Soft files from the 1dx2?

[Viggo]

Hello good people!

Simple question today;

Are the files from the 1dx2 softer than the original 1dx? It might seem that way to me, can't really get that insane crisp sharpness from my VERY sharp lenses. They are calibrated, and I can see where the plane of focus is, but it's somewhat lacking in sharpness. Maybe it's me, not sure yet..

Thanks!

 

[Memdroid]

Hi I had the original 1Dx and now the 1Dx II. When I was shooting side by side with these bodies, the sharpness and focus of the 1Dx II where spot on. That was one of the reasons I sold the original 1Dx and went with the 1Dx II and 5D IV (and the occasional 5DSR) combo. I would say the 1Dx II has a far sharper look on the images than the original 1Dx.

 

[Viggo]

Hi I had the original 1Dx and now the 1Dx II. When I was shooting side by side with these bodies, the sharpness and focus of the 1Dx II where spot on. That was one of the reasons I sold the original 1Dx and went with the 1Dx II and 5D IV (and the occasional 5DSR) combo. I would say the 1Dx II has a far sharper look on the images than the original 1Dx.

Really? Wow... That's not good news..... Which raw-converter do you use?

 

[Memdroid]

I just use Lightroom

 

[Viggo]

I just use Lightroom

Same here... cr@p.... I should've known I shouldn't have bought it new, it's a curse I have

 

[Viggo]

Not sure why, but it seemed better today, but I'm loosing my mind over this. Does this like look like acceptable sharpness to you guys? It's f2 with the 200mm. Fullsize file.

 

[Viggo]

Here's another one shot withh 200 at f2 and a profoto B1 to have some nice light. It's 100% crop from a very aggressively sharpened raw to jpeg through Lightroom. I don't know, but it has this soft plasticky feel that is very soft, no detail and way too smooth... I know how sharp this images was on the original 1dx and this isn't even close. It's also focused with Live View to eliminate afma issues. It focuses amazingly well no matter what so this is as sharp as it gets....

 

[Memdroid]

Hi Viggo, the second pictures look soft indeed. I don't see a problem with the first photo TBH.
I really cannot comment on the 200 F2 because I have never used it before. But Do you have a photo with maybe 70-200 II or 24-70 II or even the 35mm ii?
I'll post some of my own when I get home

 

[Viggo]

Hi Viggo, the second pictures look soft indeed. I don't see a problem with the first photo TBH.
I really cannot comment on the 200 F2 because I have never used it before. But Do you have a photo with maybe 70-200 II or 24-70 II or even the 35mm ii?

The first is double sharpened, first in Lr and then with NIK software, but still, very high values compared to every other camera I have owned.

The second shot is also pretty heavily sharperned and trust me, that shouldn't be at all needed as it is one of the 4-5 the sharpest lenses on the planet...

I'll try to post a 35 L II shot also later.

 

[Loswr]

The second shot is also pretty heavily sharperned

To the point of sharpening artifacts, which to me is too much.

To me, the parts of the images that are in focus look perfectly sharp. But at 200mm f/2 with fairly close subjects, you have only a few cm of DoF, so subatantial parts of your images are outside the DoF and appear soft.

 

[Viggo]

The second shot is also pretty heavily sharperned

To the point of sharpening artifacts, which to me is too much.

To me, the parts of the images that are in focus look perfectly sharp. But at 200mm f/2 with fairly close subjects, you have only a few cm of DoF, so subatantial parts of your images are outside the DoF and appear soft.

Oh absolutely, but I have used shallow dof lenses all my life (well, alsmost) including approx. 100.000 shots just with the two 200 f2's I've owned, and that's kind of the issue, I know what it looked like on the 1dx, and it's not even close now...

Here's an old shot from the 1dx+200 f2. What it should look like, and with the same sharpening values now, it's just no details...

 

[Viggo]

Hmm, tried the 35 again now, was so caught up in the 200 images I hadn't tried it for a while.

This I'm happy with at f1.4, so I guess the 35 and 1dx2 might just be okay. Earlier I had very soft images with the 35 also, but with proper light it looks pretty nice. I would rather have the 200 f2 not be okay than my spanking new camera, so I guess for today, that is somewhat good news.

 

[Eldar]

I have had no issues with sharpness. It might be that you are little bit too sensitive and suspicious Viggo, given your history with faulty Canon specimen

Here is one example.

 

[privatebydesign]

You are being ridiculous and hyper sensitive.

You are looking for 'issues' that are not there and you are looking deeper and deeper until you find something, anything. You do not have a gear issue. Nobody who has an interest in your images can see the differences you are obsessing about. Let it go, relax, enjoy your camera and your family, you have many remarkable images of your kids that any photographer would be proud of.

 

[Viggo]

You are being ridiculous and hyper sensitive.

You are looking for 'issues' that are not there and you are looking deeper and deeper until you find something, anything. You do not have a gear issue.

Well, when I spend half a car on a god d@mn camera and the other half on a lens I expect it to be at LEAST as good as the previous version of the same camera. I'm not looking for anything, it's highly noticeable... My 200 f2 suddenly looks like the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk1 at 200, and I know it's much sharper and better than that. And the files are smudged, it's easy for you not to care since it not yours.... I can't understand why anyone would be happy or satisfied with this result.

 

[Viggo]

Eldar; Something happened when I opened the non crop image, it's made up of small squares . In the crop, at least here that is not sharp to my eyes. Compare that to zooming in the one of my daughter.

Guess I could save a whole bunch of money, because the sharpness and detail in the 200 shot of my son, my iphone does better....

 

[Eldar]

Eldar; Something happened when I opened the non crop image, it's made up of small squares . In the crop, at least here that is not sharp to my eyes. Compare that to zooming in the one of my daughter.

Guess I could save a whole bunch of money, because the sharpness and detail in the 200 shot of my son, my iphone does better....

The non-crop was just to show the full picture and it is heavily compressed (376k against 7M for a full size sRGB JPEG). The crop (which I updated, since it was given some restrictions during export as well) is about 200%, so view it in that perspective.

It might be that you should take Private´s advice seriously. I don´t think there is anything wrong with your gear.

PS! The image is unedited, with default LR settings (Sharpening: Amount: 25, Radius: 1.0, Detail: 25, Masking: 0)

 

[privatebydesign]

You are being ridiculous and hyper sensitive.

You are looking for 'issues' that are not there and you are looking deeper and deeper until you find something, anything. You do not have a gear issue.

Well, when I spend half a car on a god d@mn camera and the other half on a lens I expect it to be at LEAST as good as the previous version of the same camera. I'm not looking for anything, it's highly noticeable... My 200 f2 suddenly looks like the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk1 at 200, and I know it's much sharper and better than that. And the files are smudged, it's easy for you not to care since it not yours.... I can't understand why anyone would be happy or satisfied with this result.

Ok, drive yourself mad, send it back ten times, have them replace everything on it but the shutter button. When they have done all that wait a few months then obsess about something else and get them to do it all again. My glass is half full, if I had two beautiful kids with the amazing images you have of them, and the gear you have as my hobby, it would be much more than half full, but that's me.

I print to 24" x 36" regularly and insist on IQ that can get me that, if you are not outputting your images to that size regularly then the 'issues' you are pointing out are entirely irrelevant (actually even then they are irrelevant). Are you doing that? Are you obsessing at 100% on a monitor from a few inches away? Are you showing people your entire image (and on what device) or are you showing them a few eyebrows that to you look deficient? You have lost a realistic point of reference.

The 1DX MkII has more MP and due to the DPAF the actual photosites are much smaller, this means at 100% view you are looking at an even greater magnification of the image than with the 1DX. Further, the processing of the two is very different, LR sharpening absolutely sucks, for somebody as 'discerning' as you relying on LR sharpening at 100% views is just wrong.

But have at it, if you want your glass to be half empty and wallow in the 'deficiencies' of your new camera be my guest.

 

[Viggo]

You are being ridiculous and hyper sensitive.

You are looking for 'issues' that are not there and you are looking deeper and deeper until you find something, anything. You do not have a gear issue.

Well, when I spend half a car on a god d@mn camera and the other half on a lens I expect it to be at LEAST as good as the previous version of the same camera. I'm not looking for anything, it's highly noticeable... My 200 f2 suddenly looks like the 70-200 f2.8 IS mk1 at 200, and I know it's much sharper and better than that. And the files are smudged, it's easy for you not to care since it not yours.... I can't understand why anyone would be happy or satisfied with this result.

Ok, drive yourself mad, send it back ten times, have them replace everything on it but the shutter button. When they have done all that wait a few months then obsess about something else and get them to do it all again. My glass is half full, if I had two beautiful kids with the amazing images you have of them, and the gear you have as my hobby, it would be much more than half full, but that's me.

I print to 24" x 36" regularly and insist on IQ that can get me that, if you are not outputting your images to that size regularly then the 'issues' you are pointing out are entirely irrelevant (actually even then they are irrelevant). Are you doing that? Are you obsessing at 100% on a monitor from a few inches away? Are you showing people your entire image (and on what device) or are you showing them a few eyebrows that to you look deficient? You have lost a realistic point of reference.

The 1DX MkII has more MP and due to the DPAF the actual photosites are much smaller, this means at 100% view you are looking at an even greater magnification of the image than with the 1DX. Further, the processing of the two is very different, LR sharpening absolutely sucks, for somebody as 'discerning' as you relying on LR sharpening at 100% views is just wrong.

But have at it, if you want your glass to be half empty and wallow in the 'deficiencies' of your new camera be my guest.

If you buy a half full glass would you still be happy when you get an empty one? And the waitress saying, well, deal with it, it's not that important.

 

[Viggo]

Eldar; Something happened when I opened the non crop image, it's made up of small squares . In the crop, at least here that is not sharp to my eyes. Compare that to zooming in the one of my daughter.

Guess I could save a whole bunch of money, because the sharpness and detail in the 200 shot of my son, my iphone does better....

The non-crop was just to show the full picture and it is heavily compressed (376k against 7M for a full size sRGB JPEG). The crop (which I updated, since it was given some restrictions during export as well) is about 200%, so view it in that perspective.

It might be that you should take Private´s advice seriously. I don´t think there is anything wrong with your gear.

PS! The image is unedited, with default LR settings (Sharpening: Amount: 25, Radius: 1.0, Detail: 25, Masking: 0)

Ah, that explains it ;D I have resat that default everything to 0 in Lr, I find radius more than 0,6 is way too much. And I always mask off the parts that are blurred. Same as the color profiling, the "Adobe Standard" might do okay for some images, but it's what drives you mad with others.

on the plus side, the AF and tracking of the 1dx2 is so much better that is actually ridicolous ;D