1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW image

[clicstudio]

What I want to see is a photo of a person inside an house or apartment in front of a window on a bright sunny day. That is the hardest thing to photograph. The difference between outside and inside light is huge. I would guess even more than 5 stops. So, being able to push shadows and get less noise is a welcome improvement.
I still think the future is multiple sensors for highlights and shadows.
The upcoming "Light" camera has multiple lenses and sensors. I already pre-ordered one. I believe that type of technology is going to change everything.

 

[Woody]

You forgot about not as good as 3D tracking for tracking eyes of players during super bowl. ;D

Yup... about to point this one out! ;D

 

[Jokke_r]

What I want to see is a photo of a person inside an house or apartment in front of a window on a bright sunny day. That is the hardest thing to photograph.

Well you can get pretty close to this with magic lantern Dual-ISO, i would have suggested you to try it out but considering you're shooting with a 1 series camera and it's not available for them, tough luck.

 

[David Hull]

Neuro... the way I see it is that Canon has improved the image quality of their sensors. For me that means lower noise at low ISO, at a minimum. For others it may mean pushing shadows. For others it could be something different, who knows. But shouldn't we all be excited that the sensors to come in future Canon bodies will produce better image quality?

More latitude to beat them up in post, I guess. We should wait and see how they do in a DxO style test although that means that DxO will have to go out and get one somewhere.

 

[David Hull]

I am surprised that Canon didn't mention the improvement in its press releases though.

I'm not actually.

1) it seems Canon is now finally on par with its competitors in terms of read-out noise / DR and that is not really something you want to bring to everybody's attention. Instead they use more careful announcements such as "high latitude" sensor.

2) they know DR has been discussed all over the internet and before any "scores" and reviews have been official, I think they stay away from claiming any actual improvements (everyone will start asking nerdy questions anyway like "how many stops?")

3) don't compete in-house. Canon is still selling 1DX and many other pro/semipro models. Praising the new sensordesign too much could be risky.

4) Many pros and potential buyers have no issues, nor have they heard anything about lacking DR in the existing line-up

I am sure that we will hear a bit more from Canon about the improved sensordesign once the model hits the stores and 1DX slowly fades away. But I don't expect them to wear a sandwich board and ring a bell.

I think they are doing this right.

Even the vendors that have the lower read out noise now don't make a big deal about it. I have never quite understood that. Had I ben Nikon I would have added a line on the spec sheet that stated the ENOB of the camera at 14 bits with a note that it is measured at ISO=100. That would have forced Canon to admit that they could only get 11.5. For some reason Nikon didn't think that it was important. Maybe because it was already all over the net.

 

[AE-1Burnham]

1DsIII comparison:
Top is straight push of the underexposed image, below is somewhat processed to taste while keeping the 5 stop push... meh. Bottom is a more processed to taste without 5 stop push. :
NOTE: I rarely in the editing process choose an image like this,-that I need to push--and this was not a keeper.

 

[canonic]

First:
I am glad i made a mistake when i said "Canon cant do more DR"!. Well Canon can! I am making gladly such mistakes!

Yay!!!!! I've been waiting soooooooooo long for Canon to have sensors that I can drastically underexpose then push 5-stops in post. I'm dumbfounded that I've been able to take any pictures at all until now. I'm going to preorder the 1D X II immediately!!!
Or not.
Seriously, if a 5-stop push is your thing, guess you're feeling happy as long as you have $6K to burn.

I am so glad that Canon is not you and you are not Canon. If you were Canon, we would not be seeing more DR, anytime in the future.
As i already said, for users like you, Canon should cut the DR direct in the camera. Too many stops can confuse someone. Are 10 stops ideal for you? 11,7? What is your type of photography? Just curious.
With a typical outdoor, sunlight scene of 17? 20? stops of DR, i wish you luck with your older Canon camera.
Maybe your camera doesnt seeing the sunlight because is only a studio camera. Then, i understand. But please, let us, push the camera so much as is possible, to get the scene to the real world and beyond! Everyone with his interpretation of what "real" is, isnt it?

And, sarcasm is doesnt helping making someone smarter! Yes, including me, too ...

 

[tss68nl]

What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:

• Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
• Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
• "There are no scenarios where you would need this". Ok. So now all of the sudden we don't need more DR anymore. What about complex seascapes where you just can't use a grad? What about low-light event photography where you just don't want to use much flash (or can't)?
• "None of my current work includes a 5 stop boost for shadows". Great. Maybe it doesn't because you avoid it due to excessive noise in the shadows. Maybe better tools will open up new possibilities.
• "They make us pay 6000+ for this technology". Yeah, and over time it will probably be released in more affordable models as well. The top down approach is not uncommon to actually make money. It's what most healthy companies do by the way, make money.

You all act like it's some idiotic move of Canon to offer a real upgrade to their line-up. Or would you rather have seen a 1.2MP resolution bump, 2 extra cross-types, and a theoretical upgrade to the max ISO which takes the image from "very unusable" to "even more unusable"? We'd all be whining there is no reason to upgrade.

Complain because you cannot afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money? The world has enough envious people without you already.

I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon. Finally being able to have amount of DR while retaining detail is huge, and we can only hope to see it in other bodies soon as well. Would I buy one? Probably not because I'm not keen on spending that amount on a camera, but I am happy to see the technology progress and can't wait to see the work that people can produce with them.
And when the time comes Canon will put this tech in cheaper camera's I'll be first in line. You see, this is much better than having no progress at all on the DR/ISO front for Canon.

 

[Connected]

What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:

• Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
• Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
• "There are no scenarios where you would need this". Ok. So now all of the sudden we don't need more DR anymore. What about complex seascapes where you just can't use a grad? What about low-light event photography where you just don't want to use much flash (or can't)?
• "None of my current work includes a 5 stop boost for shadows". Great. Maybe it doesn't because you avoid it due to excessive noise in the shadows. Maybe better tools will open up new possibilities.
• "They make us pay 6000+ for this technology". Yeah, and over time it will probably be released in more affordable models as well. The top down approach is not uncommon to actually make money. It's what most healthy companies do by the way, make money.

You all act like it's some idiotic move of Canon to offer a real upgrade to their line-up. Or would you rather have seen a 1.2MP resolution bump, 2 extra cross-types, and a theoretical upgrade to the max ISO which takes the image from "very unusable" to "even more unusable"? We'd all be whining there is no reason to upgrade.

Complain because you cannot afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money? The world has enough envious people without you already.

I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon. Finally being able to have amount of DR while retaining detail is huge, and we can only hope to see it in other bodies soon as well. Would I buy one? Probably not because I'm not keen on spending that amount on a camera, but I am happy to see the technology progress and can't wait to see the work that people can produce with them.
And when the time comes Canon will put this tech in cheaper camera's I'll be first in line. You see, this is much better than having no progress at all on the DR/ISO front for Canon.

You sir, said the truth.

 

[canonic]

What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:

• Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
• Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
• "There are no scenarios where you would need this". Ok. So now all of the sudden we don't need more DR anymore. What about complex seascapes where you just can't use a grad? What about low-light event photography where you just don't want to use much flash (or can't)?
• "None of my current work includes a 5 stop boost for shadows". Great. Maybe it doesn't because you avoid it due to excessive noise in the shadows. Maybe better tools will open up new possibilities.
• "They make us pay 6000+ for this technology". Yeah, and over time it will probably be released in more affordable models as well. The top down approach is not uncommon to actually make money. It's what most healthy companies do by the way, make money.

You all act like it's some idiotic move of Canon to offer a real upgrade to their line-up. Or would you rather have seen a 1.2MP resolution bump, 2 extra cross-types, and a theoretical upgrade to the max ISO which takes the image from "very unusable" to "even more unusable"? We'd all be whining there is no reason to upgrade.

Complain because you cannot afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money? The world has enough envious people without you already.

I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon. Finally being able to have amount of DR while retaining detail is huge, and we can only hope to see it in other bodies soon as well. Would I buy one? Probably not because I'm not keen on spending that amount on a camera, but I am happy to see the technology progress and can't wait to see the work that people can produce with them.
And when the time comes Canon will put this tech in cheaper camera's I'll be first in line. You see, this is much better than having no progress at all on the DR/ISO front for Canon.

Amen

 

[plam_1980]

Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.

Sarcasm aside, the ability to pull up dark shades without noise is useful. Granted this type of DR would be more beneficial in a 5D series body.

Yes, but five stops? I can see two, even unto three, but five is right out. I'd like someone to show me a real-world scene for which you'd want to pull shadows five stops, or even four.

My last trip to Iceland had several. Seriously, do you only shoot in controlled lighting situations?

The examples you posted in response make your point very effectively. :

As someone already mentioned, 5 stops theoretical possibility means that a 3 stops push in the new-camera is much better than 3 stops on 1D X. I am shooting indoor sports in dimly lit halls with my 5D mark III and I often shoot at f/2 (with the incredible 135 L) and at speeds up to 1/200 - 1/250s. Even with these settings I regularly get ISO of 2 000. If I go to f/2.8 for a little more depth of field and 1/400s to better freeze the action, the ISO goes 3 200 or even 6 400 sometimes, which is unacceptable quality. And even with these settings I have good highlights but I have to lift the shadows. I don't shoot it professionally (for money), just for the local team, so I am not a potential buyer of 1 DX II but I would love this claimed 2-stop improvement to trickle down (even 1-stop would be OK) to 5D mark IV

 

[plam_1980]

What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:

• Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
• Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
• "There are no scenarios where you would need this". Ok. So now all of the sudden we don't need more DR anymore. What about complex seascapes where you just can't use a grad? What about low-light event photography where you just don't want to use much flash (or can't)?
• "None of my current work includes a 5 stop boost for shadows". Great. Maybe it doesn't because you avoid it due to excessive noise in the shadows. Maybe better tools will open up new possibilities.
• "They make us pay 6000+ for this technology". Yeah, and over time it will probably be released in more affordable models as well. The top down approach is not uncommon to actually make money. It's what most healthy companies do by the way, make money.

You all act like it's some idiotic move of Canon to offer a real upgrade to their line-up. Or would you rather have seen a 1.2MP resolution bump, 2 extra cross-types, and a theoretical upgrade to the max ISO which takes the image from "very unusable" to "even more unusable"? We'd all be whining there is no reason to upgrade.

Complain because you cannot afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money? The world has enough envious people without you already.

I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon. Finally being able to have amount of DR while retaining detail is huge, and we can only hope to see it in other bodies soon as well. Would I buy one? Probably not because I'm not keen on spending that amount on a camera, but I am happy to see the technology progress and can't wait to see the work that people can produce with them.
And when the time comes Canon will put this tech in cheaper camera's I'll be first in line. You see, this is much better than having no progress at all on the DR/ISO front for Canon.

+1

 

[Proscribo]

As someone already mentioned, 5 stops theoretical possibility means that a 3 stops push in the new-camera is much better than 3 stops on 1D X. I am shooting indoor sports in dimly lit halls with my 5D mark III and I often shoot at f/2 (with the incredible 135 L) and at speeds up to 1/200 - 1/250s. Even with these settings I regularly get ISO of 2 000. If I go to f/2.8 for a little more depth of field and 1/400s to better freeze the action, the ISO goes 3 200 or even 6 400 sometimes, which is unacceptable quality. And even with these settings I have good highlights but I have to lift the shadows. I don't shoot it professionally (for money), just for the local team, so I am not a potential buyer of 1 DX II but I would love this claimed 2-stop improvement to trickle down (even 1-stop would be OK) to 5D mark IV

This DR improvement applies only to low-ISO (100-800) so you for example won't find pretty much any major differences (I'm not sure if 5DIII has banding, if it does, that's one thing that could be fixed).

 

[canonic]

CR:

seriously.. did you not read his post where canon asked him to take down this image?

The Canon Rumors forum has a lengthy discussion about the findings with a full resolution comparison, and we don’t have to delete it for NDA reasons.

that's just F_____ up. the guy does the community a service by sharing his findings on the camera.

canon asked him to take down the 100% crop - and you post it as if you are okay with that, and who cares about the original author and what happens to him? not to mention you lift the image from either dpr or his blog and re-post it without his permission?

"As you can see, I was kindly ask not to post any full res or 100 % crops from preproduction camera and that is why I asked moderator to remove the images. If you already downloaded them, please don't repost.

However the photos were real and future is very brigh for Canon! Seems they finally catch up with Sony and +5 EV push will no longer be a problem.

I will keep posting more impressions during the day (viewfinder, AF...)"


Nice move.

I'm the original author of this comparison and I'm kind of shocked, that despite the knowing why I had to remove the image Canon rumors guy shared it anyway without even asking me.

I am sorry for you, because this is not nice, at all!
I hope CR guy will remove it at once ... and from facebook, too!

 

[Loswr]

I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon.

Positive? Certainly. A real upgrade? Sure. A huge jump in capabilities? Try to get some perspective.

 

[SUNDOG04]

I've always felt dpreview was strongly biased toward Canon. Maybe I am wrong, but when a new Nikon body comes out they make a big deal about it and test it quickly. It seems when the high megapixel Canon came out, they drug their feet with it as far as reviews.

 

[obach]

This is good news for me. Meaning, it's likely that the next 5Dmk4 will have the same DR. If it has, I'll upgrade my 5Dmk3 right away. The 1DX body size is on the heavy side for me, so the 1DXmk2 is not an option.

 

[tss68nl]

Positive? Certainly. A real upgrade? Sure. A huge jump in capabilities? Try to get some perspective.

Depends on your perspective indeed. If you only count updates to video functions, MP and autofocus that was already spot on to the functionalities that count in your perspective I get it. But in my book DR and ISO performance / sensor capabilities in general do actually matter quite a bit. I'll take better DR over extra MP any day.

I am actually quite curious if (given the shadows seem to have better quality) the highlight retention has suffered at all. Might be a trade off which would make this less of a gain. On my current Canon bodies a little highlight blowout is no issue where you need the extra DR.

Maybe the original poster can test? No 100% crop needed anyway for highlight blowout. Noise isn't much of an issue there.

 

[Woody]

I'm the original author of this comparison and I'm kind of shocked, that despite the knowing why I had to remove the image Canon rumors guy shared it anyway without even asking me.

While I understand how you feel about the whole episode, I am also certain that you are fully aware you are not allowed to release photos shot in RAW format from pre-production cameras. There have been far too many similar incidents in the past. Sorry to say this, but you asked for it. No excuse.

On another note, I appreciate your excitement. In some sense, you did free propaganda work for Canon and they ought to thank you for it.

 

[Woody]

I've always felt dpreview was strongly biased toward Canon. Maybe I am wrong, but when a new Nikon body comes out they make a big deal about it and test it quickly. It seems when the high megapixel Canon came out, they drug their feet with it as far as reviews.

They take a similar stand as their partner in crime, DXOMark (Neuro's example here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18135.15).

Fortunately for Canon, no one has been able to put a damper on their market shares.