1DX II review

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

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.

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,

Darthvadar

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

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 ...506625567?hc_locati​on=u

MalVeauX wrote in post #17882844
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.

umphotography wrote in post #17882871
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).

Hoping this is the cause of his statement:

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

" 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. "

MalVeauX wrote in post #17882844
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.

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

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.

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.

another review! with samples..small ones! LOL

http://scottkelby.com/​42048-2/

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?

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

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