Real 1DXm2 vs 1DX high ISO performance comparison.

[East Wind Photography]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
So if you rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter for your shooting then results would be definitely better and images more clean compared to 1DX and as result general perception that 1DXm2 output is better.
To make it short Canon is now better utilizing sensor by using more intelligent exposure meter which does not afraid to expose more to the right. Actually Canon just fixed issue that was somewhat irritating in previous cameras generation (underexposing) - user had to care himself about exposing to the right - now you can rely on camera meter for that.

The other factor is 1DXm2 better DR at lower ISOs so there are less noise in a shadows and in the sky, so again images look cleaner and better. I think that this difference disappears somewhere above ISO 400 or ISO 800 - I still need to check that for myself.

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Ah interesting. I see.

Yes, probably my biggest pet peeve about the 5D3 - its tendency to underexpose. Once recovered in post, there's a small to moderate hit taken on details, particularly in darker areas. In situations (events) where the lighting is constant, often I have to shoot in full manual to ensure pics are exposed properly. When they are, though, the IQ is simply phenomenal...

I solved this on the 5D3 by installing a chinese super fine focus screen which shifted the exposure about 3/4 stop to the right. It was an inadvertant benefit. All of these posts about noise and DR between models is so fine that it doesnt really make any difference in real world shots. The 1DX2 offers so much more in technical improvements that it's really difficult to compare.

 

[Act444]

Dove into the RAW files of the 5D3 and 1DX II a bit more (process in DPP 4). While the 5D3 clearly has the edge on detail at base ISO (100), at the higher ISOs, I'm finding that the gap begins to close and the two cameras converge. By ISO 3200, the difference becomes negligible (slight edge to 5D3, nudge the 1DX II NR down a couple points and they're similar); at ISO 6400 the two cameras are the same; and by ISO 12,800 the 1DX II has actually pulled ahead slightly. At ISO 25,600 the 1DX II has established itself as the better performer. What surprised me as well is that at high ISO, the 1D files indeed clean up better, and the blacks remain black even into the 5-figure ISOs (!) which I find an impressive feat.

Depends on what you do I guess. If you live above ISO 3200, the sharpness difference starts to cancel out and the benefits of the 1DX II sensor start to become apparent.

 

[tpatana]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
..
..

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Interesting. For my sports shooting, I know exactly how slow I can go, and given the lens is same, I have to use the same ISO also. So based on what you're saying, I might be better off with Mk1?

 

[Neutral]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
..
..

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Interesting. For my sports shooting, I know exactly how slow I can go, and given the lens is same, I have to use the same ISO also. So based on what you're saying, I might be better off with Mk1?

This is exactly the same question I was asking myself.

Normally, when I get new gear, I do number of tests to get answers on all my questions and learn gear performance limits to know what to expect in extreme conditions and how to handle it for the best results.
Based on what I discovered I tend to think that for sports shooting with 1DXm2 one can get similar or even slightly better results despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below than 1DX.
What helps is the much better performance and intelligence of exposure meter in 1DXm2, which allows to get most out of sensor.
This means that user do not need to care himself about proper exposure settings and can mostly rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter.
Therefore, setting 1DXm2 to TV mode and doing auto ISO settings per user scenario requirements will allow 1DXm2 to go to high ISO limited by MAX auto ISO value that could be set differently depending on distance to the object. When object close and taking most of the frame space ISO could be higher, when object is far and small in the frame the max auto ISO need to be reduced so that object would be not so grainy at high ISOs
As 1DXm2 is exposing more to the right, it will pick higher ISO than 1DX in the same conditions.
But the resulting shot will be better exposed and resulting image might be even better than with 1DX with lower ISO.
Properly exposed (to the right) 1DXm2 frame with ISO16000 might be looking better than 1DX ISO10000, which is slightly underexposed and have more noise in shadows. So far, with 1DXm2 I can get reasonable good shots at ISO25600 due to better-exposed shots.

As I mention in my first post the purpose of my tests was to compare real high ISO performance of both sensors.
However, these tests discovered one more interesting thing for me.
This is that 1DXm2 exposure meter is doing much better and more intelligent job than exposer meter on 1DX. This alone is a very good reason to upgrade to 1DXm2 as I know that I will be getting maximum out of the camera sensor and do not need to worry about old cameras tendency to underexpose and check every time if I need to go to manual mode or correct EV shift to cope with this. This is a big relieve and time saver.
In general, exposer-metering function is one of the camera main functions together with autofocus function.
If both work perfectly then user will be getting the best results from the camera.

 

[Neutral]

The other interesting thing for 1DXm2 owners who want to get best landscape/cityscape shots but do not willing to buy Nikon D810 or Sony A7R2 or Pentax K-1, is better DR at base ISO compared to 1DX.
To me – the best one now for this is Pentax K-1 (using pixel shift) and K-Amp was presenting excellent shots recently done by using Pentax K-1.
For myself for this kind of photography I am using Sony A7R2 with Canon EF24-70 f/2.8L USM II lens, which is my mostly used combo now.

Back to 1DXm2 low ISO DR:
When I get my 1DX in 2012, I was disappointed with the shadows noise level at base ISO for night shots.
So I was looking how to get most of the camera and found that I could get single RAW file out of 1DX with SNR increased by about 6db using in camera multi-exposure function.
I posted that method here in CR in November 2012.

Here are couple of references to some posts there:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10693.msg194293#msg194293
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10693.msg195622#msg195622
At that time, this method was giving extremely good-looking night images.
When I got Sony A7R and then later A7R2, due to better base ISO DR, they gave me ability to obtain desired results using single shot so since then I was not using 1DX for that.

Now with 1DXm2, having better base ISO DR and the same functionality as 1DX, it is possible to get extremely clean night images using this method on 1DXm2. This could provide image SNR similar or better than even Pentax K-1 with pixel shift.
Actual numerical results could be estimated when we see 1DXm2 sensor measurements graphs on dxomark.
Also due to better noise pattern/distribution on 1DXm2 compared to 1DX, I would expect better NR results using DXO Prime noise reduction for 1DXm2 compared to 1DX when DXO will release update for DXO Optic Pro supporting 1DXm2.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The other interesting thing for 1DXm2 owners who want to get best landscape/cityscape shots but do not willing to buy Nikon D810 or Sony A7R2 or Pentax K-1, is better DR at base ISO compared to 1DX.
To me – the best one now for this is Pentax K-1 (using pixel shift) and K-Amp was presenting excellent shots recently done by using Pentax K-1.
For myself for this kind of photography I am using Sony A7R2 with Canon EF24-70 f/2.8L USM II lens, which is my mostly used combo now.

Back to 1DXm2 low ISO DR:
When I get my 1DX in 2012, I was disappointed with the shadows noise level at base ISO for night shots.
So I was looking how to get most of the camera and found that I could get single RAW file out of 1DX with SNR increased by about 6db using in camera multi-exposure function.
I posted that method here in CR in November 2012.

Here are couple of references to some posts there:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10693.msg194293#msg194293
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10693.msg195622#msg195622
At that time, this method was giving extremely good-looking night images.
When I got Sony A7R and then later A7R2, due to better base ISO DR, they gave me ability to obtain desired results using single shot so since then I was not using 1DX for that.

Now with 1DXm2, having better base ISO DR and the same functionality as 1DX, it is possible to get extremely clean night images using this method on 1DXm2. This could provide image SNR similar or better than even Pentax K-1 with pixel shift.
Actual numerical results could be estimated when we see 1DXm2 sensor measurements graphs on dxomark.
Also due to better noise pattern/distribution on 1DXm2 compared to 1DX, I would expect better NR results using DXO Prime noise reduction for 1DXm2 compared to 1DX when DXO will release update for DXO Optic Pro supporting 1DXm2.

Interesting, I had missed that thread and am just now getting more interested in landscapes. Glad you're sharing this 1DX II feedback since I hope to have one this fall.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Thing is I find myself using NR less often on my backgrounds (I never use NR on the bird). To me this means there is just less noise or noise that is "less intrusive" on image quality.

I have see that in the 7D vs 7D2 as well - noise aabout 2/3 stop better but the way the noise is rendered makes it more pleasing and easier to work with giving an effective boost to 1 or 1.5 stops improvement. Also in line with the comments above, I have found the 7D2 underexposes by half to 2/3 stop.
It seems these are the new Canon way of doing things.

 

[Viggo]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
..
..

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Interesting. For my sports shooting, I know exactly how slow I can go, and given the lens is same, I have to use the same ISO also. So based on what you're saying, I might be better off with Mk1?

This is exactly the same question I was asking myself.

Normally, when I get new gear, I do number of tests to get answers on all my questions and learn gear performance limits to know what to expect in extreme conditions and how to handle it for the best results.
Based on what I discovered I tend to think that for sports shooting with 1DXm2 one can get similar or even slightly better results despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below than 1DX.
What helps is the much better performance and intelligence of exposure meter in 1DXm2, which allows to get most out of sensor.
This means that user do not need to care himself about proper exposure settings and can mostly rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter.
Therefore, setting 1DXm2 to TV mode and doing auto ISO settings per user scenario requirements will allow 1DXm2 to go to high ISO limited by MAX auto ISO value that could be set differently depending on distance to the object. When object close and taking most of the frame space ISO could be higher, when object is far and small in the frame the max auto ISO need to be reduced so that object would be not so grainy at high ISOs
As 1DXm2 is exposing more to the right, it will pick higher ISO than 1DX in the same conditions.
But the resulting shot will be better exposed and resulting image might be even better than with 1DX with lower ISO.
Properly exposed (to the right) 1DXm2 frame with ISO16000 might be looking better than 1DX ISO10000, which is slightly underexposed and have more noise in shadows. So far, with 1DXm2 I can get reasonable good shots at ISO25600 due to better-exposed shots.

As I mention in my first post the purpose of my tests was to compare real high ISO performance of both sensors.
However, these tests discovered one more interesting thing for me.
This is that 1DXm2 exposure meter is doing much better and more intelligent job than exposer meter on 1DX. This alone is a very good reason to upgrade to 1DXm2 as I know that I will be getting maximum out of the camera sensor and do not need to worry about old cameras tendency to underexpose and check every time if I need to go to manual mode or correct EV shift to cope with this. This is a big relieve and time saver.
In general, exposer-metering function is one of the camera main functions together with autofocus function.
If both work perfectly then user will be getting the best results from the camera.

Just adjust the 0 ev offset in either camera and they will expose equally. Lol, that was the first thing I calibrated. Mine is set to +5/8.

 

[scottkinfw]

Tests like this provide good data, but for me nothing beats how a camera performs shooting what the photographer bought the camera to shoot. I shot the 1Dx for years doing mostly birds in flight. I switched to the 1DxII and received my camera very early in the release. So, I have been shooting it for a few weeks now.

Overall, I could not be more pleased. I actually am seeing a bit better high ISO performance (high ISO for me is 800 - 6400). ISO 800 is cleaner compared to the IDx and 800 is my "base" ISO for the type of work I do. Personally, I believe before you can really judge a camera's AF ability you need to micro adjust. I shoot the 600 f/4 IS II with both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs depending on what is needed. The AF on the 1DxII is super fast and accurate with all my lens and TC combos. Is it better than the 1Dx? Yes. It does not "waiver" as much as my 1Dx did. When I shoot a burst of 30-50 images in a row and I do my job of keeping the AF point on the bird just about all the shot are tack sharp. The 1Dx would be tack on for a few shots off for a couple and then back on. I have never used an AF system like the one on the 1DxII before. It is the best I have ever used.

The 14 fps is great for my type of photography where getting the best frame out of a bird in flight sequence can be a matter of a split second. 14 fps gives me wing positions I hardly ever captured with the 1Dx. Seems like going from 12 to 14 fps should not make much of a difference but it does.

Overall, the IQ of the images coming from the new sensor are just better than the 1Dx. For me, the 1DxII is a great step forward for my type of photography and I have no regrets what so ever for trading in my old 1Dx for the new camera. For me the proof of a camera's worth is in the field. The camera has already proved itself to me.

I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII, so you know I am just not blowing smoke.

Outstanding pics, thanks for your remarks. What were your aperture settings?

sek

 

[Mikehit]

To understand how well the 1DXII responds at a given ISO you first need to know how accurate its ISO is.

The attached image comes from DxO and documents the actual ISO sensitivity of the 1DX vs the nominal sensitivity. It is very rare for a camera to match 1:1. But what it is saying is that when you meter for shooting ISO 100 with the 1DX, you should calculate for ISO 80 (or thereabouts) instead. So if a light meter said you would need 1/60 at f/4 for ISO 100 then on the 1DX, you would need to shoot at 1/50 at f/4 if the camera was set to ISO 100. (If I've understood the graph correctly.) As yet I haven't seen anyone evaluate the ISO accuracy of the 1DXII but seemingly the two cameras are not equivalent.

DxO themselves admit that there are different ways of measuring ISO which means that you cannot define "how accurate its ISO is" in absolute terms. At the end of the day it is irrelevant - the only thing you can rely on is the sort of test that Neutral has done so you understand how it works in the field for the type of photography you normally do.

 

[rbielefeld]

Tests like this provide good data, but for me nothing beats how a camera performs shooting what the photographer bought the camera to shoot. I shot the 1Dx for years doing mostly birds in flight. I switched to the 1DxII and received my camera very early in the release. So, I have been shooting it for a few weeks now.

Overall, I could not be more pleased. I actually am seeing a bit better high ISO performance (high ISO for me is 800 - 6400). ISO 800 is cleaner compared to the IDx and 800 is my "base" ISO for the type of work I do. Personally, I believe before you can really judge a camera's AF ability you need to micro adjust. I shoot the 600 f/4 IS II with both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs depending on what is needed. The AF on the 1DxII is super fast and accurate with all my lens and TC combos. Is it better than the 1Dx? Yes. It does not "waiver" as much as my 1Dx did. When I shoot a burst of 30-50 images in a row and I do my job of keeping the AF point on the bird just about all the shot are tack sharp. The 1Dx would be tack on for a few shots off for a couple and then back on. I have never used an AF system like the one on the 1DxII before. It is the best I have ever used.

The 14 fps is great for my type of photography where getting the best frame out of a bird in flight sequence can be a matter of a split second. 14 fps gives me wing positions I hardly ever captured with the 1Dx. Seems like going from 12 to 14 fps should not make much of a difference but it does.

Overall, the IQ of the images coming from the new sensor are just better than the 1Dx. For me, the 1DxII is a great step forward for my type of photography and I have no regrets what so ever for trading in my old 1Dx for the new camera. For me the proof of a camera's worth is in the field. The camera has already proved itself to me.

I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII, so you know I am just not blowing smoke.

Outstanding pics, thanks for your remarks. What were your aperture settings?

sek

My aperture settings were f/5.6 to f/8

 

[M_S]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
So if you rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter for your shooting then results would be definitely better and images more clean compared to 1DX and as result general perception that 1DXm2 output is better.
To make it short Canon is now better utilizing sensor by using more intelligent exposure meter which does not afraid to expose more to the right. Actually Canon just fixed issue that was somewhat irritating in previous cameras generation (underexposing) - user had to care himself about exposing to the right - now you can rely on camera meter for that.

The other factor is 1DXm2 better DR at lower ISOs so there are less noise in a shadows and in the sky, so again images look cleaner and better. I think that this difference disappears somewhere above ISO 400 or ISO 800 - I still need to check that for myself.

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Ah interesting. I see.

Yes, probably my biggest pet peeve about the 5D3 - its tendency to underexpose. Once recovered in post, there's a small to moderate hit taken on details, particularly in darker areas. In situations (events) where the lighting is constant, often I have to shoot in full manual to ensure pics are exposed properly. When they are, though, the IQ is simply phenomenal...

I solved this on the 5D3 by installing a chinese super fine focus screen which shifted the exposure about 3/4 stop to the right. It was an inadvertant benefit. All of these posts about noise and DR between models is so fine that it doesnt really make any difference in real world shots. The 1DX2 offers so much more in technical improvements that it's really difficult to compare.

What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?

 

[Eldar]

What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?

I have used S-type screens from Focusingscreen.com (Taiwan) for both my 5DIII and 5DSR. They cost about 3x a standard Canon screen and the installation process is a bit cumbersome the first time you do it. You'll find instruction videos on Youtube.

A standard focusing screen is accurate to about f2.8. If you shoot wider than that, you need a better screen. With the S-screen I get very high keeper rates all the way to f1.4. I use this primarily with my Zeiss lenses.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?

I have used S-type screens from Focusingscreen.com (Taiwan) for both my 5DIII and 5DSR. They cost about 3x a standard Canon screen and the installation process is a bit cumbersome the first time you do it. You'll find instruction videos on Youtube.

A standard focusing screen is accurate to about f2.8. If you shoot wider than that, you need a better screen. With the S-screen I get very high keeper rates all the way to f1.4. I use this primarily with my Zeiss lenses.

Do you find that the camera's light meter is effected with the fine focus screen? The 5DII had an option to adapt the meter for the different screen.

 

[Viggo]

What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?

I have used S-type screens from Focusingscreen.com (Taiwan) for both my 5DIII and 5DSR. They cost about 3x a standard Canon screen and the installation process is a bit cumbersome the first time you do it. You'll find instruction videos on Youtube.

A standard focusing screen is accurate to about f2.8. If you shoot wider than that, you need a better screen. With the S-screen I get very high keeper rates all the way to f1.4. I use this primarily with my Zeiss lenses.

Do you find that the camera's light meter is effected with the fine focus screen? The 5DII had an option to adapt the meter for the different screen.

I used the S-screen, but it seem to throw off metering much more often, and not in a consistent way, Canon doesn't support a correction for it with the 1dxand I grew tired of adjusting the EC aaaall the time, so went back to the standard one.

 

[rcarca]

I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII, so you know I am just not blowing smoke.

Fabulous photographs - thank you for sharing. At the end of the day, anything that can help you capture this quality has to be an awesome beast (accepting that you must be a pretty fantastic photographer as well!!!)

Richard

 

[3kramd5]

DxO themselves admit that there are different ways of measuring ISO

I wouldn't characterize it as "admitting." It's just a statement of fact.

If I had to guess, it would be that manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Ricoh, etc. lean towards Standard Output Sensitivity as defined by CIPA DC-004, which the ISO standard allows. DXO uses Saturation Based Sensitivity.

 

[Neutral]

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply clean up better in post, giving more pleasing NR results?

Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
..
..

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance.
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.

Interesting. For my sports shooting, I know exactly how slow I can go, and given the lens is same, I have to use the same ISO also. So based on what you're saying, I might be better off with Mk1?

This is exactly the same question I was asking myself.

Normally, when I get new gear, I do number of tests to get answers on all my questions and learn gear performance limits to know what to expect in extreme conditions and how to handle it for the best results.
Based on what I discovered I tend to think that for sports shooting with 1DXm2 one can get similar or even slightly better results despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below than 1DX.
What helps is the much better performance and intelligence of exposure meter in 1DXm2, which allows to get most out of sensor.
This means that user do not need to care himself about proper exposure settings and can mostly rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter.
Therefore, setting 1DXm2 to TV mode and doing auto ISO settings per user scenario requirements will allow 1DXm2 to go to high ISO limited by MAX auto ISO value that could be set differently depending on distance to the object. When object close and taking most of the frame space ISO could be higher, when object is far and small in the frame the max auto ISO need to be reduced so that object would be not so grainy at high ISOs
As 1DXm2 is exposing more to the right, it will pick higher ISO than 1DX in the same conditions.
But the resulting shot will be better exposed and resulting image might be even better than with 1DX with lower ISO.
Properly exposed (to the right) 1DXm2 frame with ISO16000 might be looking better than 1DX ISO10000, which is slightly underexposed and have more noise in shadows. So far, with 1DXm2 I can get reasonable good shots at ISO25600 due to better-exposed shots.

As I mention in my first post the purpose of my tests was to compare real high ISO performance of both sensors.
However, these tests discovered one more interesting thing for me.
This is that 1DXm2 exposure meter is doing much better and more intelligent job than exposer meter on 1DX. This alone is a very good reason to upgrade to 1DXm2 as I know that I will be getting maximum out of the camera sensor and do not need to worry about old cameras tendency to underexpose and check every time if I need to go to manual mode or correct EV shift to cope with this. This is a big relieve and time saver.
In general, exposer-metering function is one of the camera main functions together with autofocus function.
If both work perfectly then user will be getting the best results from the camera.

Just adjust the 0 ev offset in either camera and they will expose equally. Lol, that was the first thing I calibrated. Mine is set to +5/8.

Hahaha, this is funny)

1. Is it not supposed that professional tools which cost from 3K to 7K USD must be properly calibrated before leaving production facilities?

2. In your statement, you says that this is not necessary – it is OK for 1DX (and other older Canon cameras) to underexpose in average by 0.7 stops and the first step required for the user is to calibrate exposure meter.
Therefore, you admit that Canon was doing things wrong and you need to correct them.

What about if autofocus meter gives you strong focus shift and on the new camera and all images are blurred and you need to apply +20 AFMA to all lenses before using camera for the first time?
OK, what about you buying professional photographic light meter and it gives 0.7EV shift from real values and you need to calibrate that before first use?
What you says is that this is normal and acceptable.
How about buying a car and speedometer shows you 60mph instead of real 40mph and you need to calibrate speedometer to show correct results before using your car?
There are billions examples like that.

When majority of people buy their Pro level cameras they expect that ALL meters in this cameras are properly calibrated and they can rely on them.

Canon had problem in the past, never admitted that publically and finally they silently fixed the issue.
Issue was that their exposure meters were not enough intelligent and in many situations (but not always) they were underexposing to protect highlights.
Now with 1DXm2 and possibly other new cameras they have more intelligent exposure meter, which can better evaluate scene light distribution and make more intelligent exposure decision.

3. What you were doing is just adding permanent bias (exposure shift) to 0EV.
Many people including myself prefer to change EV correction on spot depending on the lighting conditions so required EV shift is always visible and not doing shifting 0EV permanently
Yes , I admit if you shoot always at the same lighting conditions (e.g. in studio) that what you are doing is OK. However, for different light conditions it could give problems as this is permanent “brute” “non-intelligent” EV shift

On the contrary I see that 1DXm2 exposure meter doing intelligent evaluation and depending on situation deciding how much to right it could expose.
And this is proper behavior for professional photographic tool – you can trust that all meters in this tool are properly calibrated , working as desired and in most cases you can totally rely on them and concentrate on your photography and not on camera EV calibrations and EV +- adjustments

 

[Jack Douglas]

Can be frustrating at times!

I'm quite intrigued by what this and your previous thread have brought forward and will do my best to incorporate the information to improve my shots. Thanks. And you are right; sharing is a blessing and it contributes positively to this sometimes mixed up world. Keep up the good work.

Jack