1D X Mark II Owners Unite! Discuss & Post Photos

bps wrote in post #17998981
You need to arm yourself with a 1DX2, 5DsR, and 7D2!

That does sound like a formidable combination.

I just hope I won't need that second kidney I'd have to sell to do that. To justify the 1Dx2 I'm clearing out the toy box of less frequently used items to generate a few $$$.

amorrison wrote in post #17999002
Does anyone know if DPP3 can be made to convert a raw file from the 1dxm2? I have gotten so used to that program and it converts a lot faster than DPP4, at least on my old computer. Just thought I would see if anyone else still used it and might know.

Raw files are not visible in DPP 3.15.0.0 nor will they open.

I've had this camera 4 days now and I'm at 3447 actuations already.

It's been a busy week. And I have another gig in an hour.

And no, I haven't just been spraying and praying. I'm just really busy.

Will hopefully be able to post a few this weekend once I get time to edit.

So, someone one post up some links to good (yet unimportant) underexposed and or high ISO RAW files that we can have a play with. I want to see these darks in action

Pretty please?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17999048
So, someone one post up some links to good (yet unimportant) underexposed and or high ISO RAW files that we can have a play with. I want to see these darks in action

Pretty please?

jwcdds already did here: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?t=1458944&go​to=newpost

EDIT: Sorry - I see you are looking for raw files.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17999048
So, someone one post up some links to good (yet unimportant) underexposed and or high ISO RAW files that we can have a play with. I want to see these darks in action

Pretty please?

I'm in a hurry to get to a shoot, but here's a RAW ISO 32,000 shot from last night for you. I don't shoot birds or sports. Have fun.

https://www.dropbox.co​m …egjxlww/_19I108​7.CR2?dl=0

Experimenting with the Xii + cTCiii + 400DOii. Early morning before the Sun had crested the hill.


Canon EOS-1D X Mark II
EF400mm f/4 DO IS II USM +2x III
ƒ/9.0 800.0 mm 1/1250 10000 Flash (off, did not fire)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GWU5​wH

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17999048
So, someone one post up some links to good (yet unimportant) underexposed and or high ISO RAW files that we can have a play with. I want to see these darks in action

Pretty please?

I'm intrigued why do you have to test these cameras under conditions you would not shoot images at? Or do you shoot at these settings and hope the software will save the day?

I'm a bit lost on this whole raw shooting 5 stops under and then raising it 5 stops to see if the noise floor is better stuff.

To be honest the rest of us shoot photos, images, stuff we're proud of of ... are those under-exposed by 5 stops doing you any good? Geez folks...

aehric wrote in post #17999061
I'm in a hurry to get to a shoot, but here's a RAW ISO 32,000 shot from last night for you. I don't shoot birds or sports. Have fun.

https://www.dropbox.co​m …egjxlww/_19I108​7.CR2?dl=0

Thank you kindly!
Now to DL and update DPP

No problem. I can provide some more tonight.

LincsRP wrote in post #17999070
I'm intrigued why do you have to test these cameras under conditions you would not shoot images at? Or do you shoot at these settings and hope the software will save the day?

I'm a bit lost on this whole raw shooting 5 stops under and then raising it 5 stops to see if the noise floor is better stuff.

To be honest the rest of us shoot photos, images, stuff we're proud of of ... are those under-exposed by 5 stops doing you any good? Geez folks...

Hi Steve, no I don't tend to shoot underexposed 5 stops. I can't say that i've ever done it in fact. I shoot ETTR to tame noise usually. I am just curious to see what all the talk is about.

However I do often enough shoot in very dark environments. Performance work, in low and changing light, low enough light with fast enough subject movement that every bit of shutter speed becomes precious.

I've been proud of those shots, noise and motion blur and all, I might even go so far as to call them "photos", or "images".

I can compare some of the ballet work I did back with a 1D or 1D2, (and the compromised shutter speeds and wide open softer lenses of the day, and noisy ISO boosts required) with what my current 5D3 and modern glass can do and the differences are DRAMATIC. Really dramatic.

If I can time similar moments, and get shots without all the noise and motion blur, well, that would be nice. Every big step forward makes the technical aspects of the results better.

Lastly, when I finish a time consuming honing job on one of my laminated steel chisels, I like to test the edge on my arm hairs, If it doesn't shave dry like a good straight razor, then I'm not done honing. Then I see how thin of a wood shaving I can get. Thinner = sharper. See through is what I am looking for.

I will only use the chisel on Wood, no other material will touch the sharp end of one of my blades once I am done. Certainly I'll never use it to shave my beard. Rarely do I need to use a chisel to remove a wood shaving I can see through. But I want to know what my tools are capable of before I use them on a real project. (or buy them!) Thus the shaving tests.

seems totally normal to me, and far from intriguing.
I hope this helps explain it.

aehric wrote in post #17999061
I'm in a hurry to get to a shoot, but here's a RAW ISO 32,000 shot from last night for you. I don't shoot birds or sports. Have fun.

https://www.dropbox.co​m …egjxlww/_19I108​7.CR2?dl=0

Well, there is noise to be sure, but ISO 32000 there is going to be noise, looks really good for 32000!
And the way it cleans up in DPP with the built in NR? Very nice!

Thanks again

I thought Canon omitted the remote control terminal until I looked up in the manual

I have an observation that slightly concerns me , and it's the fact that I can't even come close to duplicating the noise reduction on high ISO raw pictures compared to in camera jpgs , in DPP. My experience with the 1DX is the opposite, the raws always look better.
Is anyone having success making their raws as clean as in camera jpgs?

Does this mean that in camera processing has actually gotten so good that it's better (in some aspects) then doing it yourself?
This is something that I would never have believed.