Announcing The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

[tpatana]

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!

Well, actually we don't know yet.

Mostly likely it'll suck, but we really don't know.

 

[Viggo]

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!

Well, actually we don't know yet.

Mostly likely it'll suck, but we really don't know.

We actually do know, it's a "Hi3" push, not a native iso.

 

[eml58]

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!

Well, actually we don't know yet.

Mostly likely it'll suck, but we really don't know.

Hard to find anyone that would bother to shoot at 3 million ISO, did find one that was at Nikon Rumours, shot @ 3,280,000 Looks.....like an image shot @ 3 million ISO.

Also it needs to be clear, bragging rights are often what sells cameras, for instance Nikon's D5 has 153 AF Points, 99 Cross Type, but the majority are used only fro tracking, of the 153 Points only 55 can actually be selected (versus 1Dx II 61 Points) and of those 153 points only 7 are @ f/8 (versus the 1Dx II all 61 Points).

I can't see though that anyone that Buys either Camera isn't going to be pretty happy with what they have.

 

[Eldar]

If the 1DXII gives me one stop more and cleaner shadows, than the 1DX, I'll be happy.

 

[Zv]

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!

Well, actually we don't know yet.

Mostly likely it'll suck, but we really don't know.

Hard to find anyone that would bother to shoot at 3 million ISO, did find one that was at Nikon Rumours, shot @ 3,280,000 Looks.....like an image shot @ 3 million ISO.

Also it needs to be clear, bragging rights are often what sells cameras, for instance Nikon's D5 has 153 AF Points, 99 Cross Type, but the majority are used only fro tracking, of the 153 Points only 55 can actually be selected (versus 1Dx II 61 Points) and of those 153 points only 7 are @ f/8 (versus the 1Dx II all 61 Points).

I can't see though that anyone that Buys either Camera isn't going to be pretty happy with what they have.

Exactly, why would a manufacturer even include such a garbage setting for? You know someone will come along, use it at that ridiculous ISO then complain about the noise! Who needs that headache? Canon probably decided to limit the Hi setting to something that they could live with. After all isn't the point of being a camera maker to produce good images? Why put a setting on your camera that does the opposite of that?

It's like having a "burnt to a crisp" setting on your toaster!

 

[StudentOfLight]

I don't know if anyone knows yet, but what is the buffer if the 1D-X Mark-II is slowed down to Nikon D5 speeds (i.e. 12fps). Using it at 14fps with CFast card will give approx 170 shots, but surely if you slow down the data input per second then that number shots should go up.

 

[Viggo]

"It's like having a "burnt to a crisp" setting on your toaster!"

Lol, agreed.

But if you were shopping for a toaster and if one was in a black box with flames saying "will disintegrate any type of bread with immense fire-power" isn't that the one you always would want?

 

[Zv]

"It's like having a "burnt to a crisp" setting on your toaster!"

Lol, agreed.

But if you were shopping for a toaster and if one was in a black box with flames saying "will disintegrate any type of bread with immense fire-power" isn't that the one you always would want?

Yup!! ;D

 

[eml58]

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!

Well, actually we don't know yet.

Mostly likely it'll suck, but we really don't know.

Hard to find anyone that would bother to shoot at 3 million ISO, did find one that was at Nikon Rumours, shot @ 3,280,000 Looks.....like an image shot @ 3 million ISO.

Also it needs to be clear, bragging rights are often what sells cameras, for instance Nikon's D5 has 153 AF Points, 99 Cross Type, but the majority are used only fro tracking, of the 153 Points only 55 can actually be selected (versus 1Dx II 61 Points) and of those 153 points only 7 are @ f/8 (versus the 1Dx II all 61 Points).

I can't see though that anyone that Buys either Camera isn't going to be pretty happy with what they have.

Exactly, why would a manufacturer even include such a garbage setting for? You know someone will come along, use it at that ridiculous ISO then complain about the noise! Who needs that headache? Canon probably decided to limit the Hi setting to something that they could live with. After all isn't the point of being a camera maker to produce good images? Why put a setting on your camera that does the opposite of that?

It's like having a "burnt to a crisp" setting on your toaster!

Never thought of that, I need to go look at my Toaster because that button must be jammed on

I believe I'm going to be quite Happy with the 1Dx II, to be perfectly Honest I haven't really pushed the 1Dx to it's fullest capabilities, and I have something that ensures I stay with Canon, the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) Lens, this I go to sleep with, not really but you get the idea.

 

[Zv]

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!

Well, actually we don't know yet.

Mostly likely it'll suck, but we really don't know.

Hard to find anyone that would bother to shoot at 3 million ISO, did find one that was at Nikon Rumours, shot @ 3,280,000 Looks.....like an image shot @ 3 million ISO.

Also it needs to be clear, bragging rights are often what sells cameras, for instance Nikon's D5 has 153 AF Points, 99 Cross Type, but the majority are used only fro tracking, of the 153 Points only 55 can actually be selected (versus 1Dx II 61 Points) and of those 153 points only 7 are @ f/8 (versus the 1Dx II all 61 Points).

I can't see though that anyone that Buys either Camera isn't going to be pretty happy with what they have.

Exactly, why would a manufacturer even include such a garbage setting for? You know someone will come along, use it at that ridiculous ISO then complain about the noise! Who needs that headache? Canon probably decided to limit the Hi setting to something that they could live with. After all isn't the point of being a camera maker to produce good images? Why put a setting on your camera that does the opposite of that?

It's like having a "burnt to a crisp" setting on your toaster!

Never thought of that, I need to go look at my Toaster because that button must be jammed on

I believe I'm going to be quite Happy with the 1Dx II, to be perfectly Honest I haven't really pushed the 1Dx to it's fullest capabilities, and I have something that ensures I stay with Canon, the 200-400f/4 (1.4x) Lens, this I go to sleep with, not really but you get the idea.

So, essentially, what you're saying is that your toaster doesn't have much dynamic range!

 

[GuyF]

So, essentially, what you're saying is that your toaster doesn't have much dynamic range!

So what!? Just look at how crisp and deep those blacks are! ;D

 

[Jack Douglas]

Now finally I'm beginning to understand what DR is! What a great example.

Jack

 

[msm]

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57265121

Finally! I'll most likely upgrade my 1DX too then, now it starts to look pretty kick ass.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Not time right now to wade through that thread - what all did you discover other than the visual of the books?

Seems all same settings for both cameras shot raw at ISO 100, -5EV and then compensated identically - 1DX II left, 1DX right - quite a difference.

Jack

 

[dslrdummy]

I've been watching the sidelines of the Super Bowl and haven't seen the 1DX2 yet. I would have thought it would get some exposure today. Has anyone else seen anything?

According to Scott Kelby interview, only two photogs using beta 1DXii's at the Superbowl - Peter Read Miller and Damian Strohmeyer.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I've been watching the sidelines of the Super Bowl and haven't seen the 1DX2 yet. I would have thought it would get some exposure today. Has anyone else seen anything?

According to Scott Kelby interview, only two photogs using beta 1DXii's at the Superbowl - Peter Read Miller and Damian Strohmeyer.

Kelby should have been a politician - blah blah blah wasting most of the interview time!

Jack

 

[dslrdummy]

I've been watching the sidelines of the Super Bowl and haven't seen the 1DX2 yet. I would have thought it would get some exposure today. Has anyone else seen anything?

According to Scott Kelby interview, only two photogs using beta 1DXii's at the Superbowl - Peter Read Miller and Damian Strohmeyer.

Kelby should have been a politician - blah blah blah wasting most of the interview time!

Jack

Jack, he sure does like the sound of his own voice. Peter Read Miller on the other hand seems to let his pictures do the talking. I've seen him interviewed a few times and he is a man of few words and no histrionics.
Phillip

 

[LSXPhotog]

My oh my did this thread get out of hand!!

If you're on this site, it's likely that you shoot Canon. When you read reviews from websites that don't gush with our same enthusiasm, we get annoyed. In all absolute honesty, Canon hasn't done anything very remarkable with its SLR bodies in some time. As a matter of fact, the 7D and 1DX were it's last claims to that adjective. The 5DSR was interesting, but more of a very delayed response to the d800/A7R and utilizes a somewhat handicapped sensor. The 7D brought a reals sports camera into the hands of amateurs and the 1DX was considered such a better camera than the D4 that many Nikon guys sold out and went with the white lens brigade.

Facts? Nikon smashed the 5D3 with the d800/800E. Just destroyed it on almost all levels. Yet the 5D3 is one of the best selling cameras in the world and it produces some simply stellar images. Canon users didn't care...and sure, some people jumped ship to Nikon - especially landscape guys and for good reason.

Nikon hit the 5D3 hard again with the d750. This saw a big price drop on the 5D3, something we've all enjoyed. Nikon killed the 6D with the d600/610. Sony smashed the 5DSR with the A7RII. Still, Canon users don't seem to care and we keep buying the cameras we want and love.

I don't even look at a Sony and give it any thought as a logical step for me. I shoot editorial, events, weddings, motorsports, portraits, fine art, and so much more on a professional, 7 days a week level...I know the Sony stuff would kick ass at a lot of that, but why own a camera system that I can't do everything with? Why, as a professional, should I invest in their lenses and then have to figure out new studio lighting, batteries, flashes, accessories?

The point is, everyone thinks a camera is made for them when it's announced. If it doesn't fit their needs, it's 'junk' or 'worthless'. This is a sports and editorial camera. If 70-100% of your work falls into this category, you are probably really excited for it. If it doesn't, then your opinion on the camera is somewhat irrelevant on a public scale.

I see all the time people scoff at the 5DSR and say 'I can't believe the video features are so horrible' or that they don't need that much resolution... Yeah, well Canon made this for a very specific group of photographer - not a videographer or at home amateur. As a matter of fact, I am kind of the prime guy for this camera since a good majority of my photos are in print, cast on the jumbotron at Amale Arena, or even made into posters/billboards. Yet I don't own one nor do I plan to because I shoot with 22 and 20mp now and I'm happy with that and the noise performance.

People need to look at the bigger picture and stop being such clowns on camera forums or PetaPixel. I understand that my profession is one of the most popular hobbies in the world too, but damn does it get annoying to read or used what some people ignorantly cast on to the world about cameras.

As for DPReview? Sometimes I don't even think they realize how tepid some of their Canon reviews may sound in comparison to the more enthusiastic announcements from other brands. Granted, there hasn't been much to be excited about from Camp Red in some time...and if I was a betting man, the 5D4 will be a SAFE upgrade that doesn't make the world go 'ah'! I'm OK with that as long as I'm paying the bills and playing with new gear.

 

[Sharlin]

The point is, everyone thinks a camera is made for them when it's announced. If it doesn't fit their needs, it's 'junk' or 'worthless'. This is a sports and editorial camera. If 70-100% of your work falls into this category, you are probably really excited for it. If it doesn't, then your opinion on the camera is somewhat irrelevant on a public scale.

I see all the time people scoff at the 5DSR and say 'I can't believe the video features are so horrible' or that they don't need that much resolution... Yeah, well Canon made this for a very specific group of photographer - not a videographer or at home amateur. [...]

People need to look at the bigger picture and stop being such clowns on camera forums or PetaPixel. I understand that my profession is one of the most popular hobbies in the world too, but damn does it get annoying to read or used what some people ignorantly cast on to the world about cameras.

Right. I can't believe how many people seem to ass-ume the camera world is revolving around their own navel.

 

[arbitrage]

I don't think this was shared on here yet. Comparison of 1DX vs 1DXII with high ISO and 3stop shadow lifting. Similar results to the pictures that used to be on DPReview.
I'm not sure if he used RAW files or not as he mentions not being able to use LR or ACR and had to use a beta version of DPP to "process the jpegs". If he was using jpegs then he could have used LR or ACR so maybe he did use RAWs.

Link: http://www.raymondphang.com/blog/2016/canon-1dx-mk2-versus-canon-1dx-dynamic-range-and-high-iso-comparison/

High ISO is a bit better but shadows are dramatically improved.