# 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW image



## jebrady03 (Feb 12, 2016)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57265121

User got ahold of a demo unit and used Raw Therapee to open the RAW files. User also has a 1DX. He used the same settings on both. Pretty dramatic difference in noise.

EDIT: Hey everyone, the original poster of this picture asked me to remove it, per his relationship with Canon. I'd never want to jeopardize that for someone else, it's not my place, so I'm happy to remove it. Besides, I think everyone who wanted to see it, has seen it. And if there are any that haven't, they can certainly simply read the comments posted and understand the image. Hope you all understand. Thanks!


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 12, 2016)

He said later that the underexposed image that was pushed to ISO 3200 looked more like ISO 6400 properly exposed. So, a 5 stop push results in 6 stop noise. If I'm not mistaken, that's about a 2-3 stop improvement as previously, a 2-3 stop push looked like 5-6 stops of noise. Right? And it was even worse with the sensors that band (7D, 5D Mark III, for example).


----------



## frankchn (Feb 12, 2016)

Well, if this holds up across various lighting conditions, then hopefully there won't be any more discussion about (the lack of) DR in Canon sensors any more.

I am surprised that Canon didn't mention the improvement in its press releases though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2016)

Yay!!!!! I've been waiting soooooooooo long for Canon to have sensors that I can drastically underexpose then push 5-stops in post. I'm dumbfounded that I've been able to take any pictures at all until now. I'm going to preorder the 1D X II immediately!!!









Or not. 

Seriously, if a 5-stop push is your thing, guess you're feeling happy as long as you have $6K to burn.


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 12, 2016)

Neuro... the way I see it is that Canon has improved the image quality of their sensors. For me that means lower noise at low ISO, at a minimum. For others it may mean pushing shadows. For others it could be something different, who knows. But shouldn't we all be excited that the sensors to come in future Canon bodies will produce better image quality?


----------



## tpatana (Feb 12, 2016)

This sounds good. Still not sure if I get one, but quite often my sport shoots I have dark figures in brighter environment. Usually I expose the darks quite well, which means the other areas get quite blown. This case I might shoot one stop faster ISO and push the shadows one stop up.

So I see benefit in this improvement, although it's not as huge deal as SoNikon try to claim it is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2016)

Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 12, 2016)

Oh, and Neuro. The fewer threads about dynamic range, the better. Right? This should go a long way towards that utopic notion


----------



## frankchn (Feb 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.



And hopefully it stops all the conversations that go round-and-round about how Canon sensors lack low-ISO DR and we can move on to others things to talk about


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 12, 2016)

Silly me. I've been trying to get the proper exposure when I could have been underexposing and recovering in post. Not sure why someone would do this on purpose, even with landscapes. Is Canon's DR really that bad?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> Oh, and Neuro. The fewer threads about dynamic range, the better. Right? This should go a long way towards that utopic notion



But *Canon is forcing us to pay $6000 for that extra DR* and *forcing us use a massive, heavy brick for that extra DR*. 

I do admire your optimism!


----------



## dak723 (Feb 12, 2016)

frankchn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.
> ...



Dream on! The Canon bashers will continue to bash and the Sony lovers will continue to promote Sony as if it were the only camera that is capable of taking a good pic! Because it never had anything to do with actual picture taking and it won't now!


----------



## jthomson (Feb 12, 2016)

Guess your friend never read that book by Bryan Peterson ! ;D

Maybe a good book on flash would also be appropriate. 

Was listening to the grid yesterday . Scott Kelby had two pro's that shot the superbowl with the 1DXII (is that 412 in Roman Numerals?) and they both said that the noise is and colour of the files has improved. They reported shooting at higher iso as a result, not shooting at low iso and pushing in post. Just sayin'.

Hopefully the new technology will make its way into a camera us mere mortals can afford. Not really bitchin', I love the results I get from my 5D3 and 7D2.


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Neuro. The fewer threads about dynamic range, the better. Right? This should go a long way towards that utopic notion
> ...



Wow... There's simply no pleasing you. Apparently in your world, entire product portfolios are replaced on the same day. 

Have a good one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



Silly me, forgot the <sarcasm> tags again. My bad.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Neuro. The fewer threads about dynamic range, the better. Right? This should go a long way towards that utopic notion
> ...


You forgot about not as good as 3D tracking for tracking eyes of players during super bowl. ;D


----------



## cpsico (Feb 13, 2016)

Hardly ever shoot at ISO 100, but looks great.


----------



## RGF (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.



Sarcasm aside, the ability to pull up dark shades without noise is useful. Granted this type of DR would be more beneficial in a 5D series body.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 13, 2016)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.
> ...



Why?


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I think it's great. But I have no issues with noise at low ISO currently, nor issues with low ISO DR that can be solved by two more stops of it. Those who do are clearly a very small minority of users. But if this helps them, wonderful.
> ...



Yes, but five stops? I can see two, even unto three, but five is right out. I'd like someone to show me a real-world scene for which you'd want to pull shadows five stops, or even four.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

RGF said:


> Sarcasm aside, the ability to pull up dark shades without noise is useful. Granted this type of DR would be more beneficial in a 5D series body.



The current 1D X has that ability. Granted, certainly not 5 stops worth of it...but outside of taking images for the express purpose of pushing them 5 stops to post on the Internet, when and how often did you last _need_ to push shadows that hard? I never have, not even close. If it's a requirement for your photography, you're not shooting Canon anymore anyway.


----------



## tpatana (Feb 13, 2016)

To push 5 stops, what all dials I have to move and how much on LR? I'd like to try that now on the pics I have from 1DX.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yay!!!!! I've been waiting soooooooooo long for Canon to have sensors that I can drastically underexpose then push 5-stops in post. I'm dumbfounded that I've been able to take any pictures at all until now. I'm going to preorder the 1D X II immediately!!!




Pretty soon, we will be seeing photos with the lens cap on. That should really convince you.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 13, 2016)

The pushed raw files look very good to me. 

My biggest use of more DR will be for wildlife photos where I can underexpose by a couple of stops getting faster shutter speed. For almost everything else which needs higher DR, I'm good because I bracket my exposures anyway.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Feb 13, 2016)

frankchn said:


> I am surprised that Canon didn't mention the improvement in its press releases though.



I'm not actually. 

1) it seems Canon is now finally on par with its competitors in terms of read-out noise / DR and that is not really something you want to bring to everybody's attention. Instead they use more careful announcements such as "high latitude" sensor. 

2) they know DR has been discussed all over the internet and before any "scores" and reviews have been official, I think they stay away from claiming any actual improvements (everyone will start asking nerdy questions anyway like "how many stops?")

3) don't compete in-house. Canon is still selling 1DX and many other pro/semipro models. Praising the new sensordesign too much could be risky.

4) Many pros and potential buyers have no issues, nor have they heard anything about lacking DR in the existing line-up

I am sure that we will hear a bit more from Canon about the improved sensordesign once the model hits the stores and 1DX slowly fades away. But I don't expect them to wear a sandwich board and ring a bell.

I think they are doing this right.


----------



## midluk (Feb 13, 2016)

J.R. said:


> My biggest use of more DR will be for wildlife photos where I can underexpose by a couple of stops getting faster shutter speed.


Even with the improved DR you will still get better images with just increasing the ISO in the camera. As already written in the second post: the noise of ISO 100 pushed to ISO 3200 looks like for a native setting of ISO 6400. So an equally bright image taken with native ISO 3200 will have less noise.
It's just useful when you have accidentally underexposed, so the losses will be less compared to images taken with less DR, and if you can't increase the ISO to save highlights while you don't want to or can not (moving subject, no tripod) use bracketing.


----------



## fegari (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Sarcasm aside, the ability to pull up dark shades without noise is useful. Granted this type of DR would be more beneficial in a 5D series body.
> ...



Oh my god, thank you. I've just realized that I've been shooting wrong all these years pushing all my pics 5 stops!

How about for once not debating a single user's example and extrapolating that for the whole community of shooters around the world and realizing that improvement in the shadow areas will benefit the IQ across the board. Will make your life easier in a number of situations and for a bunch of photographers. 

Let's wait for more examples of what the 1DXII brings to the table in terms of improvements to try and generalize but based on the 5 push shot, looks an improvement in the right direction.

Or would you have preferred they reduced the DR range instead?


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 13, 2016)

Ok, so here's an example of where I have used multiple stops in the real world with my 6D and the results, I assume, aren't as good as they would have been with a camera which featured on-sensor ADC.

I shoot manual everything. I expose for my subjects face outdoors. When waiting for the perfect expression, the cloud cover changes right about the time that my subject is doing exactly what I want (2.5 year old daughter). I don't have the time to both capture the expression/pose/moment AND change ISO/aperture/shutter speed (whichever) so I choose to capture the moment. Her face, more specifically her eyes, due to now-present cloud cover, are a good 3 stops underexposed. The rest of her face needs some lightening as well. So, I go about carefully raising exposure locally all over her face. In the darkest areas (her eyes), I end up raising exposure even further. By the time I'm finished and happy with the exposure, the details look crunchy with all kinds of extra noise. So, I can choose to smooth it out with NR or leave it as is. Given that I've nailed the focus, I can sacrifice some sharpness so I apply some local NR and then try to sharpen a tad to make up for the loss. In fact, I try all kinds of combinations to achieve the results I want. This takes a lot of time, and a lot of work. Obviously bracketing isn't possible. However, if I had a sensor which didn't introduce a massive amount of noise when shadows were raised, this would have been MUCH easier to deal with in post. And it would have provided a better result.

Some will say to use Auto ISO, but I find that due to the fact that the 6D lacks metering tied to the AF point and that I'm constantly changing the AF point, I find that the 6D usually underexposes if I rely on Auto ISO. And EC isn't available in full manual. So, this is another improvement I'm looking for in my next Canon DSLR - metering tied to the AF point so I can rely on Auto ISO. 

Those two improvements (on-sensor ADC plus AF point linked metering), plus a wider spread of AF points, along with AF points which are cross type (or especially dual cross type) closer to the intersections of the 1/3 lines will DEFINITELY get me to upgrade. Those 3 improvements will make my photographic goals MUCH easier to accomplish, and likely with better results. If this feature set is in the 6D Mark II, AWESOME! If it's in the 5D Mark IV, not so awesome as the body is bigger than I want (the 70D is perfect for me and the 6D is doable). So... I've got some waiting to do, but I'm eagerly anticipating the announcements...


----------



## lux (Feb 13, 2016)

I spend a lot of time at ISO 3200-6400 and would love to have a couple stops of less noise...obviously on a cheaper camera than this. If this has a couple stops better noise and that trickles down to 5div or 6d2 I would consider upgrading. Not sure what else would have me upgrade from my 6d and 7d2 combination. Don't worry. Canon will still get my money I'll just buy glass instead.


----------



## jebrady03 (Feb 13, 2016)

lux said:


> I spend a lot of time at ISO 3200-6400 and would love to have a couple stops of less noise...obviously on a cheaper camera than this. If this has a couple stops better noise and that trickles down to 5div or 6d2 I would consider upgrading. Not sure what else would have me upgrade from my 6d and 7d2 combination. Don't worry. Canon will still get my money I'll just buy glass instead.



The biggest noise improvement will be at low ISO (100), 2-3 stops is my guess. By 800-6400, I think Canon camera buyers will be fortunate to have a full stop of improvement and it'll likely be less than that. Just my guess.


----------



## quod (Feb 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


My last trip to Iceland had several. Seriously, do you only shoot in controlled lighting situations?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

quod said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



The examples you posted in response make your point very effectively. :


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Sarcasm aside, the ability to pull up dark shades without noise is useful. Granted this type of DR would be more beneficial in a 5D series body.
> ...



Neuro, i firmly believe the art of photography has been lost by most. Too many lazy photographers out that dont want to take the extra mile to get it right. They just want a point and shoot solution and deal with it in post or better let someone else deal with it in post.


----------



## RGF (Feb 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



What about an HDR where the bright area is the exposed for the Sun or sunlight and something is in shadows? There could easily be more than 5 stops difference.

Whether the need is for 3, 4, 5 or ... the point is that dark areas can be pulled up, minimizing the need to HDR.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

RGF said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


Pulled shadows do not display the same image quality as properly exposed areas, I'm not sure that would give an acceptable HDR image result.

The nice part of this is that, in a few months, some of the members here will get there hands on one and be able to do some of these test shots. There is no dispute that being able to pull shadows is useful, the question is whether it's a substitute for proper exposure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Neuro, i firmly believe the art of photography has been lost by most. Too many lazy photographers out that dont want to take the extra mile to get it right. They just want a point and shoot solution and deal with it in post or better let someone else deal with it in post.



Perhaps. Certainly as a society we're getting lazier. But also, aesthetic is a personal thing. Some people prefer an artificial looking image, and pushing shadows 5 stops is one way to achieve that look.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> There is no dispute that being able to pull shadows is useful, *the question is whether it's a substitute for proper exposure.*



It isn't, really. You can make shadow areas brighter, but you can't add detail to them that wasn't recorded due to underexposure.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > There is no dispute that being able to pull shadows is useful, *the question is whether it's a substitute for proper exposure.*
> ...



Yeah, I knew that: it was an educational question.  

To be fair, the 5-stop-pull proponents would claim that it's not an issue of creating new detail, but revealing dim detail without introducing noise. You can do some of that, just not 5 stops (IMO).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> Ok, so here's an example of where I have used multiple stops in the real world with my 6D and the results, I assume, aren't as good as they would have been with a camera which featured on-sensor ADC.
> 
> I shoot manual everything. I expose for my subjects face outdoors. When waiting for the perfect expression, the cloud cover changes right about the time that my subject is doing exactly what I want (2.5 year old daughter). I don't have the time to both capture the expression/pose/moment AND change ISO/aperture/shutter speed (whichever) so I choose to capture the moment. Her face, more specifically her eyes, due to now-present cloud cover, are a good 3 stops underexposed. The rest of her face needs some lightening as well. So, I go about carefully raising exposure locally all over her face. In the darkest areas (her eyes), I end up raising exposure even further. By the time I'm finished and happy with the exposure, the details look crunchy with all kinds of extra noise. So, I can choose to smooth it out with NR or leave it as is. Given that I've nailed the focus, I can sacrifice some sharpness so I apply some local NR and then try to sharpen a tad to make up for the loss. In fact, I try all kinds of combinations to achieve the results I want. This takes a lot of time, and a lot of work. Obviously bracketing isn't possible. However, if I had a sensor which didn't introduce a massive amount of noise when shadows were raised, this would have been MUCH easier to deal with in post. And it would have provided a better result.
> 
> ...



I don't see why Av or Tv mode with EC wouldn't work rather than trying to force M mode to work where the light is changing faster than you can. You know the meter reads x value different to how you want the exposure, so that is the basic EC value, then just wind in more or less as you want the subject exposed. Done. However slow you are to react, or the metering isn't done from the AF point, it will give you a close enough exposure of the subject to not need to lift so heavily.

Two other factors, one, lifting exposure in post will never be as good, despite what DPReview might say, as getting the exposure right, so it seems you need to work your camera better than the sensor work better. And two, if you want all the features you desire for the money of a 6D, buy a 1DS MkIII.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 13, 2016)

All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



My thoughts exactly, on the choice of exposure mode. I only use Manual mode when I can control the lighting environment completely (i.e., artificial light only in an indoor studio). For outdoor portraiture, I would go with Av every time, selecting aperture for the depth of field I want, and adjusting ISO to achieve an acceptable (range of) shutter speed.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

cpsico said:


> All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII



While I agree with you, I think the main argument for more DR is about conditions you can't control. If you're on a family vacation you can't always decide to be at that prime location right at dawn, so you must deal with the light you have. Or if Sasquatch happens to stroll across the road in front of you, you can't ask the talent to take a break while you set up your strobes for a glam portrait shot. I'm sure you've all encountered these common situations.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII
> ...


I one hundred percent agree, except for Sasquatch...everyone knows Sasquatch loves the paparazzi


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Feb 13, 2016)

memoriaphoto said:


> frankchn said:
> 
> 
> > I am surprised that Canon didn't mention the improvement in its press releases though.
> ...


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > All that dynamic range is great but it will never ever replace proper use of lighting in portrait photos. It won't make the wrong time of day for a great landscape shot anything but the wrong time, for using pushing images to achieve faster shutter speeds it would be awesome. I would very happy to have a camera like the 1dxII
> ...



Sure, you can boost the shadows in your image shot at the wrong time of day in harsh, unflattering light....and you'll still have an image with harsh, unflattering light. So if your aim is a stunning image, it's an opportunity lost regardless. If your aim is documentary or a photo-memory – I was on the rim of the Grand Canyon!!! (at 10:30 am), then let the shadows fall where they may. 

As for Sasquatch and Yeti, Elvis and aliens...well, a bit of noise is forgivable.


----------



## krisbell (Feb 13, 2016)

Some very promising initial findings here - I too will be interested to see if this improvement will filter down to the next 5D.

And I for one am a constant 5 stop pusher for a number of reasons - using a faster shutter speed to freeze action and lighten later, for bringing out detail in shadows (so this applies to only very small areas of a picture) or because my post-processing workflow involves making the light as flat as possible in RAW before re-bringing out contrast in photoshop (so effectively darkening then lightening, or lightening and then darkening).


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...


I have a 70D, so take that FWIW. I've had circumstances where I was photographing a forest scene with dappled light and dark shadow. I'm willing to let some of the dappling clip; however, there are times that I'd like to be able to lift some of the shadows 2-3 stops to "unblock" them, without adding a lot of noise. They would still be shadows, but just a little less dim. I have yet to see a need for 5-stop lift that would leave a nice finished product.



> So if your aim is a stunning image, it's an opportunity lost regardless. If your aim is documentary or a photo-memory – I was on the rim of the Grand Canyon!!! (at 10:30 am), then let the shadows fall where they may.


Why the dichotomy? Maybe I want to make my vacation snaps as near as possible to the quality of my composed shots?



> As for Sasquatch and Yeti, Elvis and aliens...well, a bit of noise is forgivable.


So you say, but try getting them to sit for you a second time if the first spread isn't perfect! ;D 8)


----------



## telemaq76 (Feb 13, 2016)

finaly, great news, and yes it can be interesting to have a 5 stop recovery capability. 5 stops mean 3 stops with great quality. 5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso. If you can shoot sunset and recover dark shadows without doing digital blending, that s a lot of time saved. or wedding , portrait outdoor or everything with dark parts, dark hair, dark wildlife. good improvement for me. but i understand it means mothing for sports jpeg shooters .


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

telemaq76 said:


> 5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.



I'd love to see a side-by-side example.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



Orangutan said:


> telemaq76 said:
> 
> 
> > 5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.
> ...



Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........


----------



## cpsico (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > telemaq76 said:
> ...


I have to agree 110 percent, the 6 is right there with the 1ds markIII, except I like the color of the older camera better. High iso the 6d is wonderful 

Here is a sample of the nice shadow quality of the 1ds mark III


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



cpsico said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I don't see it in this photo, but I probably don't have as much experience as you.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



Orangutan said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



cpsico said:


> I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable



Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...


----------



## krisbell (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



neuroanatomist said:


> Ahhh, yes...there's that flat, artificial look you get from pushing shadows hard. Because you can doesn't mean you should...



I agree with your sentiment of 'can doesnt mean should', however, 'that flat, artificial look' occurs when you dont push shadows well, rather than hard, pushing hard just makes poor pushing more obvious....


----------



## Viggo (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



neuroanatomist said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable
> ...



+1, I fail to see the point in having every pixel exposed equally. It looks like some really crappy HDR with "grunge" filter. 

If I sometimes try to lift a little, I take my eye off the slider and adjust to my liking, more often than not, I'll pull the shadows darker.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...


To my (non-professional) eye, this isn't a particularly good example because the textures could hide noise. However, as much as I'm skeptical of the "lifting shadows 5 stops" benchmark of sensor evaluation, I have to remind all the folks on my side of the fence that the purpose of doing these demos is to test the limits of the tool. This is akin to destructive testing that's done in a lot of critical applications. That fact that you *can* bend a new airliner's wings 70degrees without breaking them doesn't mean you should; however, it's nice to know that they can do that, and then return to shape as functional flight surfaces. Likewise, testing the boundaries of low-noise lift is one (of many) legitimate tests of a sensor. I just think it's over-emphasized.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 13, 2016)

I'm sure there isn't a 1/1 trade here, but I would be rather upset if there were 5 stops better shadows at ISO 100 rather than 1 or 2 stops better high iso. If I were in the market for a 1dx II, that is, lol. However, I'm guessing that lower noise in the shadows like in this illustration means lower noise all across the board, which is pretty darn exciting - that's why 5 stop pushes are interesting: not because I have ever needed to do that in real life.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



neuroanatomist said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable
> ...


I think orangutan is to lost in specs, the question is does my camera doe what I want it to do. Not can it make a cappuccino while I shoot 5 stop underexposed ISO 100 shots. What isn't mentioned here is Sony sensors and canon sensors aren't much different dynamic range past ISO 400. The lowly 6d is actually better than the rest at higher ISO ranges.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 13, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



cpsico said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



No, not at all. Please re-read my posts, I think you misunderstood.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 14, 2016)

Maybe it is just me, but the damsel looks to be lit from the camera side of the photo. I see a harsh shadow on her right moving towards the sun. Don't think this is a good example at all. Not at all.

Which shadows are being pushed? The ones behind her being lit by flash? (then no real need to lift from that side at all.) or the shadows in front of her being lit by the sun?

The flash is doing a great job of overpowering the sun here. Just look at that harsh shadow from flash on her right side along the ground.

Doesn't look right to me. There should be some soft shadow behind the model with interesting very soft shadows to accentuate her sensual curves.

In my opinion she is too lit for this snapshot to be an example of a photo showing an example of a camera's capabilities. Just my opinion.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 14, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



cpsico said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



To be honest, the original looks much better. This just looks plastic.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 14, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Maybe it is just me, but the damsel looks to be lit from the camera side of the photo. I see a harsh shadow on her right moving towards the sun. Don't think this is a good example at all. Not at all.



Good enough real world to get an idea of real world applications, not necessarily worse case scenario. The shot was about a stop under to start to maintain the warm golden sunset In this same setup a 5dII and 5dIII would have fared a good bit worse, the 6d is actually really good in this area.

Of course we have king of left the topic of the new 1dxII which looks amazing!!! And oddly enough has the same pixel count as the 6d which makes wonder if it's based on that sensor with new tech added on.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 14, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



R1-7D said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


+1 
I agree and hate the look of lifted shadows


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



"Colour" is an entirely false idea when used like that, digital cameras and image files are not film, I have had absolutely no issues matching multiple Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras colours to my 1DS MkIII's colours when they have shot the same event.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Feb 14, 2016)

Growing up on film, I find all this so entertaining.
My first DSLR was a 40D and was like using Tri-X and Ektachrome.
ASA 400 pushed to 1600 for night football games was kind of like the 40D at ISO 1600.
Fast forward through the 50D & 7D.
My 5D III comes close to my best days in 35mm, but The 5DS reminds me of my 4x5 days.
The real limit back then was two fold- lens quality and the film. If you wanted to enlarge to anything over 8x10, Panatomic-X or Kodachrome was best. 

Today, most any DSLR is incredibly good compared to my film days.
DNR is all the talk, but frankly, I am very pleased with what I can achieve with my Canons.
To me, when you look at your subject and the camera can reproduce what your brain processed, it's game over.
Currently, HDR is the only way I can close the gap.
Getting a look at raw files from the 1DX II will be interesting.
I will never miss carrying around a bunch film holders, boxes of film, the changing bag, and flash bulbs.


----------



## kkelis (Feb 14, 2016)

Shouldn't the 1dx mkii be cheaper if i doesn't need an exposure meter anymore?


----------



## GuyF (Feb 14, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> The link is now dead??
> 
> Jack



Yup, on the original site Martin Kozak states (via Google translate), "Update: Comparison image I decided (perhaps only temporarily) to download, but the conclusion above applies".

Looks like the dude decided Canon's warning not to post full size RAW or JPEG has made him change his mind.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 14, 2016)

*Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag*



privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## tpatana (Feb 14, 2016)

I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2016)

tpatana said:


> I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?



I'd start by moving the Exposure slider five stops to the right, that is all the way.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?
> ...



The exposure slider in the current and recent versions of LR is not linear. +1 doesn't not necessarily equal +1 stop.

Edit: my mistake, with LR6/CC Adobe now claims equivalence.


----------



## cpsico (Feb 15, 2016)

tpatana said:


> I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?


It was the entire image he raised 5 stops, not just shadows


----------



## mclaren777 (Feb 15, 2016)

http://www.martinkozak.com/2016/02/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-prvni-dojmy/

Chrome will translate that page into English fairly well.


----------



## tpatana (Feb 15, 2016)

Ok, just tried +5 exposure on one of the recent pics with 1DX.

First one no edits, seconds one +5 (and nothing else), third one the earlier edit I had on that pic.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 15, 2016)

midluk said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > My biggest use of more DR will be for wildlife photos where I can underexpose by a couple of stops getting faster shutter speed.
> ...



Totally agree. More DR is welcome but in truth none of my images have suffered as a result of the current tech. If I have a scene where shadow detail is important I just overexpose a bit and bring down the highlights very nicely.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 15, 2016)

Those jpgs someone posted a week ago looked pretty impressive. This is even more notable. I have never had problems lifting shadows (except on certain particular occasions) I need on any of my Canon gear. What is encouraging about this is shooting low light/rapidly changing light at dance recitals with $100k of theatrical lighting LEDs going crazy. Even shooting in Auto ISO and pegging my aperture and shutter speed, the 1DX (and ANY camera would) can get easily "fooled" quite frequently. The camera will meter and by the time I've fired the stage lighting in my field of view radically shifts and bang, unexposed by a couple stops. Obviously not the camera's fault per se, but it's just a fact of shooting fact paced, live action, under wild theatrical stage lighting. That being said, the 1DX2 ability to push shadows even more (perhaps another 2 stops with what MUST be much cleaner high ISOs than even before) could really add a lot more flexibility in that situation. I realize that's highly specialized, but just my two cents. Attached a couple shots of last year's work so you can see what I'm talking about with these lights and fog. (I was TRYING to silhouette the that shot. That's not underexposed) The active LED 12 foot by 30 foot LED walls are a real pain in the butt... You have no clue what that does to metering...

PS - Would a sony give me more latitude? Probably. Would an A7 body be able to AF track these girls? Not a chance.


----------



## Jokke_r (Feb 15, 2016)

There's plenty of use for pushing 5 stops, if only to save highlight detail. I was shocked when shooting some 6x7 Portra 160 some years ago over how much greater the highlight retention is on color negative.

Here's an example Top one is Portra 160 and underneath it is a digital reference shot from the same scene exposed the same as the film (I actually used the 5D mark II to meter for the Mamiya RB67 which lacks metering)
Now a case can be made that you shouldn't expose digital like color negative, of course that is right, i should have underexposed to save the highlights and then push the shadows up in post. But this only works so far. There's a million contrasty lighting situations that film will handle with ease and produce beautiful tones, while digital will clip the highlights or crush the shadows into oblivion. One other annoying thing is how digital completely screws up with colored lights, they just burn through and end up white for the most part, look at the traffic light, it should retain its red color but even in daylight digital manages to clip it to white, let alone at night. Film is especially good at retaining the integrity of highlight colors, even in the dark a bright red light will remain red, just look at any tv-show or movie shot on film, and rear lights on cars shine true red in dark scenes, and in modern shows and movies shot on digital they pretty much always are completely white with only a red glow retained, this is a symptom of poor dynamic range.

Thankfully with Magic-lantern and the Dual-ISO feature i've been able to extend the usable dynamic range tremendously for the past few years, it's extremely tricky to process it in order for it to not look artificial but it's a lot better than shooting with stock canon 12 stop DR. I attached a ML dual ISO high contrast image also.

Would you look at that, an actual digital sunset image where the actual sun and its surroundings aren't overexposed to hell with horrible color shifts. You can actually perfectly make out the disk of the sun and there's a perfect gradation from there, just like back in the film days. This was achieved in a single exposure thanks to magic lantern, this particular picture could not have been achiever with multi shot HDR because of the motion of the waves etc, not even the specular highlights on the waves are overexposed and the rocks on the beach aren't under exposed.


----------



## kfreels (Feb 15, 2016)

captainkanji said:


> Silly me. I've been trying to get the proper exposure when I could have been underexposing and recovering in post. Not sure why someone would do this on purpose, even with landscapes. Is Canon's DR really that bad?



No, Their DR isn't that bad. But such an improvement would be welcome. While my daughter was in high school I would shoot my daughter and her friends in the color guard a lot. The evening performance were always a lot of trouble. They were too far away to shoot the close-ups they liked so much with a prime. So an f2.8 zoom was as good as I could get. The shutter speed HAD to be at 1/500 or faster or they would blur while leaping, waving flags, spinning and tossing rifles, etc. They were too far away for a flash to work - especially since only HSS will work at 1/500 and the range on that is crap. So being locked in at 1/500 and f2/8, I often ended up at ISO 3200 which was a far different result than you could get at ISO 400. A 3 stop improvement would have drastically improved those shots. 

When you look at all the night football games under the same lights, you can certainly start to understand why this would be introduced in the 1DX. Assuming it's accurate.


----------



## et31 (Feb 15, 2016)

*Nikonites on the new D5's ISO 3,276,800 sensor with native range of ISO 50-102,400: "We got this!"*


----------



## clicstudio (Feb 15, 2016)

What I want to see is a photo of a person inside an house or apartment in front of a window on a bright sunny day. That is the hardest thing to photograph. The difference between outside and inside light is huge. I would guess even more than 5 stops. So, being able to push shadows and get less noise is a welcome improvement. 
I still think the future is multiple sensors for highlights and shadows. 
The upcoming "Light" camera has multiple lenses and sensors. I already pre-ordered one. I believe that type of technology is going to change everything.


----------



## Woody (Feb 15, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> You forgot about not as good as 3D tracking for tracking eyes of players during super bowl. ;D



Yup... about to point this one out! ;D


----------



## Jokke_r (Feb 15, 2016)

clicstudio said:


> What I want to see is a photo of a person inside an house or apartment in front of a window on a bright sunny day. That is the hardest thing to photograph.



Well you can get pretty close to this with magic lantern Dual-ISO, i would have suggested you to try it out but considering you're shooting with a 1 series camera and it's not available for them, tough luck.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 15, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> Neuro... the way I see it is that Canon has improved the image quality of their sensors. For me that means lower noise at low ISO, at a minimum. For others it may mean pushing shadows. For others it could be something different, who knows. But shouldn't we all be excited that the sensors to come in future Canon bodies will produce better image quality?


More latitude to beat them up in post, I guess. We should wait and see how they do in a DxO style test although that means that DxO will have to go out and get one somewhere.


----------



## David Hull (Feb 15, 2016)

memoriaphoto said:


> frankchn said:
> 
> 
> > I am surprised that Canon didn't mention the improvement in its press releases though.
> ...


Even the vendors that have the lower read out noise now don't make a big deal about it. I have never quite understood that. Had I ben Nikon I would have added a line on the spec sheet that stated the ENOB of the camera at 14 bits with a note that it is measured at ISO=100. That would have forced Canon to admit that they could only get 11.5. For some reason Nikon didn't think that it was important. Maybe because it was already all over the net.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Feb 15, 2016)

1DsIII comparison:
Top is straight push of the underexposed image, below is somewhat processed to taste while keeping the 5 stop push... meh. Bottom is a more processed to taste without 5 stop push. : 
NOTE: I rarely in the editing process choose an image like this,-that I need to push--and this was not a keeper.


----------



## canonic (Feb 15, 2016)

First:
I am glad i made a mistake when i said "Canon cant do more DR"!. Well Canon can! I am making gladly such mistakes! 



neuroanatomist said:


> Yay!!!!! I've been waiting soooooooooo long for Canon to have sensors that I can drastically underexpose then push 5-stops in post. I'm dumbfounded that I've been able to take any pictures at all until now. I'm going to preorder the 1D X II immediately!!!
> Or not.
> Seriously, if a 5-stop push is your thing, guess you're feeling happy as long as you have $6K to burn.



I am so glad that Canon is not you and you are not Canon. If you were Canon, we would not be seeing more DR, anytime in the future.
As i already said, for users like you, Canon should cut the DR direct in the camera. Too many stops can confuse someone. Are 10 stops ideal for you? 11,7? What is your type of photography? Just curious.
With a typical outdoor, sunlight scene of 17? 20? stops of DR, i wish you luck with your older Canon camera. 
Maybe your camera doesnt seeing the sunlight because is only a studio camera. Then, i understand. But please, let us, push the camera so much as is possible, to get the scene to the real world and beyond! Everyone with his interpretation of what "real" is, isnt it? 

And, sarcasm is doesnt helping making someone smarter! Yes, including me, too ...


----------



## tss68nl (Feb 15, 2016)

What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:

Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
"There are no scenarios where you would need this". Ok. So now all of the sudden we don't need more DR anymore. What about complex seascapes where you just can't use a grad? What about low-light event photography where you just don't want to use much flash (or can't)?
"None of my current work includes a 5 stop boost for shadows". Great. Maybe it doesn't because you avoid it due to excessive noise in the shadows. Maybe better tools will open up new possibilities.
"They make us pay 6000+ for this technology". Yeah, and over time it will probably be released in more affordable models as well. The top down approach is not uncommon to actually make money. It's what most healthy companies do by the way, make money.

You all act like it's some idiotic move of Canon to offer a real upgrade to their line-up. Or would you rather have seen a 1.2MP resolution bump, 2 extra cross-types, and a theoretical upgrade to the max ISO which takes the image from "very unusable" to "even more unusable"? We'd all be whining there is no reason to upgrade.

Complain because you cannot afford it or just don't want to spend that amount of money? The world has enough envious people without you already. 

I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon. Finally being able to have amount of DR while retaining detail is huge, and we can only hope to see it in other bodies soon as well. Would I buy one? Probably not because I'm not keen on spending that amount on a camera, but I am happy to see the technology progress and can't wait to see the work that people can produce with them.
And when the time comes Canon will put this tech in cheaper camera's I'll be first in line. You see, this is much better than having no progress at all on the DR/ISO front for Canon.


----------



## Connected (Feb 15, 2016)

tss68nl said:


> What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:
> 
> Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
> Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
> ...



You sir, said the truth.


----------



## canonic (Feb 15, 2016)

tss68nl said:


> What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:
> 
> Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
> Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
> ...



Amen


----------



## plam_1980 (Feb 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



As someone already mentioned, 5 stops theoretical possibility means that a 3 stops push in the new-camera is much better than 3 stops on 1D X. I am shooting indoor sports in dimly lit halls with my 5D mark III and I often shoot at f/2 (with the incredible 135 L) and at speeds up to 1/200 - 1/250s. Even with these settings I regularly get ISO of 2 000. If I go to f/2.8 for a little more depth of field and 1/400s to better freeze the action, the ISO goes 3 200 or even 6 400 sometimes, which is unacceptable quality. And even with these settings I have good highlights but I have to lift the shadows. I don't shoot it professionally (for money), just for the local team, so I am not a potential buyer of 1 DX II but I would love this claimed 2-stop improvement to trickle down (even 1-stop would be OK) to 5D mark IV


----------



## plam_1980 (Feb 15, 2016)

tss68nl said:


> What a load of negativity here. Wow. I see people that:
> 
> Say they never underexpose by 5 stops. Nope, most of us do not. It's a test scenario that let's you see how good your underexposed shadows can be.
> Say it's useless, because they use magic lantern already. Right. Has it ever occured to you it might be handy to not use magic lantern and do this straight from the camera in one go? You can even use magic lantern on top of that and get even more extreme results if you can't part with the software.
> ...


+1


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 15, 2016)

plam_1980 said:


> As someone already mentioned, 5 stops theoretical possibility means that a 3 stops push in the new-camera is much better than 3 stops on 1D X. I am shooting indoor sports in dimly lit halls with my 5D mark III and I often shoot at f/2 (with the incredible 135 L) and at speeds up to 1/200 - 1/250s. Even with these settings I regularly get ISO of 2 000. If I go to f/2.8 for a little more depth of field and 1/400s to better freeze the action, the ISO goes 3 200 or even 6 400 sometimes, which is unacceptable quality. And even with these settings I have good highlights but I have to lift the shadows. I don't shoot it professionally (for money), just for the local team, so I am not a potential buyer of 1 DX II but I would love this claimed 2-stop improvement to trickle down (even 1-stop would be OK) to 5D mark IV


This DR improvement applies only to low-ISO (100-800) so you for example won't find pretty much any major differences (I'm not sure if 5DIII has banding, if it does, that's one thing that could be fixed).


----------



## canonic (Feb 15, 2016)

kozakm00 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > CR:
> ...



I am sorry for you, because this is not nice, at all! 
I hope CR guy will remove it at once ... and from facebook, too!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2016)

tss68nl said:


> I can't see this anything less than very positive. It's a real upgrade, although we'll have to see if it's as good in the production model. Let's say it is, then it's a huge jump in the capabilities for Canon.



Positive? Certainly. A real upgrade? Sure. A huge jump in capabilities? Try to get some perspective.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Feb 15, 2016)

I've always felt dpreview was strongly biased toward Canon. Maybe I am wrong, but when a new Nikon body comes out they make a big deal about it and test it quickly. It seems when the high megapixel Canon came out, they drug their feet with it as far as reviews.


----------



## obach (Feb 15, 2016)

This is good news for me. Meaning, it's likely that the next 5Dmk4 will have the same DR. If it has, I'll upgrade my 5Dmk3 right away. The 1DX body size is on the heavy side for me, so the 1DXmk2 is not an option.


----------



## tss68nl (Feb 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Positive? Certainly. A real upgrade? Sure. A huge jump in capabilities? Try to get some perspective.



Depends on your perspective indeed. If you only count updates to video functions, MP and autofocus that was already spot on to the functionalities that count in your perspective I get it. But in my book DR and ISO performance / sensor capabilities in general do actually matter quite a bit. I'll take better DR over extra MP any day.

I am actually quite curious if (given the shadows seem to have better quality) the highlight retention has suffered at all. Might be a trade off which would make this less of a gain. On my current Canon bodies a little highlight blowout is no issue where you need the extra DR.

Maybe the original poster can test? No 100% crop needed anyway for highlight blowout. Noise isn't much of an issue there.


----------



## Woody (Feb 15, 2016)

kozakm00 said:


> I'm the original author of this comparison and I'm kind of shocked, that despite the knowing why I had to remove the image Canon rumors guy shared it anyway without even asking me.



While I understand how you feel about the whole episode, I am also certain that you are fully aware you are not allowed to release photos shot in RAW format from pre-production cameras. There have been far too many similar incidents in the past. Sorry to say this, but you asked for it. No excuse.

On another note, I appreciate your excitement. In some sense, you did free propaganda work for Canon and they ought to thank you for it.


----------



## Woody (Feb 15, 2016)

SUNDOG04 said:


> I've always felt dpreview was strongly biased toward Canon. Maybe I am wrong, but when a new Nikon body comes out they make a big deal about it and test it quickly. It seems when the high megapixel Canon came out, they drug their feet with it as far as reviews.



They take a similar stand as their partner in crime, DXOMark (Neuro's example here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18135.15).

Fortunately for Canon, no one has been able to put a damper on their market shares.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 15, 2016)

SUNDOG04 said:


> I've always felt dpreview was strongly biased toward Canon. Maybe I am wrong, but when a new Nikon body comes out they make a big deal about it and test it quickly. It seems when the high megapixel Canon came out, they drug their feet with it as far as reviews.



when the 5D first came out - dpreview made a BIG deal of vignetting with full frame lenses. like it never happened before.

when the 7DII came out, all of a sudden every camera was supposed to iTR and track as well as the 1DX. the 7DII AF was measured against the 1DX... oddly enough, no one else in that class of camera was.

when the 7DII came out, a sports / birding camera was evaluated with some weird let's push shadows up 5 stops because everyone needs to do that.

supposedly on the 5DSR, EFCS via liveview isn't optimal for a landscape studio camera, even though, there is usually not a problem in using the back LCD in landscape situations.. Also EFCS is like a new thing to dpreview, even though canon has had it implemented since the 50D.. 

while the reviews may be all and fine.. the reviewer comments in both threads in the forums, and also in the comments section of the review tend to show a different opinion.

as far as first looks,etc - I think that all depends on the company and how quickly they get a camera with the associated NDA,etc before the announcements so they can pre-create the articles.


----------



## tss68nl (Feb 15, 2016)

Woody said:


> On another note, I appreciate your excitement. In some sense, you did free propaganda work for Canon and they ought to thank you for it.



Unless it was the intention of Canon to tune down the performance gain to 1.5 stops, let it trickle down the lineup, and introduce a new 1DX in 2 years with another 1.5 stops....etc. In that case he delivered Canon a huge marketing and sales headache by now.

It would find it really careless of Canon to allow pre-production models out the door hoping no-one will notice... but who knows


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 15, 2016)

tss68nl said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > On another note, I appreciate your excitement. In some sense, you did free propaganda work for Canon and they ought to thank you for it.
> ...



canon's always had that policy with pre-production cameras. it's not a new thing.


----------



## tss68nl (Feb 15, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> tss68nl said:
> 
> 
> > Unless it was the intention of Canon to tune down the performance gain to 1.5 stops, let it trickle down the lineup, and introduce a new 1DX in 2 years with another 1.5 stops....etc. In that case he delivered Canon a huge marketing and sales headache by now.
> ...



Oh really? Yeah, I know. 
The point being made here, is that Canon might have a strategy to cripple their sensors/cameras deliberately and then it would be careless from Canon to not cripple the pre-productions with the risk of someone discovering the mismatch and thus ruining a 5 year marketing plan.


----------



## Woody (Feb 15, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> when the 5D first came out - dpreview made a BIG deal of vignetting with full frame lenses. like it never happened before.



Yup. That is DPReview for you.

They kept bashing Canon for the release of 35 mm full frame digital cameras... those years when Nikon and Sony had NONE.

They only stopped after Nikon release the D3.

After that, vignetting suddenly became a useful artistic tool. No kidding.

I pointed this out several times in DPReview, until Phil Askey left.

Now, they are at it again... They are not absolutely wrong, but it's strange they'll conveniently dismiss the shortcomings of other competing brands...


----------

