Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Studio Tests

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<a href="http://See the full studio test">DPReview</a> has posted their first studio tests with the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II. They have tested RAW dynamic range performance as well as ISO to give you an idea just how good the new 20.2mp Canon sensor is.</p>
<p>Dyanmic Range</p>
<blockquote><p>The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II shows very similar amounts of noise to the excellent sensor in the Sony a7R II up until a 3EV push, with the Canon dropping behind after a 4EV push. It’s a similar story against the likes of the <span id="imageComparisonLink2429" class="linkish">Nikon D750</span> or <span id="imageComparisonLink2430" class="linkish">D810</span>. This means that the darker shadows in a processed image would be slightly cleaner in images from these cameras, after contrast adjustments or a less extreme push.</p>
<p>However, this performance is noticeably better than the <span id="imageComparisonLink2432" class="linkish">Canon EOS 5DS R</span> and, significantly, better than the 1D X II’s most direct rival: the <span id="imageComparisonLink2433" class="linkish">Nikon D5</span>. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/1" target="_blank">See the full studio test</a></p></blockquote>
<p>ISO Performance:</p>
<blockquote><p>Although the 1D-X II shows significant increase in dynamic range at low ISOs in our dynamic range tests, high ISO Raw performance remains <span id="imageComparisonLink2446" class="linkish">fairly similar</span> to its predecessor, falling behind the Nikon D5, and even slightly behind the 42MP Sony a7R II, <span id="imageComparisonLink2447" class="linkish">at very high ISOs</span>. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/1" target="_blank">See the full studio test</a></p></blockquote>
<p>There will likely be a lot of comparison tests and reviews rolling out in the coming weeks. I haven’t received my EOS-1D X Mark II yet, so I’ll just enjoy reading about it for now. :)</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[3kramd5]

no link?

 

[scyrene]

At the risk of (re)opening a can of worms, and although I don't go along with the narrative that DPR are totally biased (especially against Canon), and I don't go in for conspiracy theories, I was a little disappointed in the way this studio test was presented. Just little things, but they add into the general feeling (you get this especially in the comments section there - where unlike here, there are few voices of dissent) that Canon are still way behind everyone else, etc etc.

Examples: the headline "Canon Catching Up?" (the question mark really makes you think - well, they're clearly not convinced; and even if they do think they've caught up, that's damning with faint praise if ever I saw it). The exposure latitude test automatically puts it up against the A7RII. A bit odd, surely these cameras don't compete in the same category? Why not auto load the D5? Or the 1Dx? (Suggestion: because these would make the 1DxII look better). The conclusion "While the EOS 1D-X II shows big improvements in base ISO dynamic range relative to previous Canons, high ISO performance remains stagnant, falling behind the Nikon D5" glosses over the fact that the latter's high ISO improvements are largely in jpeg (compared to the D4s) and come at the expense of low ISO DR (although this is mentioned elsewhere); "but it falls slightly behind in certain respects when compared to its best-performing peers." (their emphasis) - it falls behind each in a different way, but not all of them in every regard. This is a little unclear and makes it sound like the D5, for instance, is better at everything, even if only slightly. As I say, these are all subtleties of presentation, but they do give a negative flavour - every good point is mitigated by a 'but', every bad point highlighted.

I *know* this is just the studio/DR/ISO invariance tests so they're obviously not going to touch on other stuff, and it's quick to do, so comes out before AF and ergonomics, etc., but it sure does make me feel like they've already decided this isn't a terribly good camera (or at least doesn't excite them), which is absurd. It's the top of the line and doubtless one of the most capable cameras ever made (along with the D5). It'll be interesting to see if they review it, what score/award it gets (especially if they do the D5 too).

Hey ho.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...that's damning with faint praise if ever I saw it

Exactly the nature of how DPR's bias is expressed: Nikon cameras deliver stellar results under the most challenging conditions, Canon cameras take decent pictures. Subtle, perhaps...but real.

 

[ritholtz]

At the risk of (re)opening a can of worms, and although I don't go along with the narrative that DPR are totally biased (especially against Canon), and I don't go in for conspiracy theories, I was a little disappointed in the way this studio test was presented. Just little things, but they add into the general feeling (you get this especially in the comments section there - where unlike here, there are few voices of dissent) that Canon are still way behind everyone else, etc etc.

Examples: the headline "Canon Catching Up?" (the question mark really makes you think - well, they're clearly not convinced; and even if they do think they've caught up, that's damning with faint praise if ever I saw it). The exposure latitude test automatically puts it up against the A7RII. A bit odd, surely these cameras don't compete in the same category? Why not auto load the D5? Or the 1Dx? (Suggestion: because these would make the 1DxII look better). The conclusion "While the EOS 1D-X II shows big improvements in base ISO dynamic range relative to previous Canons, high ISO performance remains stagnant, falling behind the Nikon D5" glosses over the fact that the latter's high ISO improvements are largely in jpeg (compared to the D4s) and come at the expense of low ISO DR (although this is mentioned elsewhere); "but it falls slightly behind in certain respects when compared to its best-performing peers." (their emphasis) - it falls behind each in a different way, but not all of them in every regard. This is a little unclear and makes it sound like the D5, for instance, is better at everything, even if only slightly. As I say, these are all subtleties of presentation, but they do give a negative flavour - every good point is mitigated by a 'but', every bad point highlighted.

I *know* this is just the studio/DR/ISO invariance tests so they're obviously not going to touch on other stuff, and it's quick to do, so comes out before AF and ergonomics, etc., but it sure does make me feel like they've already decided this isn't a terribly good camera (or at least doesn't excite them), which is absurd. It's the top of the line and doubtless one of the most capable cameras ever made (along with the D5). It'll be interesting to see if they review it, what score/award it gets (especially if they do the D5 too).

Hey ho.

Typically I do not agree about dpr bias. But in this review, they are kinda keep over playing D5 ISO advantages like as if there is a significant difference. It is probably 1/2 a stop ahead of 1DX2 at very high ISO's. They are very smartly down playing 1dx2. It's DR advantages are knocked out comparing with d800 / d750 and ISO performance is downplayed again by comparing with D5. ;D ;D I am really not seeing a7r2 better ISO. It looks like little worse than 1dx2. It's noise appearance is not like D5.

I am still waiting to see if they are going to say Nikon D5 under specked compared to all those 4K video specs offered by 1dx2. Like the way they mentioned how badly under specked 80d because it doesn't offer 4K specs compared to mirror less rivals.

 

[whothafunk]

The dynamic range really is a big step up in Canon world, however I am still shocked at how good the 1Dx holds up against the 1Dx2 and even the D5 in terms of noise at 6400-12800 range, and even 25600.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I tend to feel that DPR tells it as it is. They have people with biases, all of us have them, but they try to be fair.

Like other reviewers, they sometimes do not give weight to features I use, so its always necessary to dig into the details to find out how things that matter to me work out.

I value High ISO and as much DR as possible at higher ISO readings. Canon's Dual Pixel sensors do seem to be just a hair worse at High ISO settings. That's offset by continuous autofocus during video.

The dual pixel technology also seems to get in the way of other potential sensor enhancements, hopefully, those will be overcome.

I use Canon because it comes closest to doing what I want overall, I'd switch if I found something that does significantly better.

 

[crazydogrun]

Looks great, and I imagine real-world users will be pleased.

But don't larger MP cameras need to be down sampled to the same size for an apples-to-apples comparison? I've been very pleased with the noise performance of the 5DSr, and I imagine that if it were down sampled 60%, it's performance would be similar to the 1Dx ii. (To be clear, not implying that these two cameras are meant to do the same things. I just find the comparison interesting.)

 

[JoeDavid]

The dynamic range really is a big step up in Canon world, however I am still shocked at how good the 1Dx holds up against the 1Dx2 and even the D5 in terms of noise at 6400-12800 range, and even 25600.

I was expecting a more obvious difference as well, especially with the on-sensor ADs. Not sure if the DPR results are accurately representing the improvements. There are several ways to misrepresent (I mean represent) the facts so I'll wait until I can do my own tests. I received my 1DXm2 yesterday but haven't had a chance to even set it up much less do any shooting with it. The new battery did get charged.

 

[ritholtz]

DPR Summary:
It's important to keep these findings in context: the 1D-X II produces very pleasing, nearly class-leading Raw and JPEG images for the most part, but it falls slightly behind in certain respects when compared to its best-performing peers.

Its best performing peers is D5. Though it falls slightly behind in certain respects (high iso) when compared to its best performance peers (D5), it gains significantly at low ISO DR. I guess they forgot to mention it in summary page.

I guess we have to wait for Rishi to give peer group details.

 

[Sharlin]

The dynamic range really is a big step up in Canon world, however I am still shocked at how good the 1Dx holds up against the 1Dx2 and even the D5 in terms of noise at 6400-12800 range, and even 25600.

I was expecting a more obvious difference as well, especially with the on-sensor ADs.

Moving the ADCs to the sensor does not by itself improve high ISO quality where photon shot noise massively dominates read noise. If anything, it might make things slightly worse due to trickier heat management.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Its best performing peers is D5.

Which totally explains why the comparison tool defaults to the a7RII. :

 

[The Flasher]

Really glad to see low iso dynamic range improvements, although the 1dx was just fine under controlled lighting conditions. Will be using this camera specifically in studio, approx 6000shots/day with client viewing and approving images on camera card on monitor via laptop via Ethernet cable into camera. Based on reviews and reported sub par low iso performance, the D5 cannot compete in this specific scenario, and due to lack of ports, battery longevity etc, neither can Sony.

 

[ritholtz]

Its best performing peers is D5.

Which totally explains why the comparison tool defaults to the a7RII. :

;D ;D

 

[Refurb7]

"The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II shows very similar amounts of noise to the excellent sensor in the Sony a7R II up until a 3EV push, with the Canon dropping behind after a 4EV push." — DPR

Is that meaningful to anyone? If you're doing a 4EV push (or even 3EV), it means you really messed up the exposure. It means you have no clue about metering and probably suck as a photographer. If DPR stopped their testing at 3EV, they would say "The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II shows very similar amounts of noise to the excellent sensor in the Sony a7R II". Period. But for some reason they feel the need to go beyond 3EV to prove that Canon drops behind. It seems like a test designed for Sony rather than for actual photography.

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

 

[kirispupis]

Is it just me or does their conclusion not really makes sense given the studio tests? When I look at the high ISO images in RAW the a7r2 seems to completely fall behind. It looks a couple of stops worse. Up to about ISO 3200 the 1Dx2 and D5 look similar (with the a7r2 slightly behind). After that the D5 looks a bit better, about a half stop and then progressing to a stop at the ridiculously high ISOs (that even on the D5 are too noisy for practical use).

It seems like they are really basing their conclusions on
- JPG - which only high end sports photographers really use
- extremely high ISOs - which unless you're a war photographer aren't very useful

At the normal usable ISOs I see the 1dx2 and D5 being similar in terms of high ISO and the 1dx2 better in dynamic range. Against the a7r2 I see the 1dx2 significantly better in high ISO but the a7r2 beats it in dynamic range. However, for all practical purposes it looks like the 1dx2 has closed enough of the gap.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

Mikael. Apparently it goes hand-in-hand with a desparate need to take pictures of barbecues and awnings, or maybe it's a Swedish thing. Of course, I've gone even further....

 

[Ivar]

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

Mikael. Apparently it goes hand-in-hand with a desparate need to take pictures of barbecues and awnings, or maybe it's a Swedish thing. Of course, I've gone even further....

Joking aside, there are high contrast scenes which might matter to some who travel but can't choose to stay for the right moment of light or other similar situations where light can't be easily controlled (e.g interiors with outside scenery). Like more MPs can be achieved by stitching and DR can be overcome by multiple exposures, the less extra work needed the better. How relevant it all is is obviously down to a particular user.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?

Mikael. Apparently it goes hand-in-hand with a desparate need to take pictures of barbecues and awnings, or maybe it's a Swedish thing. Of course, I've gone even further....

it's very true, so a 100 iso image (assuming the 1DXII has great iso Invariance) pushed to 4 stops should have similar noise in the pushed shadows of 1600 iso. I can understand a few stops, but that's a huge jump ans even if the noise is less....1600 iso in the shadows would be too grainy for any of my landscapes. I would still have to combine two exposures to keep the iso noise floor at a minimum across the whole contrast range.

 

[Jopa]

The DRReview's DR fixation is getting so boring.