1Dx mk2...The end of an era

[brianftpc]

There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement. Clearly they were saying what they needed to say to get the camera early or free. So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps. The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement. You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.

Will Canon be using Sony sensors in their next 1D body to keep people from jumping ship. Sony now has 2-4 years to get a camera between the a7s2 and a7II with high framerates and canon league autofocus. Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.

Honestly....how LITTLE could Canon upgrade the next 1D body to match this 1 in the relm of actual picture quality upgrades...18fps...more auto focus points....what a joke.

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!

http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg

 

[edoorn]

I'd say we might have hit some sort of high iso limit. The d5, supposedly the best high iso cam out there, is only about half a stop better at the 6400 - 25600 range (but at the expense of less dr at lower iso's).

Good thing is: the 1dx still is a great camera able to shoot good quality images ;D

 

[Sharlin]

Photons are discrete, unfortunately. Current sensors are getting very close to what's physically possible.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement. Clearly they were saying what they needed to say to get the camera early or free. So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps. The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement. You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.

Will Canon be using Sony sensors in their next 1D body to keep people from jumping ship. Sony now has 2-4 years to get a camera between the a7s2 and a7II with high framerates and canon league autofocus. Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.

Honestly....how LITTLE could Canon upgrade the next 1D body to match this 1 in the relm of actual picture quality upgrades...18fps...more auto focus points....what a joke.

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!

http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg

I don't know of any professional photographers who have left Canon for Sony. Most wildlife guys say that the 1DX is THE camera to beat in their genre and nothing else comes close. So I suspect the 1DXII will build on that, but Canon doesn't need to push the curve much as nothing has caught up. Sure, you personal shooting needs might need a different spec sheet or you have an itch that needs scratching. But Canon did their research to professional photographers and they knocked the ball out of the park with the 1DX.

 

[Luds34]

Sensor tech does seem to have hit a bit of a saturation limit. And frankly basically any sensor in the last 5 years is capable of taking an awesome image.

So for most shooters, I don't think sensor tech is what is driving them. I think the intangibles, camera operation/ergonomics, focus ability performance, and of course glass are all much more important to a lot of folks.

 

[Luds34]

Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....

I meant to comment on this. Not everyone needs video in their DSLR. I still feel if one is moderately serious about video you buy a rig dedicated for video (even if it's a good stills camera for video like a GH4). Right tool for the job. You buy a good stills camera for taking stills, and that is definitely what a 1D camera from Canon is good at.

 

[Mikehit]

It's like anything else, if you don't need the developments it is not worth it, if you do need them then it may well be a significant improvement. The days of major improvement with each generation are long gone and I can't remember much in the last 5 years where a change in sensor has had people going 'WOW'!. Maybe the D800 but little else. Problem is each time a new model is announced people still expect that Damascene revelation and it ain't going to happen.
The camera market became commoditised years ago and the law of diminishing returns is hitting hard. If my own experience is anything to go by, even people like me who like owning gear despite knowing that it exceeds their capabilities, the capability of what I have got is so good that I am wondering if there are other things to spend my money on. Or (gasp!) save it instead!!

Let's face it, most enthusiasm for the 1Dx2 has been for things other than image quality. So you can either be as cynical as you have been about the motivation behind people comments, or accept that maybe they are real-world improvements but just not for you. Or maybe you expected too much.

 

[TeT]

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!

http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg

You are mistaken..

If the picture taken with the 1DX is properly exposed then the 1DXII pic is overexposed in comparison. You should have dialed back your exposure or ISO or something to compensate for the better performance of the 1DXII.

It is fairly obvious that one picture is brighter than the other.... I will take your word that the shots are identical.

 

[Loswr]

...what a joke.

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!

http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg

You are mistaken..

If the picture taken with the 1DX is properly exposed then the 1DXII pic is overexposed in comparison. You should have dialed back your exposure or ISO or something to compensate for the better performance of the 1DXII.

It is fairly obvious that one picture is brighter than the other....

Indeed, that's very apparent when you flip one image so the same region is mirrored. Since shot noise has a proportionately greater effect with less light, a small difference in exposure with low light input (either because of low illumination, or in this case, because of a short 1/2500 s exposure time) can make a big difference in shot noise, and that difference is amplified at high ISO.

The OP is basing conclusions about noise on exposures that differ (even with the same settings, a few minutes during sunrise can make a big difference in light levels which is why most of the comparison testing is done in a studio under controlled illumination), so the joke is on him.

 

[TeT]

I don't even think he was talking specifically about visible noise. Just performance in general. He was disappointed that the the mark II exhibited the same light collection abilities as the mark I. His pics show otherwise... He could have dropped his exposure by at least -1/2 or more. At 6400 that is huge (?).

Is 6400 still considered HIGH ISO? 3200?

Noise on a 1DX I or II at 6400 is negligible for most properly exposed pictures.

 

[GuyF]

You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.

Sweet. So at 14 fps it'll only take 14.28 seconds to realise the AF is better. Result!

 

[GuyF]

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

ISO 6400 comparison here looks more convincing i.e. 1DX2 looks a little bit cleaner to me.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1041&Test=0&ISO=6400&CameraComp=779&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

 

[unfocused]

There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement.

What? You mean DPReview is correct?

So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps... Will Canon be using Sony sensors in their next 1D body to keep people from jumping ship.

Considering that the 1DX II just hit the shelves, it's pretty hard to predict where the 1DX III will go, but barring some major technology breakthrough that defies physics, I'm guessing the 1DX III will be an incremental improvement over the 1D X II. And, no, Canon won't be using Sony sensors – which seems ludicrous since it's now apparent that Canon has narrowed the small gap between their sensors and their competitors to virtually nothing. Again, see this quote from DPReview:

The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement.

I'm afraid that there isn't a camera in the world that's capable of improving the quality of your light. You will have to talk to the sun about that if you are shooting natural light.

I've seen this phenomenon many times before. People are upset with a product so they decide to write about it on a public forum. That's always an unsatisfactory experience because you are likely to elicit very little sympathy and in some cases you will generate contempt.

If you are genuinely disappointed with the marginal improvements of the 1DX II, then I'd suggest you simply return the camera. That is a much better way of getting satisfaction.

 

[Refurb7]

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!

http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg

Both pics look fine and I frankly don't care about the difference. It's ISO 6400, thank you. If that's somehow a joke to you, please jump ship already. Please, just jump ship.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

The whole premise of this thread is staggeringly wrong-headed.

Brian, the Mk II isn't meant to the upgrade path for the 1D-x. It's meant to be the new upgrade path for 7D Mk II/5D Mk III etc. users who are ready to move to a pro camera.

It's patently obvious that the built-in longevity of a pro body like the 1D-x and the refresh period between it and the Mk II do not intersect: if Canon wanted 1D-x owners to go to the Mk II, the previous body wouldn't last as long, and the gap between releases would be longer.

So what - exactly - is your problem? That you chose to buy a camera you didn't really need, in the misguided and uninformed assumption that you might get c. 1/2 stop high ISO improvement?

Seriously?

Besides, as others have pointed out, there's so much exposure difference between those two frames, you might be looking at your half a stop.

Want better pictures? Maybe learn to use the camera better (or as I continually suggest, use a better Raw converter). As Unfocused says, you won't get better light from a new camera.

Nobody (least of all Canon) forced you to buy the new body. Take some personal responsibility for your decisions.

(Someone else can point out to him that if you're doing a high ISO noise comparison, you do it at the equalised image level, not at two unequal 100% views. I suspect that the noise difference between the two cameras would actually be quite compelling if they were compared properly).

 

[jaayres20]

I shot with the 1DX for 3 years and have gotten a chance to shoot a wedding with my new 1DX mark ii and without doing any scientific testing, the 1DX mark ii images, overall, look cleaner and more pleasing to me at all ISOs. I would have only used ISO 25,600 on the 1DX in an absolute emergency and I am comfortable using it for paid wedding work on the 1DX mark ii. There are so many variations that can cause an image to look good or bad at high ISOs and I feel like it is very difficult to take one shot and say it proves anything. I think it is something at you can get a sense of with a lot of shooting in differing situations.

Now the auto focus is much improved and highly underrated in my opinion. It is very fast and accurate in the most difficult of lighting situations. The 1DX was great, but in darker areas I would often get a few slightly missed shots and sometimes had issues shooting into the sun. The 1DX almost never misses no matter what I am shooting. The DPAF also makes it possible to take pictures easily with accurate focus when you can't hold the camera to your face. I got so many shots with the camera hight over my head or right up close to a wall that I couldn' have gotten with the 1DX up to my eye. It just feel like the 1DX2 makes it so easy to make the best images possible quickly and with ease.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In the future, we will see continued high ISO improvement, but using some of the various tricks like control of individual pixels so that those receiving less light will have a longer exposure. There are several patents for that sort of thing. Some of the manufacturers already use some software enhancements to improve high ISO, that's likely the path going forward.

 

[3kramd5]

Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.

As has been mentioned, the 1Dx ii photo is clearly brighter, so you're comparing different amplifications (albeit from the same setting).

But I'm perplexed by the above statement. Whose four years is wasted? Were you not using your 1Dx for four years in anticipation of a replacement? Does that fact that you aren't impressed by the 1Dx ii mean you won't shoot photos until there is a iii?

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Completely missing the point. Like others have said, the mark 2 update (much like most other body updates) should be looked at in their entirety. Simply latching onto something like the photo comparison you provided means less than nothing (if that's possible).

For the most part, what I am finding with the most recent updates of sensors (in my case, Sony and Fuji bodies), you will notice some better noise characteristics at higher ISOs and maybe some bump in resolution, but the images/light you get are what they are (SOOC). Generally speaking, the differences will not be monumental. Where the advancements really show are in the quality of the data in post processing and how malleable they are.

In the lighting scenario you sampled for us, you could basically shoot that with any camera body in the last five years and it would not look all that different SOOC. You have to use the tool in the ways where the benefits would more likely show themselves in order to exploit/enjoy said advancements/improvements.

Go out and shoot the thing. Shoot it a lot. Shoot different things. Play with the files. Don't sit on your deck making test photos and disappointing yourself with the less than monumental SOOC results.

 

[slclick]

Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.

As has been mentioned, the 1Dx ii photo is clearly brighter, so you're comparing different amplifications (albeit from the same setting).

But I'm perplexed by the above statement. Whose four years is wasted? Were you not using your 1Dx for four years in anticipation of a replacement? Does that fact that you aren't impressed by the 1Dx ii mean you won't shoot photos until there is a iii?

4 years wasted= drama