# Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Studio Tests



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 4, 2016)

```
<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 (May 4, 2016)

no link?


----------



## scyrene (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

scyrene said:


> ...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 (May 4, 2016)

scyrene said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> 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 (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 4, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Its best performing peers is D5.



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


----------



## The Flasher (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Its best performing peers is D5.
> ...


 ;D ;D


----------



## Refurb7 (May 4, 2016)

"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 (May 4, 2016)

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 (May 4, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> 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 (May 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?
> ...



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 (May 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > Who goes through life doing 4EV (or higher) pushes on their digital files? Anyone? Can you stop or is this a chronic condition?
> ...



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 (May 4, 2016)

The D_R_Review's DR fixation is getting so boring.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 4, 2016)

Ivar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



Sure, how relevant is down to the particular user. But after several decades of photography and millions of photos, I have yet to do a 4EV push. Reading DPR, I gather that this is an important test for a camera in which Canon falls short, so my Canon photos will suffer. It's like some joke at the Sony company watercooler, except that DPR seems to be perfectly serious about it.


----------



## ritholtz (May 4, 2016)

sebasan said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > The D_R_Review's DR fixation is getting so boring.
> ...



The thing is moving goal posts in each paragraph of same article. They compared 1dx2 DR to Sony and declare that it is still not good. Then compare with D5 for high ISO and declare it is still lagging. And final conclusion about still not good as its peers which is D5. Same D5 is not even better than 80D at low ISO DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2016)

sebasan said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > The D_R_Review's DR fixation is getting so boring.
> ...



The importance of a performance metric varies inversely with how well a Canon body performs on that metric. 

But DPR isn't biased. :


----------



## yavuz (May 4, 2016)

I checked all the files at ps cc after downloading.. and my conclusion any medium sized IQ people can see 1dxm2 is best of all tested. Especially for wildlife and bird shooters 3200 iso is a dream thershold to catch enough shutterspeed.. and this body best of all. above 3200 iso is generally for fixing the situation .. not for art.. 
Also 2ev DR gain is absolutely enough for most sutiations.. 1DXM2 is better than all till 3 ev push..


----------



## sportshooter (May 4, 2016)

Those tests show to me that a MUCH cheaper Nikon D500 NOt the D5 has better noise performance? HOW IS THIS?


----------



## yavuz (May 4, 2016)

"Those tests show to me that a MUCH cheaper Nikon D500 NOt the D5 has better noise performance? HOW IS THIS?"

Because they will announce D5S after 6 mounths)


----------



## scyrene (May 4, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



I think this is essentially what I find troubling. I'm sure they'll say it's because they compare each aspect to the best camera in that category, but the conclusion is a very good camera comes out sounding like a poor one. Ideally if they do a full review, the conclusion will take all this into account, but I'm not hopeful.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 4, 2016)

DPReview absolutely SUCKS.


----------



## dcm (May 4, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



Just like photography, it's all about how you cast your light. On one had you can say the 1DX2 is not as good as Sony for DR or D5 for high ISO to cast it in poor light. To some this may seem to be the approach taken with Canon products. Or you might say the 1DX2 is better than the D5 for DR and better than Sony for high ISO if you want to cast it in better light. Similarly, this may seem to be the approach taken with Sony or Nikon products. It all depends on what you are trying to communicate in a half full / half empty manner. There are books written about how to present information - Tufte's are my favorite.

But if you lined all of the possible comparisons up side by side with the three cameras in a chart and include a other significant features you would find they are all quite capable cameras, each with their strengths, and many of the differences are quibbles when you look at the big picture. Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees and judge the forest by a few trees. Opinions only align when you are looking at the same trees in the same light.


----------



## mistaspeedy (May 4, 2016)

That D500 looks amazing. It clearly has the most advanced sensor available on the market today. Both low and high ISO look great.

As for the 1DX mark II vs the D5... as others have said... low ISO DR = Canon wins, high ISO Nikon wins
High ISO noise looks nearly the same between the 1DX and 1DX mark II (less color noise in mark II).
The D5 has really taken a massive step backwards at low ISO DR. This pic says it all:
http://puu.sh/oGbSD/309af9eae0.jpg


----------



## thepancakeman (May 4, 2016)

scyrene said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > sebasan said:
> ...



Yup, I've been explaining this concept to my kids as we watch TV. The inverse in advertising is making a poor product sound good: "The Ford truck is has more towing capacity than Dodge, carries a larger payload than Chevy, more interior room than Toyota, and more torque than Honda." Which translates to "it was 4th out of 5 in every category".


----------



## GuyF (May 4, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> DPReview absolutely SUCKS.



Nah, it BLOWS. Hang on, can something suck _and_ blow at the same time?

Jrista gives a good explanation of why the DR capabilities of Canon/Nikon differ here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29725.msg594293#msg594293


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 4, 2016)

GuyF said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > DPReview absolutely SUCKS.
> ...



Ha. Thanks for the link.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 4, 2016)

mistaspeedy said:


> That D500 looks amazing. It clearly has the most advanced sensor available on the market today.



I'd probably give the nod to whatever RED uses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 4, 2016)

thepancakeman said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (May 4, 2016)

Is it just me or does the original 1DX still have the best IQ at ISO 12800? (overall, above everything else in the DPR test library.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Is it just me or does the original 1DX still have the best IQ at ISO 12800? (overall, above everything else in the DPR test library.)









DPR says Sony and Nikon are better.


----------



## kirispupis (May 4, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Is it just me or does the original 1DX still have the best IQ at ISO 12800? (overall, above everything else in the DPR test library.)



It's not just you. See my earlier post.

Where I really think Canon needs to improve is in how much they pay DPReview. It's obvious Sony has them beat here.


----------



## V8Beast (May 4, 2016)

The irony is that by comparing the 1DXII to bodies built for vastly different purposes (A7RII and D5), presumably in an effort to downplay the its strength's, the review actually shows how versatile the 1DXII really is. Well done, boys


----------



## 9VIII (May 4, 2016)

Before I get swaths of "you're crazy" comments, I want to specify what exactly I mean by "1DX has best IQ".

Obviously, the D5 has the best overall noise pattern, and as soon as you move to ISO 25600 the 1DX gets a lot of chroma noise. I definitely like the D5 on a lot of the subjects presented. The A7RII obviously collects a lot more detail in some cases. And, obviously the 1DX has higher colour saturation, that could probably be replicated in post with other bodies and maybe it's more of a "style" choice, but in particular some of Canon's bodies from this era, specifically the 5D2, 6D and 1DX seem to be tuned to produce "punchy" images. Maybe it's less realistic but they seem to have a specific style that you don't see anywhere else.

Anyway, it seems to me that the 1DX is particularly good at emphasizing detail on a person's face, and there's one little detail that seems to stand out a lot.
Look at the "Caruncle" in the eyes of the people in the studio scene (Obscure anatomy lesson of the day: http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/content-public/topic/images/69/125569.gif)

When you look at it at low ISO, there's usually definite shadows and highlights within the very small space on the inside corner of a person's eye. At high ISO the A7RII usually just wipes that all out with noise, and even the D5 "usually" seems to smooth it over.
It's safe to assume that these camera makers are playing with very subtle differences in the demosaicing algorithm, and the 1DX seems to pull out specific details of a person's face better than other bodies. Then if you compare JPEG's instead of RAW the 1DX2 is actually pretty horrendous in comparison.


----------



## erjlphoto (May 4, 2016)

GuyF said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > DPReview absolutely SUCKS.
> ...



They are living proof that such is possible.


----------



## $winter (May 4, 2016)

Here some realstuff from my brand new one... The AF is huge improved if you shoot wide open


----------



## clicstudio (May 5, 2016)

I used to trust DPR back in the day when Phil was there. Not anymore. The site has gone materialistic and commercial. They try to sell u anything they can and promote stuff from DXO and Sony/Nikon and even Androids over Apple on their connect site.
For a review site that prides itself, they never reviewed the 1DX or even the Nikon D4. Why not? Aren't those 2 cameras supposed to be the flagships of the brand?
Instead they have dumb and useless articles.
Anyway, I don't care what they say. My old 1DX is, in my hands, the best camera I've ever had and have been using it for 4 years and took 365,000 magical photos with it. I can't wait to see what I will do with the 1DX II on Friday!


----------



## $winter (May 5, 2016)

skintone: i'm not the expert but looks very neutral..

btw. in this shooting session, i took about 150pictures.. also some with 2.0 and below not one AF miss!!! also on the corner fields, impressive!


----------



## David_in_Seattle (May 5, 2016)

I don't understand why DPR would consider the Sony A7Rmk2 a peer to the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DXmk2 – these two cameras are for a totally different professional. Sony doesn't have a camera & lens combo that competes with the D5 or 1DXmk2. And don't tell me the a99 competes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2016)

David_in_Seattle said:


> I don't understand why DPR would consider the Sony A7Rmk2 a peer to the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DXmk2 – these two cameras are for a totally different professional.



They think it's a peer as in a suPEERior camera. :


----------



## 9VIII (May 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> But nobody here has talked about the observed skin tone changes that dpreview reports?



To me the skin tones on the 1DX2 look basically the same as everything else with Sony/Nikon chips, very much less saturated (as presented by DPR). It is a curious thing. It gives the impression that Canon needs more time with the on chip ADC before they get back to their old standards.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 5, 2016)

9VIII said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > But nobody here has talked about the observed skin tone changes that dpreview reports?
> ...



What would the digitizing architecture have to do with skin tones? It seems that, at the sensor level, the CFA could affect color (and can be corrected in a calibrated workflow) but the ADC?


----------



## Ryanide16 (May 5, 2016)

$winter said:


> Here some realstuff from my brand new one... The AF is huge improved if you shoot wide open



I think the real world results are going to show the truth in this camera's improvements. Thanks for posting the images. They look really clean. I never felt that I could shoot over ISO 800 on my 5DIII without the image beginning to look terrible. So the idea that this camera produces much cleaner files all the way up to 6400 is amazing. 

Enjoy your new IDXII!


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2016)

The Flasher said:


> 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.



6000 shots a day in studio? Wow! I can't imagine having time left for clients to to view and approve images etc. at that rate. In an 8 hour day that's 750 shots and hour or 12.5 shots a minute. In a 200 working day year that is a stunning 1,200,000 shots.

Amazing, and good for you! 

Now I know why I'm no pro. That many shots is just too much work. Even if I paid myself $120,000 a year... that's just 1 cent per shot. Not for me and more power to you!


----------



## tpatana (May 5, 2016)

Or 10 cents?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2016)

bah I really thought they'd be able to do it, the low ISO DR looks wayyy closer to the 5DS than the A7R II and the Nikons

I just wish they'd give in at this point and buy SONY sensors for future products. How awesome would the A7R II sensor with it's excellent SNR at high ISO, superb low ISO DR, great video handling, nice 42MP count be stuck inside a nice Canon 5-series DSLR instead of being only able to get it stuck in a SONY alpha-mirrorless body!

Anyway looks like I stick with my double monster of my old 5D3 for anything action and the SONY mirror less stuff adapted for everything else. Maybe if Nikon ever truly delivers the video and so I'll eventually give up the Canon lenses to get it all in one body.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


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



Actually your statements prove that it is you who knows little about exposure and how sensors and exposure work and apparently who doesn't actually get out and shoot much or only sticks to highly controlled lighting scenarios.


----------



## Sporgon (May 5, 2016)

mistaspeedy said:


> The D5 has really taken a massive step backwards at low ISO DR. This pic says it all:
> http://puu.sh/oGbSD/309af9eae0.jpg



No it hasn't, because lifting 6 EV is a total and utter irrelevance. The fact that Nikon have used this sensor / ADC design on their top end camera only confirms what an irrelevance it is, and also how much Nikon Corps think about the influence of DPR's tests.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 5, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I shoot weddings, events, portraits, corporate, kids sports (indoor & outdoor) and occasional personal stuff (landscape & street). All on location using whatever each location offers (no studio). All hours of the day or night, with available light and/or flash. I've delivered ~ 30K edited photos to clients every year for the past 15 years or so. I've never done a 4EV push — never needed to. I don't claim to be Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz, but I can manage exposure. What do you shoot?


----------



## Refurb7 (May 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> But nobody here has talked about the observed skin tone changes that dpreview reports?



Judging skin tones based on a photo of a photo is basically nuts, a DPR faux pas. Read the comment by Mr. Henrik Herranen on DPR:

"The spectral features of a 4-colour print (under artificial light) are vastly different from the spectral densities of real skin."

He gives the illustrative example of photographing hot coals:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/8090146652/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-studio-tests/2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> "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?



You misunderstand what they are trying to tell you. Have you ever shot a scene outdoors in harsh bright light and had difficulty with people or objects in shadows? Sometimes, you have no control over your position or the lighting, and need to pull up shadows in post processing. Being able to pull up shadows without ugly noise appearing is a definite benefit. It does not happen to me often, but I have tried to capture some photos at outdoor events in extremely bright light where I could not control the shadows. This ability would be great. Like everything else, it does not make the total camera, but I certainly will welcome lower noise in my images.


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 5, 2016)

Actually I think DPR does a very good job of testing cameras...its really their conclusions and the importance they attach to certain test that are problematic for me...and of course the scoring system, which reminds me very much of the camera club brigade...so once that's ignored there is actually a wealth of useful information that's available in their tests. 

...but I do value the opinion of actual users and the more professional they are the better...


----------



## krisbell (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> "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?



An outrageously ignorant post. I regularly do 4EV pushes shooting landscape and wildlife. It isnt a blanket 4EV push across the image but a very targeted push to certain parts. Testing items to the point of 'failure' can also shed better light on relative and absolute performance levels. DPReview could just do a 0.25EV push because thats all YOU do and conclude that all modern cameras are identical.

Back on topic, like some others have mentioned here I get pretty bored by constant talk of all these review sites being 'biased' against Canon but I have to admit DPReview havent gone out of their way to paint this camera in the most positive light. It looks like a great bit of kit that can compete with the best of the rest and I'd love to own one.


----------



## BRunner (May 5, 2016)

Quick comparison of color rendering from DPR RAW files at ISO100. Developed in DPP 4.4.30.2 with same settings. WB set to 6600K, Fine Detail pic style, no NR and resized to 1DX size.

1DXII looks closer to 5DSR colors than to 1DX. 1DX has slightly more punchy and colder rendering than both newer cameras. Let's see how this will work in real world... But when I compared 5DSR to my beloved 1DsIII in studio, I liked it's color rendering.

1DX





1DXII




5DSR


----------



## gn100 (May 5, 2016)

David_in_Seattle said:


> I don't understand why DPR would consider the Sony A7Rmk2 a peer to the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DXmk2 – these two cameras are for a totally different professional. Sony doesn't have a camera & lens combo that competes with the D5 or 1DXmk2. And don't tell me the a99 competes.



More a peer when comparing sensors ..... full frame, recently released sensors. The cameras are quite different otherwise


----------



## JohanCruyff (May 5, 2016)

About DPR appartent bias


"In 2007 Digital Photography Review was acquired by Amazon.com."
Source: http://www.dpreview.com/about
Why would an independent gear seller emphasize the (comparatively) weak points of a brand and the (comparatively) strong points of another? Do we have to presume that Canon grants Amazon lower margins than Sony-Nikon?


----------



## JohanCruyff (May 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> krisbell said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...


I think we all are human beings: almost all of us (Canon_Fanboys, DR_Only_Guys, Tech_Geeks etc.) tend to ignore other's point of views, because they don't reflect the way we perceive reality.


----------



## 9VIII (May 5, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > krisbell said:
> ...



It really would be great if everyone would read up on worldviews. We all live with a huge number of assumptions that never get challenged, or that make us "very upset" if someone does challenge them.

I say having more than 8 stops of DR is useless unless you need it.


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 5, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > "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
> ...


The way I read the test is its simply a sensor performance test and doesnt really compare the cameras on overall performance. I used the 5DS in South Africa just before it was completely dark but with still a fair amount of light low in the sky shooting into that direction in crop mode to get a distant leopard. When lifting the shadows to get more of the natural colors of the leopard it introduced noise their was nothing I could have done to alter that but better low ISO DR would have been a huge help. 
The Sony a7 r II is not a competitor to the Canon 1D X MKII it is to the Canon 5D MKIII but both of the Canon camera as indeed my 5DS have way better AF tracking, better battery performance and a host of other features the Sony lacks. Last but not least Sony optics G Master excepted are inferior to many of Canon optics both optically & mechanically.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 5, 2016)

Personally I think the review is incomplete and quite useless for all practical purposes. It would not have made me change my decision one way or another. My initial real world tests on the 1dxii are that as a system it is much improved over the 1DX for pretty much all reasons. Still a loud machine gun though even in silent mode. For 4K video I relalize that I'm going to need much larger memory cards.  Maybe 34 minutes on a 128GB card at 4K 29.98fps. That wont get through one half of a complete sporting event.

I'll give it its first real test shooting stills at a sporting event tomorrow. It's supposed to rain and I'm feeling nervous taking it out the first week in such conditions. 8) However it will be a great high ISO test.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 5, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > "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
> ...



One example is shooting sports. 10% of the time I have officials telling me I cant shoot from the desired side of the field and have to settle with shooting toward the sun. You either HAVE to push the shadows to the extreme or blow out highlights and hope you can recover. Which way you choose largely depends on the camera you use. It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.


----------



## trombley (May 5, 2016)

I guess they like to compare the camera to the best one in each class but it makes this camera sound worse than it is. It's like a review of CAR X that goes like this.

CAR X is fast but the Ferrari is faster.
CAR X improved its towing capacity but the F150 pulls more.
CAR X improved it passenger capacity but Canyonero holds more.
CAR X with its snowtires handles well on snowy roads but the 2 year old Snowmobile still has it beat.
CAR X still has no water capabilities. Yamaha has been making boats for years.

Overall the CAR X has improved but still lags behind the competition in many ways.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



And to get the shutter speed you need with the focal length you use what iso are you using?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> About DPR appartent bias
> 
> "In 2007 Digital Photography Review was acquired by Amazon.com."
> Source: http://www.dpreview.com/about
> Why would an independent gear seller emphasize the (comparatively) weak points of a brand and the (comparatively) strong points of another? Do we have to presume that Canon grants Amazon lower margins than Sony-Nikon?



I've been told independently by two retail camera store owners (one owns a solo outlet, the other owns a small chain) that Canon does, in fact, give them lower margins compared to other manufacturers. I have no idea if that applies to large retailers, and of course it may not (those same owners indicated that Canon's policies strongly favor large retailers over the smaller outlets, leading one owner to drop Canon consumer-products entirely and only sell broadcast video gear from Canon).

But I don't think anyone here is suggesting some sort of grand conspiracy theory – certainly I'm not. The reviewers/writers simply have a personal bias and are unable to avoid it influencing their reviews and conclusions. 

DPR and DxO are similar in many ways. Both perform generally reliable testing, DxO's is quantitative, DPR's is qualitative, they're complementary and both are useful. Both have a similar glaring flaw, DxO claims to be 'scientific' and they're clearly not, DPR claims (at least, Rishi claims) to be unbiased. Both have a bias that influences their conclusions. The 'advantage' DxO has is that while their Scores are biased, their measurements are objective; with DPR's subjective testing (outside the studio), there's no way to be sure the biases aren't affecting the testing itself in addition to the conclusions.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > About DPR appartent bias
> ...



Absolutely spot on, couldn't say it better.

It was DPR's 'objective testing' that was the final nail in the coffin for me. Implying that the 'issues' in the shadows here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12) are the best the 5DS/R could perform is a blatant lie.

If I know somebody is lying to me about one thing, how do I not know their biases are not leading them to misinform me about the questions I actually want answered? I can't, all credibility is lost.


----------



## Ozarker (May 5, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Or 10 cents?



Oops. Yeah.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2016)

I am currently in the mountains and nothing is happening outside, so I thought I´d entertain myself indoors. I was trying to remember if I had ever shot an image that needed more than 3 stops of lift in post. I don´t believe I have, unless it was totally off in the first place. So I thought I´d find a scene with extreme contrast and see what it took. 

The first image below is straight RAW to JPEG with default LR settings. The image is exposed just when the outside clouds clipped. I believe we can agree that this is a rather extreme example and I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2016)

The second one is lifted to what the scene looks like to me, as I´m sitting here, watching it while I adjusted exposure. The only edit in no.2 is a exposure +4.3.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

_"I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this"_

I do on a very regular basis  Below is the image I was working on when I saw your comment!

Anyway, with regards the excessive pulling, in my experience even when you get relatively low noise in these extreme lifts you still lose a lot of tonality, which limits the practical application for this type of shot.

I am glad the shadow image quality is improved, but from one who does a lot of very wide DR shooting I still can't see a point where 12 bit RAW capture in 14 bit files are going to make that much difference for me.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> _"I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this"_
> 
> I do on a very regular basis  Below is the image I was working on when I saw your comment!


Sure Scott, there are cases like this. But, since the image is rather static, I believe I would have made that one of my rare HDR images


----------



## Refurb7 (May 5, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



Being compelled to shoot toward the sun isn't some hardship that requires a special sensor. If you're shooting toward the sun, the light on your subjects is less contrasty than if you're shooting with the sun behind you or (especially) to the side of you. If the sun is behind your subject, then the side of the subject that you see is lit by softer reflected light rather than by strong direct light. In that situation, you expose for the subject but underexpose a little, allowing the highlights to "just" clip. You may have to lift your subject a whole 1.0 stop — no big deal with any DSLR. The highlights that blow out are typically the lighter edges of very light subjects. With today's software, you can recover most of the highlights. Trust me, you will still get paid.


----------



## [email protected] (May 5, 2016)

I think with the whole DPR force-for-good-or-force-for-bias issue, it's useful to talk about in a couple narrow ways:

1) We all know that making a camera is a series of compromise choices. You can tune a camera to be stronger at high ISO at the expense of low ISO; you can increase resolution, but you may well limit the frames per second; etc. These tradeoffs represent educated guesses that the camera companies make. If DPR takes those pairs of factors and emphasize primarily the downsides to each pair, then what they're doing is implicitly saying that these were poor choices in the early design phase. That could be a valid opinion, and gets to point #2 below. 

Now, if DPR criticizes the downsides of each of those factors for one camera, and selectively show better examples from several different competing cameras - one for each factor in which the competing camera happens to excel - what you've done is hidden the necessity of design compromise and given the impression that the camera being reviewed isn't - as they all are - a set of compromises with pros and cons, but rather is just plain bad. 

I think it's fair to say that this beginning of their 1DX2 review shows in the least a sloppiness in framing these consumer choices, which happens to leave the impression the 1DX2 is less of a camera than it is. I also think it is eyebrow raising that the review does seem to have inverted the importance of low- versus high- ISO performance corresponding precisely with Canon and Nikon having swapped their own design priorities in their respective refreshes. One of our number here on CR actually (jokingly) suggested before-hand that DPR would do this if Canon ever went to on-chip circuitry to provide better low-ISO noise reduction.

I suspect that there is no real motive to be biased, but that - like someone who likes Chevy over Ford, etc. - one has to justify to oneself why after reviewing a competing brand one still prefers the favorite brand. That dialog in one's mind winds up focusing on negatives of the thing being reviewed. This is why DPR needs a few more people who primarily own the Canon system. 

2) DPR didn't review the Canon and Nikon flagship cameras last time around ostensibly because it perceives itself to be a review site for normal people, not photojournalists. This suggests a certain deliberate audience, and I speculate that this might be where DPR gets some things a little wrong. Some of the testing it does implies that the user is going to be someone who is absolutely bonkers for raising shadows and such. Those tests, in my mind, would be more appropriate for a very specific sort of professional or - more to the point - for a bunch of landscape and street photography buffs who do a lot of post processing. These aren't average consumers, and the reviews don't appear to be actually written with the interests of those people in mind when they concentrate on factors like the 5-stop push. 

I've been involved with a lot of publications over the years, and I know it's difficult to generate a "voice" for a publication, especially along with a rigorous quality control regime and consistency. I do not get the sense that DPR has had someone in recent years experienced in this global voice sort of thing. This isn't a put-down, it's just a perception from someone who is a publishing geek. It's hard, and I applaud DPR for keeping at it. With good intentions, they'll keep getting better. 

In sum, no, I don't think the impressions of bias are meritless. But, no, I really doubt this is deliberate. I bet with guys like Rishi and Barney doing this, they get better and better.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 5, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> _"I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this"_
> 
> I do on a very regular basis  Below is the image I was working on when I saw your comment!
> 
> ...


Those reflections on the table are overexposed!!!! :'(


----------



## unfocused (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > One example is shooting sports...It's not a matter of personal preference, it's sometimes what you HAVE to do to get paid.
> ...



That response makes me wonder how often you shoot sports. Let's try another example: a baseball player wearing a white uniform and a cap on a bright sunny day. Getting detail in the uniform while also capturing the player's expression under that cap will make you yearn for every bit of dynamic range you can get.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _"I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this"_
> ...



Very true 

I did say I was working on it though


----------



## Refurb7 (May 5, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I am currently in the mountains and nothing is happening outside, so I thought I´d entertain myself indoors. I was trying to remember if I had ever shot an image that needed more than 3 stops of lift in post. I don´t believe I have, unless it was totally off in the first place. So I thought I´d find a scene with extreme contrast and see what it took.
> 
> The first image below is straight RAW to JPEG with default LR settings. The image is exposed just when the outside clouds clipped. I believe we can agree that this is a rather extreme example and I don´t believe many of us would make it a habit of shooting something like this.



That's a good technical exercise. But to create that technical exercise, one has to make a point of not doing any of the things that photographers typically do. For example, one has to make a point of "needing" detail in the scene outside the window but refusing to add light to the interior, refusing to combine exposures, refusing to shoot at a different time of day, etc. With all of those choices, all that's left is the "need" for a 4.3 stop push. 

Apart from that, the history of photography is rich with images that don't show detail _everywhere_. Photography involves selection, not just data collection. For example:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc994xKNDY1rw3fqbo1_1280.jpg
http://lubowphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Newman-stravinsky.jpg
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/best-of-eisenstaedt-01.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-salt-of-the-earth-2.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/21/16/2ABA155900000578-3168338-image-a-45_1437493717538.jpg
http://www.icp.org/files/Salgado_river_high.jpg
http://www.pwponline.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/30x30_Fleishman_Amish400.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S4hwADCZvhg/UhSbuG1V7qI/AAAAAAAAAvI/UcblkWypF-Y/s1600/012_Jude_Law_David_Bailey.jpg
https://fromthebygone.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/1953lisabypenn.jpg
http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/10/19/p465/091019_r18937b_p465.jpg
http://www.youthephotographer.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Irving-Penn-Photography-006.jpg
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/06/12/magazine/12-gouyave/12-gouyave-blog480.jpg
http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/steve-mccurry-interview-photographer-designboom-14.jpg
http://images.vogue.it/gallery/22287/Big/6d466b60-bde0-48a0-af95-0f3e8681d982.jpg


----------



## Ryanide16 (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> That's a good technical exercise. But to create that technical exercise, one has to make a point of not doing any of the things that photographers typically do. For example, one has to make a point of "needing" detail in the scene outside the window but refusing to add light to the interior, refusing to combine exposures, refusing to shoot at a different time of day, etc. With all of those choices, all that's left is the "need" for a 4.3 stop push.
> 
> Apart from that, the history of photography is rich with images that don't show detail _everywhere_. Photography involves selection, not just data collection. For example:
> http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc994xKNDY1rw3fqbo1_1280.jpg
> ...



That's a nice collection of examples. To the point here, I believe the 1DXII will have the ability to easily capture the contrast and detail in those examples. Isn't that what we are asking for?


----------



## Refurb7 (May 5, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



So are all of the pro sports photographers who choose to shoot with Canon just uninformed? Not tuned in to DPR? Suffering with excess noise from excess shadow lifting, or perhaps with badly blown highlights? And, of course, not getting paid? No, they get the job done, sunny day or any day.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The second one is lifted to what the scene looks like to me, as I´m sitting here, watching it while I adjusted exposure. The only edit in no.2 is a exposure +4.3.
> ...


Agree. If you put 10 minutes of post processing into it, it would look just fine. Just a simple play with reduce highlight, lift shadow and a moderate overall exposure compensation and a NR brush in the shadow areas, makes a big difference. But still, I believe this is a rather extreme example, at least for me.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I am currently in the mountains and nothing is happening outside, so I thought I´d entertain myself indoors. I was trying to remember if I had ever shot an image that needed more than 3 stops of lift in post. I don´t believe I have, unless it was totally off in the first place. So I thought I´d find a scene with extreme contrast and see what it took.
> ...


The only thought behind this exercise was to create a particularly high contrast scene. It could have been a no-flash concert scene, or a sunlit snow and dark pines scene or anything similar, where the option to add light is limited or non-existent. By the way, I had to turn off all the interior lights to get to this level of contrast. My only point was to show that lifting as much as 4.3 stops is rather extreme, so judging a sensor on how it performs at 5 and 6 stop lifts, becomes a bit irrelevant, at least to me.


----------



## unfocused (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



Do you have a point? Do you have any actual experience? Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements. Lots of sports used to be shot with Tri-X using manual focus lenses, but that doesn't mean the advances aren't welcome.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 5, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Points (since you asked):
a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing. 
b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day. 
c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it. 
d) DPR's vision of photography seems to be one of maximum data in every corner of the image, which is a very narrow technical view of photography.
e) One can't come away from a DPR review without feeling that Canon is deficient in sensor design; and yet there is a world of photography that proves otherwise, especially pro photography at the extremes.
f) DPR makes basic errors, like judging "skin tones" based on a picture of a picture. Experienced photographers know how flawed that is. It would be the same if you judged "foliage" based on a picture of a picture.

You say "Just because we are able to deal with existing circumstances doesn't mean there aren't advantages to technological improvements." _I agree._ What I'm saying is that in their effort to draw distinctions and promote certain technological improvements, some people promote a false narrative that we CAN'T deal with existing circumstances with current technology or that it's much too difficult.

I answered the question of my experience in reply #58 above. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29759.msg594932#msg594932


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



LOL. It's not an impossible task. I shoot about 4 sports events per week, some indoors some outdoors and quite a few under stadium lights. All I was saying was that the ability to push shadows or pull highlights should be better with the 1dx mark ii. I see a lot of crappy sports work out there and quite a bit is because the equipment just cant recover. You may get paid but the better your work the higher the pay and more desireable you are.

If you dont think equipment makes a difference then stick with your 40D


----------



## unfocused (May 5, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Points (since you asked):
> a) Photographers with current and past Canons get the job done with basic knowledge of exposure and light; it's not some impossible or insurmountable thing.
> b) The claim that Canon can't do sports in bright sun (without big noise) is proven wrong every day.
> c) DPR exaggerates Canon's "weaknesses" with tests that seem to be designed to do just that ... find a distinction and then keep hammering it.
> ...



First of all, hats off to you. Delivering 30,000 edited images every year for 15 years sounds pretty much like my worst nightmare. That's more than 80 images every day 365 days a year. I'd shoot myself if I had to produce that kind of volume.

But, to be clear, no one suggested you can't take great images with Canons (or nikons or sonys), I think what East Wind was saying (and I know what I was saying) was that there are lots of situations where raising shadows by several stops is a valuable characteristic to have in a camera. We both offered examples of how that is useful. 

Your response is to completely dismiss these examples and to suggest that only photographers without skill can use additional dynamic range. Your "points" seem to be aimed at what you perceive to be bias from DPReview, but that was not the subject of our comments.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 5, 2016)

Here is a recent 4 stop push. Wanted to retain star colours and lift some of the faint nebula detail out as well. More DR would be helpful.


----------



## nvsravank (May 5, 2016)

I think both of you are correct.
One is saying it is better to have more DR so you have more flexibility.
The other is saying that DPReview is making a mountain of a mole hill when they say 1DXii is worse than another product when the differences are not that big anymore. But that is journalism for you (I hope you weren't expecting objective measurements from DPR)



unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > Points (since you asked):
> ...


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 5, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> I think with the whole DPR force-for-good-or-force-for-bias issue, it's useful to talk about in a couple narrow ways:
> 
> 1) We all know that making a camera is a series of compromise choices. You can tune a camera to be stronger at high ISO at the expense of low ISO; you can increase resolution, but you may well limit the frames per second; etc. These tradeoffs represent educated guesses that the camera companies make. If DPR takes those pairs of factors and emphasize primarily the downsides to each pair, then what they're doing is implicitly saying that these were poor choices in the early design phase. That could be a valid opinion, and gets to point #2 below.
> 
> ...



What it comes down to is this. Not everyone has an excellent command of the English language for whatever reason. There are many, including ESL, limited education, disinterest in language as opposed to technology and so forth. Such people probably are incapable of discerning the nuances that contribute to the bias they present. From previous statements by the author I believe there is a sincere desire to be unbiased but that doesn't mean there is no bias.

Yes there has been a flip, now that Canon has improved DR in low ISO, and DR continues to get way too much emphasis. 

Jack


----------



## JMZawodny (May 6, 2016)

So I look at the data and pay little attention to the words basically because one is more objective and the other susceptible to subjective bias - as has been pointed out several times already. I'm rather impressed that the 1Dx2 manages to stay even with the 1Dx while adding more pixels. We really are getting close to the physical limits here. You can't keep the overall sensor the same size, add more pixels and expect more never-ending improvements to DR at low ISO and Better SNR at high ISO. Neglecting JPEG processing games and talking only about RAW files, the only further advances in high ISO performance must come from further improvements in sensor QE or Bayer filter array performance (include foveon here). SNR being the relevant metric at high ISO there is maybe 1.5 stops of improvement left before physics says there is nothing left to do. After that, we need to go to bigger sensors or settle for lower res images.

Having had my 1Dx2 for a little over a day now, I think the image IQ (high ISO) is at least 1.5 stops better than my 5D2 or my 7D2 (in agreement with the data from DPR). I've only put a few lenses to work on the 1Dx2, but the AF system is spectacular - 100% hit rate without doing any AFMA yet! I was worried about the ergonomic differences, but the button layout is easier to sort out on the 1Dx2. Size did not matter as I use the battery grips on both the 5D2 and 7D2 and I think of the three the 7D2 has the worst feel in the hand in portrait orientation.

My only concern is that support in DXO Optics Pro won't arrive until September (and with my luck as a paid upgrade to version 11). I'm very happy I bought the 1Dx2.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 6, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> So I look at the data and pay little attention to the words basically because one is more objective and the other susceptible to subjective bias - as has been pointed out several times already. I'm rather impressed that the 1Dx2 manages to stay even with the 1Dx while adding more pixels. We really are getting close to the physical limits here. You can't keep the overall sensor the same size, add more pixels and expect more never-ending improvements to DR at low ISO and Better SNR at high ISO. Neglecting JPEG processing games and talking only about RAW files, the only further advances in high ISO performance must come from further improvements in sensor QE or Bayer filter array performance (include foveon here). SNR being the relevant metric at high ISO there is maybe 1.5 stops of improvement left before physics says there is nothing left to do. After that, we need to go to bigger sensors or settle for lower res images.
> 
> Having had my 1Dx2 for a little over a day now, I think the image IQ (high ISO) is at least 1.5 stops better than my 5D2 or my 7D2 (in agreement with the data from DPR). I've only put a few lenses to work on the 1Dx2, but the AF system is spectacular - 100% hit rate without doing any AFMA yet! I was worried about the ergonomic differences, but the button layout is easier to sort out on the 1Dx2. Size did not matter as I use the battery grips on both the 5D2 and 7D2 and I think of the three the 7D2 has the worst feel in the hand in portrait orientation.
> 
> My only concern is that support in DXO Optics Pro won't arrive until September (and with my luck as a paid upgrade to version 11). I'm very happy I bought the 1Dx2.



Pleased to hear your assessment and I think you are right. We need to be realistic and appreciate what amazing technology we get to hold in our hands. We'd be better off if we never read any reviews! 

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 6, 2016)

nvsravank said:


> I think both of you are correct.
> One is saying it is better to have more DR so you have more flexibility.
> The other is saying that DPReview is making a mountain of a mole hill when they say 1DXii is worse than another product when the differences are not that big anymore. But that is journalism for you (I hope you weren't expecting objective measurements from DPR)
> 
> ...



I find it interesting that it was previously OK to talk about 1/3 EV benefits in high ISO dynamic range for the 6D - something you don't even see unless you're pushing already noisy high ISO files, but a point I saw made here on CR all the time - and yet it's not OK to point out the more apparent midtone (SNR 18%) noise benefit of the class-leading (in this regard) D5.

And just since the 1D-X II shows improvements in low ISO DR, we're supposed to overemphasize it because, well, Canon tried, despite still remaining probably a stop or more behind class leaders in this regard. I mean, we already said its 'significant that it beats its only real peer the D5', but that wasn't enough because on the next page where we look at high ISO, we shouldn't have pointed out the D5 beats the 1D-X II.

Interesting logic. 

A CR member then passively aggressively attributes the supposed bias - if you still believe it exists after reading my comments above - to possible ESL and lack of education with respect to the reviewer, who happens to be a graduate of two Ivy League colleges, and born in the United States, by the way.

Odd and unfortunate.
-Rishi


----------



## Francis L (May 6, 2016)

Lol, I still remember years ago DPR was defending the Nikon D2x against FF and harping on about noise being less of an issue on prints. Now apparently, a bit more noise at ISO 12,800 is a big issue. Pixel peeping and measurebating gone mad.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 6, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's fair to say that this beginning of their 1DX2 review shows in the least a sloppiness in framing these consumer choices, which happens to leave the impression the 1DX2 is less of a camera than it is. I also think it is eyebrow raising that the review does seem to have inverted the importance of low- versus high- ISO performance corresponding precisely with Canon and Nikon having swapped their own design priorities in their respective refreshes. One of our number here on CR actually (jokingly) suggested before-hand that DPR would do this if Canon ever went to on-chip circuitry to provide better low-ISO noise reduction.



I'd doesn't have the inverted importance because the 1D-X II only shows an improvement relative to already underperforming Canons. It's still well behind the best the competition offer, and we DID emphasize it beats its only real peer, the Nikon D5 significantly. What more would you have us say? Lie and say it now matched the D810 or a7R II? Because it doesn't.



Jack Douglas said:


> What it comes down to is this. Not everyone has an excellent command of the English language for whatever reason. There are many, including ESL, limited education, disinterest in language as opposed to technology and so forth. Such people probably are incapable of discerning the nuances that contribute to the bias they present. From previous statements by the author I believe there is a sincere desire to be unbiased but that doesn't mean there is no bias.
> 
> Yes there has been a flip, now that Canon has improved DR in low ISO, and DR continues to get way too much emphasis.
> 
> Jack



Well, I'm sure that's not racist or anything, but it does seem to ignore the fact that Barney actually learned proper English in England and is quite a writer, and as an American born citizen myself, I resent the ESL implication, and the 'lack of secondary education' implication considering English is my first language. Nevermind your comments re: education, considering we both went to gradute studies, and I myself graduated from two Ivy League schools.

Rishi Sanyal, Ph.D
Technical Editor, dpreview.com


----------



## Neutral (May 6, 2016)

Looking at the DPR test shots 1DXm2 has clear advantage over 1DX and over Sony a7r2.
Do not know why DPR decided that a7r2 is better at high ISO that 1DXm2
For proper high ISO comparison one need to select low light scene comparison option – this is where luminance in shadow areas is significantly lower compared to test shot at normal lighting.
When using such low light conditions it is better to evaluate more accurately high ISO performance, including high ISO DR. I believe that many people here were doing comparisons at normal light where sensor performance differences are less obvious.

From these snapshots, see attached, I could see that 1DXm2 has about 1/3 or may be a bit better high ISO performance compared to 1DX and some smaller advantage over Sony a7r2.
In addition, a7r2 has some issues at rendering low contrast shadow areas, which is clearly seen on snapshots, maybe due to default compressed RAW settings. Possibly, with uncompressed RAW setting there would be no such artefacts.

What is most important is that 1DXm2 noise pattern is uniform, less blotchy and has a bit higher frequency compared to 1DX and a7r2 noise – more close to Gaussian noise pattern. So as result is looks more natural, more pleasant to eye and easy to filter out by NR. DXO Prime NR probably will be working very well removing such kind of noise.

So for me as owner of 1DX and Sony a7r2 these 1DXm2 results together with other 1DXm2 improvements (significantly improved AF, anti-flicker mode etc.) is enough to make decision for upgrade from 1DX. New 1DXm2 should be working noticeably better than 1DX in dim lit conditions – both image quality and AF performance.
As for D5 it clearly has at least 1/2 stop advantage over 1DXm2 at high ISOs closing to theoretical limit for Bayer sensor type. Interesting to know what they did for that.


----------



## yavuz (May 6, 2016)

Dear Rishi;
With my poor English(sorry for this).. What you say in DP review is really enough for me or us... Actually you made very good commentments about 1dxm2... 3 stop ev advantage.. and better low iso performance are really very important for wildlife and bird photographers.Actually its not low iso ... becauese 6400 iso is really very high iso in photographic science..
Above 6400 is yours.. you can use it anytime you want.. we are trying to make art)




7dm2.. 600 f4 is 2 
1/1000 iso 640 f:4
very cloudy and rainy day.. you can see the rain drops..


There is a quote among bird photographers here in Turkey..
""You can take very nice photos with Nikon if you can catch it""


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Looking at the DPR test shots 1DXm2 has clear advantage over 1DX and over Sony a7r2.
> Do not know why DPR decided that a7r2 is better at high ISO that 1DXm2



Why? Bias.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 6, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...


Why bring the A7R II or the D810 into the discussion at all? 

How does the A7S-II compare to the A7R-II at low ISO? (*see your partner DXO)
How does the D4s/D5/DF compare to the D810 at low ISO? (*see your partner DXO)

The A7S-II, D5 and 1DX-II are the large-pixel "low-light kings" of their respective stables. Those are the cameras to be compared to each other.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 6, 2016)

[quote author=rishi_sanyal] Nevermind your comments re: education, considering we both went to gradute studies, and I myself graduated from two Ivy League schools.

Really fun and productive place to be around, these forums, I'm beginning to see. Would a second Princton degree help? If so perhaps I'll consider one. Oh the horror of spending time with some of the most brilliant people on the world.[/quote]

It's:

"Never mind";

"Graduate"; and

"Princeton".

_Just saying_. Banging on about your credentials isn't a convincing defence against allegations of bias (whether or not unintended) and of sloppy testing...

Oh - and as an American, maybe you don't see the irony of you complaining about this forum as a place to spend time, given the utterly dismal experience that is DPR...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 6, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Here is a recent 4 stop push. Wanted to retain star colours and lift some of the faint nebula detail out as well. More DR would be helpful.



_So don't push in Lightroom - it's crap for this kind of adjustment_.

Why don't people get this? I've demonstrated low ISO 5 stop pushes - _from a 70D, FFS_ - that were squeaky-clean in the shadows _because I used the right converter for the job_...


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 6, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Looking at the DPR test shots 1DXm2 has clear advantage over 1DX and over Sony a7r2.
> Do not know why DPR decided that a7r2 is better at high ISO that 1DXm2
> For proper high ISO comparison one need to select low light scene comparison option – this is where luminance in shadow areas is significantly lower compared to test shot at normal lighting.
> When using such low light conditions it is better to evaluate more accurately high ISO performance, including high ISO DR. I believe that many people here were doing comparisons at normal light where sensor performance differences are less obvious.
> ...



Thank you for the analysis and sample images. It is enlightening and decisively why I got the 1dx mark ii. I think a lot of folks here put too much negative analysis on color noise. For the average pro, ANY tool, even in camera, can remove 99% of that without adversely affecting the image. I anxiously await the DXO Pro plugin for the 1dxii (september).


----------



## Ryanide16 (May 6, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a recent 4 stop push. Wanted to retain star colours and lift some of the faint nebula detail out as well. More DR would be helpful.
> ...



And your suggested converter is...????


----------



## martinslade (May 6, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a recent 4 stop push. Wanted to retain star colours and lift some of the faint nebula detail out as well. More DR would be helpful.
> ...



Is DPP that much better than LR and others for this... if so how much..?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 6, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> _Just saying_. Banging on about your credentials isn't a convincing defence against allegations of bias (whether or not unintended) and of sloppy testing...
> 
> Oh - and as an American, maybe you don't see the irony of you complaining about this forum as a place to spend time, given the utterly dismal experience that is DPR...



They weren't directed at the allegations of bias or sloppy testing, both of which are taken care of by our transparent and well vetted methods (controlled lighting, controlled exposure, all settings zeroed out in Raw converter - there still isn't another site out there I know of that controls studio tests this rigorously, save for DXO).

No, my comments were in reference to the allusions to the notion that it's my ESL or lack of education that might make me 'incapable of discerning nuances in my own writing' or that have meant a general lack of 'excellent command over the English language'.

I know I have an 'ethnic' name and all, but do you think those comments are fair?
Rishi


----------



## ritholtz (May 6, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > I think both of you are correct.
> ...


So, you are here arguing about silly people who are bragging about 1/3 EV benefit. As every one pointed, that Sony camera you compared is not better at high iso. What about other Sony class leader in high iso and why not compare with D5 and 1DX2 . Why do you think Sony is better than 1DX2 and D5 at high iso with not so good noise pattern.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 6, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > nvsravank said:
> ...



Because look at Neutral's crops here: the a7R II _does_ have a very slight advantage (less blotchy noise) in the grey patch, and meanwhile the author conflates aliasing artifacts (moire) with 'poor rendering of low contrast areas'. No... That's moire due to the high res sensor and lack of AA filter.

But even then, I wrote how impressive it is that the 1D-X II achieved this level of performance despite split photodiodes that bring 'groundbreaking video AF). Where's the anti-Canon bias there?

But I'll do a quick SNR calculation to see who's right. Be back with that in a bit.


----------



## ritholtz (May 6, 2016)

Which lens is used for 1dx2 test? Is it 85mm 1.8. I am planning to buy used copy of this lens to shoot indoor sports with my 70d. Are there any issues I need to aware of with used copies. I got my offer accepted for little over $200.

Thanks


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 6, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> nvsravank said:
> 
> 
> > I think both of you are correct.
> ...



Sadly, racial undercurrents surface when something isn't quite the way one would like it to read. You have read between the lines _incorrectly_. 

There are many factors that go into the level of English that any/all of us have. I am definitely not racist and am married to an ESL. We all have our strong and weak points and I'm not an English major. The fact is that the English language has many variants relative to how ideas can be expressed and these are not always perceived by all. The bias that has been referred to is minor and really inconsequential (should really stop making references to it) and yes CR folk often take advantage by skewing their comments as pointed out - clearly unfair. I try my best not to do that.

Rishi this was not meant to be a personal attack in any way and take it with a grain of salt since I'm only a BSc EE. You must have thick skin to survive given the job you have chosen to do. Just do your best and don't take things so personally.

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 6, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Sadly, racial undercurrents surface when something isn't quite the way one would like it to read. You have read between the lines _incorrectly_.
> 
> There are many factors that go into the level of English that any/all of us have. I am definitely not racist and am married to an ESL. We all have our strong and weak points and I'm not an English major. The fact is that the English language has many variants relative to how ideas can be expressed and these are not always perceived by all. The bias that has been referred to is minor and really inconsequential (should really stop making references to it) and yes CR folk often take advantage by skewing their comments as pointed out - clearly unfair. I try my best not to do that.
> 
> ...



OK Jack, no worries, thanks for the clarification.

To get back to 'why did DPR say the 1D-X II falls slightly behind the a7R II when normalized' - a SNR analysis shows the following for the darker grey (2nd from right) patch at ISO 51,200:

*Canon 1D-X II*: SNR = *2.86*
*Sony a7R II*: SNR = *3.39* (normalized to 1D-X II resolution)

So, both the visual analysis and SNR analysis indicate less noise for the a7R II, which has 18.5% more SNR for that grey patch relative to the 1D-X II. To put that in perspective: 1 EV better noise performance would yield 41% more SNR when operating in a shot-noise limited region. 

So that's about a *1/2 EV* advantage for the a7R II. Note, discussions _moire_ should not be conflated with discussions of _noise_.

-Rishi


----------



## ritholtz (May 6, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, racial undercurrents surface when something isn't quite the way one would like it to read. You have read between the lines _incorrectly_.
> ...



Thanks Rishi.


----------



## applecider (May 6, 2016)

Rishi thank you for the review. Reading the noise patches is always difficult for me unless there are clear differences. 

I'd like to see a graph showing the DR vs ISO and compare this to the 1DX. Comparisons to the D5 and ARII aren't going to make me change brands, just give me an idea of what to expect. 

The statement has been made that the 1dx mii has improved DR at "low iso" but is not as good at "High iso" as the 1DX, but at what iso does that apply?

6400 12800 and 51200 are the areas of interest to me as those are the transition ISO's that I'd factor into a buying decision.

My conclusions:

The DX mii has better low iso DR, the rest is a wash except for the two megapixels that the mii brings to the party. If I were to move from the 1dx to the dx mii it would be for the autofocus and GPS. In particular the ability to use a 1.4 teleconverter with the 100-400mii lens with multiple cross type points and other lenses as well

It is also pretty clear that the D5 has the best high ISO performance, but the loss of detail when shooting above 12800 with any platform, pulling shadows or not, is pretty equal across the platforms.

I look forward to full reviews of both the 1DX mii and the D5 taking into account the whole package, and the DR graph vs ISO.

BTW:
I don't know what ESL so if it is an insult it passed me by.


----------



## 9VIII (May 7, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Because look at Neutral's crops here: the a7R II _does_ have a very slight advantage (less blotchy noise) in the grey patch, and meanwhile the author conflates aliasing artifacts (moire) with 'poor rendering of low contrast areas'. No... That's moire due to the high res sensor and lack of AA filter.



Yes, Neutral's samples are specifically looking at a spot with some very high frequency data, none of the cameras render that well at high ISO.
If you look at other things, like the four main photographs of people's faces, it's obvious that the A7RII is crushing tons of detail. The D5 generally looks best but the original 1DX still pulls ahead in a few instances. Maybe that could be attributed to the random nature of high ISO noise but it's clear the two are performing very similarly, and much better than the A7RII.


----------



## Ozarker (May 7, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



Rishi, I was told by my English friend that Americans speak much better English than Englanders. He said we (Americans) tend to pronounce every syllable where they tend to remove syllables that should be there. That they've butchered their own language. The context was me telling him that Americans automatically consider the English to be more intelligent simply due to the accent. He balked at that idea very strongly.

In fact, he stated that what we Americans call "ebonics" is actually a south London dialect.

Lets not even get started with people saying, "Canon have, or Sony have" done this or that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2016)

9VIII said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Because look at Neutral's crops here: the a7R II _does_ have a very slight advantage (less blotchy noise) in the grey patch, and meanwhile the author conflates aliasing artifacts (moire) with 'poor rendering of low contrast areas'. No... That's moire due to the high res sensor and lack of AA filter.
> ...



Nonsense. Rishi unbiasedly picked a small patch where the SNR of the a7RII is 1/2-stop better. :


----------



## lux (May 7, 2016)

Ok, a lot of the stuff here I'm not really following so I was hoping someone might give information that is useful to an enthusiast.

I had a xti and 2ti that I would take photos at ISO 800 happily
I have a 70d which I'll take to 1600
I have a 6d and 70dii that I'll take to 3200-6400.

Part of this is the camera and part is my ability to use Lightroom and properly expose which has improved over the years

If I purchased a 1dxii (or maybe a 5div later) how high would I take the ISO.

The reality for me and a lot of folks is that I'm not taking a lot of photos where I want to push shadows 5 stops. If I need to do that I've already messed up somewhere. However I'm asked to take photos in poorly lit gyms or churches with some frequency and noise at high ISO is important. 

If the next generation of cameras gives me another stop that would be a big deal. 

So those of you with 1dxii how we doing at high ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2016)

lux said:


> Ok, a lot of the stuff here I'm not really following so I was hoping someone might give information that is actually useful.
> 
> I had a xti and 2ti that I would take photos at ISO 800 happily
> I have a 70d which I'll take to 1600
> ...



I preferred to keep my 7D at 800 or less, my 5DII at 3200 or less. I use my 1D X (not MkII) up to 25600 with DxO Prime NR.


----------



## Stu_bert (May 7, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Lol, as an Englishman I don't think I have any more (or less) rights to represent my country, but doubt I would be able to present all views. I do agree with your friend that diction doesn't equate to intelligence. Nor does English (any dialect) as a primary or secondary language indicate intelligence fortunately.

I much prefer the terms Canadian English, American English, U.K. English etc, although regional dialects mean that such terminology is an over-simplification 

Back to the thread - it would be useful to know how the previous generation of Nikon and Sony cameras fair in these comparisons, so the A7R and D4/d4s, to give an indication of the difference between generations.


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (May 7, 2016)

Regarding the bias of DPR. The titles of the recent reviews for the 80D and 1DXII are BS:

"The Canon that Can." for the 80D

"Canon Catching Up?" for the 1DXII

What do these imply?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 7, 2016)

CaptureWhatYouSee said:


> Regarding the bias of DPR. The titles of the recent reviews for the 80D and 1DXII are BS:
> 
> "The Canon that Can." for the 80D
> 
> ...



Blatant bias. I wonder if they'll even bother to fully review the 1D X II...


----------



## traveller (May 7, 2016)

Comparing (the much slated) DXO mark "Sports usage case" (for them this means the highest ISO rating, for which the SNR is 30dB and maintaining a DR of 9 stops with a color depth of 18 bits): 

Sony A7R II - 3434
Canon 1Dx - 2786

Looks very favourable on the Sony, but wait: "A difference in low-light ISO of 25% represents 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable." (http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores)

Let's do the maths: 3434/2786 = 1.23, i.e. 23% -which probably explains why everyone is arguing, it's difficult to make clear judgments at this level of difference. 

This works both ways, such as the person that claims the 1Dx Mk.II is 1.5 stops better than the 5D Mk.III, which would require the former to 'score' something in the order of 4500 -probably quite unlikely given the results from DPR's test shots versus the original 1Dx and the A7R II. 

Nikon appear to have gone all out on high ISO for the D5 (and traded off low ISO DR to achieve it); will it breach the ISO4000 barrier on DXO Mark? We probably won't have to wait too long to find out. Nevertheless, I think we are getting to the point of diminishing returns with current technology. Maybe the new Panasonic/Fuji Organic Photoconductive Film sensor technology will shake things up a bit.


----------



## 9VIII (May 7, 2016)

traveller said:


> ...Nevertheless, I think we are getting to the point of diminishing returns with current technology. Maybe the new Panasonic/Fuji Organic Photoconductive Film sensor technology will shake things up a bit.



That's the main point I'm coming away with right now.
My biggest regret at this moment is not buying a 6D back in 2013. High ISO noise has not significantly improved. Yes, newer bodies can do higher ISO without completely destrying the image, but at ISO 12800 pretty much everything on the market is on a level playing field, and the lack of improvement at less excessive high ISO means that recent bodies still demand a premium.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 7, 2016)

traveller said:


> Nikon appear to have gone all out on high ISO for the D5 (and traded off low ISO DR to achieve it)



Can you explain why you think they traded low ISO DR for high ISO performance? I don't understand how that would work physically. 

I suspect that, if anything, they traded framerate for noise. Higher framerate -> higher frequency processors which likely produce more heat -> more noise -> lower dynamic range.


----------



## ritholtz (May 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> CaptureWhatYouSee said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the bias of DPR. The titles of the recent reviews for the 80D and 1DXII are BS:
> ...



In 1DXII case, they are referring to low ISO DR. With the same consistency, they should title D5 as, Nikon sliding down. It is not that 80D better than a6300, but they clearly stressed that D7200 and 80D are starting to look bit old fashioned compared to to the current crop of 4K-capable mirrorless APS-C cameras, like the Sony a6300. And also mentioned 80D may look completely inferior to the a6300 on paper. Let us see how much they are going to say about superior video specs of 1DX2 compared to D5. I am hoping for Canon to catch up with D500 high iso performance in their next iteration. Or Sony to upgrade their kit lens and make some crop lens.


----------



## 9VIII (May 8, 2016)

macVega said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I preferred to keep my 7D at 800 or less, my 5DII at 3200 or less. I use my 1D X (not MkII) up to 25600 with DxO Prime NR.
> ...



You know, if Metabones would make an EF mount iPhone adapter, it might not be a horrible idea.

Actually DxO One isn't a horrible idea on paper, it's just a horrible implementation.
I really think Canon and Nikon should have been making 4G enabled cameras a long time ago, but at this point it might make more sense to just to turn your camera into an iPhone peripheral in order to re-capture the point and shoot market.


----------



## sebasan (May 8, 2016)

I have two messages deleted from this thread. Neither of them was aggresive or disrespectful, but it seems that somebody have some problem with them. If you have a message deleted it would be good that you could know why, even by private message.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 8, 2016)

So Rishi, still no comment on why the 1DX-II was being compared to the A7R-II. 

With DPReview's A7R-II review, the A7R-II was never compared it to the high-speed sports cameras (1D-X or the D4S)

i.e. No mention of the A7R-II's:
a) pedestrian continuous burst rate relative the CaNikon sports cameras
b) pathetic buffer performance relative to the CaNikon sports cameras
c) 12bit files limitation in continuous shooting relative to the CaNikon sports cameras

So why now compare the A7R-II to the CaNikon high-speed sports cameras? To me it seems like the Canon and Nikon Sports cameras have not caught up to the Sony A7R-II because they were always ahead.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > CaptureWhatYouSee said:
> ...



You mean like a few weeks ago when we titled the similar report on the D5: * 'Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR'*?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/9402203921/nikon-d5-shows-drop-in-dynamic-range

Maybe Nikon forgot to mail us their check that week?
-Rishi


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> So Rishi, still no comment on why the 1DX-II was being compared to the A7R-II.
> 
> With DPReview's A7R-II review, the A7R-II was never compared it to the high-speed sports cameras (1D-X or the D4S)
> 
> ...



What, you expect him to _admit_ his bias? :


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 8, 2016)

Rishi, I think that people could interpret for example "the Canon that can" as editorializing, suggesting that other canons can not, or likening it to a train from a children's story you can just barely get by by the skin of his teeth, as opposed to matter-of-fact nature of the D5 piece's title.

As in news articles, titles should largely be ignored.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> So Rishi, still no comment on why the 1DX-II was being compared to the A7R-II.
> 
> With DPReview's A7R-II review, the A7R-II was never compared it to the high-speed sports cameras (1D-X or the D4S)
> 
> ...



I think you're unclear how the various parts of our reviews/assessment work.

First, yes it was compared: we had multiple pieces of content pointing out how the a7R II just didn't work for continuous shooting, and that you should turn to a Canon or Nikon DSLR for sports. There was even a piece by a 1D X shooter (our reviewer Jordan) who compared the a7R II at a football game in comparison to his 1D X experience for continuous AF and shooting.

Did you miss that? 

Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers _ in that respect_. Which is why we compared the a7R II to a Pentax 645Z, hardly in exactly the same league. Why don't you complain about how we made that unfair comparison?

The 1DX and D4S did not provide class-leading performance to use as a comparison point for the a7R II in image quality, which is why they weren't used as a comparison point.

Finally, the cons you listed for the a7R II- we listed all those in the a7R II review up front, over and over again. You're wondering why we didn't list a7R II *continuous shooting* cons in a 1D-X II *image quality* article?


----------



## ritholtz (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I think, Canon forgot to mail you their check last week.  
How about giving 1DX2 title as "Canon 1dx2 has highest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Canon DSLR and Nikon D5".


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



Your comment appears to indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of how SNR analyses work. Biggest differences in ISO performance of similar-sized sensors tend to lie in midtones and darker tones, not bright tones where SNR is pretty much only determined by sensor size and efficiency, and where noise isn't as offensive to begin with.

You also can *only* analyze SNR for *detail-less* grey patches, but it's not clear you even know that.

So, I analyzed a patch one patch darker than 18% in my analysis, but if you want a proper analysis of a 'midtone' (18%), here it is:

Canon 1D-X II: *4.36*
Sony a7R II: *4.97*

... or a *14%* SNR advantage for the a7R II, which is about *1/3 EV*. As you go to brighter tones, the SNR advantage will go to 0, because it's all dependent on sensor size mostly.

Of course, I can actually admit that, because I don't have a bias to start with.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > ritholtz said:
> ...



We already had that sort of a title: "Canon 5DS/R Sensor is highest ranked Canon sensor yet": http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3673531883/dxomark-eos-5ds-r-sensor-is-highest-ranked-canon-sensor-yet

Excuse us if we didn't feel like re-using the title.

Any more *"But you didn't title it EXACTLY like I wanted it titled"* posts we'd like to get out of the way? 

Maybe we should've titled it '*Canon 1D-X II* has highest base ISO DR* of any Canon DSLR** or sports-oriented Nikon DSLR that is not the *D4 *or *D4S *or *D3X*, or *D7200 *or *D750* or *D810 + battery grip* if 7 fps is enough'.

_* Something we're repeatedly told sports shooters don't give two hoots about._
_** But only by less than a half stop compared to Canon's own 5DS._


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2016)

This discussion has gotten boring, redundant and reeks of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.

Interestingly not one of the critics has provided any credible evidence that DPReview's findings are wrong. Instead it is all about little quibbles with the way reviews are written, with the conclusion that the reviews are not glowing enough to satisfy some Canonites.

It's time for everyone to just move on. DPReview is a privately owned site and they are entitled to test cameras in the way they feel is most productive. If you disagree, well...no one makes you go to their site. And, if you think you can design tests and report results in a more objective manner...well knock yourself out. No one is stopping you.

The only question I have is how much longer I will have to wait for the full 1dx review.


----------



## tpatana (May 8, 2016)

Yea, I think Rishi has provided good extra info here although I also feel some of the choices on the review were bit interesting. Full review will probably give better insight anyway.

So less fighting, more picture taking.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 8, 2016)

unfocused said:


> This discussion has gotten boring, redundant and reeks of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.
> 
> Interestingly not one of the critics has provided any credible evidence that DPReview's findings are wrong. Instead it is all about little quibbles with the way reviews are written, with the conclusion that the reviews are not glowing enough to satisfy some Canonites.
> 
> ...



I have.

I have linked and posted the image Rishi took in the 5DS/R review that says that the camera couldn't take that image without showing banding and noise in the shadows. That is a lie.

I (and Sporgon) have also posted similar setup images that demonstrate it is a lie.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > This discussion has gotten boring, redundant and reeks of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.
> ...



No, actually, you haven't. None of your images have anything to do with the conditions of my/our images.

And therein lies one of the biggest issues with your type of arguments: you think your own example represents the sum total of all types of conditions a photographer may encounter.

Whereas our example represents _one_ situation a photographer may encounter where the competition would just do better.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

macVega said:


> The latest releases from Canon must in some way be threatening to Sony/Nikon, since they find it necessary to send one of their paid evangelists into a Canon forum... defending commercial interest and even accusing people here for being "racists" ???



So when someone accuses our verbiage as possible being unknowingly biased, my coming here (a site I visit all the time personally, having been a Canon shooter for 15 years) to point out the ESL implication is wrong (and offensive) is 'defending commercial interest' and 'paid evangelism'?

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 8, 2016)

unfocused said:


> This discussion has gotten boring, redundant and reeks of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.
> 
> Interestingly not one of the critics has provided any credible evidence that DPReview's findings are wrong. Instead it is all about little quibbles with the way reviews are written, with the conclusion that the reviews are not glowing enough to satisfy some Canonites.
> 
> ...



I agree, it's time to get off this hobby horse. Bias or no bias, I believe comments that cause one to question or rethink; comments that cause that uncomfortable feeling, like is this purchase actually wise, ultimately are for our own good.

Jack

Jack


----------



## traveller (May 8, 2016)

Rishi has violated one of the golden rules of any forum:

"Never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

We're trying our best to turn around reviews in a timely, accelerated manner this year. There will definitely be a 1D-X II review, and it's largely centered around AF comparisons to D5. Not comparisons against the a7R II, I assure you.

Glad to see the sentiment about 'causing that uncomfortable feeling.' Absolutely agree.

Cheers,
Rishi


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> macVega said:
> 
> 
> > The latest releases from Canon must in some way be threatening to Sony/Nikon, since they find it necessary to send one of their paid evangelists into a Canon forum... defending commercial interest and even accusing people here for being "racists" ???
> ...



Rishi, you have enough intelligence to not be using the race card when it is unjustified. However, I can understand how my statement might touch a nerve and probably I should have worded it a little differently. By responding the way you did and again mentioning ESL here, you display just a little insecurity. That's disappointing.

Here is my quote: "Not everyone has an *excellent* command of the English language for *whatever reason*. There are many, including ESL, limited education, disinterest in language as opposed to technology and *so forth*."

You _chose_ to take the ESL reference personally. Myself, if there was a reference from me relative to you specifically, it would have been that you are strongly focused on technical issues and are less interested in the nuances of the English language. That would just be my guess, of course.

As an engineer I was often chided as being part of a group that did not have strong language skills. The reason I mentioned ESL is because of my personal interactions with my wife that tell me that after 30 years she still doesn't fully understand _how a slight change in wording can alter the meaning of a sentence in english_. 

If your language capabilities are indeed excellent then I have to revert to the camp that believes you are sometimes purposely presenting a bias. What does it matter what I think? Just do your best.

Jack


----------



## tpatana (May 8, 2016)

Half Americans speak worse English than half ESLs I know


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

None of any of this has anything to do with the English language, ESL or technical level of interest or what have you. If you can't appreciate that perceptions of bias may be nothing other than _misperceived_ perceptions of bias, then I'm afraid I am also duly disappointed.

Rishi


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 8, 2016)

No more from me on this topic. I should have refrained in the first place. I have encouraged people with poor english to post and couldn't care less if someone is handicapped in that respect. 

I simply came with the suggestion that not everyone is capable of perceiving how bias exhibits in english statements - why some recognize bias while others don't. This is a challenging topic because it is so subjective and of course we Canonites tend to be defensive. 

Apologies for having contributed to this diversion!

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> No more from me on this topic. I should have refrained in the first place. I have encouraged people with poor english to post and couldn't care less if someone is handicapped in that respect.
> 
> I simply came with the suggestion that not everyone is capable of perceiving how bias exhibits in english statements - why some recognize bias while others don't. This is a challenging topic because it is so subjective and of course we Canonites tend to be defensive.
> 
> ...



That's fine, I understand and appreciate the explanation. I also did not intend for it to be blown out of proportion. Just to raise the awareness of the irony of implicating anything but the possibility of misperceived bias when reading data that doesn't fit your own bias.

But I think each of our intentions are somewhat clear now.

Cheers,
Rishi


----------



## Stu_bert (May 8, 2016)

Hi Rishi

Does Dpreview intend to provide similar studio tests for earlier cameras? It would help people that don't always buy the latest generation (second hand for instance), and also see how much gap there is say between the 1dx I I and a d4s, or a7r and mk ii ?

I'd also like to thank you for discussing the review here - you didn't have to, but I think open debate is good and appreciate the effort you make.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 8, 2016)

Stu_bert said:


> Hi Rishi
> 
> Does Dpreview intend to provide similar studio tests for earlier cameras? It would help people that don't always buy the latest generation (second hand for instance), and also see how much gap there is say between the 1dx I I and a d4s, or a7r and mk ii ?
> 
> I'd also like to thank you for discussing the review here - you didn't have to, but I think open debate is good and appreciate the effort you make.



Thanks. All those desired comparisons you'd like to make are already available in our widget. Do you perhaps need a more thorough Instruction sheet for how to effectively use our tools? This is something we're working on by the way.


----------



## 9VIII (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



The interesting thing is that the A7RII still has a distinct disadvantage in actually displaying detail in people's faces at high ISO. SNR doesn't explain everything that's going on.



> Although the 1D-X II shows significant increase in dynamic range at low ISOs in our dynamic range tests, high ISO Raw performance remains fairly similar to its predecessor, which is actually impressive considering the 1D-X II gains dual-pixel architecture for decisive video AF. Noise performance falls slightly behind the Nikon D5 (and even the Sony a7R II when normalized) at very high ISOs. At these very high ISOs, JPEGs suffer a bit as well, with the a7R II showing the most detail retention in grey tones and in low contrast greenery, despite all cameras starting off with similar detail in Raw. Sony's clever sharpening and context-sensitive noise reduction help it establish its lead, but the Nikon D5 isn't too far behind. Canon's noise reduction is, in comparison, less aggressive overall, but smudges away low contrast detail. While on the surface this may not seem an ideal combination, it's a fair choice in the sense that it avoids obvious noise reduction artifacts.



I agree that the 1DX2 is about the same as the 1DX in collecting detail at high ISO, and that the JPEG's off the 1DX2 for whatever reason look smoothed over, and that the D5 has the best overall noise performance (though it still misses some details that the original 1DX catches), and maybe the A7RII does do best in grey and green, but on the brown tones on people's faces it loses a lot of details.

The A7RII is doing a very nice job given the inherent disadvantage, but at ISO 52100 the girl on the top right practically loses her entire bottom lip, the D5 does an excellent job maintaining that contrast, and the 1DX and 1DX2 are somewhere in the middle.
The praise for Sony in the paragraph I quoted is oddly specific: "grey tones and in low contrast greenery" and then broad conlusions are drawn from those oddly specific examples: "Sony's clever sharpening and context-sensitive noise reduction help it establish its lead, but the Nikon D5 isn't too far behind."
You can find places where the A7RII pulls more detail, but does that "establish its lead" when it obviously fails in so many other instances? This is a race with no clear winner.


----------



## traveller (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rishi
> ...



I don’t understand the fuss that some are making about the choice of cameras for the DPR comparison. If you disagree with the default cameras, it only takes a few seconds to change the choices. 

I think the widget works well and is easy to understand. Some people just like to complain.


----------



## bwud (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> We're trying our best to turn around reviews in a timely, accelerated manner this year. There will definitely be a 1D-X II review, and it's largely centered around AF comparisons to D5.



Rishi -

Thanks for coming to these forums. May I ask what measures you'll take to ensure that the cameras are set appropriately for the scenario you'll test?

Also, I myself am very interested in performance with extended lenses (f/8 max aperture). Any chance you'll compare those capabilities?


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > No more from me on this topic. I should have refrained in the first place. I have encouraged people with poor english to post and couldn't care less if someone is handicapped in that respect.
> ...



Earlier on I menioned that i found the comparison between models pretty useless. What was more important to me were the actual 1dx2 tests. As a professional i am more concerned with the differences between models within the same manufacturer than how a model stacks up to something i would never consider. I dont have enough disposable income to switch everything from one vendor to another. It might make sense to someone purchasing a high end camera for the first time but i think that kind of decision would be more about the system than just sensor performance.

The tests that you posted in the article were helpful in making my decision to buy the new 1dx but it had little to do with Sony and Nikon performance. I just wanted to share that with you and hope in the future you all will focus more on how canon improved things over previous models or the comparisons between new models of the same vendor.

Thanks for taking the time to talk to us even in these angry forums full of negativity. People should try to be more constructive and less antagonistic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nonsense. Rishi unbiasedly picked a small patch where the SNR of the a7RII is 1/2-stop better. :
> ...



Nor is it clear that I've written Matlab scripts to analyze SNR and other image parameters while developing methods to quantify immunofluorescence, and yet I have. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> Of course, I can actually admit that, because I don't have a bias to start with.



Oh, ok. Your writing shows otherwise, but you tell yourself whatever you need to, hope it helps. 

Maybe it's an aspirational goal, if so, great! You could write a short piece for your site called, "DPReviewers: Making Small Steps toward Overcoming Their Bias."


----------



## scyrene (May 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Everyone is biased. The sooner we accept it, the sooner we can try to address it. Attempting to reduce or neutralise our bias is a worthy goal. Better not to say "I'm not biased" than, "I try not to be biased".

As for organisations, they ought to try and have a range of views, so biases cancel each other out. I think there is a genuine concern (and it isn't just sour grapes) that there's institutionalised bias in some review sites. DPR provides a lot of useful and interesting output, but it isn't perfect, and hopefully they will take constructive criticism on board. It isn't a big deal in the scheme of things, and it's a shame the discussion has become so angry in parts, but then every discussion seems to do that.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2016)

scyrene said:


> It isn't a big deal in the scheme of things, and it's a shame the discussion has become so angry in parts, but then every discussion seems to do that.



+1000

Honestly, my respect for several forum members has really dropped with this discussion.

Let me summarize how it looks to me:

DPR: The new Canon 1DX II appears to have eight angels dancing on its sensor. That is two more than the 1DX I had, but still slightly below the nine angels dancing on the Sony sensors.

Canon Rumors Forum: Nonsense! Anyone can see that Sony sensors only have seven angels dancing on them. You are hopelessly biased to claim nine angels and therefore you are corrupt and on the take. Besides which, you have a funny name!

Me: I don't give a sh*t. Just complete the review and tell me how the camera performs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Let me summarize how it looks to me:
> 
> DPR: The new Canon 1DX II appears to have eight angels dancing on its sensor. That is two more than the 1DX I had, but still slightly below the nine angels dancing on the Sony sensors.



DPR: The new Canon 1DX II appears to have more low ISO DR than the new Nikon D5, but that isn't really all that important in this class of camera. High ISO matters more in this class (although that wasn't true for the 1D X vs. D4). Regardless, the old Sony a7RII outperforms both of its peers in this class. In other news, we've decided – and we've already told you even before the 1D X II started shipping – that the D5's class-leading AF performance is superior to the 1D X II. Now, we're going to go out and test them, because there's always the angels-dancing-on-a-sensor chance that the answer to our question, "Canon Catching Up?," could maybe possibly not be no. 

CR Forums: :


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > So Rishi, still no comment on why the 1DX-II was being compared to the A7R-II.
> ...


Do you mean this article:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5684109129/lucky-number-7-shooting-pro-sports-with-the-sony-a7r-ii

While that article does not paint the prettiest picture of the A7R-II for sports shooting, it neither mentions the 1DX nor the D4s, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? The A7R-II was not being directly being compared to the sports cameras so why now... :

Here is your main review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii

... and I did't see one mention of the 1DX or the D4s in there, so how exactly does it highlight their massive difference in continuous shooting and buffer performance over the A7R-II? Interestingly, the A7R-II autofocus is compared to the 5DS-R :

Peak-action composition and focus are key aspects of an image, and the good autofocus and high burst rate of the D4s/1DX etc allows for reliably getting the ideal composition. They were the benchmark for continuous shooting so why were they not used as the peers against which the A7R-II must perform? Why were they not mentioned by name and their massive performance advantage quantified and noted?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Second, when we talk about a particular aspect of a camera, like image quality, we compare to the best of its peers _ in that respect_.
> ...



Bias. 

But you knew that, didn't you?


----------



## ritholtz (May 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...


I don't know man. 1DX2 it is definitely lagging behind its peers.
For DR, It is lagging with a7r2 peer. It is lagging in high iso compared to D5 peer. In DPAF, it is lagging in dpaf tracking in stills compared to 80d peer. For 4k, it is under specked in terms of 4k features compared to a6300 peer. All of this is true. We can't say, DPR is wrong.


----------



## Stu_bert (May 8, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rishi
> ...



Oh, I didn't see those on the iPad, but I will recheck. Thanks for confirming.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That's even worse: you're essentially then admitting to purposefully, willfully misleading the general readers here by suggesting that my SNR analysis of 18% or 10% grey is specious? 

Let me rephrase: despite you knowing full well that the _relative_ SNR advantage I pointed out for the a7R II would be maintained for _any_ patch (save for shot-noise limited brighter tones, where SNR of cameras becomes asymptotic and converges to a value determined largely by sensor size only), you accuse me of deceivingly selecting one patch where there's an advantage, as if some other patch _wouldn't_ show this advantage? 

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that you're not only trolling me, but conning CR readers as well.


----------



## 9VIII (May 9, 2016)

SNR numbers are meaningless if visible results disagree.

Another example you could look at is the A6300 vs. the Fuji X-Pro 2. Those cameras are all but confirmed to use the same sensor and Fuji is practically working miracles with image quality off an APS-C sensor. Sony obviously has flaws somewhere in their image processing.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (May 9, 2016)

9VIII said:


> SNR numbers are meaningless if visible results disagree.
> 
> Another example you could look at is the A6300 vs. the Fuji X-Pro 2. Those cameras are all but confirmed to use the same sensor and Fuji is practically working miracles with image quality off an APS-C sensor. Sony obviously has flaws somewhere in their image processing.



Yeah, SNR analyses are probably more useful as a sanity check for visual results, or for quick quantitative comparisons for midtone performance, dynamic range performance, etc. They're pretty hard to argue with, when done straight off the Raw undemosaiced data. Ideally you look at both visual and quantitative and see that they agree with one another. If they don't, it's time to dig a little deeper.

Rishi


----------



## scyrene (May 9, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Well... this is precisely the issue, isn't it? Each of those cameras lags behind the others in different aspects. A selection: the D5 lags behind the 1DxII in low ISO DR (apparently), 4K specs, and fps; the A7RII lags the 1DxII in fps and battery life; the A6300 lags the 1DxII in fps and battery life, etc etc. The way you've phrased it, the 1DxII sounds like it's the worst in everything compared to all these other models, but that's simply not true.

It's all about how you present the information. I don't dispute the data (I'm not an expert on it and haven't used any of these cameras, so I have to take it on trust to an extent), just have a slight problem with how it's being spun.


----------



## tron (May 9, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


They forgot to mention that it is lagging in coffee making compared even to a cheap coffee maker machine ;D and it is lagging in instant print making (without a printer) compared to a polaroid film camera ;D 

Shame on Canon ;D


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 9, 2016)

Nothing like humour in resolving contentious issues!

Jack


----------



## unfocused (May 9, 2016)

scyrene said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know man. 1DX2 it is definitely lagging behind its peers...We can't say, DPR is wrong.
> ...



I don't know. Reading the original DPReview (which is only a partial review) I did not get the feeling that it was "the worst in everything." I think that's an interpretation that people are drawing based on their own feelings. And to some degree it is fed by a small group of people on this forum who seem to have a personal vendetta against reviewers who are less than glowing. I got the impression from the review that Canon has made significant advancements and that any gap that existed is shrinking, but not gone. And of courses, the gaps were tiny to begin with.

However, before I invest $6,000 in a camera I really want to know as much about it as possible. I want to read about its weak points. If I want to know about all the good things it offers, I can go to Canon's website. Therefore, I will continue to defend DPReview for pointing out the weaknesses of any camera. To my mind, that is primary value of any review. 



East Wind Photography said:


> Earlier on I mentioned that I found the comparison between models pretty useless. What was more important to me were the actual 1dx2 tests...I don't have enough disposable income to switch everything from one vendor to another.
> 
> The tests that you posted in the article were helpful in making my decision to buy the new 1dx but it had little to do with Sony and Nikon performance. I just wanted to share that with you and hope in the future you all will focus more on how canon improved things over previous models or the comparisons between new models of the same vendor.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to talk to us even in these angry forums full of negativity. People should try to be more constructive and less antagonistic.



I think that is a very good point. For most buyers of cameras at this level, the biggest question is: Is it worth the price to upgrade?

I know I am certainly studying reviews to see if, in my own use, it is worthwhile to move from the 5D to the 1D. I can't really imagine any circumstance where I would change brands. I have too much invested in Canon and am not going to brand-jump for tiny differences. 

On the other hand, I do think it is worthwhile to know how one brand stacks up against its competitors, so I can see the value of that as well. I view that as an aspirational aspect: knowing what other brands offer helps me decide if my chosen brand is keeping pace and following a path that will continue to build value to the brand. My sense is that in Canon's case there is no doubt that it is innovating at a pace that equals or exceeds its competitors. 

All in all, I see nothing to change my opinion that for the most part the criticisms on this forum are based on differences in opinion over how many angels are dancing on the sensor: an entertaining theoretical debate but of little practical use.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



it can easily be only ISO100 or 200 in that scenario

also the focal length of the lens rarely has any impact at all for shutter speed when shooting field sports since you are generally too high for it to come into play


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



The silly thing is that the whole crowd (or at least a decent bunch of them) that runs around screaming about DRoners and lab geeks and so on, whatever names they come up with, constantly scream things like just go out and shoot for once and put down your spreadsheet GEEK!!!!!! And yet they are the ones who constantly post things that make it appear as if perhaps it's actually they, if anyone, who are the ones who don't actually get out and shoot and do all sorts of things, since they often appear to be fairly ignorant about lots of real world shooting scenarios. ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> [quote author=rishi_sanyal] Nevermind your comments re: education, considering we both went to gradute studies, and I myself graduated from two Ivy League schools.
> 
> Really fun and productive place to be around, these forums, I'm beginning to see. Would a second Princton degree help? If so perhaps I'll consider one. Oh the horror of spending time with some of the most brilliant people on the world.



It's:

"Never mind";

"Graduate"; and

"Princeton".

_Just saying_. Banging on about your credentials isn't a convincing defence against allegations of bias (whether or not unintended) and of sloppy testing...

Oh - and as an American, maybe you don't see the irony of you complaining about this forum as a place to spend time, given the utterly dismal experience that is DPR...
[/quote]

wow


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2016)

martinslade said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



all DPP does is apply some mushing filters so it's not really doing anything magical or better, it's just doing more DNR under the hood in certain areas


----------



## Neutral (May 9, 2016)

For all 1DXm2 studio shots comparisons on DPR there is one, which is mostly interesting there.
This is 1DXm2 vs Pentax K-1 in standard and Pixel shift mode.
This one clearly shows where technology is going on (evolution trend) and what we could expect from Sony A9, which is expected to demonstrate some latest sensor technology advances combined with IBIS latest developments one of which could be several different pixel shift modes for different applications. 
Then overall game will become very interesting.

As owner of 1DX and a7r2 I am going to get both 1DXm2 and A9 (or whatever name it will be).
DPR studio comparison test shots for 1DXm2 demonstrated that sensor performance is better than 1DX in every aspect – at low ISO DR and high ISO performance.
1DXm2 at ISO6400 and ISO12800 looks noticeably better than 1DX files.
Thanks to DPR, I downloaded all RAW files and compared that in LR and differences are obvious.
As for 1DXm2 comparison to a7r2 then visually 1DXm2 files looks a bit better than a7r2 despite Rishi noise measurements showing opposite. This might be due to the better noise pattern for 1DXm2, which is seems more uniform and more pleasant to eye.
Jrista demonstrated some time ago FFT of noise for different sensors, he might do the same exercise for these two bodies and share result of noise distribution.
Need to mention also that Rishi was right about color artefacts on a7r2 snapshots that which I posted earlier – that this was moiré and not the issue with rendering low contrast areas.
It became clear after downloading RAW files from DPR and checking them in LR. 
Therefore, there is one point of criticism to DPR.
This is regarding quality of image rendering on their studio shot comparison - this could be done a bit better


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 9, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



I've done top level NCAA D1 Sports, a touch of pro sports, general shooting of all sorts of newspapers, a little bit of wildlife, tons of landscape (including lots of interior forest shooting), etc.

It's a bit surprising that you shoot 30k shots a year and have not once ever needed to pull up shadows 4 stops ever and it's completely shocking that you claim that anyone who does 4 stop anything messed up the exposure since it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how exposure and tone curves and lighting work and that you seem to think it's just all about people randomly exposing and then bringing the entire image up 4 stops! (speaking of something related to that latter though, after shooting 30,000 shots a year, for years, you have not once ever, one time, had something go wrong with the exposure and needed to rescue a shot? you are both that perfect and somehow manage to have only, ever, used any equipment you have ever owned in scenarios where it's never been tricked and you are so perfect you've always, over a million shots, had it managed to always produce a perfect result? pretty remarkable, that's not the main point for more DR though anyway, although it doesn't hurt for the rare shot that does get blown for one reason or another)

I will say though weddings, portraits, events are the types of events that some rely mostly on flash and specially arranged lighting so if you just shoot that stuff all that way then your experience really isn't as universal as you think regardless of how many shots a year you take. And kids sports usually means guaranteed to shoot from any spot and angle you wish, which is also less restrictive. ANd just because you only shoot landscape scenes that never need more DR doesn't mean that it's impossible to find shots where you could make use. Also many people got so used to ignore this or that shoot from say slide film days you might not even realize that you are giving up all sorts of potential shots that in the digital world, with a very high DR camera, might actually work.

Anyway, whatever your experience or mine, or whether you ever need more DR or not, even if you never do, whatever, fine, but that has nothing to do with making a claim that anyone who wants more DR has no clue about how to shoot and how exposure works, it's more inditing yourself and revealing the fact that you don't the whys and hows of it.

Anyway, have a nice day. That's enough of this silliness for me. Wonderful day, heading out!


----------



## scyrene (May 9, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I want to read about its weak points.



Yes, I agree. Although tbh I find the most useful source of information is not professional reviews but those written by normal users, and the more reviews there are, the more accurate the picture. Not just with cameras, but anything really. I tend to read all the reviews on Amazon and similar retailers, and for photographic equipment, places like Fred Miranda forums are good. Some reviews (usually at the extremes) can be discarded, but certain themes emerge on quirks and common problems. This is also a good reason to wait for at least several months after equipment is released before deciding to purchase it - issues by then are well known. In this way I've never yet been surprised by a lens (I buy them much more often than bodies, but the principle is the same).



unfocused said:


> an entertaining theoretical debate but of little practical use.



Yeah.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> For all 1DXm2 studio shots comparisons on DPR there is one, which is mostly interesting there.
> This is 1DXm2 vs Pentax K-1 in standard and Pixel shift mode.
> This one clearly shows where technology is going on (evolution trend) and what we could expect from Sony A9, which is expected to demonstrate some latest sensor technology advances combined with IBIS latest developments one of which could be several different pixel shift modes for different applications.
> Then overall game will become very interesting.
> ...


Pixel shift is a multiple exposure which you are comparing to a single shot. Perhaps a more comparable approach would be to auto-bracket (or use multiple exposure mode) with the the one camera vs pixel-shift with the other.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 10, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



You're just making stuff up. I made no claim to being "so perfect". One or two stop errors happen but fortunately are fixable. But, no, my equipment doesn't get "tricked" by 4 stops. If that happens to you, then you do need more DR.

You're also making up shooting scenarios for me. Weddings and portraits "mostly on flash" and "specially arranged lighting" — No and no. Kids sports "means guaranteed to shoot from any spot and angle you wish" — No.

You're consistent in making stuff up about me. In an earlier post, you wrote: "Actually your statements prove that it is you who knows little about exposure and how sensors and exposure work and apparently who doesn't actually get out and shoot much or only sticks to highly controlled lighting scenarios."


----------



## Sporgon (May 10, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I've never done + 4 stops either..........and I'm definitely not perfect, despite what my wife says


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Will the A9 use the sensor in the K1?



If there is an "A9," I kinda doubt it.

There are vying rumors for a camera with that name:
1) super high res studio camera (on the order of 80MP)
2) attempt to break into the 1Dx/D5 market

In either case, I find it unlikely Sony would use a sensor from 2013 in a 2016+ flagship model.


----------



## Neutral (May 10, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > For all 1DXm2 studio shots comparisons on DPR there is one, which is mostly interesting there.
> ...



You are correct, conceptually pixel shift is multiple exposure combined in one shot but it is also much more advanced method of doing ME.
First of all each resulting pixel is full RGB so this totally eliminate any moire.
Resulting resolution is also full pixel count as there is no need to interpolate between pixels.
Total resolution is the same as BW sensor with the same pixel count.
If you compare Pentax K-1 PS with 645Z you can see that resulting image quality of K-1 with PS is better than 645Z.
There are several methods of doing pixel shift - all depends of what is required at the end.
K-1 method is just one of them.

And finally this done instantly instead of doing that manually.
Several years back I described how this could be done for 1DX to get one RAW file from 1DX with significantly improved SNR - but still that was not very convenient and also required tripod. I used that from time until I got a7R and then a7r2.
Now with a7r2 using fast primes I can shoot 1/10 with 35mm f1.4 and get excellent results in very dark conditions , no need for 1DX for still shots.

What done by Pentax K-1 is much better, you can shoot handheld with PS with one press of button.

The other interesting thing that though they using almost 3 years old a7r Sony sensor but getting better results than Sony itself.
Compare 1DXm2 and K-1 in standard shutter mode - you can see that K-1 giving almost the same results - just a bit behind 1DXm2.


----------



## Neutral (May 10, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Will the A9 use the sensor in the K1?
> ...



Definitely Sony is not going to use 3 years sensor from a7R in new pro kind camera.
I believe they are working on sensor which should significantly outperform anything existing in the market in PRO segment. So this is source of delays with this camera and a7rm2 was as intermediate solution to keep customer waiting for Sony new Pro body. 
They are ambitious and I think they clearly understand that without breakthrough in sensor tech (let alone camera itself) they are unlikely to bite big piece from Canon/Nikon cake.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The only full frame 36.4MP sensor listed on their products page is IMX094. If they designed a special sensor for Ricoh that matches exactly the form factor and resolution of the A7R's, they're keeping it a secret.

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/IS/sensor2/products/

Note the 42MP sensor is not listed; I assume that's because it's not currently on the market (i.e. available outside of Sony)


----------



## Neutral (May 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



There was multiple talks about that almost year back if Sony will give them new 42mp sensor from a7r2 or old 36mp from a7r. 
Seems that Pentax did the same that Nikon was doing with Sony sensor.
Do you believe that Sony would be developing new sensor for Pentax ?
They just need to get as much profit from what they have available.
Might be there was some minor adjustments were done which do not affect much manufacturing process but this is very unlikely.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 10, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> The only full frame 36.4MP sensor listed on their products page is IMX094.



And note that there are indeed variations of IMX094. In A7R, I believe it's packaged differently than in D800/D810. But as far as I know they're electrically the same.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...


I agree.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Whilst the K-1 can achieve amazing results at ISO 100 & 200, in terms of motion, *to get a 1/250, you want to shoot at 1/1000*. To maintain light levels, you would need to up the ISO twice.
> 
> When using pixel shif on the K-1, it would make more sense to compare 1/250 @ ISO 100 on the 1DX wih 1/1000 @ ISO 400. Of course that's only for shots where there is motion ... cars, people, planes, animals, waves, wind ...



So if you have pixel shift set and, say, an exposure time of 1/250, it does take four 1/250 captures, as opposed to a total exposure time 1/250?

If so (i.e. the shifted/composite capture represents a total 4/250 exposure time), to compare sensor performance given equal light input (if that kind of thing tickles your fancy), you either have to stop down the lens on the pentax twice, or set each individual capture on the pentax to 25% that of the single exposure from the compared camera. Not just for motion, for anything.


----------



## 9VIII (May 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Foveon gives you RGB for each pixel by vertically stacking the sensors - i.e. no bayer matrix.



http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3118159533/sigma-unveils-radical-dp2-quattro-with-re-thought-19-6mp-foveon-sensor

Technically it's not full RGB per-pixel anymore.
It might have been in earlier models, but right now the Red and Green channels run at 1/4 the resolution of the top blue channel, otherwise they can't get much further than ISO 800.
I have to wonder if Foveon is ever going to work well in crop sensor formats, if the loss of signal strength on Red and Green is inherent to the design then it should probably be left to 35mm sensors and up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2016)

While we're off-topic, I haven't looked in detail at Pentax's pixel shift technology, but why four images and not just three? You should only need to image each position once for each color in the CFA. In Zeiss' implementation (which is >15 years old), only three images are needed to eliminate the need for color interpolation (although Zeiss actually moved the sensor relative to the CFA).


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> While we're off-topic, I haven't looked in detail at Pentax's pixel shift technology, but why four images and not just three? You should only need to image each position once for each color in the CFA. In Zeiss' implementation (which is >15 years old), only three images are needed to eliminate the need for color interpolation (although Zeiss actually moved the sensor relative to the CFA).



Maybe for the same reason there are twice as many greens as reds or blues in a bayer pattern? Just a thought.

Plus, the more frames you have for superresolution algorithms, the better your noise reduction, so there is an advantage beyond colors per photo site.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Ah, yes that makes sense.


----------



## Neutral (May 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I do not think this is correct statement.
With such limitations IBIS would not be working correctly.
For IBIS to work correctly sensor need to be able to move at any angle/direction from central point.
Movement direction is the Vd vector resulting from SUM of two sensor movement vectors - Vx and Vy.
Vd angle depends on the values and directions of Vx and Vy.
Simple school math.

Pixel shift is just side application of IBIS technology and could be used in different ways.
And pixel shift is just temporary workaround for Bayer sensor limitations.
For future sensors where each Pixel is full RGB pixel this will not be required any more.
The same for Bayer sensor with eclectically switched color layers (per pixel or just for the whole sensor).
I think I've seen patent for that from Sony couple of years back which allows to do this super fast.
May be we will see that in A9.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2016)

Neutral said:


> [quote author=the guy who thinks lenses are cameras and the 1D C isn't a dSLR]
> The sensor can be moved in one direction at a time: left/right or up/down - no diagonal movements. So it is necessary (for example) to go right, down, left, up. For some pixels the sequence will be RGBG but for others it will be GBGR. Easier to capture the light from each 4 locations than to selectively throw away the second green.



I do not think this is correct statement.
With such limitations IBIS would not be working correctly.
For IBIS to work correctly sensor need to be able to move at any angle/direction from central point.
Movement direction is the Vd vector resulting from SUM of two sensor movement vectors - Vx and Vy.
Vd angle depends on the values and directions of Vx and Vy.
Simple school math.
[/quote]

Well, given the source of the statement, it's incorrectness shouldn't surprise anyone. 

Simple school math is beyond some people.


----------

