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

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17999563
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.

I agree - I do shoot raw + jpg but rarely touch the raw and im almost at the point It will be jpg only as the IQ is way above what we use to get .

My 5Dsr jpeg files are as good as I could wish for and My 1dxmkII is just the same as long as I get the exposure about right and i check that quite a lot while out birding .

Yes Raw may save the day if you screw up but Don't screw up

Rob.

Very interesting. I've not considered jpg for a looooooooong time. Might be time to rethink that.

When I look at the noise in this pic I'm not offended at all, which is to say I wasn't so motivated by it to
apply any denoising routies. Is this the 'pleasant' film grain look some talk about?

Canon EOS-1D X Mark II
EF400mm f/4 DO IS II USM +2x III
ƒ/8.0 800.0 mm 1/1000 6400 Flash (off, did not fire)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GxW9​MW

GyRob wrote in post #17999603
I agree - I do shoot raw + jpg but rarely touch the raw and im almost at the point It will be jpg only as the IQ is way above what we use to get .

My 5Dsr jpeg files are as good as I could wish for and My 1dxmkII is just the same as long as I get the exposure about right and i check that quite a lot while out birding .

Yes Raw may save the day if you screw up but Don't screw up

Rob.

So, in real terms, are you regular raw shooters finding the JPEGs as good or near enough to your raw files with the latest bodies or just good enough not to go the extra mile in raw to be worthwhile?

What I'm most interested in is where we can expect a JPEG engine to correct WB in parts of the image where the major area is different WB for instance wedding venue, main area lit with LEDs and side area (small areas) lit with tungsten. A sort of pixel by pixel white balance system driven by the majority pixels. In auto, of course, giving us the option of accepting it or auto-correcting.

Ok...and maybe someone can do a poll....

I'm looking at photos on this thread and I'm thinking that it looks like the 1dxii has 1.5 stops better low light performance than 1dx or 5d3. Is that true?

Luxx wrote in post #17999676
Ok...and maybe someone can do a poll....

I'm looking at photos on this thread and I'm thinking that it looks like the 1dxii has 1.5 stops better low light performance than 1dx or 5d3. Is that true?

I see 2 stops on the 5D3 with much much improvement in darks and shadows. Probably a stop over current 1Dx

anyone else feel thats about right

Luxx wrote in post #17999676
Ok...and maybe someone can do a poll....

I'm looking at photos on this thread and I'm thinking that it looks like the 1dxii has 1.5 stops better low light performance than 1dx or 5d3. Is that true?

Re. the 1DX1, I think that depends on whether you are talking quantitatively or qualitatively.

Quantitatively, the initial tests show that there isn't much difference between the 1DX1 and 1DX2. E.g. see here: https://photography-on-the.net …hp?t=1458944&go​to=newpost

Qualitatively (and this is just my opinion), I think the noise in the 1DX2 files is (a) more aesthetically pleasing and (b) cleans up better, which means that you may see an effective improvement of around 1 stop compared to the 1DX1 and maybe 2 stops compared to the 5D3/SR.

It's highly subjective though...

How do you correct wb in parts of the raw today? I didn't think you could. I shoot a custom wb per venue, and in jpg, using one of the leveling tools, I can make a slight adjustment if needed.

I used to be a die hard raw shooter, but with the advent of the new jpg engine in the latest bodies, I rarely go to the raw now and that includes a majority of indoor shots in low light.

If interested here is a 4k screen grab. Just awesome

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/G3Fk​ZJ

LincsRP wrote in post #17999649
So, in real terms, are you regular raw shooters finding the JPEGs as good or near enough to your raw files with the latest bodies or just good enough not to go the extra mile in raw to be worthwhile?

What I'm most interested in is where we can expect a JPEG engine to correct WB in parts of the image where the major area is different WB for instance wedding venue, main area lit with LEDs and side area (small areas) lit with tungsten. A sort of pixel by pixel white balance system driven by the majority pixels. In auto, of course, giving us the option of accepting it or auto-correcting.

For me as I mostly shoot birds so jpegs are good enough, Weddings may well be a different matter and I can see why most would shoot RAW because of the different light, Auto WB is close enough for me or I can simply adjust the colour balance to put it were I want as its not quite as important .

Rob.

No, I don't think you can either. I'm a firm believer in custom WB but I feel we should be now able to see a JPEG engine with the ability to do pixel by pixel WB in auto.

It was mooted that compacts or P&S as we call them had it in some form or another and when I shoot my s120 in green auto box it does a bit towards this.

Fantastic image and quality.

Yes I think once you equalize the 1dxmkII and 5Dsr up or down so the image is the same size the mkII is a stop + better on the jpeg

Rob.

jwcdds wrote in post #17999451
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?)

I guess I just see the CF slot as the bottleneck in the system. It's like buying a sports car but one of the tires is the spare so you can only do 55. I haven't read the video section of the manual either so I don't know if the options to write to both cards exists.

tonyxcom wrote in post #17999746
I guess I just see the CF slot as the bottleneck in the system. It's like buying a sports car but one of the tires is the spare so you can only do 55. I haven't read the video section of the manual either so I don't know if the options to write to both cards exists.

I just tried it out and it does not let me record to multiple cards simultaneously for video. It goes to whichever card is currently selected for playback.

aehric wrote in post #17999755
I just tried it out and it does not let me record to multiple cards simultaneously for video. It goes to whichever card is currently selected for playback.

that is how all Canon's 7D, 5D and 1D work to my knowledge - c100 & c300 are different