Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Studio Tests

[privatebydesign]

"I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this"

I do on a very regular basis Below is the image I was working on when I saw your comment!

Anyway, with regards the excessive pulling, in my experience even when you get relatively low noise in these extreme lifts you still lose a lot of tonality, which limits the practical application for this type of shot.

I am glad the shadow image quality is improved, but from one who does a lot of very wide DR shooting I still can't see a point where 12 bit RAW capture in 14 bit files are going to make that much difference for me.

Those reflections on the table are overexposed!!!! :'(

Very true

I did say I was working on it though

 

[Refurb7]

I am currently in the mountains and nothing is happening outside, so I thought I´d entertain myself indoors. I was trying to remember if I had ever shot an image that needed more than 3 stops of lift in post. I don´t believe I have, unless it was totally off in the first place. So I thought I´d find a scene with extreme contrast and see what it took.

The first image below is straight RAW to JPEG with default LR settings. The image is exposed just when the outside clouds clipped. I believe we can agree that this is a rather extreme example and I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this.

That's a good technical exercise. But to create that technical exercise, one has to make a point of not doing any of the things that photographers typically do. For example, one has to make a point of "needing" detail in the scene outside the window but refusing to add light to the interior, refusing to combine exposures, refusing to shoot at a different time of day, etc. With all of those choices, all that's left is the "need" for a 4.3 stop push.

Apart from that, the history of photography is rich with images that don't show detail everywhere. Photography involves selection, not just data collection. For example:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc994xKNDY1rw3fqbo1_1280.jpg
http://lubowphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Newman-stravinsky.jpg
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/best-of-eisenstaedt-01.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-salt-of-the-earth-2.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/21/16/2ABA155900000578-3168338-image-a-45_1437493717538.jpg
http://www.icp.org/files/Salgado_river_high.jpg
http://www.pwponline.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/30x30_Fleishman_Amish400.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S4hwADCZvhg/UhSbuG1V7qI/AAAAAAAAAvI/UcblkWypF-Y/s1600/012_Jude_Law_David_Bailey.jpg
https://fromthebygone.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/1953lisabypenn.jpg
http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/10/19/p465/091019_r18937b_p465.jpg
http://www.youthephotographer.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Irving-Penn-Photography-006.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/12/magazine/12-gouyave/12-gouyave-blog480.jpg
http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/steve-mccurry-interview-photographer-designboom-14.jpg
http://images.vogue.it/gallery/22287/Big/6d466b60-bde0-48a0-af95-0f3e8681d982.jpg

 

[Ryanide16]

That's a good technical exercise. But to create that technical exercise, one has to make a point of not doing any of the things that photographers typically do. For example, one has to make a point of "needing" detail in the scene outside the window but refusing to add light to the interior, refusing to combine exposures, refusing to shoot at a different time of day, etc. With all of those choices, all that's left is the "need" for a 4.3 stop push.

Apart from that, the history of photography is rich with images that don't show detail everywhere. Photography involves selection, not just data collection. For example:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc994xKNDY1rw3fqbo1_1280.jpg
http://lubowphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Newman-stravinsky.jpg
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/best-of-eisenstaedt-01.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-salt-of-the-earth-2.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/21/16/2ABA155900000578-3168338-image-a-45_1437493717538.jpg
http://www.icp.org/files/Salgado_river_high.jpg
http://www.pwponline.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/30x30_Fleishman_Amish400.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S4hwADCZvhg/UhSbuG1V7qI/AAAAAAAAAvI/UcblkWypF-Y/s1600/012_Jude_Law_David_Bailey.jpg
https://fromthebygone.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/1953lisabypenn.jpg
http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/10/19/p465/091019_r18937b_p465.jpg
http://www.youthephotographer.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Irving-Penn-Photography-006.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/12/magazine/12-gouyave/12-gouyave-blog480.jpg
http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/steve-mccurry-interview-photographer-designboom-14.jpg
http://images.vogue.it/gallery/22287/Big/6d466b60-bde0-48a0-af95-0f3e8681d982.jpg

That's a nice collection of examples. To the point here, I believe the 1DXII will have the ability to easily capture the contrast and detail in those examples. Isn't that what we are asking for?

 

[Refurb7]

One example is shooting sports...It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.

Being compelled to shoot toward the sun isn't some hardship that requires a special sensor... The highlights that blow out are typically the lighter edges of very light subjects. With today's software, you can recover most of the highlights. Trust me, you will still get paid.

That response makes me wonder how often you shoot sports. Let's try another example: a baseball player wearing a white uniform and a cap on a bright sunny day. Getting detail in the uniform while also capturing the player's expression under that cap will make you yearn for every bit of dynamic range you can get.

So are all of the pro sports photographers who choose to shoot with Canon just uninformed? Not tuned in to DPR? Suffering with excess noise from excess shadow lifting, or perhaps with badly blown highlights? And, of course, not getting paid? No, they get the job done, sunny day or any day.

 

[Eldar]

The second one is lifted to what the scene looks like to me, as I´m sitting here, watching it while I adjusted exposure. The only edit in no.2 is a exposure +4.3.

There's a bit of noise in the corner between the paintings and some on the red cushions in the corner but otherwise, it looks amazing for a Canon camera!

Using the LR brush to lift the whole image, aside for what is outside the window (might be easier to erase that from the mask), would work very nicely.

Agree. If you put 10 minutes of post processing into it, it would look just fine. Just a simple play with reduce highlight, lift shadow and a moderate overall exposure compensation and a NR brush in the shadow areas, makes a big difference. But still, I believe this is a rather extreme example, at least for me.

 

[Eldar]

I am currently in the mountains and nothing is happening outside, so I thought I´d entertain myself indoors. I was trying to remember if I had ever shot an image that needed more than 3 stops of lift in post. I don´t believe I have, unless it was totally off in the first place. So I thought I´d find a scene with extreme contrast and see what it took.

The first image below is straight RAW to JPEG with default LR settings. The image is exposed just when the outside clouds clipped. I believe we can agree that this is a rather extreme example and I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this.

That's a good technical exercise. But to create that technical exercise, one has to make a point of not doing any of the things that photographers typically do. For example, one has to make a point of "needing" detail in the scene outside the window but refusing to add light to the interior, refusing to combine exposures, refusing to shoot at a different time of day, etc. With all of those choices, all that's left is the "need" for a 4.3 stop push.

The only thought behind this exercise was to create a particularly high contrast scene. It could have been a no-flash concert scene, or a sunlit snow and dark pines scene or anything similar, where the option to add light is limited or non-existent. By the way, I had to turn off all the interior lights to get to this level of contrast. My only point was to show that lifting as much as 4.3 stops is rather extreme, so judging a sensor on how it performs at 5 and 6 stop lifts, becomes a bit irrelevant, at least to me.

 

[unfocused]

One example is shooting sports...It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.

Being compelled to shoot toward the sun isn't some hardship that requires a special sensor... The highlights that blow out are typically the lighter edges of very light subjects. With today's software, you can recover most of the highlights. Trust me, you will still get paid.

That response makes me wonder how often you shoot sports. Let's try another example: a baseball player wearing a white uniform and a cap on a bright sunny day. Getting detail in the uniform while also capturing the player's expression under that cap will make you yearn for every bit of dynamic range you can get.

So are all of the pro sports photographers who choose to shoot with Canon just uninformed? Not tuned in to DPR? Suffering with excess noise from excess shadow lifting, or perhaps with badly blown highlights? And, of course, not getting paid? No, they get the job done, sunny day or any day.

Do you have a point? Do you have any actual experience? Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements. Lots of sports used to be shot with Tri-X using manual focus lenses, but that doesn't mean the advances aren't welcome.

 

[Refurb7]

One example is shooting sports...It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.

Being compelled to shoot toward the sun isn't some hardship that requires a special sensor... The highlights that blow out are typically the lighter edges of very light subjects. With today's software, you can recover most of the highlights. Trust me, you will still get paid.

That response makes me wonder how often you shoot sports. Let's try another example: a baseball player wearing a white uniform and a cap on a bright sunny day. Getting detail in the uniform while also capturing the player's expression under that cap will make you yearn for every bit of dynamic range you can get.

So are all of the pro sports photographers who choose to shoot with Canon just uninformed? Not tuned in to DPR? Suffering with excess noise from excess shadow lifting, or perhaps with badly blown highlights? And, of course, not getting paid? No, they get the job done, sunny day or any day.

Do you have a point? Do you have any actual experience? Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements. Lots of sports used to be shot with Tri-X using manual focus lenses, but that doesn't mean the advances aren't welcome.

Points (since you asked):
a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing.
b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day.
c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it.
d) DPR's vision of photography seems to be one of maximum data in every corner of the image, which is a very narrow technical view of photography.
e) One can't come away from a DPR review without feeling that Canon is deficient in sensor design; and yet there is a world of photography that proves otherwise, especially pro photography at the extremes.
f) DPR makes basic errors, like judging "skin tones" based on a picture of a picture. Experienced photographers know how flawed that is. It would be the same if you judged "foliage" based on a picture of a picture.

You say "Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements." I agree. What I'm saying is that in their effort to draw distinctions and promote certain technological improvements, some people promote a false narrative that we CAN'T deal with existing circumstances with current technology or that it's much too difficult.

I answered the question of my experience in reply #58 above. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29759.msg594932#msg594932

 

[East Wind Photography]

One example is shooting sports...It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.

Being compelled to shoot toward the sun isn't some hardship that requires a special sensor... The highlights that blow out are typically the lighter edges of very light subjects. With today's software, you can recover most of the highlights. Trust me, you will still get paid.

That response makes me wonder how often you shoot sports. Let's try another example: a baseball player wearing a white uniform and a cap on a bright sunny day. Getting detail in the uniform while also capturing the player's expression under that cap will make you yearn for every bit of dynamic range you can get.

So are all of the pro sports photographers who choose to shoot with Canon just uninformed? Not tuned in to DPR? Suffering with excess noise from excess shadow lifting, or perhaps with badly blown highlights? And, of course, not getting paid? No, they get the job done, sunny day or any day.

Do you have a point? Do you have any actual experience? Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements. Lots of sports used to be shot with Tri-X using manual focus lenses, but that doesn't mean the advances aren't welcome.

Points (since you asked):
a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing.
b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day.
c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it.
d) DPR's vision of photography seems to be one of maximum data in every corner of the image, which is a very narrow technical view of photography.
e) One can't come away from a DPR review without feeling that Canon is deficient in sensor design; and yet there is a world of photography that proves otherwise, especially pro photography at the extremes.
f) DPR makes basic errors, like judging "skin tones" based on a picture of a picture. Experienced photographers know how flawed that is. It would be the same if you judged "foliage" based on a picture of a picture.

You say "Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements." I agree. What I'm saying is that in their effort to draw distinctions and promote certain technological improvements, some people promote a false narrative that we CAN'T deal with existing circumstances with current technology or that it's much too difficult.

I answered the question of my experience in reply #58 above. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29759.msg594932#msg594932

LOL. It's not an impossible task. I shoot about 4 sports events per week, some indoors some outdoors and quite a few under stadium lights. All I was saying was that the ability to push shadows or pull highlights should be better with the 1dx mark ii. I see a lot of crappy sports work out there and quite a bit is because the equipment just cant recover. You may get paid but the better your work the higher the pay and more desireable you are.

If you dont think equipment makes a difference then stick with your 40D

 

[unfocused]

Points (since you asked):
a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing.
b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day.
c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it.
d) DPR's vision of photography seems to be one of maximum data in every corner of the image, which is a very narrow technical view of photography.
e) One can't come away from a DPR review without feeling that Canon is deficient in sensor design; and yet there is a world of photography that proves otherwise, especially pro photography at the extremes.
f) DPR makes basic errors, like judging "skin tones" based on a picture of a picture. Experienced photographers know how flawed that is. It would be the same if you judged "foliage" based on a picture of a picture.

You say "Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements." I agree. What I'm saying is that in their effort to draw distinctions and promote certain technological improvements, some people promote a false narrative that we CAN'T deal with existing circumstances with current technology or that it's much too difficult.

I answered the question of my experience in reply #58 above. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29759.msg594932#msg594932

First of all, hats off to you. Delivering 30,000 edited images every year for 15 years sounds pretty much like my worst nightmare. That's more than 80 images every day 365 days a year. I'd shoot myself if I had to produce that kind of volume.

But, to be clear, no one suggested you can't take great images with Canons (or nikons or sonys), I think what East Wind was saying (and I know what I was saying) was that there are lots of situations where raising shadows by several stops is a valuable characteristic to have in a camera. We both offered examples of how that is useful.

Your response is to completely dismiss these examples and to suggest that only photographers without skill can use additional dynamic range. Your "points" seem to be aimed at what you perceive to be bias from DPReview, but that was not the subject of our comments.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Here is a recent 4 stop push. Wanted to retain star colours and lift some of the faint nebula detail out as well. More DR would be helpful.

 

[nvsravank]

I think both of you are correct.
One is saying it is better to have more DR so you have more flexibility.
The other is saying that DPReview is making a mountain of a mole hill when they say 1DXii is worse than another product when the differences are not that big anymore. But that is journalism for you (I hope you weren't expecting objective measurements from DPR)

Points (since you asked):
a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing.
b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day.
c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it.
d) DPR's vision of photography seems to be one of maximum data in every corner of the image, which is a very narrow technical view of photography.
e) One can't come away from a DPR review without feeling that Canon is deficient in sensor design; and yet there is a world of photography that proves otherwise, especially pro photography at the extremes.
f) DPR makes basic errors, like judging "skin tones" based on a picture of a picture. Experienced photographers know how flawed that is. It would be the same if you judged "foliage" based on a picture of a picture.

You say "Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements." I agree. What I'm saying is that in their effort to draw distinctions and promote certain technological improvements, some people promote a false narrative that we CAN'T deal with existing circumstances with current technology or that it's much too difficult.

I answered the question of my experience in reply #58 above. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29759.msg594932#msg594932

First of all, hats off to you. Delivering 30,000 edited images every year for 15 years sounds pretty much like my worst nightmare. That's more than 80 images every day 365 days a year. I'd shoot myself if I had to produce that kind of volume.

But, to be clear, no one suggested you can't take great images with Canons (or nikons or sonys), I think what East Wind was saying (and I know what I was saying) was that there are lots of situations where raising shadows by several stops is a valuable characteristic to have in a camera. We both offered examples of how that is useful.

Your response is to completely dismiss these examples and to suggest that only photographers without skill can use additional dynamic range. Your "points" seem to be aimed at what you perceive to be bias from DPReview, but that was not the subject of our comments.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think with the whole DPR force-for-good-or-force-for-bias issue, it's useful to talk about in a couple narrow ways:

1) We all know that making a camera is a series of compromise choices. You can tune a camera to be stronger at high ISO at the expense of low ISO; you can increase resolution, but you may well limit the frames per second; etc. These tradeoffs represent educated guesses that the camera companies make. If DPR takes those pairs of factors and emphasize primarily the downsides to each pair, then what they're doing is implicitly saying that these were poor choices in the early design phase. That could be a valid opinion, and gets to point #2 below.

Now, if DPR criticizes the downsides of each of those factors for one camera, and selectively show better examples from several different competing cameras - one for each factor in which the competing camera happens to excel - what you've done is hidden the necessity of design compromise and given the impression that the camera being reviewed isn't - as they all are - a set of compromises with pros and cons, but rather is just plain bad.

I think it's fair to say that this beginning of their 1DX2 review shows in the least a sloppiness in framing these consumer choices, which happens to leave the impression the 1DX2 is less of a camera than it is. I also think it is eyebrow raising that the review does seem to have inverted the importance of low- versus high- ISO performance corresponding precisely with Canon and Nikon having swapped their own design priorities in their respective refreshes. One of our number here on CR actually (jokingly) suggested before-hand that DPR would do this if Canon ever went to on-chip circuitry to provide better low-ISO noise reduction.

I suspect that there is no real motive to be biased, but that - like someone who likes Chevy over Ford, etc. - one has to justify to oneself why after reviewing a competing brand one still prefers the favorite brand. That dialog in one's mind winds up focusing on negatives of the thing being reviewed. This is why DPR needs a few more people who primarily own the Canon system.

2) DPR didn't review the Canon and Nikon flagship cameras last time around ostensibly because it perceives itself to be a review site for normal people, not photojournalists. This suggests a certain deliberate audience, and I speculate that this might be where DPR gets some things a little wrong. Some of the testing it does implies that the user is going to be someone who is absolutely bonkers for raising shadows and such. Those tests, in my mind, would be more appropriate for a very specific sort of professional or - more to the point - for a bunch of landscape and street photography buffs who do a lot of post processing. These aren't average consumers, and the reviews don't appear to be actually written with the interests of those people in mind when they concentrate on factors like the 5-stop push.

I've been involved with a lot of publications over the years, and I know it's difficult to generate a "voice" for a publication, especially along with a rigorous quality control regime and consistency. I do not get the sense that DPR has had someone in recent years experienced in this global voice sort of thing. This isn't a put-down, it's just a perception from someone who is a publishing geek. It's hard, and I applaud DPR for keeping at it. With good intentions, they'll keep getting better.

In sum, no, I don't think the impressions of bias are meritless. But, no, I really doubt this is deliberate. I bet with guys like Rishi and Barney doing this, they get better and better.

What it comes down to is this. Not everyone has an excellent command of the English language for whatever reason. There are many, including ESL, limited education, disinterest in language as opposed to technology and so forth. Such people probably are incapable of discerning the nuances that contribute to the bias they present. From previous statements by the author I believe there is a sincere desire to be unbiased but that doesn't mean there is no bias.

Yes there has been a flip, now that Canon has improved DR in low ISO, and DR continues to get way too much emphasis.

Jack

 

[JMZawodny]

So I look at the data and pay little attention to the words basically because one is more objective and the other susceptible to subjective bias - as has been pointed out several times already. I'm rather impressed that the 1Dx2 manages to stay even with the 1Dx while adding more pixels. We really are getting close to the physical limits here. You can't keep the overall sensor the same size, add more pixels and expect more never-ending improvements to DR at low ISO and Better SNR at high ISO. Neglecting JPEG processing games and talking only about RAW files, the only further advances in high ISO performance must come from further improvements in sensor QE or Bayer filter array performance (include foveon here). SNR being the relevant metric at high ISO there is maybe 1.5 stops of improvement left before physics says there is nothing left to do. After that, we need to go to bigger sensors or settle for lower res images.

Having had my 1Dx2 for a little over a day now, I think the image IQ (high ISO) is at least 1.5 stops better than my 5D2 or my 7D2 (in agreement with the data from DPR). I've only put a few lenses to work on the 1Dx2, but the AF system is spectacular - 100% hit rate without doing any AFMA yet! I was worried about the ergonomic differences, but the button layout is easier to sort out on the 1Dx2. Size did not matter as I use the battery grips on both the 5D2 and 7D2 and I think of the three the 7D2 has the worst feel in the hand in portrait orientation.

My only concern is that support in DXO Optics Pro won't arrive until September (and with my luck as a paid upgrade to version 11). I'm very happy I bought the 1Dx2.

 

[Jack Douglas]

So I look at the data and pay little attention to the words basically because one is more objective and the other susceptible to subjective bias - as has been pointed out several times already. I'm rather impressed that the 1Dx2 manages to stay even with the 1Dx while adding more pixels. We really are getting close to the physical limits here. You can't keep the overall sensor the same size, add more pixels and expect more never-ending improvements to DR at low ISO and Better SNR at high ISO. Neglecting JPEG processing games and talking only about RAW files, the only further advances in high ISO performance must come from further improvements in sensor QE or Bayer filter array performance (include foveon here). SNR being the relevant metric at high ISO there is maybe 1.5 stops of improvement left before physics says there is nothing left to do. After that, we need to go to bigger sensors or settle for lower res images.

Having had my 1Dx2 for a little over a day now, I think the image IQ (high ISO) is at least 1.5 stops better than my 5D2 or my 7D2 (in agreement with the data from DPR). I've only put a few lenses to work on the 1Dx2, but the AF system is spectacular - 100% hit rate without doing any AFMA yet! I was worried about the ergonomic differences, but the button layout is easier to sort out on the 1Dx2. Size did not matter as I use the battery grips on both the 5D2 and 7D2 and I think of the three the 7D2 has the worst feel in the hand in portrait orientation.

My only concern is that support in DXO Optics Pro won't arrive until September (and with my luck as a paid upgrade to version 11). I'm very happy I bought the 1Dx2.

Pleased to hear your assessment and I think you are right. We need to be realistic and appreciate what amazing technology we get to hold in our hands. We'd be better off if we never read any reviews!

Jack

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I think both of you are correct.
One is saying it is better to have more DR so you have more flexibility.
The other is saying that DPReview is making a mountain of a mole hill when they say 1DXii is worse than another product when the differences are not that big anymore. But that is journalism for you (I hope you weren't expecting objective measurements from DPR)

Points (since you asked):
a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing.
b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day.
c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it.
d) DPR's vision of photography seems to be one of maximum data in every corner of the image, which is a very narrow technical view of photography.
e) One can't come away from a DPR review without feeling that Canon is deficient in sensor design; and yet there is a world of photography that proves otherwise, especially pro photography at the extremes.
f) DPR makes basic errors, like judging "skin tones" based on a picture of a picture. Experienced photographers know how flawed that is. It would be the same if you judged "foliage" based on a picture of a picture.

You say "Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements." I agree. What I'm saying is that in their effort to draw distinctions and promote certain technological improvements, some people promote a false narrative that we CAN'T deal with existing circumstances with current technology or that it's much too difficult.

I answered the question of my experience in reply #58 above. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29759.msg594932#msg594932

First of all, hats off to you. Delivering 30,000 edited images every year for 15 years sounds pretty much like my worst nightmare. That's more than 80 images every day 365 days a year. I'd shoot myself if I had to produce that kind of volume.

But, to be clear, no one suggested you can't take great images with Canons (or nikons or sonys), I think what East Wind was saying (and I know what I was saying) was that there are lots of situations where raising shadows by several stops is a valuable characteristic to have in a camera. We both offered examples of how that is useful.

Your response is to completely dismiss these examples and to suggest that only photographers without skill can use additional dynamic range. Your "points" seem to be aimed at what you perceive to be bias from DPReview, but that was not the subject of our comments.

I find it interesting that it was previously OK to talk about 1/3 EV benefits in high ISO dynamic range for the 6D - something you don't even see unless you're pushing already noisy high ISO files, but a point I saw made here on CR all the time - and yet it's not OK to point out the more apparent midtone (SNR 18%) noise benefit of the class-leading (in this regard) D5.

And just since the 1D-X II shows improvements in low ISO DR, we're supposed to overemphasize it because, well, Canon tried, despite still remaining probably a stop or more behind class leaders in this regard. I mean, we already said its 'significant that it beats its only real peer the D5', but that wasn't enough because on the next page where we look at high ISO, we shouldn't have pointed out the D5 beats the 1D-X II.

Interesting logic.

A CR member then passively aggressively attributes the supposed bias - if you still believe it exists after reading my comments above - to possible ESL and lack of education with respect to the reviewer, who happens to be a graduate of two Ivy League colleges, and born in the United States, by the way.

Odd and unfortunate.
-Rishi

 

[Francis L]

Lol, I still remember years ago DPR was defending the Nikon D2x against FF and harping on about noise being less of an issue on prints. Now apparently, a bit more noise at ISO 12,800 is a big issue. Pixel peeping and measurebating gone mad.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I think it's fair to say that this beginning of their 1DX2 review shows in the least a sloppiness in framing these consumer choices, which happens to leave the impression the 1DX2 is less of a camera than it is. I also think it is eyebrow raising that the review does seem to have inverted the importance of low- versus high- ISO performance corresponding precisely with Canon and Nikon having swapped their own design priorities in their respective refreshes. One of our number here on CR actually (jokingly) suggested before-hand that DPR would do this if Canon ever went to on-chip circuitry to provide better low-ISO noise reduction.

I'd doesn't have the inverted importance because the 1D-X II only shows an improvement relative to already underperforming Canons. It's still well behind the best the competition offer, and we DID emphasize it beats its only real peer, the Nikon D5 significantly. What more would you have us say? Lie and say it now matched the D810 or a7R II? Because it doesn't.

What it comes down to is this. Not everyone has an excellent command of the English language for whatever reason. There are many, including ESL, limited education, disinterest in language as opposed to technology and so forth. Such people probably are incapable of discerning the nuances that contribute to the bias they present. From previous statements by the author I believe there is a sincere desire to be unbiased but that doesn't mean there is no bias.

Yes there has been a flip, now that Canon has improved DR in low ISO, and DR continues to get way too much emphasis.

Jack

Well, I'm sure that's not racist or anything, but it does seem to ignore the fact that Barney actually learned proper English in England and is quite a writer, and as an American born citizen myself, I resent the ESL implication, and the 'lack of secondary education' implication considering English is my first language. Nevermind your comments re: education, considering we both went to gradute studies, and I myself graduated from two Ivy League schools.

Rishi Sanyal, Ph.D
Technical Editor, dpreview.com

 

[Neutral]

Looking at the DPR test shots 1DXm2 has clear advantage over 1DX and over Sony a7r2.
Do not know why DPR decided that a7r2 is better at high ISO that 1DXm2
For proper high ISO comparison one need to select low light scene comparison option – this is where luminance in shadow areas is significantly lower compared to test shot at normal lighting.
When using such low light conditions it is better to evaluate more accurately high ISO performance, including high ISO DR. I believe that many people here were doing comparisons at normal light where sensor performance differences are less obvious.

From these snapshots, see attached, I could see that 1DXm2 has about 1/3 or may be a bit better high ISO performance compared to 1DX and some smaller advantage over Sony a7r2.
In addition, a7r2 has some issues at rendering low contrast shadow areas, which is clearly seen on snapshots, maybe due to default compressed RAW settings. Possibly, with uncompressed RAW setting there would be no such artefacts.

What is most important is that 1DXm2 noise pattern is uniform, less blotchy and has a bit higher frequency compared to 1DX and a7r2 noise – more close to Gaussian noise pattern. So as result is looks more natural, more pleasant to eye and easy to filter out by NR. DXO Prime NR probably will be working very well removing such kind of noise.

So for me as owner of 1DX and Sony a7r2 these 1DXm2 results together with other 1DXm2 improvements (significantly improved AF, anti-flicker mode etc.) is enough to make decision for upgrade from 1DX. New 1DXm2 should be working noticeably better than 1DX in dim lit conditions – both image quality and AF performance.
As for D5 it clearly has at least 1/2 stop advantage over 1DXm2 at high ISOs closing to theoretical limit for Bayer sensor type. Interesting to know what they did for that.

 

[yavuz]

Dear Rishi;
With my poor English(sorry for this).. What you say in DP review is really enough for me or us... Actually you made very good commentments about 1dxm2... 3 stop ev advantage.. and better low iso performance are really very important for wildlife and bird photographers.Actually its not low iso ... becauese 6400 iso is really very high iso in photographic science..
Above 6400 is yours.. you can use it anytime you want.. we are trying to make art)




7dm2.. 600 f4 is 2
1/1000 iso 640 f:4
very cloudy and rainy day.. you can see the rain drops..


There is a quote among bird photographers here in Turkey..
""You can take very nice photos with Nikon if you can catch it""