Announcing The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

[rishi_sanyal]

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

Exactly. Especially not a properly exposed JPEG. It's not about the # of stops you push, it's about where on the sensor's tonal range those initial tones (in Raw) you're pushing started at. The shot in that example is already 'properly exposed', meaning that even if there were a high noise floor, tones would already be well above it. In which case you could push it 5 or 10 stops and you wouldn't see any more noise - pushing itself doesn't introduce noise, the noise is already there, and it affects low signal tones the most. You make the noise visible when you brighten exposure to make visible low signal tones that are around the noise floor.

It's important to realize that a camera that can't tolerate a 3 EV push on one file may tolerate it just fine on a different, brighter exposure. Again, it's about where the Raw tones lie in relation to the noise floor.

And JPEG results are irrelevant in this particular debate - JPEGs are the final output, one doesn't shoot JPEG to post-process (push exposure) after the fact. JPEGs pre-clip lower Raw shadow tones, clipping to zero the very regions of the sensor's tonal range that may be noisy for non-on-chip-ADC architectures (the same tonal regions of the sensor, by the way, that are typically used for high ISO shots).

 

[GuyF]

Go to 1:15 to see (very briefly) video of focusing at f8 and all those af points lit up like Christmas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06zuaQjD8b0

 

[privatebydesign]

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

But you can tell a lot from looking at TWO jpegs exposed the same way and abused the same way, and until the testers are allowed to release RAW files that is all we have to go on. Having said that, the direct comparison is pretty compelling to anybody not in denial. A lot of 1DX/II shooters shoot jpeg for speed of output, that those jpegs can now be treated much more harshly if needed is a huge benefit.

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

I would have thought RAW too. Why would one be working on a JPEG to fix what is best fixed in RAW unless there was no other option?

Jack

Because many 1 series shooters shoot jpegs so only have those to work. But the point of this particular comparison is because it was a beta 1DX MkII and Canon don't allow beta RAW files to be published, it is a condition of getting a beta camera.

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

Exactly. Especially not a properly exposed JPEG. It's not about the # of stops you push, it's about where on the sensor's tonal range those initial tones (in Raw) you're pushing started at. The shot in that example is already 'properly exposed', meaning that even if there were a high noise floor, tones would already be well above it. In which case you could push it 5 or 10 stops and you wouldn't see any more noise - pushing itself doesn't introduce noise, the noise is already there, and it affects low signal tones the most. You make the noise visible when you brighten exposure to make visible low signal tones that are around the noise floor.

It's important to realize that a camera that can't tolerate a 3 EV push on one file may tolerate it just fine on a different, brighter exposure. Again, it's about where the Raw tones lie in relation to the noise floor.

And JPEG results are irrelevant in this particular debate - JPEGs are the final output, one doesn't shoot JPEG to post-process (push exposure) after the fact. JPEGs pre-clip lower Raw shadow tones, clipping to zero the very regions of the sensor's tonal range that may be noisy for non-on-chip-ADC architectures (the same tonal regions of the sensor, by the way, that are typically used for high ISO shots).

That is so typical of the passive aggressive biased garbage you write on DPReview.

As a comparison the two jpegs are perfectly valid, they are exposed the same and they have been post processed the same, the point is one is better than the other in areas that were not exposed correctly. They may not be an indicator of any improvement in technical DR as measured to ISO standards, or even in adjustable latitude, or indeed result in a higher 'score' at the farce so commonly referenced from DXO. But they do very fairly illustrate that the MkII jpegs are more robust in underexposed areas than the MkI.

You might not shoot jpegs to push process, and most 1DX owners don't on purpose, but many do shoot jpegs and in the end need to push in post because of unforeseen exposure issues, the fact is these two images fairly illustrate an improvement. But don't let that slip out of your mouth, you might choke on it.

In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like "not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking" and "given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of ", yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.

 

[JMZawodny]

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

But you can tell a lot from looking at TWO jpegs exposed the same way and abused the same way, and until the testers are allowed to release RAW files that is all we have to go on. Having said that, the direct comparison is pretty compelling to anybody not in denial. A lot of 1DX/II shooters shoot jpeg for speed of output, that those jpegs can now be treated much more harshly if needed is a huge benefit.

+1

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

Exactly. Especially not a properly exposed JPEG. It's not about the # of stops you push, it's about where on the sensor's tonal range those initial tones (in Raw) you're pushing started at. The shot in that example is already 'properly exposed', meaning that even if there were a high noise floor, tones would already be well above it. In which case you could push it 5 or 10 stops and you wouldn't see any more noise - pushing itself doesn't introduce noise, the noise is already there, and it affects low signal tones the most. You make the noise visible when you brighten exposure to make visible low signal tones that are around the noise floor.

It's important to realize that a camera that can't tolerate a 3 EV push on one file may tolerate it just fine on a different, brighter exposure. Again, it's about where the Raw tones lie in relation to the noise floor.

And JPEG results are irrelevant in this particular debate - JPEGs are the final output, one doesn't shoot JPEG to post-process (push exposure) after the fact. JPEGs pre-clip lower Raw shadow tones, clipping to zero the very regions of the sensor's tonal range that may be noisy for non-on-chip-ADC architectures (the same tonal regions of the sensor, by the way, that are typically used for high ISO shots).

That is so typical of the passive aggressive biased garbage you write on DPReview.

As a comparison the two jpegs are perfectly valid, they are exposed the same and they have been post processed the same, the point is one is better than the other in areas that were not exposed correctly. They may not be an indicator of any improvement in technical DR as measured to ISO standards, or even in adjustable latitude, or indeed result in a higher 'score' at the farce so commonly referenced from DXO. But they do very fairly illustrate that the MkII jpegs are more robust in underexposed areas than the MkI.

You might not shoot jpegs to push process, and most 1DX owners don't on purpose, but many do shoot jpegs and in the end need to push in post because of unforeseen exposure issues, the fact is these two images fairly illustrate an improvement. But don't let that slip out of your mouth, you might choke on it.

In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like "not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking" and "given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of ", yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.

+2

Set and Match!

 

[Jack Douglas]

privatebydesign, I am new to the reviews and all that but I picked up the bias you are pointing out instantly and it was glaring. Thanks for the straight talk!

However, who cares, if others want to shoot Nikon I don't mind. We know what we know.

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

privatebydesign, I am new to the reviews and all that but I picked up the bias you are pointing out instantly and it was glaring. Thanks for the straight talk!

However, who cares, if others want to shoot Nikon I don't mind. We know what we know.

Jack

I'm with you there Jack, I advised my best friend to get a Nikon because it better suited his particular shooting style and history, I am unbiased and get paid by no camera companies (or, contrary to forum rumour, Adobe . ) people should use whatever best suits them, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji etc, I don't care, just use it!

What really bugs me about sites like DPReview is they act like they are not biased, but very blatantly are, I don't know if that is because it is so ingrained in their corporate being that the writers don't even notice it, or if it is a more insidious deliberate agenda, but it bugs the hell out of me that people go to those sites with the hope of getting fair and balanced information and instead get that spin, same with DXO, spin, lies and half truths, how can people looking for genuine help wade through all the garbage?

 

[Jack Douglas]

I had skipped this site, for obvious reasons but then I thought just for fun I'd see what he was writing and it's pretty bad!! In the opposite direction - pathetic really.

"I'd forget Nikon's now obsolete D5, which was rendered obsolete by this 1DX Mk II even before the D5 shipped. The D5 barely matches the old Canon 1D X top 12 FPS frame rate— and Nikon wants $500 more for it! Man, I'm so glad I upgraded to Canon back in 2012."

and:

"A lot has changed since I last updated this page some years ago. Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last, while Nikon's been flopping around on the deck simply putting more pixels in the same old camera bodies and putting on new model numbers."

Bet you know who writes this drivel! I'd die of embarrassment if I were the author.

Jack

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I had skipped this site, for obvious reasons but then I thought just for fun I'd see what he was writing and it's pretty bad!! In the opposite direction - pathetic really.

"I'd forget Nikon's now obsolete D5, which was rendered obsolete by this 1DX Mk II even before the D5 shipped. The D5 barely matches the old Canon 1D X top 12 FPS frame rate— and Nikon wants $500 more for it! Man, I'm so glad I upgraded to Canon back in 2012."

and:

"A lot has changed since I last updated this page some years ago. Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last, while Nikon's been flopping around on the deck simply putting more pixels in the same old camera bodies and putting on new model numbers."

Bet you know who writes this drivel! I'd die of embarrassment if I were the author.

Jack

Just curious - who wrote all that? Are you being sarcastic? We certainly didn't.

Because many 1 series shooters shoot jpegs so only have those to work. But the point of this particular comparison is because it was a beta 1DX MkII and Canon don't allow beta RAW files to be published, it is a condition of getting a beta camera.

How is that relevant to my point? I said standard tone-curve JPEGs do not tell you about Raw sensor improvements b/c they throw away all the data on the low end, and that is true whether or not Canon allows a journalist to publish Raws or not.

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

Exactly. Especially not a properly exposed JPEG. It's not about the # of stops you push, it's about where on the sensor's tonal range those initial tones (in Raw) you're pushing started at. The shot in that example is already 'properly exposed', meaning that even if there were a high noise floor, tones would already be well above it. In which case you could push it 5 or 10 stops and you wouldn't see any more noise - pushing itself doesn't introduce noise, the noise is already there, and it affects low signal tones the most. You make the noise visible when you brighten exposure to make visible low signal tones that are around the noise floor.

It's important to realize that a camera that can't tolerate a 3 EV push on one file may tolerate it just fine on a different, brighter exposure. Again, it's about where the Raw tones lie in relation to the noise floor.

And JPEG results are irrelevant in this particular debate - JPEGs are the final output, one doesn't shoot JPEG to post-process (push exposure) after the fact. JPEGs pre-clip lower Raw shadow tones, clipping to zero the very regions of the sensor's tonal range that may be noisy for non-on-chip-ADC architectures (the same tonal regions of the sensor, by the way, that are typically used for high ISO shots).

That is so typical of the passive aggressive biased garbage you write on DPReview.

Fascinating. Objectively pointing out that JPEGs that throw away the very data that contains the noise people are looking to see whether improved or not is 'passive aggressive garbage'?

But they do very fairly illustrate that the MkII jpegs are more robust in underexposed areas than the MkI.

Which has nothing to do with my point about whether or not these result say anything about the drastic changes that'd result from on-chip ADCs. For all I know, there may be drastic improvements (that we weren't told about even when we asked). I'm just saying that well exposed JPEGs with traditional tone curves won't tell you one way or another, which is absolutely true.

You do realize that the subtle differences in those examples could even be due to different noise reduction?

In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like "not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking" and "given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of ", yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.

Why would I say anything about a Canon camera I was under NDA to not talk about?

And I'll say it again: if you're a Canon shooter shooting wide fast primes, you're probably either focusing-and-recomposing, or moving your AF point to fall over your subject, or reframing to keep that AF point on your subject. There's a reason Canon shooters are still doing this: because they can't trust the camera to move the AF point accurately for them, save for telephoto subjects isolated against infinity (e.g. wildlife, birds-in-flight). Not so for Nikon shooters, and not so for those that can successfully use continuous Eye AF on the newer Sony cameras for human subjects. But I'm sure I just happen to be paid more by Nikon & Sony - you know the two underdogs who have endless money to spend - rather than just objectively reporting our findings.

I suppose you'd rather I not talk about the results of our tests, just because it (gasp) says Nikon is better at something than Canon? Sounds to me like you just want us to have a pro-Canon bias, not be unbiased and not afraid to report our findings.

You apparently also glossed over the positive things we said, like:

• "F8 autofocus across the entire array, for example, could be game changing for some"
• "And the fact that iTR and AF in general even function at 14 fps is amazing."
• "The system was also good at not getting confused by objects obstructing parts of faces - impressive."
• "And at the end of the day, that the camera can focus or subject track at all at 14 fps is nothing short of impressive."

It's fine if you'd rather us not do our job, but that's not going to stop us from doing it, nor does it make what we say 'passive aggressive biased garbage'. That'd more aptly describe whatever Jack Douglas quoted above.

 

[Viggo]

You could always nitpick and be a baby.

When you wrote about the 1dx2 on Facebook you wrote. "Beyond the spec sheet." And for the new Sony it was "Sony changes the game again!" And then something about matching the "new dslr offerings". I won't go back and forth about the things wrote about Canon vs sonikon. But it's VERY clear that your general bias is with sonikon, it's just to transparent. And when I pointed it out in a non-troll way on your fb page, what did you do? You frikkin deleted my comment...

 

[Reality Merely Illusion]

Which has nothing to do with my point about whether or not these result say anything about the drastic changes that'd result from on-chip ADCs. For all I know, there may be drastic improvements (that we weren't told about even when we asked). I'm just saying that well exposed JPEGs with traditional tone curves won't tell you one way or another, which is absolutely true.

You do realize that the subtle differences in those examples could even be due to different noise reduction?

That is a little bit worrying, but it could be they want to keep it a surprise for now

Or maybe they don't feel like sharing it with you guys ! ( maybe canon thinks you are biased ;p ), and rather give some true supporters that info first (sorry i couldn't resist , i am always inferior to my normal self on fridays)

 

[Reality Merely Illusion]

You could always nitpick and be a baby.

When you wrote about the 1dx2 on Facebook you wrote. "Beyond the spec sheet." And for the new Sony it was "Sony changes the game again!" And then something about matching the "new dslr offerings". I won't go back and forth about the things wrote about Canon vs sonikon. But it's VERY clear that your general bias is with sonikon, it's just to transparent. And when I pointed it out in a non-troll way on your fb page, what did you do? You frikkin deleted my comment...

being censored is nothing new... It happens everywhere , say something that doesn't appeal to the mod/admin/established member, or something that doesn't fit his or her narrative and your posts are bound to get deleted . Asking (possible fair but) hard or tough questions? or if they can clarify certain things=> your posts are bound to get deleted.

When I got tired of a certain narcissist that kept on attacking anyone deviating from the canon=deity pov , and explained how one could earn his respect, my comments were deleted on this site as well . (I did so in a non insulting evaluating manner and didn't even claim to be right, bust expressed that it resembles narcissist behavior).

Sheep get herded no matter where they are(so even online) ... in case you are right about that BIAS, it will likely have no effect even if you did not get censored !. We are just too easily manipulated.

Just ask : Walter Lippman , Edward Bernays, Sigmond Freud , Gustave Le Bon , William McDougall

 

[expatinasia]

Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last

I am not sure which site you are talking about, but that quote cracked me up!! Oh dear....

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I had skipped this site, for obvious reasons but then I thought just for fun I'd see what he was writing and it's pretty bad!! In the opposite direction - pathetic really.

"I'd forget Nikon's now obsolete D5, which was rendered obsolete by this 1DX Mk II even before the D5 shipped. The D5 barely matches the old Canon 1D X top 12 FPS frame rate— and Nikon wants $500 more for it! Man, I'm so glad I upgraded to Canon back in 2012."

and:

"A lot has changed since I last updated this page some years ago. Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last, while Nikon's been flopping around on the deck simply putting more pixels in the same old camera bodies and putting on new model numbers."

Bet you know who writes this drivel! I'd die of embarrassment if I were the author.

Jack

Just curious - who wrote all that? Are you being sarcastic? We certainly didn't.

Because many 1 series shooters shoot jpegs so only have those to work. But the point of this particular comparison is because it was a beta 1DX MkII and Canon don't allow beta RAW files to be published, it is a condition of getting a beta camera.

How is that relevant to my point? I said standard tone-curve JPEGs do not tell you about Raw sensor improvements b/c they throw away all the data on the low end, and that is true whether or not Canon allows a journalist to publish Raws or not.

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

Exactly. Especially not a properly exposed JPEG. It's not about the # of stops you push, it's about where on the sensor's tonal range those initial tones (in Raw) you're pushing started at. The shot in that example is already 'properly exposed', meaning that even if there were a high noise floor, tones would already be well above it. In which case you could push it 5 or 10 stops and you wouldn't see any more noise - pushing itself doesn't introduce noise, the noise is already there, and it affects low signal tones the most. You make the noise visible when you brighten exposure to make visible low signal tones that are around the noise floor.

It's important to realize that a camera that can't tolerate a 3 EV push on one file may tolerate it just fine on a different, brighter exposure. Again, it's about where the Raw tones lie in relation to the noise floor.

And JPEG results are irrelevant in this particular debate - JPEGs are the final output, one doesn't shoot JPEG to post-process (push exposure) after the fact. JPEGs pre-clip lower Raw shadow tones, clipping to zero the very regions of the sensor's tonal range that may be noisy for non-on-chip-ADC architectures (the same tonal regions of the sensor, by the way, that are typically used for high ISO shots).

That is so typical of the passive aggressive biased garbage you write on DPReview.

Fascinating. Objectively pointing out that JPEGs that throw away the very data that contains the noise people are looking to see whether improved or not is 'passive aggressive garbage'?

But they do very fairly illustrate that the MkII jpegs are more robust in underexposed areas than the MkI.

Which has nothing to do with my point about whether or not these result say anything about the drastic changes that'd result from on-chip ADCs. For all I know, there may be drastic improvements (that we weren't told about even when we asked). I'm just saying that well exposed JPEGs with traditional tone curves won't tell you one way or another, which is absolutely true.

You do realize that the subtle differences in those examples could even be due to different noise reduction?

In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like "not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking" and "given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of ", yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.

Why would I say anything about a Canon camera I was under NDA to not talk about?

And I'll say it again: if you're a Canon shooter shooting wide fast primes, you're probably either focusing-and-recomposing, or moving your AF point to fall over your subject, or reframing to keep that AF point on your subject. There's a reason Canon shooters are still doing this: because they can't trust the camera to move the AF point accurately for them, save for telephoto subjects isolated against infinity (e.g. wildlife, birds-in-flight). Not so for Nikon shooters, and not so for those that can successfully use continuous Eye AF on the newer Sony cameras for human subjects. But I'm sure I just happen to be paid more by Nikon & Sony - you know the two underdogs who have endless money to spend - rather than just objectively reporting our findings.

I suppose you'd rather I not talk about the results of our tests, just because it (gasp) says Nikon is better at something than Canon? Sounds to me like you just want us to have a pro-Canon bias, not be unbiased and not afraid to report our findings.

You apparently also glossed over the positive things we said, like:

• "F8 autofocus across the entire array, for example, could be game changing for some"
• "And the fact that iTR and AF in general even function at 14 fps is amazing."
• "The system was also good at not getting confused by objects obstructing parts of faces - impressive."
• "And at the end of the day, that the camera can focus or subject track at all at 14 fps is nothing short of impressive."

It's fine if you'd rather us not do our job, but that's not going to stop us from doing it, nor does it make what we say 'passive aggressive biased garbage'. That'd more aptly describe whatever Jack Douglas quoted above.

Sorry, it wasn't never my intention that you would be implicated! I was simply showing that there is pro-Canon bias to the extreme on another web site and the quality of writing is pathetic. I won't give the author away since as a joke he needs to be identified by guessing.

However, as a perceptive reader with university training and authorship as well as, I hope, an honest unbiased approach in reading reviews, there certainly was a bias showing through on your 1DX II/D5 commentary. On the other hand it was not enough to cause me any distress since I believe it's inevitable, given we're all human beings and our needs are met differently by different products.

I have a Canon bias and have given my initial Nikon camera gear to my daughter telling here that it is very good for her needs and that the main negative is just the ergonomics. I also told her if she gets more serious not to invest in Nikon BUT that's partially based on the fact that she just might inherit Canon gear in the not too distant future.

My only advice to writers who wish to be truly neutral is to seek the opinion of someone who sits on the other side of the fence, since many of our biases are subconscious and unintentional.

We have the wonderful situation of being able to choose from great gear from several manufacturers and I would hate to see Nikon falter.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Regarding my previous comments, I should never crawl out of bed and reply to a forum thread, but camera talk is how I get my poor aching body to respond in the morning.

I enjoy all the commentary about the pros and cons of all the gear but I certainly don't appreciate the pro-whomever battles and trolling etc. that reduces to name calling. Unfortunately, our world has its fair share of combative folk, it's a troubled place to live in.

So, my advice is that we all try harder to be nice and considerate! However, I want the straight goods not Canon praise on a Canon related site. Surely we are past my daddy is stronger than your daddy commentary. :-[ If the truth stings; too bad. Other than that I love CR.

Jack

 

[Don Haines]

Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last

I am not sure which site you are talking about, but that quote cracked me up!! Oh dear....

Thanks for sharing.

That is one the funniest things seen on this forum..... It is either very tongue in cheek, or the greatest case of overflowing ego ever!

Gee.... they make new models better than the older model... and you think you had to tell them to do that.... and you think they listened to you say that? ? ? WOW!!!!! Just in case they are still listening, I will now tell Canon to make their series 2 lenses sharper than the series 1 lenses.....

 

[Jack Douglas]

Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last

I am not sure which site you are talking about, but that quote cracked me up!! Oh dear....

Thanks for sharing.

That is one the funniest things seen on this forum..... It is either very tongue in cheek, or the greatest case of overflowing ego ever!

Gee.... they make new models better than the older model... and you think you had to tell them to do that.... and you think they listened to you say that? ? ? WOW!!!!! Just in case they are still listening, I will now tell Canon to make their series 2 lenses sharper than the series 1 lenses.....

Now I challenge you to guess who's writing such things in their well known web page.

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

I had skipped this site, for obvious reasons but then I thought just for fun I'd see what he was writing and it's pretty bad!! In the opposite direction - pathetic really.

"I'd forget Nikon's now obsolete D5, which was rendered obsolete by this 1DX Mk II even before the D5 shipped. The D5 barely matches the old Canon 1D X top 12 FPS frame rate— and Nikon wants $500 more for it! Man, I'm so glad I upgraded to Canon back in 2012."

and:

"A lot has changed since I last updated this page some years ago. Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last, while Nikon's been flopping around on the deck simply putting more pixels in the same old camera bodies and putting on new model numbers."

Bet you know who writes this drivel! I'd die of embarrassment if I were the author.

Jack

Just curious - who wrote all that? Are you being sarcastic? We certainly didn't.

Because many 1 series shooters shoot jpegs so only have those to work. But the point of this particular comparison is because it was a beta 1DX MkII and Canon don't allow beta RAW files to be published, it is a condition of getting a beta camera.

How is that relevant to my point? I said standard tone-curve JPEGs do not tell you about Raw sensor improvements b/c they throw away all the data on the low end, and that is true whether or not Canon allows a journalist to publish Raws or not.

http://www.fotosidan.se/cldoc/vi-har-provat-canon-1d-x.htm?page=2

JPEG pushed 5-stops in the shadows, 1D X Mk I vs 1D X Mk II.

you can't tell anything pushing a jpg, either plus or minus

Exactly. Especially not a properly exposed JPEG. It's not about the # of stops you push, it's about where on the sensor's tonal range those initial tones (in Raw) you're pushing started at. The shot in that example is already 'properly exposed', meaning that even if there were a high noise floor, tones would already be well above it. In which case you could push it 5 or 10 stops and you wouldn't see any more noise - pushing itself doesn't introduce noise, the noise is already there, and it affects low signal tones the most. You make the noise visible when you brighten exposure to make visible low signal tones that are around the noise floor.

It's important to realize that a camera that can't tolerate a 3 EV push on one file may tolerate it just fine on a different, brighter exposure. Again, it's about where the Raw tones lie in relation to the noise floor.

And JPEG results are irrelevant in this particular debate - JPEGs are the final output, one doesn't shoot JPEG to post-process (push exposure) after the fact. JPEGs pre-clip lower Raw shadow tones, clipping to zero the very regions of the sensor's tonal range that may be noisy for non-on-chip-ADC architectures (the same tonal regions of the sensor, by the way, that are typically used for high ISO shots).

That is so typical of the passive aggressive biased garbage you write on DPReview.

Fascinating. Objectively pointing out that JPEGs that throw away the very data that contains the noise people are looking to see whether improved or not is 'passive aggressive garbage'?

But they do very fairly illustrate that the MkII jpegs are more robust in underexposed areas than the MkI.

Which has nothing to do with my point about whether or not these result say anything about the drastic changes that'd result from on-chip ADCs. For all I know, there may be drastic improvements (that we weren't told about even when we asked). I'm just saying that well exposed JPEGs with traditional tone curves won't tell you one way or another, which is absolutely true.

You do realize that the subtle differences in those examples could even be due to different noise reduction?

In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like "not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking" and "given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of ", yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.

Why would I say anything about a Canon camera I was under NDA to not talk about?

And I'll say it again: if you're a Canon shooter shooting wide fast primes, you're probably either focusing-and-recomposing, or moving your AF point to fall over your subject, or reframing to keep that AF point on your subject. There's a reason Canon shooters are still doing this: because they can't trust the camera to move the AF point accurately for them, save for telephoto subjects isolated against infinity (e.g. wildlife, birds-in-flight). Not so for Nikon shooters, and not so for those that can successfully use continuous Eye AF on the newer Sony cameras for human subjects. But I'm sure I just happen to be paid more by Nikon & Sony - you know the two underdogs who have endless money to spend - rather than just objectively reporting our findings.

I suppose you'd rather I not talk about the results of our tests, just because it (gasp) says Nikon is better at something than Canon? Sounds to me like you just want us to have a pro-Canon bias, not be unbiased and not afraid to report our findings.

You apparently also glossed over the positive things we said, like:

• "F8 autofocus across the entire array, for example, could be game changing for some"
• "And the fact that iTR and AF in general even function at 14 fps is amazing."
• "The system was also good at not getting confused by objects obstructing parts of faces - impressive."
• "And at the end of the day, that the camera can focus or subject track at all at 14 fps is nothing short of impressive."

It's fine if you'd rather us not do our job, but that's not going to stop us from doing it, nor does it make what we say 'passive aggressive biased garbage'. That'd more aptly describe whatever Jack Douglas quoted above.

Really? Your best defense of your biased garbage is to attack the person who points it out? If it was just me that thought it then you could dismiss me as some kind of troll or fanboy, but even impartial level headed people can't help but cringe at your bias, it is that apparent.

I'd love you to do your job! You might start by when you report on one make of camera do so fairly and in exactly the same style you would on all others.

For instance, in the 1DX MkII piece you mention Nikon possibly being superior in several areas, notably metering and tracking, even though you haven't used either for any appreciable time. Yet in the 1DX MkII video sections you don't mention the glaring superiority it has over the Nikon, why? Because you are biased.

Write up the D5 without mentioning Canon and do the same for the 1DX MkII, or write them both up referring to the other. Now you mention your NDA, clearly you're comprehension was so fogged by the tenacity of somebody actually calling you out that you didn't notice my words that said "on Canon cameras already available", of course I don't expect anybody to break an NDA, but that is no excuse for your appalling bias.

I didn't gloss over anything, I marveled at your ability to say positive things in a negative light and cast aspertions by offering unknown expectations that a competitor might be better, meanwhile playing down very real groundbreaking tech and features.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"I didn't gloss over anything, I marveled at your ability to say positive things in a negative light and cast aspertions by offering unknown expectations that a competitor might be better, meanwhile playing down very real groundbreaking tech and features."

I'd have to say you've got it right!

However, it is conceivable that a person can write with bias and not realize it. We don't all have the same degree of perception in this regard. With my many years of electronics instruction I've sat in a group reviewing a proposed exam and on numerous occasions pointed out that some question was ambiguous and was going to result in a marking nightmare. And it always happened. And the next time I'd do the same and sure enough the same result. So finally,guess what, I got labeled as someone who just liked to be picky. Sometimes certain people simply don't get it. Sadly. :'(

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last

I am not sure which site you are talking about, but that quote cracked me up!! Oh dear....

Thanks for sharing.

That is one the funniest things seen on this forum..... It is either very tongue in cheek, or the greatest case of overflowing ego ever!

Gee.... they make new models better than the older model... and you think you had to tell them to do that.... and you think they listened to you say that? ? ? WOW!!!!! Just in case they are still listening, I will now tell Canon to make their series 2 lenses sharper than the series 1 lenses.....

So, no one is venturing a guess who wrote these things on their high profile web page?! I'm surprised.

I could have quoted more but it might have become the "killer joke".

Jack

 

[msm]

Canon consistently has followed my suggestions and made each new camera better than the last

I am not sure which site you are talking about, but that quote cracked me up!! Oh dear....

Thanks for sharing.

That is one the funniest things seen on this forum..... It is either very tongue in cheek, or the greatest case of overflowing ego ever!

Gee.... they make new models better than the older model... and you think you had to tell them to do that.... and you think they listened to you say that? ? ? WOW!!!!! Just in case they are still listening, I will now tell Canon to make their series 2 lenses sharper than the series 1 lenses.....

So, no one is venturing a guess who wrote these things on their high profile web page?! I'm surprised.

I could have quoted more but it might have become the "killer joke".

Jack

Allright then: Ken Rockwell!