# Review: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 19, 2016)

```
<p>Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, and came away impressed by the host of improvements over its predecessor.</p>
<p>Bryan’s Summary</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">My expectation that the 1D X II was going to be worth the upgrade from the 1D X was very high. </span>That I sold my 1D X at 1D X II announcement time made clear my confidence that this would the best sports/action camera ever. I have no regrets – the 1D X II exceeded my expectations. To me, it was worth the upgrade.</p>
<p>The 1D X Mark II is directly targeted at professional use where speed, reliability and bringing home the best possible image are important. This use includes sports, wildlife, fast action, reportage, weddings, events, media and wire service use in the toughest environments. If getting the shot matters, this is the camera I want in my hands. That this camera is so fun to use makes getting that all-important shot a great all-around experience. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I won’t be putting the camera through any serious work until next month in Africa, but I expect to experience the same great things that Bryan has using the camera.</p>
<p>The EOS-1D X Mark II has been somewhat hard to come by, but at the moment it appears that the <a href="http://bit.ly/23Mjw42">Canon Store has stock</a> of the premium kit.</p>
<p>Buy/Preorder Canon EOS-1D X Mark II</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Premium Kit $5999: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1221604-REG/canon_0931c016_eos_1d_x_mark_ii.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=www.adorama.com/ICA1DXM2KP.html" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1m9GcsS" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a href="http://bit.ly/23Mjw42" target="_blank">Canon Store</a></strong></li>
<li>Canon WFT-E8A $599: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1221610-REG/canon_1173c001_wft_e7a_wireless_file_transmitter.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/ICAWFTE8A.html?KWID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1POf7D2" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/23MjDMI" target="_blank">Canon Store</a></li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2016)

Once again a good and balanced review by Brian. Thanks.


----------



## Crapking (May 19, 2016)

Excellent review! I have used the 1Dx II now for several games / events and find his analysis spot on. I just received my WFT - E8a in the mail from B&H yesterday and look forward to trialing it during a match I am shooting tonite. A quick set up with my iphone (Canon connect app) revealed the ability to shoot untethered using my phone as a trigger. The view screen being larger also helps with image review and images can be selected / deleted and / or transferred to the phone for quick uploading. I will be anxious to see how this works. my wife will no longer have to wait for me to process our travel photos - I can send the OOC jpegs to her phone, and still process properly when I get home - winner, winner, chicken dinner. Just wish I didn't have to pay ~$600 extra for this wireless feature.


----------



## [email protected] (May 19, 2016)

Great review, but I do have a question on the noise tool pictures. It appears to me that when comparing the 1dx I versus 1dx II, the pictures did not have the same level of critical focus. In particular, the 1dx II pictures were just a bit out of focus. This makes the appearance of noise to be less. Is it just me?


----------



## Crapking (May 19, 2016)

Probably not AFMA'd yet...I've found that to be case occasionally with close focus shots. Once FOCAL releases their update, I am sure that will improve, but even without it, I can vouch that I am pushing shadows much less, and applying 10 - 20% less noise reduction in my action photos at ISO 1600-6400.


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Once again a good and balanced review by Brian. Thanks.



Love his site -- I've been going there for years and years -- but I'm not sure 'balanced' is a word I'd use. : I'm hard-pressed to think of the last time a Canon-branded product didn't get a _very_ favorable review. 

I deeply respect his insights / methods / thoroughness / transparency, but I wish he were more openly critical of Canon products, perhaps 'curving everything to a B' so that the real A+ products would stand out a bit more. I wasn't expecting the 1DX II to let him down one bit, mind you, but I didn't really have to read the review to know he would love it... Something to consider.

- A


----------



## RGF (May 19, 2016)

Great review. Tells it as he sees it.


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Once again a good and balanced review by Brian. Thanks.
> ...


Okay, you're right if it were a review between 1 DX2 and the Nikon D5. Brian is of course a "Canon guy". 
So if you're putting "balanced" as neutral and independent my choice of word was wrong. 
But I like how he puts pros and con s in his reviews as well as daily use knowledge. And this is also something I'd call balanced. If that's wrong usage for that word, pleas let me know (no native speaker).


----------



## ahsanford (May 19, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



You're using the language just fine.  

I just never see him disappointed with a design decision or how something performs. 

Sentences like "I'd have expected one stop better high ISO noise levels in a Mark II version" never seem to appear at TDP. He also gave a fairly short statement on the 5D3 not allowing focus screen changes and didn't say a word about its black AF points in servo move that many have griped about. Both were fair game for negative comments in his review and he chose not to go there.

Again -- love his site. I just think that he's too kind to Canon.

- A


----------



## Tiderace (May 19, 2016)

"Unfortunately it does not record 4K output via HDMI" OMG people. So, there is no way to record uncompressed 4K video? Or what is the story folks? This is important.


----------



## Larsskv (May 19, 2016)

Tiderace said:


> "Unfortunately it does not record 4K output via HDMI" OMG people. So, there is no way to record uncompressed 4K video? Or what is the story folks? This is important.



If I got it right, shooting uncompressed 4K can be done to the CFast only.


----------



## mackguyver (May 19, 2016)

After reading his review, I'm glad I decided to pass on the upgrade to the 1DXII. Assuming I could have gotten around $3k for my 1DX, it would have have been a $3k upgrade for me, essentially the price of a 5DsR.

While Brian feels it's well worth the upgrade, it really depends on your needs. For me, the extra megapixels, frame rate and AF improvements aren't really enough as those are more than adequate on the 1DX. What I was really hoping for was improved noise and a bit more DR. The noise improvements don't seem significant and according to DPR the DR is better at ISO 100, but this is not a camera that many use at ISO100.

The built in GPS is nice, but I already have the annoying external GPS, the video stuff does nothing for me, and the other improvements are mostly nice to haves. 

Perhaps more will come with a firmware upgrade in a year or two, but for my work, it's not worth the money to me. The 1DX is still an exceptional camera for all but high MP work, and perhaps the 5DsR will be my camera.

Also, I agree on Brian's glowing reviews - and keep in mind that persuading us to buy a $6,000 camera via his affiliate links nets him a tidy little sum. All the same, he has built an excellent resource for us Canon shooters and I don't begrudge him anything for wanting to be paid for his work.


----------



## Crapking (May 19, 2016)

I'm not a Canon fanboy,nor a techno-pixel peeper but I can say there is a greater 'functional' dynamic range in that I am pushing the shadow slider much less with the Mark II, and I am shooting with a 1/2 - 1 stop less ISO, and I am using less NR in Lightroom. Combined with the anti-flicker feature, the extra FPS, and the dramatically improved AF video features, the decision to upgrade was 'worth' it for me, YMMV, but if low-light, action, event shooting is your passion (profession), then the main (? only) reason to NOT upgrade would be financial. Many may say these are incremental improvements, but with the 1Dx as good as it was, the new 1Dx MII is now as good as it gets. 
I never bought the WFT for the 1Dx b/c the speed was not that impressive, but with the upgraded WFT 8 version, I now can send photos to my phone/computer very quickly wirelessly - I just wish it wasn't an $600 accessory.


----------



## ashmadux (May 19, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...




I think you need to read more of his reviews. The only reason he doesn't review nikon gear is that he doesnt have the times and resources - he'd written before that he planned on it. Take a gander at his third party lens reviews...tokina's and sigma's especially...without drama, he just says "there are problems..".

Basically, you're giving his site a backhanded compliment, and it's not warranted. Im another person that bought all of his gear based on his reviews, reading them again and again and again. I dont have money to waste and i would like to know what im getting. Unlike dpreview and their overdepressing reviews on good camera's, Bryan's review are straight no chaser, without indulgence.

Maybe you want him to be more mean spirited because canon makes good camera's that are not exactly bleeding edge in many circumstances? Find another site (achoo DPR 86% bronze compared to whaaaaa?).

Biased...get real. Bryan+TDP FTW.


----------



## mistaspeedy (May 19, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> If I got it right, shooting uncompressed 4K can be done to the CFast only.



The 1DX mark II has compressed 4K video. It uses mjpeg for video (a bunch of jpeg files, which we know are compressed image files).


----------



## PureClassA (May 19, 2016)

Just got one in today from LensRentals.com

I will be giving a serious workout this weekend. Probably 12-14k frames worth


----------



## lloyd709 (May 19, 2016)

'that I sold my 1DX on it's announcement' - sorry to be cynical but clearly shows this is a guy that is using it to make his living on a daily basis - [email protected]


----------



## H. Jones (May 19, 2016)

lloyd709 said:


> 'that I sold my 1DX on it's announcement' - sorry to be cynical but clearly shows this is a guy that is using it to make his living on a daily basis - [email protected]



Almost all of the professional photography that Bryan of The Digital Picture does is done with his 5DS and as such, he doesn't need a 1DX on a daily basis to take the pictures that he needs to take. You can't mock a guy for just needing a 5DS for the majority of his work.

Running The Digital Picture is how Bryan makes a living on a daily basis, and he offers completely rational and in-depth reviews in a very professional way. As a professional that makes my entire living off of photography, I look to his reviews to give me a good idea of what the equipment can do for me, and he has never let me down. He is a professional reviewer, and he offers very good and in depth points, and has excellent technical comparison tools.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 19, 2016)

I have been using the 1dx mark 2 now since it was released. I can say it is a pretty significant upgrade as a system from the 1dx. I agree mostly with this review and very pleased he took the time to compare it vs its predecessor. I have no use in a comparison with sony or Nikon.

I think a reader on the bench needs to determine if their requirments are worth the 3000 upgrade. I think in the end it was, at least for me. With NR applied iso 51000 is pretty useable and i cant wait until dxo optics pro releases their plugin for it.


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2016)

I found out a few more things that are missing in the review:

- 4K videos are much noisier than on the 1DC
- 4K 25fps is possible with fast CD cards, even 4K 60fps up to 8 seconds
- the video auto focus is great and the only one to date in a photo camera that's really usable
- some third party lenses don't work in any way, like the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC
- the new batteries don't work with the old charger
- missing C-LOG sucks also for photographers when doing video framegrabs (stupid protection of the coming C500 II)
- still no internal timelapse function, sad
- HDR photo function of 5D series is not available, bad
- missing focus peaking is also not a support for manual photography
- no swivel screen
- no in-body-stabilization although the body is much larger than Olympus or Sony cameras
- missing crop modes

If someone wants to have a fast photo camera with high resolution AND all relevant video qualities, he would need 3 cameras: 5DsR, 1DC, 1DX2. If someone wants a convinient workflow on top, you need an A7R2 and and A7S2 as well. I hope at some point it will all be integrated in 1-2 cameras, but at the evolution pace of Canon this might be in the year 2035.

In the last few years new Canon cameras always feel like something they should have released 2-4 years earlier. I hope the A9 release of Sony at Photokina gives Canon the final pressure to release cameras like the 5D4 and 1DX2 as mirrorless versions as well, instead of inventing a second new useless mirrorless line. It would make so much sense. Until then I use the 1DX2, just because there is no other option.


----------



## ahsanford (May 20, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> Almost all of the professional photography that Bryan of The Digital Picture does is done with his 5DS and as such, he doesn't need a 1DX on a daily basis to take the pictures that he needs to take. You can't mock a guy for just needing a 5DS for the majority of his work.
> 
> Running The Digital Picture is how Bryan makes a living on a daily basis, and he offers completely rational and in-depth reviews in a very professional way. As a professional that makes my entire living off of photography, I look to his reviews to give me a good idea of what the equipment can do for me, and he has never let me down. He is a professional reviewer, and he offers very good and in depth points, and has excellent technical comparison tools.



+1. As much I think he needs to be harder on Canon with his reviews, few can doubt how thorough and thoughtful his usage insights are. He's not a working pro in the classic sense, but running that site would not be possible if he was.

He's not a dedicated sports photographer, but he tests the crap out of the AF setup at his kids playing field sports.

He's not a dedicated landscape photographer, but he wades through the rivers and streams to get that great waterfall shot.

He's not a dedicated wildlife photographer, but those pictures of bears and eagles don't take themselves. He's out in the bush doing the dirty work.

As for upgrading right away, he doesn't get free gear to my knowledge, so once a Mark II comes out, the Mark I is sold off to pay for it. He's working quite hard to continually bring us this data year over year.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I found out a few more things that are missing in the review:
> 
> - 4K videos are much noisier than on the 1DC
> - 4K 25fps is possible with fast CD cards, even 4K 60fps up to 8 seconds
> ...



I will comment/qualify/temper some of your shortcomings:

Orange = he doesn't shoot much video, I'd head elsewhere for reviews on that.

Red = surely someone carrying a 1DX II doesn't need an auto/in-camera feature like this when they likely have better tools to do this manually / on their own. Should it have a hand-pannable pano mode and selfie mode as well? 

Blue = That's never been offered in any Canon SLR, correct? Surely no one was expecting that from a 'lens IS' company like Canon.

Green = had no idea. Wow.

Great list, though. I strongly agree that there is no do-it-all camera today.

- A


----------



## JoeDavid (May 20, 2016)

If you shoot indoor sports, the upgrade is worth it just for the anti-flicker feature. The 1DX can crank out 12FPS of mostly crap under some venue lights. Under the lighting of the Georgia World Congress Center, only about ever 4th shot is correctly color balanced and exposed. There's usually a lot of post work. I look forward to my next indoor venue with the 1DXm2. I've used the 7Dm2 and 5DS anti-flicker and it works great. It will be interesting to see if the 1DXm2 can crank out 14FPS while maintaining an even exposure and color balance.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

Nice review ... but, but, but ... 



> While there is benefit to being able to pull out highlight and shadow details, if I miss an exposure by 2 stops or more, I feel like I have failed my job as a photographer.



Poor Brian.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> If you shoot indoor sports, the upgrade is worth it just for the anti-flicker feature. The 1DX can crank out 12FPS of mostly crap under some venue lights. Under the lighting of the Georgia World Congress Center, only about ever 4th shot is correctly color balanced and exposed. There's usually a lot of post work. I look forward to my next indoor venue with the 1DXm2. I've used the 7Dm2 and 5DS anti-flicker and it works great. It will be interesting to see if the 1DXm2 can crank out 14FPS while maintaining an even exposure and color balance.



With the anti-flicker on, the frame rate drops to adjust for the light while it 'recycles'. You won't get 14 fps.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> I found out a few more things that are missing in the review:
> 
> - the new batteries don't work with the old charger



The old batteries work with the new charger ... and it's not like you have to buy the new charger separately. How is this an issue?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Once again a good and balanced review by Brian. Thanks.
> ...



I do have to say that he does seem to never have any Canon product not wildly exceed his expectations and if a lens doesn't test quite right he will get 2,3,4, 30 copies if the brand says Canon. OTOH he'll tested a (dropped?) Tamron, get coke bottle results and be done with it (on lenses that have done SUPER well for me).

That said useful info, just realize that his reviews sometimes read a little bit like Explorer's of Light statements.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 20, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> If you shoot indoor sports, the upgrade is worth it just for the anti-flicker feature. The 1DX can crank out 12FPS of mostly crap under some venue lights. Under the lighting of the Georgia World Congress Center, only about ever 4th shot is correctly color balanced and exposed. There's usually a lot of post work. I look forward to my next indoor venue with the 1DXm2. I've used the 7Dm2 and 5DS anti-flicker and it works great. It will be interesting to see if the 1DXm2 can crank out 14FPS while maintaining an even exposure and color balance.



Yes i left this off during the first couple of outdoor games. As the night wore on, there were shots that missed the color and exposure. After anti flicker was on, that problem went away but drive mode was noticeably affected. It would stutter once in a while. There were times where a decent shot was missed because of the stutter. So its a trade off. Get the shots so you have less editing with antiflicker on, or get them all and try to salvage the images that are dark or color shifted.

I think in the end, i prefer the anti-flicker on. I think at 14 fps you can general accept one or to being missed. With the 7d2 which is my B camera now, missing a shot or two at 10fps can make a bigger difference. I couldnt imagine it being that useful on the 5ds unless you were shooting team shots in a stadium.

So my opinion is that antiflicker is a useful feature on the 1dx mark ii for sports and therefore is a plus for th upgrade side.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

Crapking said:


> Excellent review! I have used the 1Dx II now for several games / events and find his analysis spot on. I just received my WFT - E8a in the mail from B&H yesterday and look forward to trialing it during a match I am shooting tonite. A quick set up with my iphone (Canon connect app) revealed the ability to shoot untethered using my phone as a trigger. The view screen being larger also helps with image review and images can be selected / deleted and / or transferred to the phone for quick uploading. I will be anxious to see how this works. my wife will no longer have to wait for me to process our travel photos - I can send the OOC jpegs to her phone, and still process properly when I get home - winner, winner, chicken dinner. Just wish I didn't have to pay ~$600 extra for this wireless feature.



I've been thinking of getting the WFT-E8A as well but the $$$ is a bummer. Please do share your experience on using it with a tablet / phone - I may talk myself into buying one. ;D


----------



## expatinasia (May 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Once again a good and balanced review by Brian. Thanks.
> ...



I also love his site and the reviews he does, but I understand what you mean.

I think his review of the Canon flagship by a Canon user - who has very little interest in what Nikon is doing, other than to help improve Canon's own products by improving competition - for Canon users, is excellent. He does bring up the two different card issue, and am glad he also states his opinion that he would have preferred Canon to make the 1DX Mark II with two of the same slots - something I very much agree with.

I haven't quite finished reading the review, but will head back to it soon, but I did think he mentioned that the new batteries don't work on the old charger. Anyway, if you buy a 1DX Mark II you get a new charger with it, and you can still use your old batteries although not at 100% performance.

BTW - just curious, but does the "Donate Now" / "Tip Jar" system work on websites like that? Have you every donated?


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 20, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Crapking said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review! I have used the 1Dx II now for several games / events and find his analysis spot on. I just received my WFT - E8a in the mail from B&H yesterday and look forward to trialing it during a match I am shooting tonite. A quick set up with my iphone (Canon connect app) revealed the ability to shoot untethered using my phone as a trigger. The view screen being larger also helps with image review and images can be selected / deleted and / or transferred to the phone for quick uploading. I will be anxious to see how this works. my wife will no longer have to wait for me to process our travel photos - I can send the OOC jpegs to her phone, and still process properly when I get home - winner, winner, chicken dinner. Just wish I didn't have to pay ~$600 extra for this wireless feature.
> ...



I find the camranger to be immensly more useful. Its bigger but it also has its own battery. Software was just updated to support 1dx mark ii.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 20, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Which products "wildly exceed his expectations"? All? That's a totally unfair comment. 

Canon's flagship is a great camera. No surprise that he would like it.

Bryan has proven that knows photography better than the mega-underexposure pushers at DRReview. I find his reviews to be full of practical insights for real photography — covering everything I want to know.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Love his site -- I've been going there for years and years -- but I'm not sure 'balanced' is a word I'd use. : I'm hard-pressed to think of the last time a Canon-branded product didn't get a _very_ favorable review.
> 
> I deeply respect his insights / methods / thoroughness / transparency, but I wish he were more openly critical of Canon products, perhaps 'curving everything to a B' so that the real A+ products would stand out a bit more. I wasn't expecting the 1DX II to let him down one bit, mind you, but I didn't really have to read the review to know he would love it... Something to consider.
> 
> - A



LOL, 50L!

In all seriousness, Canon hasn't had that many lemons of late, and hindsight is 20/20. Closest one that I can think of is the 24-70 f/4L IS, but that's more for it's initial price ($1500!) than any flaws that is has. It makes more sense at its current street price than when it first came out. It is also interesting that he has also chosen to retain the f/4 even though it's weaker near 50mm.

One lens (of a few) that I've picked up after reading his reviews is the 70-300L, which didn't get much love early on. I was looking for something that was lighter/more compact than the 70-200 + 1.4x, and the 70-300L filled the role admirably.


----------



## unfocused (May 20, 2016)

I'm pleased that the reviews are finally starting to come in on the 1DX II. It's good to see all the different opinions. 

One thing I've noticed is that all the sites pretty consistently say that the high ISO files from the II are not that much different from the I (at least in Raw). Good to know and kind of interesting because when it was first released and all that was available were reviews from Canon "explorers" who got early copies, they were raving about the improved high ISO performance. I suspect it's mostly a case of confirmation bias. Not a criticism of the 1D II, just good information to file away while considering the camera.

I have to say, if I got a $6,000 camera and it had oil/grease on the sensor I would be quite P.O'd. I would have sent it back immediately. I'm hoping it was a one time problem, but it does give me a little pause. I'm hoping Canon isn't going to have the same problem with the ID X II that Nikon had a few years ago. 

I agree that the Digital Picture does tend to only throw softballs in its Canon camera reviews. I think his lens reviews are more useful because he actually compares lenses (both Canon and third party). 

All in all, not a bad review, but I'm still waiting for DPR's in-depth review and will be looking for others as well. The more information the better.


----------



## J.R. (May 20, 2016)

unfocused said:


> One thing I've noticed is that all the sites pretty consistently say that the high ISO files from the II are not that much different from the I (at least in Raw). Good to know and kind of interesting because when it was first released and all that was available were reviews from Canon "explorers" who got early copies, they were raving about the improved high ISO performance. I suspect it's mostly a case of confirmation bias. Not a criticism of the 1D II, just good information to file away while considering the camera.



Andy Rouse was here in India last week and he was saying that that the IQ on processing the high ISO RAWs with DPP is considerably better than with Adobe LR. I wonder if it actually true. I think I might as well try it out.


----------



## j-nord (May 20, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> One lens (of a few) that I've picked up after reading his reviews is the 70-300L, which didn't get much love early on. I was looking for something that was lighter/more compact than the 70-200 + 1.4x, and the 70-300L filled the role admirably.


70-300L is definitely an under rated lens that doesn't get much love.


----------



## j-nord (May 20, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I love his reviews and visit his site regularly however, I have no illusions that he is biased. He definitely has a tendency to exaggerate how fantastic upgrades/refreshes are for both bodies and lenses. I agree with ahsanford, it's hard separate the B+ lenses from the A+ based on his reviews.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 20, 2016)

j-nord said:


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



However, the Digital Picture's "Lens Image Quality" comparison tool separates the B+ lenses from the A+ lenses right away. Couldn't be easier than that.


----------



## FlorentC (May 20, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Refurb7 said:
> ...



Not quite. While this tool is nice and well done, the chart only shows contrast and resolution (to some extent), and there's much more to image quality than that. Sometimes the rest is covered in his reviews, sometimes not.

See the 35L II review for instance. There's a lack of "real-world" comparison images and commentary between this lens and the others from its category, starting with the Sigma 35mm Art. He only paraphrases - VERY briefly, one sentence! - the results from the "Lens Image Quality" tool, and again, where are the other aspects of image quality?

Anyway, TDP is a great resource, with lots of stuff not found anywhere else.


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2016)

Wanted to take only charger on a longer trip, so the old used one would have been better.
If you have an old and new 1D model and use old and new batteries in a mixed way, it's not really logical that only the new charger will work for both, when old and new cameras work for both.




J.R. said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I found out a few more things that are missing in the review:
> ...


----------



## Monchoon (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Wanted to take only charger on a longer trip, so the old used one would have been better.
> If you have an old and new 1D model and use old and new batteries in a mixed way, it's not really logical that only the new charger will work for both, when old and new cameras work for both.
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe just take the new charger then.


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Wanted to take only charger on a longer trip, so the old used one would have been better.
> If you have an old and new 1D model and use old and new batteries in a mixed way, it's not really logical that only the new charger will work for both, when old and new cameras work for both.
> 
> 
> ...



I was unable to compare the old and new charger side by side but i feel the new charger is lighter which would help in the decision. 

I seem to recall reading somewhere that you can charge the new batteries in the old charger but you wont get a full charge. I would do some searching on that before trying. I believe there is some smarts in both the battery and charger that help keep these things from blowing up on us.


----------



## unfocused (May 20, 2016)

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2016/eos1dx_mkii/eos1dx-mkii-battery.shtml

New LP-E19 battery pack

• Can be used in EOS-1D X Mark II

• Can be used in previous EOS-1Ds Mark III, EOS-1D Mark III, EOS-1D Mark IV, and EOS-1D X

*• Must be charged with new LC-E19 charger (with red stripe on charger’s top surface)
*
Previous LP-E4 and LP-E4N battery packs for EOS-1D series

• Can be used in EOS-1D X Mark II
Note: EOS-1D X Mark II maximum shooting speed will drop to approximately 12 fps

• Can be used in previous EOS-1Ds Mark III, EOS-1D Mark III, EOS-1D Mark IV, and EOS-1D X

*• Can be charged with any of the battery chargers for EOS-1D series: LC-E4, LC-E4N or the new LC-E19 charger*


----------



## Crapking (May 20, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Crapking said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review! I have used the 1Dx II now for several games / events and find his analysis spot on. I just received my WFT - E8a in the mail from B&H yesterday and look forward to trialing it during a match I am shooting tonite. A quick set up with my iphone (Canon connect app) revealed the ability to shoot untethered using my phone as a trigger. The view screen being larger also helps with image review and images can be selected / deleted and / or transferred to the phone for quick uploading. I will be anxious to see how this works. my wife will no longer have to wait for me to process our travel photos - I can send the OOC jpegs to her phone, and still process properly when I get home - winner, winner, chicken dinner. Just wish I didn't have to pay ~$600 extra for this wireless feature.
> ...



After 1 night with it, I am not in a position to talk you into it. I paired it with my iphone before the match, then went about my normal shot routine, including some video, then hoped to screen/rate my shots between sets on my phone instead of the Lcd. Unfortunately, the connection kept becoming lost, so I spent more re-connecting than rating. When it was connected, shots (~200/per set) loaded quickly to the phone, and it is nice to be able to pinch/zoom, and delete the rejects. One by one you can save to the phones camera roll, where you can then share or edit further with LR mobile. My guess is it would work better if someone else remotely connected/downloaded the pics using the WFT server feature or FTP or EOS utility. I tried to connect with EOS utility when I got home, but while the camera was recognized, I could not establish connection. I will 'update' EOS today and try again. 
As for a brief trial of remote control, it does work nice and smooth except no previewing video available. You can start/stop video but not view it. 
All in all, I need to troubleshoot more, try an iPad and/or EOS utility while my assistant is shooting to see if that helps.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2016)

Crapking said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Crapking said:
> ...



My experiences with the WFT's is that the connections are not particularly robust. Unless you need the rugged integration of the very expensive Canon dongle then the CamRanger a much better, and cheaper, wireless solution. 

The CamRanger connection is much more robust and the tablet/phone/desktop app just works, it also allows for some interesting non Canon options, like bracketed exposures with flash, auto focus adjustment focus stacking, client options as well as a separate app (a second or third device can be connected and see the images but not operate the camera) and a whole host of little details that make it a firm favourite for many wireless users. 

After starting with the EyFi cards years ago then getting the WFT's, I finally found a robust and competent solution in the CamRanger, can't recommend it highly enough.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 20, 2016)

Blackout said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...


In the image quality tool you can also see lateral chromatic aberration and to a lesser-extent astigmatism as well.

TDP also has a Vignette tool, flare tool, distortion tool and links to the Lensrentals MTF tools as well.

The only aspect which I'd like to see TDP add is a bokeh analysis tool. For consistent bokeh testing my go-to resource is Lenstip, however, Lenstip does not have a nice tool to bring up a side-by-side comparison. With Lenstip you need to dig up two separate lens reviews and navigate individually to the different bokeh sub-sections.


----------



## The Flasher (May 20, 2016)

Just finished shooting a studio/location fashion job over last seven days. 20,000 images, most tethered via ethernet via EOS Utility. Bang, bang bang, all week. Not one missed focus shot, models moving all over the place, towards camera, away, studio strobes, dim light hallways with some supplemental lighting. All sharp, fast, RAW +jpg images to computer screen and clients eyes almost simultaneously. RAW support from my fave capture app (Capture One) is still not available, henceforth the brutal EOS Utility/Digital Capture from Canon. 

One thing needs mention: if you nail the lighting and exposure the jpeg colour out of camera is simply amazing. I'm having hard time getting the colours close in RAW images. 

My last 1 series was the 1ds3 - the 1dx2 was a joy to use. 

Cheers

PS. one glitch that most won't notice or ever come across, and that is, when serving images from CF/Cfast card in camera to computer via web browser in WFT mode (tethered with ethernet cable), auto rotate is not recognized. In other words, all your vertical shots are displayed horizontally.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 21, 2016)

The Flasher said:


> Just finished shooting a studio/location fashion job over last seven days. 20,000 images, most tethered via ethernet via EOS Utility. Bang, bang bang, all week. Not one missed focus shot, models moving all over the place, towards camera, away, studio strobes, dim light hallways with some supplemental lighting. All sharp, fast, RAW +jpg images to computer screen and clients eyes almost simultaneously. RAW support from my fave capture app (Capture One) is still not available, henceforth the brutal EOS Utility/Digital Capture from Canon.
> 
> One thing needs mention: if you nail the lighting and exposure the jpeg colour out of camera is simply amazing. I'm having hard time getting the colours close in RAW images.
> 
> ...



WOW, one would almost think you were paid by Canon!  Great feedback.

Jack


----------



## The Flasher (May 21, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > WOW, one would almost think you were paid by Canon!  Great feedback.
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (May 21, 2016)

The Flasher said:


> 20,000 images, most tethered via ethernet via EOS Utility. All sharp, fast, RAW +jpg images to computer screen and clients eyes almost simultaneously.



Just as an aside - is that usual? If I were the client I would be telling you that I pay you to go through them and give me the best.


----------



## The Flasher (May 21, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > 20,000 images, most tethered via ethernet via EOS Utility. All sharp, fast, RAW +jpg images to computer screen and clients eyes almost simultaneously.
> ...



Yes its usual for an ad director or end client to want to see and approve each garment on a model, making sure we "have it", on the fly. The kind of creative licence freedom scenario you mention is more unusual.


----------



## Mikehit (May 21, 2016)

Each garment I can understand, every photo from the shoot is what puzzled me. Still, if that is what the client requested fair enough.

Thanks for your explanation.


----------



## The Flasher (May 22, 2016)

We misunderstood each other. The client monitored every photo as they were being captured, including the missed shots (blinks etc). They did not receive every photo. My point was camera performed flawlessly over 20,0000 actuations or so. I'm pumped about it. Cheers


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2016)

The Flasher said:


> We misunderstood each other. The client monitored every photo as they were being captured, including the missed shots (blinks etc). They did not receive every photo. My point was camera performed flawlessly over 20,0000 actuations or so. I'm pumped about it. Cheers



Cheers . 
As you say to perform flawlessly over that period of intense shooting is impressive and with the client able to see it 'real time' means a dodgy camera is the last thing you need.


----------



## Monchoon (May 22, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > Just finished shooting a studio/location fashion job over last seven days. 20,000 images, most tethered via ethernet via EOS Utility. Bang, bang bang, all week. Not one missed focus shot, models moving all over the place, towards camera, away, studio strobes, dim light hallways with some supplemental lighting. All sharp, fast, RAW +jpg images to computer screen and clients eyes almost simultaneously. RAW support from my fave capture app (Capture One) is still not available, henceforth the brutal EOS Utility/Digital Capture from Canon.
> ...



How in heavens could he? He postede a glitch ;D


----------



## d (May 23, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> WOW, one would almost think you were paid by Canon!  Great feedback.
> 
> Jack



No need for Canon to pay for a review like this - this is a pretty common scenario in the studio, and the fact that Canon's cameras can handle this kind of workload is the reason they're the bread and butter camera for so many photographers.

The confronting thought is that after 40 days shooting 20k images a day 20 shoots of 20k images, you've reached Canon's nominal shutter shutter durability figure!

d.

Edit: I was half asleep when I wrote this - both reading and arithmetic functions not fully operational!


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 23, 2016)

d said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > WOW, one would almost think you were paid by Canon!  Great feedback.
> ...



Shutter - 14 FPS could be a love hate relationship with so many shots to review and 400k reached in no time. 4k frame grabs may prove more popular than many past CR posts have suggested before Canon implemented it.

Interesting scenario, but I'm so removed from this as to be clueless - wouldn't mind a little more flesh on the bones of what a shoot like this consists of, who it's for, how pay is handled etc. (in general of course).

Jack


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 23, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Jack, I did a shoot today in 4k. For half of it I decided to use frame grab to select key shots for some marketing material. The images are all as good as stills at 1/60sec. But 8MP is a bit thin by today's standards...yet for the purpose it was fine for what I needed.

I think for many, except pixel peepers, this is a viable option and for me will likely pay off. We will have to wait and see if it becomes used a lot in the mainstream.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 23, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > d said:
> ...



I'm assuming that if cropping is not required 8MP should be fine but maybe not for printing?? Is your camera on a tripod with liveview (video)?

Jack


----------



## Nuno Santos (May 25, 2016)

Hi guys,

Talking about professional FF, like the precious 1Dx, take a few minutes and read this article, I think is resuming what I always saw in the Full Frame mirrorless, and I thought that I was alone.

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

Cheers


----------



## ahsanford (May 25, 2016)

Nuno Santos said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Talking about professional FF, like the precious 1Dx, take a few minutes and read this article, I think is resuming what I always saw in the Full Frame mirrorless, and I thought that I was alone.
> 
> ...



The 'rant heard round the world' -- I remember. Sator sent the interwebs into a tizzy with that one.

Mirrorless's size/weight savings only really pay dividends if you use slower glass, use APS-C, etc. Once you step up to FF, you aren't fooling anyone. Stuff will be big and heavy, and at that point, it's all about head to head performance against SLRs.

- A


----------

