Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Studio Tests

[Refurb7]

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

Mikael. Apparently it goes hand-in-hand with a desparate need to take pictures of barbecues and awnings, or maybe it's a Swedish thing. Of course, I've gone even further....

Joking aside, there are high contrast scenes which might matter to some who travel but can't choose to stay for the right moment of light or other similar situations where light can't be easily controlled (e.g interiors with outside scenery). Like more MPs can be achieved by stitching and DR can be overcome by multiple exposures, the less extra work needed the better. How relevant it all is is obviously down to a particular user.

Sure, how relevant is down to the particular user. But after several decades of photography and millions of photos, I have yet to do a 4EV push. Reading DPR, I gather that this is an important test for a camera in which Canon falls short, so my Canon photos will suffer. It's like some joke at the Sony company watercooler, except that DPR seems to be perfectly serious about it.

 

[ritholtz]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.

Absolutely, but now they seem to be more worried about high iso. Strange, because the 1dxII is one of the best in the low iso segment (which was the segment that dpr used to be worried) but now the change strangely.

The thing is moving goal posts in each paragraph of same article. They compared 1dx2 DR to Sony and declare that it is still not good. Then compare with D5 for high ISO and declare it is still lagging. And final conclusion about still not good as its peers which is D5. Same D5 is not even better than 80D at low ISO DR.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.

Absolutely, but now they seem to be more worried about high iso. Strange, because the 1dxII is one of the best in the low iso segment (which was the segment that dpr used to be worried) but now the change strangely.

The importance of a performance metric varies inversely with how well a Canon body performs on that metric.

But DPR isn't biased. :

 

[yavuz]

I checked all the files at ps cc after downloading.. and my conclusion any medium sized IQ people can see 1dxm2 is best of all tested. Especially for wildlife and bird shooters 3200 iso is a dream thershold to catch enough shutterspeed.. and this body best of all. above 3200 iso is generally for fixing the situation .. not for art..
Also 2ev DR gain is absolutely enough for most sutiations.. 1DXM2 is better than all till 3 ev push..

 

[sportshooter]

Those tests show to me that a MUCH cheaper Nikon D500 NOt the D5 has better noise performance? HOW IS THIS?

 

[yavuz]

"Those tests show to me that a MUCH cheaper Nikon D500 NOt the D5 has better noise performance? HOW IS THIS?"

Because they will announce D5S after 6 mounths)

 

[scyrene]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.

Absolutely, but now they seem to be more worried about high iso. Strange, because the 1dxII is one of the best in the low iso segment (which was the segment that dpr used to be worried) but now the change strangely.

The thing is moving goal posts in each paragraph of same article. They compared 1dx2 DR to Sony and declare that it is still not good. Then compare with D5 for high ISO and declare it is still lagging. And final conclusion about still not good as its peers which is D5. Same D5 is not even better than 80D at low ISO DR.

I think this is essentially what I find troubling. I'm sure they'll say it's because they compare each aspect to the best camera in that category, but the conclusion is a very good camera comes out sounding like a poor one. Ideally if they do a full review, the conclusion will take all this into account, but I'm not hopeful.

 

[bdunbar79]

DPReview absolutely SUCKS.

 

[dcm]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.

Absolutely, but now they seem to be more worried about high iso. Strange, because the 1dxII is one of the best in the low iso segment (which was the segment that dpr used to be worried) but now the change strangely.

The thing is moving goal posts in each paragraph of same article. They compared 1dx2 DR to Sony and declare that it is still not good. Then compare with D5 for high ISO and declare it is still lagging. And final conclusion about still not good as its peers which is D5. Same D5 is not even better than 80D at low ISO DR.

Just like photography, it's all about how you cast your light. On one had you can say the 1DX2 is not as good as Sony for DR or D5 for high ISO to cast it in poor light. To some this may seem to be the approach taken with Canon products. Or you might say the 1DX2 is better than the D5 for DR and better than Sony for high ISO if you want to cast it in better light. Similarly, this may seem to be the approach taken with Sony or Nikon products. It all depends on what you are trying to communicate in a half full / half empty manner. There are books written about how to present information - Tufte's are my favorite.

But if you lined all of the possible comparisons up side by side with the three cameras in a chart and include a other significant features you would find they are all quite capable cameras, each with their strengths, and many of the differences are quibbles when you look at the big picture. Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees and judge the forest by a few trees. Opinions only align when you are looking at the same trees in the same light.

 

[mistaspeedy]

That D500 looks amazing. It clearly has the most advanced sensor available on the market today. Both low and high ISO look great.

As for the 1DX mark II vs the D5... as others have said... low ISO DR = Canon wins, high ISO Nikon wins
High ISO noise looks nearly the same between the 1DX and 1DX mark II (less color noise in mark II).
The D5 has really taken a massive step backwards at low ISO DR. This pic says it all:
http://puu.sh/oGbSD/309af9eae0.jpg

 

[thepancakeman]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.

Absolutely, but now they seem to be more worried about high iso. Strange, because the 1dxII is one of the best in the low iso segment (which was the segment that dpr used to be worried) but now the change strangely.

The thing is moving goal posts in each paragraph of same article. They compared 1dx2 DR to Sony and declare that it is still not good. Then compare with D5 for high ISO and declare it is still lagging. And final conclusion about still not good as its peers which is D5. Same D5 is not even better than 80D at low ISO DR.

I think this is essentially what I find troubling. I'm sure they'll say it's because they compare each aspect to the best camera in that category, but the conclusion is a very good camera comes out sounding like a poor one. Ideally if they do a full review, the conclusion will take all this into account, but I'm not hopeful.

Yup, I've been explaining this concept to my kids as we watch TV. The inverse in advertising is making a poor product sound good: "The Ford truck is has more towing capacity than Dodge, carries a larger payload than Chevy, more interior room than Toyota, and more torque than Honda." Which translates to "it was 4th out of 5 in every category".

 

[GuyF]

DPReview absolutely SUCKS.

Nah, it BLOWS. Hang on, can something suck and blow at the same time?

Jrista gives a good explanation of why the DR capabilities of Canon/Nikon differ here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29725.msg594293#msg594293

 

[bdunbar79]

DPReview absolutely SUCKS.

Nah, it BLOWS. Hang on, can something suck and blow at the same time?

Jrista gives a good explanation of why the DR capabilities of Canon/Nikon differ here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29725.msg594293#msg594293

Ha. Thanks for the link.

 

[3kramd5]

That D500 looks amazing. It clearly has the most advanced sensor available on the market today.

I'd probably give the nod to whatever RED uses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.

Absolutely, but now they seem to be more worried about high iso. Strange, because the 1dxII is one of the best in the low iso segment (which was the segment that dpr used to be worried) but now the change strangely.

I like the analogy...to take it further....Volvo sells it's cars on one feature alone...safety. Which would indicate that it's not that great in every other metric. Can I see a similar theme here with the Sony sensor?
The thing is moving goal posts in each paragraph of same article. They compared 1dx2 DR to Sony and declare that it is still not good. Then compare with D5 for high ISO and declare it is still lagging. And final conclusion about still not good as its peers which is D5. Same D5 is not even better than 80D at low ISO DR.

I think this is essentially what I find troubling. I'm sure they'll say it's because they compare each aspect to the best camera in that category, but the conclusion is a very good camera comes out sounding like a poor one. Ideally if they do a full review, the conclusion will take all this into account, but I'm not hopeful.

Yup, I've been explaining this concept to my kids as we watch TV. The inverse in advertising is making a poor product sound good: "The Ford truck is has more towing capacity than Dodge, carries a larger payload than Chevy, more interior room than Toyota, and more torque than Honda." Which translates to "it was 4th out of 5 in every category".

 

[9VIII]

Is it just me or does the original 1DX still have the best IQ at ISO 12800? (overall, above everything else in the DPR test library.)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it just me or does the original 1DX still have the best IQ at ISO 12800? (overall, above everything else in the DPR test library.)

DPR says Sony and Nikon are better.

 

[kirispupis]

Is it just me or does the original 1DX still have the best IQ at ISO 12800? (overall, above everything else in the DPR test library.)

It's not just you. See my earlier post.

Where I really think Canon needs to improve is in how much they pay DPReview. It's obvious Sony has them beat here.

 

[V8Beast]

The irony is that by comparing the 1DXII to bodies built for vastly different purposes (A7RII and D5), presumably in an effort to downplay the its strength's, the review actually shows how versatile the 1DXII really is. Well done, boys

 

[9VIII]

Before I get swaths of "you're crazy" comments, I want to specify what exactly I mean by "1DX has best IQ".

Obviously, the D5 has the best overall noise pattern, and as soon as you move to ISO 25600 the 1DX gets a lot of chroma noise. I definitely like the D5 on a lot of the subjects presented. The A7RII obviously collects a lot more detail in some cases. And, obviously the 1DX has higher colour saturation, that could probably be replicated in post with other bodies and maybe it's more of a "style" choice, but in particular some of Canon's bodies from this era, specifically the 5D2, 6D and 1DX seem to be tuned to produce "punchy" images. Maybe it's less realistic but they seem to have a specific style that you don't see anywhere else.

Anyway, it seems to me that the 1DX is particularly good at emphasizing detail on a person's face, and there's one little detail that seems to stand out a lot.
Look at the "Caruncle" in the eyes of the people in the studio scene (Obscure anatomy lesson of the day: http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/content-public/topic/images/69/125569.gif)

When you look at it at low ISO, there's usually definite shadows and highlights within the very small space on the inside corner of a person's eye. At high ISO the A7RII usually just wipes that all out with noise, and even the D5 "usually" seems to smooth it over.
It's safe to assume that these camera makers are playing with very subtle differences in the demosaicing algorithm, and the 1DX seems to pull out specific details of a person's face better than other bodies. Then if you compare JPEG's instead of RAW the 1DX2 is actually pretty horrendous in comparison.