneous insistence was insulting, not my steering you to check it out. You obviously needed to be instructed by somebody. I meant to motivate you to check it out, not to insult.

"But I don't think I need to be instructed by you and the only one" Really? Only me? Please reread the comments from others.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17895534
Na i meant as facts mate. thats why i clearly said IMO.

yea

My apologies. I completely missed the IMO. A bit brain dead today I guess

There are some interesting new samples posted by a forum member at dpreview here: http://www.dpreview.co​m/forums/post/57265121

Specifically, they managed to process 1DX2 RAW files using RawTherapee and compared it to a 1DX, with both at ISO 100 and +5 EV in post -- http://3.static.img-dpreview.com …0b77543ee92496b​b1630a1c8b

Looks pretty promising to me .

alliben wrote in post #17895840
You're erroneous insistence was insulting, not my steering you to check it out. You obviously needed to be instructed by somebody. I meant to motivate you to check it out, not to insult.

"But I don't think I need to be instructed by you and the only one" Really? Only me? Please reread the comments from others.

While I admit to misreading the post and making an error, you seem to be the only one who was insulted. If the person I responded to was insulted I will apologize to him, but my error did not really call for a nasty response from you. I'm sorry you felt obligated to teach me how to behave on this forum, , but I assure you it's not necessary.

Without a properly spec'd raw converter, I would be careful still on drawing conclusions. Even prior bodies were able to be processed when they first came out, but then 3rd part and Canon updated their raw software, and results came out better. The raw format itself may not have changed but how to translate some of the data inside each section might be different. However, I cannot see this getting any worse, only better, so who knows?

John is over on that forum too, so he will be able to give his thoughts here soon enough.

That comparison looks like the old Exmor vs Canon tests when Exmor first came out.

mwsilver wrote in post #17895851
While I admit to misreading the post and making an error, you seem to be the only one who was insulted. If the person I responded to was insulted I will apologize to him, but my error did not really call for a nasty response from you. I'm sorry you felt obligated to teach me how to behave on this forum, , but I assure you it's not necessary.

I wasn't insulted, just pointed you to see your error. And it looks like it worked. All's good.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17895857
Without a properly spec'd raw converter, I would be careful still on drawing conclusions. Even prior bodies were able to be processed when they first came out, but then 3rd part and Canon updated their raw software, and results came out better. The raw format itself may not have changed but how to translate some of the data inside each section might be different. However, I cannot see this getting any worse, only better, so who knows?

True, but if anything I would expect the 1DX raw processor in RawTherapee to be fairly mature given that it is a camera that was released almost 4 years ago, while the 1DX2 process would be untested at best, and yet the results seem fairly substantial in favor of the 1DX2.

My only point is that raw content can change, even though there is a known structure to the .CR2 format. Translations of that data might need tweaked, etc. However, it would only make the results even better than what is there, no worse. Good to see the improvement! The color retention is very good, contrast is good, and chroma noise is well managed.

I am confused though, because the member stated that they could not share full res raw or JPG, however they are sharing a cropped full res. I would think this breaks at least the intent of the agreement.

Also that guy need to turn 4 of his books to face the same direction, that is driving me crazy!

alliben wrote in post #17895862
I wasn't insulted, just pointed you to see your error. And it looks like it worked. All's good.

Hah! You believe my other responses were predicated on your post? My subsequent comments were a result of reading the posts of jonneymendoza's and TeamSpeed who pointed out my error. I guess you never make mistakes. If you want to believe you are the arbiter of correct behavior here, don't let me stop you. I'd rather end this here since I really don't want our favorite administrator to read us the riot act for not playing together well. I suggest you do the same.

mwsilver wrote in post #17895884
Hah! You believe my other responses were predicated on your post? My subsequent comments were a result of reading the posts of jonneymendoza's and TeamSpeed who pointed out my error. I guess you never make mistakes. If you want to believe you are the arbiter of correct behavior here, don't let me stop you. I'd rather end this here since I really don't want our favorite administrator to read us the riot act for not playing together well. I suggest you do the same.

I'm truly sorry for offending you delicate sensibilities.

alliben wrote in post #17895893
I'm truly sorry for offending you delicate sensibilities.

Sarcasm? OK. Moving on.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17895857
That comparison looks like the old Exmor vs Canon tests when Exmor first came out.

If the improvement holds up, I am interested in how fast Canon can push this sensor technology across its entire line up.