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

JD I wouldn't call myself a birder by any stretch, could probably identify 5 and get them right! But I love to take pictures---all the way back to my pin-hole
camera out of a shoe box for photography merit badge But birds and bugs is all I have in the city.
I did have a 5Diii but also have 6D and 7Dii. So the 5Diii sat and sat. I converted it into an A7Rii. Then I wondered if a 1Div would give me more ISO reach because of our chronic weather--->that was the gateway to this body. I was buying for ISO more than anything else and my wishes have been granted. Like the Grosbeak above, when I first pulled it up on the PC I was way way satisfied.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17999371
JD I wouldn't call myself a birder by any stretch, could probably identify 5 and get them right! But I love to take pictures---all the way back to my pin-hole
camera out of a shoe box for photography merit badge But birds and bugs is all I have in the city.
I did have a 5Diii but also have 6D and 7Dii. So the 5Diii sat and sat. I converted it into an A7Rii. Then I wondered if a 1Div would give me more ISO reach because of our chronic weather--->that was the gateway to this body. I was buying for ISO more than anything else and my wishes have been granted. Like the Grosbeak above, when I first pulled it up on the PC I was way way satisfied.

The Grosbeak has thus far eluded me though I did manage to get a female. Your ISO12800 picture had great detail for the ISO and the noise cleaned easily enough (I tinkered).

Funny thing about reach.. I do NOT buy into the added reach for crop sensor theories. I had a 10D.20D,40D, 50D and 7D before going to the 5D3. I found I could actually crop more with 5D3 than I could with 7D. The larger pixels to my eyes seem to hold more detail when cropped. I very much like the camera BUT do not mistake it for an action camera as it isn't. My 7D's 8 fps was MUCH faster in general. But above ISO400 bird feathers got smudgy quick.

Your photos thus far have been very nice to see and my guess is there is about a stop give or take better ISO than my 5D3. Hard to naiil it down as to how much exactly. There is about 9 fps more continuous burst though and an near endless RAW buffer. At some point I'll be going to B&H or Adorama!

jwcdds is doing some serious comparisons between this body and the predecessor which I never had, so it's pie in the sky to me.

I don't quite agree on the crop reach thing.
We were shooting an eagle on Hunting island --if bored:
https://www.flickr.com …/album-72157662308709581/
and I had 5Diii on one tripod and 7Dii on another. I could and did switch out the 400mm several times
To me (remember amateur hobbyest) the pixel density of the 7Dii was a big point of leveraging out the final pic.
And I deserved it I stood by that tripod for 6 hours waiting, only took a 30 sec break to drop some fluid.

With the 1Div things aren't so clear....only in my mind is there an ISO advantae over the 7Dii....too many people
have reported that it's a wash between the larger sensor and the newer tech. I just seemed to get along better with
the 1Div and for reasons I can't put into words

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #17999394
jwcdds is doing some serious comparisons between this body and the predecessor which I never had, so it's pie in the sky to me.

I don't quite agree on the crop reach thing.
We were shooting an eagle on Hunting island --if bored:
https://www.flickr.com …/album-72157662308709581/
and I had 5Diii on one tripod and 7Dii on another. I could and did switch out the 400mm several times
To me (remember amateur hobbyest) the pixel density of the 7Dii was a big point of leveraging out the final pic.
And I deserved it I stood by that tripod for 6 hours waiting, only took a 30 sec break to drop some fluid.

With the 1Div things aren't so clear....only in my mind is there an ISO advantae over the 7Dii....too many people
have reported that it's a wash between the larger sensor and the newer tech. I just seemed to get along better with
the 1Div and for reasons I can't put into words

I saw the advantage in the high pixel density sensors to be more when I did not crop much. In print they did well at that point. But any significant crop with my 7D and the feathers lost their depth and the small pixel smudgeness became prevalent for me. I do recognize we all see things differently and what applies to me may well only apply to me. For whatever reason my eyes just prefer the look of larger pixels. So the 1D-X2 won't hurt my feelings there at all I made my first "big" investment when I bought a used 300F2.8 lens. Great glass but I always kept the 1.4X TC attached. I ended up selling it for no loss and went all in for a new 500F4 IS Mark II. Funny thing is I always have a 1.4X TC attached and sometimes a 2X. Which is another reason I am wanting the D-X 2 for its F8 AF ability.

Birds though force you to crop and those little guys sure do move fast! I am though looking forward to my first introduction to the 1 series while I am still young enough to hold it!

'while I am still young enough to hold it!' SMART.....won't be long and I'll be all in for micro 4/3s

jwcdds wrote in post #17999258
So the CFast/CF combo would generate the least uproar for now and allow more people to focus on the improvements, instead of the "boohoo, I now gotta buy 2 CFast card and they're (currently) SO-MUCH-MORE expensive" whiners.

It's not like you can't write to both CFast and CF card and still have backup capabilities.

But then there isn't much benefit to one of them being CFast if the CF card can't keep up with the buffer. Truth be told, I've never even hit the buffer on my 1DX so it likely wont be a problem with the 1DX2. The system just feels crippled carrying the legacy format over.

Having just spent $6000 on a camera, I don't see many people scoffing at having to buy CFast cards. I think the fact that most places seem to be sold out of CFast cards right now at least partially confirms that assertion.

Just got in from a wedding

Camera fricken ROCKs

Gonna post some straight off shots of crapola. Wanted to see what the ISO would do

Straight off files

25000 ISO F/4.o @ 1/3200 with a flash

25000 ISO

12800 ISO

F/2.5 @ 1/400 with a 50L

^^^^^^^ nothing done but a LR import ^^^^^^

tonyxcom wrote in post #17999414
But then there isn't much benefit to one of them being CFast if the CF card can't keep up with the buffer. Truth be told, I've never even hit the buffer on my 1DX so it likely wont be a problem with the 1DX2. The system just feels crippled carrying the legacy format over.

Having just spent $6000 on a camera, I don't see many people scoffing at having to buy CFast cards. I think the fact that most places seem to be sold out of CFast cards right now at least partially confirms that assertion.

I guess the logic escapes me at the moment as to how the Mark II is viewed as crippled by CF when you admit to never hitting the buffer on the 1DX. If Canon had stuck with dual CF cards, would this even be discussed?

I would venture to guess that MOST of the Mark II sales will go to professional sports/action shooters or journalists who don't bother shooting RAW. They shoot primarily JPG and the faster they can get the image uploaded, the faster they complete their job and get paid. And with JPG, you can shoot at 14fps all day long, even with CF. That is until your card fills up or you run out of battery. CFast makes no difference to those who the camera is primarily targeting.

The CFast was really only introduced so that 4k/60fps video can be achieved. It just happens that it greatly benefits the the Mark II stills shooter in clearing the buffer, which really is only enough for 43-59 RAW files if you believe the camera LCD readout. (1DX buffer reads 26-35 RAW files.)

I think that's why Canon offered the Premium Kit from the get-go. They realize many pros want to write to 2 cards. So instead of forcing them to buy 2 CFast cards, they provide a free (included) 64gb card to go with whatever CF card is already in your possession. That's ~1700+ RAWs in 64gb space. ~6400+ JPGs. I'd hate to be the pro sports shooter sorting through 6400 jpgs trying to send out to the publisher.

I think realistically, the only people that may have a legitimate gripe of not having dual CFast are those who want to record 4k/60fps and want to write to both cards at the same time. (I admit I have not even read the new manual yet. Is dual-video writing even a feature/function?)

Seems the dealers in Norway only got a limited supply for the first delivery
Changed my pre-order over to another dealer that promised me a faster delivery and lower price

Crossing my fingers for delivery next week

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17999106
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.

Hi Jake,

I appreciate your reply and see where you're coming from. The chisel analogy is not lost on me as I own just over 200 woodworking chisels including some antique ones used for mold creation in casting.

As a primarily JPEG shooter I tend to compare what the JPEGs are like file against file because I see this is (in my opinion) now where the improvements are coming from. Even later than your comment in reply to me there's a couple mentions of JPEGs becoming better from these bodies. In-camera controls to me are far more attractive to fiddle with such as controlling sharpness, noise reduction, highlight tone protection and contrast pre-shoot then adding these later.

Everyone to their own, I say

The jpg engine in-camera is SUBSTANTIALLY better these days than what was in the 1d4, 5d2, etc. In fact if you tweak enough of your settings, you will be hard pressed to get much better results shooting raw vs jpg. I have spent a season of NBA to come to this conclusion. The only time that you might significantly do better with raw is during high DR shooting.

Well for the first time mom brought her ducklings to our self made pond. A real treat to watch and photograph. The weather has been terrible since I received the camera but it is performing well. Here are a couple from yesterday

ISO 6400

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GRXW​Zg

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GPEs​js

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GXWg​d2