# Soft files from the 1dx2?



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Hello good people!

Simple question today;

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

Thanks!


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 19, 2017)

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Memdroid said:


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



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


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 19, 2017)

I just use Lightroom


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Memdroid said:


> I just use Lightroom



Same here... [email protected] I should've known I shouldn't have bought it new, it's a curse I have


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

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


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 19, 2017)

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Memdroid said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Viggo said:


> The second shot is also pretty heavily sharperned



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

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The second shot is also pretty heavily sharperned
> ...



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

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

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

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


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

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

Here is one example.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 19, 2017)

You are being ridiculous and hyper sensitive.

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


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



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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

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

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


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Eldar; Something happened when I opened the non crop image, it's made up of small squares . In the crop, at least here that is not sharp to my eyes. Compare that to zooming in the one of my daughter.
> 
> Guess I could save a whole bunch of money, because the sharpness and detail in the 200 shot of my son, my iphone does better....


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

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

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


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 19, 2017)

Viggo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You are being ridiculous and hyper sensitive.
> ...



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

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

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

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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


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



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


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Eldar said:


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



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

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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Round and round we can go. What matters to Viggo is whether or not Viggo is happy with his images. Apparently, he's not. 

But what's next? Send to Canon? And when Canon says everything is within spec? Buy 4 copies of everything and keep the best? What if that one is not quite good enough? 

Maybe try a different medium...perhaps one where absolute sharpness is not as critical...


----------



## picturefan (Jan 19, 2017)

Hi all,

just read this thread because of the posted question. So I wanted to see your answers.

I can´t even estimate or rate if the posted pic is sharp enough or not, or if it could have been any sharper with another setup.

Anyway, I ask myself, if there are also sample variations in camera bodies? I never read about that. With lenses I´ve seen that enough, but with bodies? Surely, calibration at the manufacturer maybe makes a little difference on each body. That sorted out, is it possible, what reason ever, that there is sample variation of the sensor or chip?

PS: I don´t know everyones history here on the forum, but please don´t criticise anyone for his/her needs of clarification. I guess the intention of Viggo just was to pose a question -so it was marked with a "?"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 19, 2017)

Also (and please take this in the friendly spirit in which it's intended, coming from a father of three young kids who is guilty of pixel peeping)...here's a product I find useful:


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Also (and please take this in the friendly spirit in which it's intended, coming from a father of three young kids who is guilty of pixel peeping)...here's a product I find useful:



HAHA! Oh yes, but it was just a test image, I make sure it's no gunk in the images I really go all in on ;D


----------



## picturefan (Jan 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Also (and please take this in the friendly spirit in which it's intended, coming from a father of three young kids who is guilty of pixel peeping)...here's a product I find useful:



Is that for noses or "bums"? :


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 19, 2017)

I think Private is onto something. Lightroom does funny stuff on the raw images and that might be what is throwing you off. I have a default profile that I apply on import to edit the images faster, with basic sharpening and noise reduction applied automatically based on ISO values per camera model, so maybe that is why I did not notice. Also, I use photo mechanic for culling images. That program is lightning fast with scrolling and zooming on images, it looks at the RAW file JPEG headers and it is there that I initially determine if a shot is worth it and tack sharp. And that is also where I noticed how sharp the 1dx II images looked compared to its predecessor.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 19, 2017)

I have had the 1DX, and now the 1DXII. I've had far less experience than you with the 1DX, but from what I can see, the 1DXII files are as sharp as the 1DX files, and allows for more cropping. The files behave differently with regards to editing, so be aware of that. 

From the two examples you have provided (the portraits) I would point out that the lighting has a different angle, and therefore can make details appear differently. The thin dof can also make a comparison difficult. 

You should get more experience with the 1DXII before making conclusions.

May I ask, did you tell your wife about the new camera, or did you replace it secretly with the new one (which is what I did  )


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> I have had the 1DX, and now the 1DXII. I've had far less experience than you with the 1DX, but from what I can see, the 1DXII files are as sharp as the 1DX files, and allows for more cropping. The files behave differently with regards to editing, so be aware of that.
> 
> From the two examples you have provided (the portraits) I would point out that the lighting has a different angle, and therefore can make details appear differently. The thin dof can also make a comparison difficult.
> 
> ...



That's sort of the reason I asked if anyone else thought they were as soft as I thought, then it's easier to find out what can solve it, so all the feedback are very useful here.

I said to the wife I didn't think I should buy it right now, but she talked me into buying it, one of the reason I married her ;D


----------



## tron (Jan 19, 2017)

Viggo I have to ask. Did you buy the 1DxII new? You know what I mean :


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

tron said:


> Viggo I have to ask. Did you buy the 1DxII new? You know what I mean :



... yes... yes I did... I can only blame myself.... I suggested that the wife put it in her name, but then we would have transfer money between banks and wait, I didn't want to wait


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 19, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I have had the 1DX, and now the 1DXII. I've had far less experience than you with the 1DX, but from what I can see, the 1DXII files are as sharp as the 1DX files, and allows for more cropping. The files behave differently with regards to editing, so be aware of that.
> ...



Sounds like an amazing woman. I am happily married as well, but after buying a 1DX, 35LII and 200 f2 in couple of months last summer, she let me know that it was going too far.  So the 1DXII is a secret. She cant tell them apart. :


----------



## Viggo (Jan 19, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Haha! Awesome ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 20, 2017)

Viggo, cameras can have issues, there are a ton of internal adjustments that can affect image quality. Its rare that the camera is the issue, but it happens. I'm referring to camera internal issues, not focus issues.

To assure yourself that the camera has a issue, reset it to factory default, mount it on a sturdy tripod, and take a photo preferrably of a brick wall, use manual focus with at least 5X magnification on the rear lcd, or use DPAF.

Develop the raw photo with DPP, and check the results. 
If the result is poor, send the camera to Canon, or exchange it where you bought it.

On the other hand, if the image meets expectations, then you can try changing one thing at a time until you narrow down the culpret. Sometimes a lens will not work well with a particular camera, the camera can be adjusted for a particular lens and not just autofocus accuracy..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Viggo, cameras can have issues, there are a ton of internal adjustments that can affect image quality. Its rare that the camera is the issue, but it happens. I'm referring to camera internal issues, not focus issues.
> 
> To assure yourself that the camera has a issue, reset it to factory default, mount it on a sturdy tripod, and take a photo preferrably of a brick wall, use manual focus with at least 5X magnification on the rear lcd, or use DPAF.
> 
> ...



Top notch advice. 

Better than boogie wipes.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I have had the 1DX, and now the 1DXII. I've had far less experience than you with the 1DX, but from what I can see, the 1DXII files are as sharp as the 1DX files, and allows for more cropping. The files behave differently with regards to editing, so be aware of that.
> ...



Exactly what happened to me except I was leaning towards 5D4 and she insisted 1DX2 even after I explained that 1 doesn't mean best at everything. 

If it's any consolation I'm going through a bit of what you are relative to my 6D but I have had some shots that seem very sharp so I think it's my quick/careless AFMA. Practically all I've had on the 1DX2 is the 400 DO II and my issues have been technique relative to getting the right AF points where I want them, quickly.

I empathize with you far more than Scott! 

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Viggo, cameras can have issues, there are a ton of internal adjustments that can affect image quality. Its rare that the camera is the issue, but it happens. I'm referring to camera internal issues, not focus issues.
> 
> To assure yourself that the camera has a issue, reset it to factory default, mount it on a sturdy tripod, and take a photo preferrably of a brick wall, use manual focus with at least 5X magnification on the rear lcd, or use DPAF.
> 
> ...



Well, unfortunately I know all too well about what can and goes wrong with camera/lenses, and I know all there is to know about moving individual af points to match a lens. But this is not the case here. And I have done the same tests with all my cameras for a decade and this is a first for me, this issue. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I know how to test this and I know how to focus on a subject. I have 3000 shots on the 1dx2 90% testing with FoCal and in real life. 

I actually get sharper images with normal phase af than Live View focus, that I don't know an answer for at all. Manual focus and phase gives me the exact same results, but not sharp as it was on the 1dx. That's all I know. I don't thing anything is wrong with MY camera. I can't be that unlucky


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

Here's one of the runs I did with the manual calibrations in FoCal, thanks for the tip Neuro, and it's way better than the automatic calibrations. I can't remember how high it went on the 1dx, but I thought it was around 1900 or something..


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

FWIW I do want to say that, apart from this issue that may or may not get solved, this camera is by very far the best I've ever used. There is nothing like it for tracking and all the new smaller details is such a time saver, and the files are very very bendy indeed. I could write on and on about all the brand new things I love, like the awb-w, cycle through functions of my choice that are also displayed in the VF, antiflickering is a HUGE plus! I'll stop there 

Issues that annoy me are easier to list:

IS running when in playback mode through LV. 
IS can't be stopped and started in LV, it's always on.
No touch focus if you don't have AF on the shutter.
Softer files.

Other than that the difference from even the 1dx is massive!


----------



## SteveM (Jan 20, 2017)

Put up a test chart (2 dimensional and perpendicular to camera) in reasonably bright light and shoot that. Put the camera on a tripod, use mirror up and a remote release. Take some shots using AF and some manually focussed, all with the lens wide open. Should take no more than half an hour to have answer, that's what I do when I have an issue, if I'm not happy after that, back it goes.....oh, and switch off IS.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Put up a test chart (2 dimensional and perpendicular to camera) in reasonably bright light and shoot that. Put the camera on a tripod, use mirror up and a remote release. Take some shots using AF and some manually focussed, all with the lens wide open. Should take no more than half an hour to have answer, that's what I do when I have an issue, if I'm not happy after that, back it goes.....oh, and switch off IS.



Well, that and FoCal is where the 3000 shots and frustration comes from. You can see one of graphs just above here


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Here's one of the runs I did with the manual calibrations in FoCal, thanks for the tip Neuro, and it's way better than the automatic calibrations. I can't remember how high it went on the 1dx, but I thought it was around 1900 or something..




Unless your set up is exactly the same – and I mean exactly, target and lighting not touched or moved, exact same distance, everything – then you really can't compare the quantitative values between runs. If you want to make something of a comparison like that, you need to test everything back to back, historical data don't really work.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

Thanks for everyone's input! Much appreciated all the great help. I think I will just try to forget this issue and make the best of it, I'll forget how sharp the 1dx files were when the mkII files are all I have lol.

Here's a duck and a digger from today's testing round. Liked these and that hot exhaust fumes behind the digger.


----------



## tron (Jan 20, 2017)

A friend of mine has sent me this link a few months ago...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameratruth2/29941484954/


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

tron said:


> A friend of mine has sent me this link a few months ago...
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameratruth2/29941484954/



That's funny, he's having trouble were mine is epically better than the 1dx


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2017)

One has to be careful about any one individual or camera as far is good-bad is concerned. There may or may not be issues, no matter how elite the person's opinion of themselves is. It's not unlike reading reviews on Amazon, where someone is really ticked. 

A couple people in that thread had this comment(fair or unfair I don't know):

"I was about to say the same thing. After almost four years of TVstaff complaining about the 1DX, why does he now want his 1DXII to be more like that? At least we can hopefully stop hearing about 1DX sensor spots when shooting at f32."

I have, independently so far observed that my 1DX2 seems to tend toward front focusing but I'm nowhere near up to speed and neither have I used it enough in the dead of winter, to be certain. I appreciate threads like this since it's a lot of money and this will be the one and only 1 series new camera I'll be buying.

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> One has to be careful about any one individual or camera as far is good-bad is concerned. There may or may not be issues, no matter how elite the person's opinion of themselves is. It's not unlike reading reviews on Amazon, where someone is really ticked.
> 
> A couple people in that thread had this comment(fair or unfair I don't know):
> 
> ...



One thing I have learned is that when a camera tracks and misses it's 90% in front, so for me it's not so much frontfocus as it is missed or lost focus.

One thing is though, which light you calibrate under and that tracking depends on absolute correct afma value, meaning for me +1 might look dead on, but tracking sucks, then +2 sticks everything. Sometimes 8 point is perfect and sometimes I think that will work, but spot af is better, every camera enough different to kill your spirit trying to nail focus.

And this is of course why I spend the first 5000 frames getting to know the camera, I would go insane spreading that knowledge over the lifespan of camera.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 20, 2017)

Viggo, I sometimes AFMA to a little back focus depending on subject and distance since the point of interest - often an eye, is generally not the most forward part of the body and often it's challenging to get a spot on an eye.

Just discovered another annoying item - with camera *OFF* if you remove a lens or card for more than a few seconds the camera reverts to #1 card - CF.

In other words, I have shot to the Cfast with CF installed. I shut off the camera, remove Cfast, check the photo on my computer, reinstall in camera, turn camera on and VOILA it's now shooting CF!!

Now I know, I can change it back but what a dumb set up, including defining Cfast as #2.

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Viggo, I sometimes AFMA to a little back focus depending on subject and distance since the point of interest - often an eye, is generally not the most forward part of the body and often it's challenging to get a spot on an eye.
> 
> Just discovered another annoying item - with camera *OFF* if you remove a lens or card for more than a few seconds the camera reverts to #1 card - CF.
> 
> ...



Hmm, yeah that's weird... I only have CF atm, it works brilliantly, so awaiting price decrease


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2017)

It takes perhaps 3 or 4 minutes for this switch to occur, not if your just swapping out cards immediately. Goes to show power off doesn't mean power off.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Goes to show power off doesn't mean power off.



Look through the viewfinder with the camera 'powered off'. Then pull the battery and look through the VF again.


----------



## BRunner (Jan 21, 2017)

Maybe Canon uses on 1DXII sensor stronger anti aliasing (AA) filter than on 1DX. Then you need to use more sharpening to get similar results at 100%. Same happened to me, when I switched from 1DsII (weak AA) to 1DsIII (strong AA). At 100% 1DsIII looks "softer", but after more sharpening, details are here.

Have you tried to compare both cameras on tripod on same subject and with same lens stopped down to f5.6 (I can see you have Zeiss MP 2/100 - this is perfect lens for this test). Then compare crops, if the 1DX still looks sharper. I unfortunately don't own 2/200L, but I quickly tried it in store and on 21Mpx 1DsIII it does not look wide open as sharp as mentioned Zeiss MP. Maybe the 18Mpx sensor was sweet spot for this lens WO.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 21, 2017)

BRunner said:


> Maybe Canon uses on 1DXII sensor stronger anti aliasing (AA) filter than on 1DX. Then you need to use more sharpening to get similar results at 100%. Same happened to me, when I switched from 1DsII (weak AA) to 1DsIII (strong AA). At 100% 1DsIII looks "softer", but after more sharpening, details are here.
> 
> Have you tried to compare both cameras on tripod on same subject and with same lens stopped down to f5.6 (I can see you have Zeiss MP 2/100 - this is perfect lens for this test). Then compare crops, if the 1DX still looks sharper. I unfortunately don't own 2/200L, but I quickly tried it in store and on 21Mpx 1DsIII it does not look wide open as sharp as mentioned Zeiss MP. Maybe the 18Mpx sensor was sweet spot for this lens WO.



I have also been debating with myself about the AA filter, but have no idea if it's stronger or not.

Don't have the 1dx anymore so can't compare. The Zeiss lens is a gem and I bought it for 800 usd and must be one of the all time great bargains! But it's not as sharp as the 200, but they're more similiar than different apart from bokeh.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jan 21, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Viggo, I sometimes AFMA to a little back focus depending on subject and distance since the point of interest - often an eye, is generally not the most forward part of the body and often it's challenging to get a spot on an eye.
> 
> Just discovered another annoying item - with camera *OFF* if you remove a lens or card for more than a few seconds the camera reverts to #1 card - CF.
> 
> ...



Off topic but Jack, never had this CF issue with changing a lens, or even leaving the camera bagged with no lens on, only time this happens is as was with other bodies like my 5D3 etc is when you close the card door, if the Cfast is removed and images downloaded etc then placed back into the camera the card selection remains the same, unless you close the card door, then it switches to what ever card remains in cam, re open the door and insert a Cfast card and the cameras card selection with remain on the last card selected, I.e the CF.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The second shot is also pretty heavily sharperned
> ...



I agree that there seems no problem regarding sharpness in this image. I honestly can't tell what the OP means, but it's of course entirely subjective what is acceptable or not.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 21, 2017)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I'm just so used to the 1dx files and they are so sharp, but the total package the 1dx2 is a HUGE improvement.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 21, 2017)

Viggo said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Well if there is an issue, you might get used to it, especially if you no longer shoot with the 1Dx mark I. I found it initially hard to get used to the 5Ds files after 4 years with the 5D3, as the colour balance and noise characteristics were quite different with default settings, but now it's files from the older camera that look 'wrong'. Otherwise, there'll be a new 1Dx along in a few years


----------



## tron (Jan 21, 2017)

Viggo said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I am confused by this. You seem disappointed in 1DxII's sharpness but still consider it a HUGE improvement?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 21, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo, I sometimes AFMA to a little back focus depending on subject and distance since the point of interest - often an eye, is generally not the most forward part of the body and often it's challenging to get a spot on an eye.
> ...



Thanks for the feedback. Here's what it takes, I had chosen the option,"auto switch card". Then with power *OFF* if you pop a card and reinsert, nothing changes, unless that card is out long enough, like taking a look at a shot on the computer, roughly 3 minutes, then it switches cards and you are stuck with manually switching it back. I have now selected "standard" and need to read up on what exactly is the best choice. All I want is for a full Cfast card to default to the second (CF) card.

Jack


----------



## Act444 (Jan 22, 2017)

BRunner said:


> Maybe Canon uses on 1DXII sensor stronger anti aliasing (AA) filter than on 1DX. Then you need to use more sharpening to get similar results at 100%. Same happened to me, when I switched from 1DsII (weak AA) to 1DsIII (strong AA). At 100% 1DsIII looks "softer", but after more sharpening, details are here.



I suspect this is the issue going from the 5D3 to the 5D4. 5D4 files DEFINITELY need more USM tweaking (mostly fine sharpening), and in many cases I have to run USM on 5D4 files while similarly shot 5D3 files look fine out of camera. Although I'm sure part of it could have to do with the increase in MP as well. It really leaves me with mixed feelings because I really have come to find the extra cropping power of the 5D4 beneficial...but in certain instances (low light/contrast?) I feel 5D3 files come out a bit crisper. That said, the 5D4 does have less color noise and bleeding color issues at the ultra-high ISOs, so it's kind of a wash...

I don't have any experience with the original 1DX - but I did get the chance to test a 1DX II and take home some shots when I was still making that decision. Pics seemed to look fine to me, crisper than I expected actually given that most of Canon's newer cameras seem to err towards a softer default output anyway.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 22, 2017)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh yes absolutely ! Sharpness is the one thing that's not quite as good, but everything else about the files and the camera as a whole is MUCH better.


----------



## tron (Jan 22, 2017)

Viggo said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


Could you please elaborate? OK I understand about the additional AF capabilities but since you use 200 f/2 mostly I guess you are referring to something else...


----------



## Viggo (Jan 22, 2017)

The way you can customize the camera, cycle through functions with ONE button, and these functions are also displayed in the VF, for example, drive and af modes, wb, metering etc. No need to change grip from the lens to the body to change modes, so faster operation and more options with the eye to the VF.

The dynamic range and color accuracy in the files are waay better, so the files responds to my color checker profiles much better with less added color noise. And no banding in the shadows and 100 iso is now CLEAN.

Live View is tons better, and is now actually useable. Both in LV and normal AF the camera focuses much quicker and more accurate. Tracking is soo much better, it locks on and stays on. Much more trustworthy. And the incredible AF in Live View now means that it opens up for all kinds of fun and crazy compositions.

Better spread of AF points means I now don't have to cut off feet when shooting full body portraits in horizontal orientation. 

Do not underestimate the Anti Flickering mode. Already my first soccer shoot it was a life saver as it was indoors and fluorecent lights. 

The grip is more comfortable, and the vertical grip is now as close to the horizontal I think is possible.

I have always had a bad habit of tilting the camera to one side leading to scewed horizons, but with the level always displayed in the VF I have almost kicked that habit completley.

Touchscreen, video with AF, better joysticks, at least when using gloves. fully always lit red af points. MUCH better silent mode, and also with continues shooting. Auto white balance is now either "atmosphere" or completely neutral which I have always missed, so it's not always needed to use white balance tools in the field.

More My Menu tabs have been sorely missed, and also now the option to exclude the rest of the menu, now if I only could move the AF menu next to the My Menu tab it would be perfect. And the final thing I can think about as of now, the minijack for headphone monitoring of the sound, essential to me as I'm using a voice recorder to feed sound into the camera, to have live monitoring would have saved my butt a few times when I open the video's and learn I forgot to switch the voicerecorder ON :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 22, 2017)

Viggo said:


> ...100 iso is now CLEAN.



In the context of ISO 100 on the 1D X not being 'clean', your concern over the sharpness of your 1D X II begins to make sense.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ...100 iso is now CLEAN.
> ...



One example, if I use my B1 lamp, iso 100 on the 1dx is pretty clean on the subject that gets hit by the flash, the darker shadow areas around and in the background etc is much much cleaner and better with the 1dx2. It's sometimes hard to explain...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 22, 2017)

Boy Viggo, if it's half as improved as you say then it's ever so fortunate I delayed and bought it over the 1DX my friend bought a year earlier. Rumors had it, it would have lighted AF points and I was nearly in tears when Neuro suggested it couldn't/wouldn't have that. 

Clearly, Canon has listened to 1DX users relative to what they wished for, well except for .......

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2017)

Again off the topic of the original post but here is what I've received from Canon Canada:

"Thank you for your suggestion. We have forwarded your comments and concerns to the appropriate Department for their information and review. The fact that you took the time to write to us is indeed appreciated. It is only through our customer's comments that we are able to provide quality products and services that our customers will be able to enjoy on a consistent basis."

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Jan 24, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Again off the topic of the original post but here is what I've received from Canon Canada:
> 
> "Thank you for your suggestion. We have forwarded your comments and concerns to the appropriate Department for their information and review. The fact that you took the time to write to us is indeed appreciated. It is only through our customer's comments that we are able to provide quality products and services that our customers will be able to enjoy on a consistent basis."
> 
> Jack



I think that is a great answer, hopefully they will do a firmware sooner rather than later, just because I LOVE added functions through firmware, I have a weird thing for firmwares, lol.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2017)

Viggo said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Again off the topic of the original post but here is what I've received from Canon Canada:
> ...



May I respectfully suggest that others do what I have done. Just carefully describe the shortcoming or fault clearly. My interaction was on the card switching issue only.

Jack


----------

