Official specs: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

umphotography wrote in post #17900446
You dont have to be a PRO to be a member of CPS. I have been a cps member since 2008. I think a gold membership is $199 pr yr and it pays for 2 free cleanings and services for your cameras. Plus you get a auto 20% discount for any repairs you may need for the year. So its a maintenance policy more than it is a policy for PRO's. We are going to switch our policy to a platinum policy this year. It had advantages for people with more equipment and one of the 5D3's that we are going to keep has higher counts and is older. So we want the additional discounts in case it needs a repair, we got more free cleanings, and a platinum pays both ways for shipping. So with 3 camera and 9 canon lens that get a lot of use...its a no brainer for our needs

Best thing about CPS...its expedited for everyone. I send camera into CPS on Monday and I have them back to my home by Friday. Guaranteed for routine service. Its been this way for about 6 yrs now

Correction...Gold is only $100 per year!
http://www.cps.usa.can​on.com/about_cps/about​.shtml

It is a crazy good thing and another reason why it's good to stick with Canon even if other guys make interesting products.

In Canada you can get gold if you are a non pro as long as you meet the equipment requirements. You are required to be a pro to obtain platinum or cinema membership.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17900455
Correction...Gold is only $100 per year!
http://www.cps.usa.can​on.com/about_cps/about​.shtml

It is a crazy good thing and another reason why it's good to stick with Canon even if other guys make interesting products.

Yup I was wrong. Looks like they dropped the price. I forgot about that. Cant beat the gold membership for $100.00. It pays for your yearly maintenance.

here are the breakdowns

http://www.cps.usa.can​on.com/about_cps/about​.shtml

umphotography wrote in post #17900513
Yup I was wrong. Looks like they dropped the price. I forgot about that. Cant beat the gold membership for $100.00. It pays for your yearly maintenance.

here are the breakdowns

http://www.cps.usa.can​on.com/about_cps/about​.shtml

Damn, I don't qualify for the cinema membership yet. Guess this means I need the C300 Mark II now.

Dlee13 wrote in post #17900374
Say there is 5 stops difference in DR and it's confirmed by multiple independent sources, I bet DXO Mark will still find a way to rate the Barbie Camera from Digitalrev with better DR than the 1DX II

Although the 1DX body wouldn't be something I would buy, this makes me very excited for the 5DIV and 6DII!

*LOL* The thing is though: from what I understand, DxO rate Canon sensors appropriately (i.e. well) in all the areas they're good. The issue is that the low DR score hits the overall rating - thus leaving Canon lagging behind in their ranking. It's kinda like having a triathlon guy who's world class in two disciplines and crummy at another - overall he'll rate poorly, despite positive assessment of his strengths.

I don't believe there's any argument that DxO are biased in the way they rate DR, so as long as Canon's new sensor(s) deliver the goods in this area you can expect to see them get significantly higher overall DxO scores. Whether that'll be enough to overhaul Sony based systems is to be seen (but DxO themselves note that a few points here and there are within the margin of error - i.e. if Canon get close, that'll be great).

Didn't their DXO camera rate very highly? I think the nature of not-so-best-selling DXO software is what leads to cynicism in DXO.

The most legitimate complaint I've heard about DXO is that they're very tight-lipped about their testing methodology.

That being said, when it comes to sensors, their rankings seem to jive with my real-world experience.

What about:
http://www.dxomark.com …-Science-Behind-the-Score
?

sploo wrote in post #17900519
*LOL* The thing is though: from what I understand, DxO rate Canon sensors appropriately (i.e. well) in all the areas they're good. The issue is that the low DR score hits the overall rating - thus leaving Canon lagging behind in their ranking. It's kinda like having a triathlon guy who's world class in two disciplines and crummy at another - overall he'll rate poorly, despite positive assessment of his strengths.

I don't believe there's any argument that DxO are biased in the way they rate DR, so as long as Canon's new sensor(s) deliver the goods in this area you can expect to see them get significantly higher overall DxO scores. Whether that'll be enough to overhaul Sony based systems is to be seen (but DxO themselves note that a few points here and there are within the margin of error - i.e. if Canon get close, that'll be great).

Actually, as far as DR ratings are concerned, DxOMark has been over-generous to many Canon cameras in the past, because they ignore banding noise, which typically only measures at a small fraction of its actual visibility.

idkdc wrote in post #17900578
What about:
http://www.dxomark.com …-Science-Behind-the-Score
?

Oh sorry, I meant DXO Mark in general, not specifically the DxO-One camera.

John Sheehy wrote in post #17900579
Actually, as far as DR ratings are concerned, DxOMark has been over-generous to many Canon cameras in the past, because they ignore banding noise, which typically only measures at a small fraction of its actual visibility.

Indeed. That's the scary thing really; there are objective numbers for, say, the 5D2, but subjectively it's even worse because of the nature of the noise. Hence the 7D2 being practically much better; if not rating that much better.

I guess it's probably harder to quantify the impact of banding noise though.

idkdc wrote in post #17900530
Didn't their DXO camera rate very highly? I think the nature of not-so-best-selling DXO software is what leads to cynicism in DXO.

Must admit I wasn't aware they'd made a camera!

sploo wrote in post #17900652
Indeed. That's the scary thing really; there are objective numbers for, say, the 5D2, but subjectively it's even worse because of the nature of the noise. Hence the 7D2 being practically much better; if not rating that much better.

I guess it's probably harder to quantify the impact of banding noise though.

That's true, it would have been nice to quantify the improvement in banding noise. I wonder if there's a way to take into account random noise that's more like film like in the C100 and C300 4k sensors that I presume has made its way into the 1DXII.

sploo wrote in post #17900656
Must admit I wasn't aware they'd made a camera!

Yeah, it's an iphone attachment that flopped. I think they got a lot of flak for gaming their testing to rate it higher than some DSLR's, a claim that they may have trumpeted a little too loudly in their marketing which made their score (with some obvious conflict of interest) suspect.

Basically, it's as if Amazon released a benchmark test of their Amazon Kindle Fire vs. the iPad and called the Kindle Fire thingy the winner.