# 1Dx simple DR stress test



## Neutral (Oct 19, 2012)

There are a lot of heated discussions about Canon versus SoNikon sensor DR performace, sensor technology, about DXO not measuring sensors correctlly in favour of Nikon etc.
So here is a simple DR stress test results for 1Dx shadow recovery limits for those who are interested:
I did these tests to see myself what is 1Dx is capable of. 
Attached are 4 pictures (snapshots from LR4 screen by Win7 snipping tool):
1. 1Dx shot at ISO100 with EV = (-3 ) - showing 100% crop area shown below
2. Corrected with +3 EV in LR4, no shadow correction, no noise reduction applied
3. The same as #2 above with shadows raised to max 100%
4. The same as #3 above but with NR applied in LR with L=40, C=40.
Results are self explanatory - no further comments from me on this subject.
Despite for what we see here regarding 1Dx DR performance here my experience with 1Dx is very positive - almost perfect tool for low light sport and events shooting.
In daylight 1Dx images also look much cleaner and having more 3D look than 1DsM3 and 5DM2 that I used before (just my personal perception) and allow more image sharpening to be applied safely.
Also seems that 1Dx has a bit weaker anti-aliasing filter - with extreemly sharp 24-70 2.8L II I could see moire on some areas of ISO resolution chart where image elements (projected on sensor) become comparable in size with pixel size on camera sensor. I have not observed that with other lenses including very sharp 70-200 2.8L IS II


----------



## Viggo (Oct 19, 2012)

Thanks for posting.

But, again, I must ask, why on earth would one's starting point ever be that underexposed. And anyone with the slightest knowledge of photo and light would either expose correctly or over and bring down highlights. I have shot more than 14000 images with the 1d X in all sorts of scenarios, not once have I need to pull shadows by any amount under the wtf-category values...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Why must and should we exposure Canon richer= longer exposure time and even then get a poorer results in the shadows compared to Nikon.



We must, because last time I checked, sensors do not take pictures. Cameras take pictures. Sure, you can manipulate images and identify differences in sensor performance. But the fact remains that I (and I mean me, personally) can get images from my Canon camera that would be impossible for me to get with a Nikon or Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I'm tired of your patronizing comments, see photos above.and show me one example of what you can do with a Canon and not with a Nikon except shooting faster



I'm tired of you reposting the same or equivalent shots in thread after thread after thread. Nikon/Sony sensors have better DR than Canon sensors. If your point in reposting the same statements and images in every thread that even tangentially mentions DR is to convince members of this forum that Nikon/Sony sensors have better DR than Canon sensors, you can stop - we get it, and we got it before you started posting here. If your point is to induce Canon to produce sensors with better DR, this is not the place for that effort, not to mention that I'm sure Canon knows the DR of their sensors, know the DR of Sony/Nikon sensors, and has chosen to emphasize other design priorities to this point.

Is DR the only thing that matters to you when taking a picture? To me, it's not. If my 'once-in-a-lifetime shot' was a black barbeque against the side of a white shed in full sunlight, then my answer might be different.

When I said that I, personally, can get images from my Canon camera that I could not get from a Nikon camera, did you jump to the erroneous conclusion that I am also saying the converse? One could certainly get images from a Nikon camera that one could not get from a Canon camera.

Instead of test images manipulated to repeatedly argue the same point, which has already been conceeded, let me remind you that taking pictures is about far more than the sensor inside the camera, and leave you with the following rhetorical questions: Where is Nikon's MP-E 65mm? Where is Nikon's 600mm f/4 lens which is light enough that I can carry it for a 5 km hike then use it to take a handheld shot?




EOS 5D Mark II, MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro @ 5x, 1/60 s, f/11, ISO 400, MT-24EX




EOS 1D X, EF 600mm f/4L IS II + EF 1.4x III Extender, 1/640 s, f/5.6, ISO 100

EDIT: I have come to the conclusion that your primary purpose here on CR seems to be agitating and formenting rancor, the bold-face edits to your post above after I hit the quote button clearly show that, as do your 150 posts with something like 90% of them beating exactly the same dead horse.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 19, 2012)

Really Now? Beat the DR Dead horse some more eh michael?


----------



## dsiegel5151 (Oct 19, 2012)

I don't even know why I am posting here, but I'm bored...

I agree with Neuro 100%. The variables involved in creating a great image are far more more numerous than sensor DR. I consider a camera a tool. I have lots of cameras that I use for lots of different situations. The most important variables to me are knowing how to use your camera, being in the right place at the right time, knowing your subject, and executing your shot appropriately (exposure, shutter speed, flash, etc...). I would argue that I couldn't get this shot below with a Nikon b/c I don't have a Nikon camera, I don't own a Nikon lens, and I don't know all the intricacies of how the Nikon system works. However, I have a Canon camera, I have Canon lenses, and I know all the intricacies of how my Canon cameras work. Thus, I feel that I can produce fine images no matter how dated the camera (image was shot with a Canon 20D, iso 100, f8, 1/160s, tripod mounted, 180mm f3.5L, 430 EXII flash, hand-held reflector to help fill shadows).


----------



## Neutral (Oct 19, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Thanks for posting.
> 
> But, again, I must ask, why on earth would one's starting point ever be that underexposed. And anyone with the slightest knowledge of photo and light would either expose correctly or over and bring down highlights. I have shot more than 14000 images with the 1d X in all sorts of scenarios, not once have I need to pull shadows by any amount under the wtf-category values...



Very simple reason - if one have some tool one need to know limits of this tool - where is green zone where is yellow and where is red.
To know that one need to do some special tests and these tests conditions are definetely different from normal tool usage because the goal is different than goal of normal shooting. 
And post title tells this very clearly - this is stress test - meaning testing something in extreme conditions - and this is normally done in any industry.
I just did number of tests for myself to see what are this camera possibilities in recovering shadows areas, where is the limit and shared results for those who would be interested to see results )))
And no hidden context in that.
Knowing tool capabilities and limitation helps in using the tool in optimal way - this is very basic.
So for 1Dx ETR (exposure to the right) rule is still alive - and not acually required for Nikon D800.
And in fact 1Dx is amazing camera in all areas I really enjoing using it - mentioned this in my initial post. 
Regards


----------



## preppyak (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> some answer with facts as mature people does and others write boring long posts based on emotion/ feelings instead of facts.


And some of us post really long statements about boring photos of grills and what they mean...when the answer is they don't mean a whole lot.

As Neuro pointed out, the Nikon D800 could have 10 more stops of DR than a Canon 5dIII or 1DX, but, DR means nothing to his shot if he can't be at 3-4x magnification. It wouldn't mean much if the extra 4lbs of a Nikon 600mm lens means he has to setup a tripod and miss that bird shot (or worse, try it hand-held and come out blurry).

If sensors and DR were the only important thing in a photograph, you wouldn't like that picture of a snake taken with an 8yr old 8MP sensor that gets crushed in DR by the Nikon camera.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 19, 2012)

In portraits, I still contend that the "look" of Canon images is simply more flattering than Nikon images.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 19, 2012)

It appears that Mikael Risedal is seeking recognition or approval. Perhaps he believes he can be the great leader who will organize the oppressed serfs of Canonia as they present their sad laments to the royalty in the Big White Palace. Moved by their plight, the Royals will soften their hearts, and bestow upon the poor peasants an abundance of Dynamic Range.

Mr. Risedal, please read Neuro's previous comments: it's widely discussed that the D800 sensor has a little more DR than Canon sensors. You aren't presenting anything new, and this incessant arguing does not show you in a good light. The reason you haven't gained acclaim here is that you haven't presented anything new/useful.

I would like to be able to read useful discussion of DR, and I usually try not to be snarky, but this is a tedious waste of time. A camera is more than just a sensor.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> you are really boring, meet me with facts, the grill is only a illustration and it is boring but true



Yes, of course, because DR graphs and test charts are the most exciting thing's in photography. :|

Michael, We already know that nikon/sony sensors are better but they're not that much better.


----------



## Kernuak (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...


Any chance of a link to your professional website?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Tis is 1dx vs nikon d800 in the shadow same exposure time same f-stop, d800 to the right



No NR, which we can see from the original post makes a huge difference and minimizes (though not eliminates) the difference.

But why compare "best possible" when we're out to make a point!


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where is Nikon's MP-E 65mm? Where is Nikon's 600mm f/4 lens which is light enough that I can carry it for a 5 km hike then use it to take a handheld shot?



Oh snap! ;D

But...but...but...DYNAMIC! RANGE! :

In all seriousness, great shots Neuro. The macro shot is awesome.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> what a baloney, has a little more DR seeking recognition and approval , I have shown with pictures and measurable data that Canon's sensors are a lot inferior compared to Sony, 2 stops DR and banding and pattern noise, get a life



You've spent how much time beating the DR horse on this forum? 

And you're telling other people to get a life? :


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> so you people do not think it is a wise way for Canon to either buy Sony sensors fast as he... or show that they can do anything similar as Sony, Panasonic, Omnivision, Aptina???????????????????



I think I'm going to buy a 5D3 just to annoy you ;D


----------



## Ryan708 (Oct 19, 2012)

Here we go


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2012)

Ryan708 said:


> Here we go



I'm sorry...do you think that's a good example of DR? Try lifting those shadows in PS by 100%. See the noise? See the banding? Yuck!

You should have photographed that dead horse with an Exmor sensor, underexposed by 3 stops so we could all see how great Sony sensors are.

Pathetic man...really just pathetic ;D


----------



## dave (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *The old sensor tech in Canon is not up to date 2012 and in a comparison with Sony, not much to discuss*



Please, then, stop discussing it. You wanted facts. The fact is you are embarrassing yourself.

You are spouting the same crap with same graphs and rubbish demo photos as you have done on dpreview for ages.

I actually looked at your gallery on dpreview as well and for all of your talk there are plenty of people here who posted pictures taken with rebels that have far more vision and creativity.

You are entitled to your opinion but please stop taking over all the threads. We get your point.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *The old sensor tech in Canon is not up to date 2012 and in a comparison with Sony, not much to discuss*



Oh boy! A 7D now has more DR then a 5D3. LOL! Take that FF fans! ;D

And the D800 has 100% perfectly efficient ADCs. I didn't think that was physically possible.

Funny that Imaging Resource was able to get 12.5 stops from the 5D3 :


----------



## Promature (Oct 20, 2012)

Can we all agree to just ban Mikael?


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 20, 2012)




----------



## Tammy (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> so you people do not think it is a wise way for Canon to either buy Sony sensors fast as he... or show that they can do anything similar as Sony, Panasonic, Omnivision, Aptina???????????????????



No, i've had the discussion where, at some point, if Sony is outright making the best sensors by far that it would be fine/great if they were put in Canon SLRs to be used with the excellent lineup of lenses.

I would like to see what the new sensor tech on the coming Canon big MP sensor is like. If Canon is able to trump the image quality and dynamic range of even the Sony sensors, as is rumored, then no further discussion or ongoing comparisons, even in the future, is needed. ever.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 20, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Ok, Nikon has 2 Stops of DR over Canon. Now go take some real photos Michael.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

Neutral said:


> There are a lot of heated discussions about Canon versus SoNikon sensor DR performace, sensor technology, about DXO not measuring sensors correctlly in favour of Nikon etc.
> So here is a simple DR stress test results for 1Dx shadow recovery limits for those who are interested:
> I did these tests to see myself what is 1Dx is capable of.
> Attached are 4 pictures (snapshots from LR4 screen by Win7 snipping tool):
> ...



I still haven't got my hands on one of these so thanks for posting some examples showing where the 1DX's noise limitations are at base ISO. 
That's exactly the kind of info I need to verify that my original decision to not buy one (and get 2 D800s instead) was the correct decision for this year.

1Dx is looking like Canon's best performance in a long time as far as FPN, just still not good enough for when I need to really push raw files to extremes. (which I still find incomprehensible that some people don't understand why this capability is desirable)


@ Mikael Risedal:

There are many of us here on CR who understand and agree with your assertion about the serious difference in sensor performance. Some of us were even doing the same thing here in the past so don't worry, most CR readers have already been slightly overexposed (couldn't resist the pun) to this information.

However, escalating the strength of your argument will do little to convince anyone. Human nature is just to push back when someone is challenging them. 
Anyone with an open enough mind will see the data and understand what it means. 
Those who don't likely don't care and it's wasted effort trying to convert their way of thinking to yours. These are likely people who are already fairly satisfied with how the images look direct from their camera and likely don't do a lot of DR compression in post-processing. That's an understandable choice.

I'm sure you don't always push shadows in your shots either, and when you don't, the FP noise of Canon's sensors doesn't likely have any serious impact on your images. (I'm being generous to Canon here as there have been plenty of shots with my 5D2 where vertical banding artifacts showed up in properly exposed midtones and even in lighter shadows, nearly ruining some shots that any decent camera would not have a problem with)

I still shoot Canon because I like the bodies and lenses and, in many cases, the image quality is perfectly acceptable for whatever purpose I need.
I added Nikon to my collection because I know there are times I will need to push those raw files and so I use the best camera for _that_ job.

At the end of the argument, that is what you would hope to acheive, yes? Convince some Canon users to try SoNikon-Pentax if they've found their Canon camera not quite up to the job. Some of us now do shoot with these other cameras and some have even completely given up their Canon gear to do that so this battle should really be over.


@ world

Yesterday I was out enjoying a fine autumn night, shooting some dark skylines with my D800 and D5100. I was getting raw files, which I used when I got back home, to create images that I could not, no way in heck, ever make with my Canon cameras. Seriously, no bluddy way. I would not even waste my time trying (again) to use a Canon for such shots. They would not be _impossible_ to do with a Canon camera, just would be far more work compared to a single shot I can take with the super-clean low ISO Nikons.
A Canon-only user would have needed to be content with the limitations of their single shot of such scenes or spend a lot of time bracketing to try capture it and still end up with a lot of compromises.
Feels good to have the right tools available when you need them. 
Also feels good to have made the choice to get those tools.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Ok, Nikon has 2 Stops of DR over Canon. Now go take some real photos Michael.



it's not the DR so much as the FPN
FPN is just ugly

take the old D90 for example
only 1 stop better DR at it's 200 ISO base than a 5D3 but that old D90 has a very random noise characteristic which is much more acceptable than the stripey noise most Canon bodies produce.

When it comes down to the gritty, I think even Mikael Risedal would prefer a camera with one stop less DR if it didn't have FPN to contend with.
I would.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 20, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, Nikon has 2 Stops of DR over Canon. Now go take some real photos Michael.
> ...



You've seen what I can do with a raw file, I understand Nikon has a better sensor. Big whoop. 

I could still get great photos on 35mm film, a d30, MF film, or even a 4x5. Doesn't matter to me, I just prefer how the canon camera gets out of my way.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Oct 20, 2012)

Exactly, photography is about FACTS and NUMBERS
Nothing unmeasurable should be involved here. Emotion? Feeling? Who puts any of that in their pictures??
Emotion is sooo 2004 and Canon should stop with that! Maybe an extra stop of DR would help make everyone's photos stand out and prove so much more to the world, that's right, Canon better work on their sensor tech because all the Nikon boys are stealing the show, Canon users aren't getting any clients!

Alright this is a forum dedicated to the gear, and gear matters, but this thread has gotten funny by complaining about something there's nothing one can do about. Let's all enjoy what's possible


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> You've seen what I can do with a raw file, I understand Nikon has a better sensor. Big whoop.
> 
> I could still get great photos on 35mm film, a d30, MF film, or even a 4x5. Doesn't matter to me, I just prefer how the canon camera gets out of my way.



If you're referring to the sunset you punched up that's a lovely shot.
I'd like to see a full rez crop of it from the most lifted part tho, just to see if you DO have a magically wonderful 7D the rest of us wish we had. 

I love everything about my Canon 7d/60d/5d2.. except the noise stripes.

funny how my 40D/450d/400d/350d provided raw files with noticeably less severe FPN issues. Even my 1000D.


----------



## Neutral (Oct 20, 2012)

It is funny to see how simple "technical" post just showing some limitations of the hardware was causing so many childish emotions. This post was for those who are interested to see this kind of information to be able to use it to do better what they what to do. Not everybody has 1Dx and able to check camera sensor limitations themselves (they still awaiting on DXO results) and some people in process of making decision what they want for their needs. Glad that at least one person with the mind not blured by emotions (Aglet) found that this is exact information he wanted to know .
I do not understand why some are so emotional about just one aspect of harware performance - this hardware is just piece of metal and silicon - nothing emotional inside.
Also it seems that some people confused between technical aspects and art aspects of using photographic tools. Some do not see beyond borders of their own small world - illustrated by arguments like " why on the earth you need to raise shadows - in my world I do not do that so you MUST NOT do that because I do not do". But there is not a one small confined world - there are many of them.

On technical side goal of any development in this area is to make the photographic tool to approach human eye in it's capabilities to catch the picture. 
Why ? 
Extreemly simple answer - to avoid as much of technical work (that consume some time) to bring captured image to what could be seen by human eye - in other words to normalize it as close as possible to humam vision. I know a lot of people here hate word NORMALIZATION simply because they do not understand that well (may be because they forgot what they learned in school on math how to compare fractional numbers)))).
Then from this point (completing technical aspects of normalizing image to human vision) art work is started - transforming real picture to imagenary vision of the artist.
On the technical side we are still far away from the target and we all wish we could reach it rather earlier than later to be able to enjoy the fruits of technical progess and use it for art work.

As far as 1DX concerned 90% of all the tool aspects (here we are talking about set of features and not only sensor) is a big leap forward but 10% is something that could be worked further on and not up to the current technology level.
Here is another example of 1Dx shot in normal daylight conditions using 70-200 2.8L IS USM II.
This 100% crop to get close-up of the subject. Not too bad I belive for the camera and lens combination)))


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

Neutral said:


> ...
> I do not understand why some are so emotional about just one aspect of harware performance - this hardware is just piece of metal and silicon - nothing emotional inside.
> Also it seems that some people confused between technical aspects and art aspects of using photographic tools. Some do not see beyond borders of their own small world - illustrated by arguments like " why on the earth you need to raise shadows - in my world I do not do that so you MUST NOT do that because I do not do". But there is not a one small confined world - there are many of them.
> ...



*Neutral, from me, and perhaps I'm also speaking on behalf of a few other open-minded people here on CR, WELCOME to CR forums. *

Many of us here do appreciate basic technical information about the tools we use and their limitations.
But as you have quickly observed, there are also many others who seem to have an emotional response to this information and the way it is presented because it may differ from procedures they use or would never consider using, for whatever reason.

I only wish I would have known, a few years ago, this very kind of detailed information on the camera bodies I was considering. I may not have chosen the 5D2 if I'd have known how much FP noise it had, or the 7D for the same reason. At the time all I could find was plenty of over-the-top positive reviews about how fabulous these new cameras were.
Back then my best camera was my 40D and when I saw the output from my new 5D2 I immediately wondered what all the fanboy fuss was about, the raw files were noisier than my 40D! I was under the impression that the new 5D2 was so vastly superior so to see the per-pixel performance was no improvement was very disappointing.

I did buy the 7D because of its AF system but was again very disappointed to see its very banded low ISO FPN problem was far worse than any camera I'd used previously or since.

I have a much more cautious and facts-oriented approach since then.

When I gathered up a bunch of black-frame raw samples from various cameras, compiled and posted them on my web site, I did so because no information like this was readily available anywhere else.
I don't know if you were reading CR forums here back when I did that but it unleashed quite a bit of discussion, much of it just like we've seen in this very thread.

I don't understand some peoples' strong aversion to facts, or how those facts are presented. It's just information; valuable to some but if it's not of use to someone else, I don't understand the latter groups motivation to denigrate the information or the person providing it. I guess some people feel the need to express their opinion on matters which they claim do not matter to them and some will even show some immaturity while doing so.

I hope you will continue to participate in CR and not let some of those negative behaviors that occasionally display themselves discourage you from being a part of this group. Overall it's a pretty good bunch.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2012)

Neutral said:


> .. Here is another example of 1Dx shot in normal daylight conditions using 70-200 2.8L IS USM II.
> This 100% crop to get close-up of the subject. Not too bad I belive for the camera and lens combination)))



Looks like the AF nailed it.

I'm curious tho, what software created the 100% crop jpg?
There appears to be a slight bit of a black halo/edge along the left side of duck's (duck's R side) white feathers where it borders with the water background. Looks a bit like a strong unsharp mask was applied.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 21, 2012)

40d less noise than 5d2? Yeah, okay...

If people like myself that think the 1d X is the best I have ever tried didn't balance the noise (again, nerdypun) people make, people that don't know this would think the 1d X was just a very expensive paperweight and buy a 40d thinking it was the best ever.

I am all for facts and people can care or not. But to say the rubbish useless DR of 1d x is end all is just completely wrong in my experience, and even if the fact is there. I never experience it in real life, that also is a fact.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


> 40d less noise than 5d2? Yeah, okay...
> 
> If people like myself that think the 1d X is the best I have ever tried didn't balance the noise (again, nerdypun) people make, people that don't know this would think the 1d X was just a very expensive paperweight and buy a 40d thinking it was the best ever.
> 
> I am all for facts and people can care or not. But to say the rubbish useless DR of 1d x is end all is just completely wrong in my experience, and even if the fact is there. I never experience it in real life, that also is a fact.



Really not sure what you're trying to say there..
But what the OP just showed us is that the 1Dx, even if it's canon's best body to date, still has FPN at base ISO.
If your real life experience with it doesn't run into problems then you fit that category of Canon shooter for whom this information is not relevant. So if this information is not relevant to you, what are you adding to this topic?

And yes, my 40D has less obvious FPN than my 5D2 at lower ISO values. Doesn't yours?


----------



## nightbreath (Oct 21, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Really not sure what you're trying to say there..
> But what the OP just showed us is that the 1Dx, even if it's canon's best body to date, still has FPN at base ISO.
> If your real life experience with it doesn't run into problems then you fit that category of Canon shooter for whom this information is not relevant. So if this information is not relevant to you, what are you adding to this topic?


Viggo is just sharing his experience. Which is great in photography world and this specific topic particularly, as many years after, we might get new perspective on things.

You might know something about measurable DR or tonal range, and in the same time don't take into account difference between 1D and other Canon cameras' RAW colors. I don't know much by myself, but if there were no messages like Viggo has made, I would know nothing


----------



## Neutral (Oct 21, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > .. Here is another example of 1Dx shot in normal daylight conditions using 70-200 2.8L IS USM II.
> ...



It was "quick and dirty" Win 7 snipping tool to get snapshot of the portion of the screen and then save it to the JPEG to attach to the post . Output of this tool is highly compressed and so quality is affected.
Intention was not to show fine details on pixel level but rather to show that in normal light conditions (and for 1Dx it is normal contrast low light as well) 1Dx is performing very well - regarding shadows (initial post topic) and highlights as well. 
So now is the same 100% crop normally exported from LR with 100% quality with no sharpening for the screen.

And this was casual shot from far distance (while I was waiting for some indoor event) - as soon as I took camera off the bag and started approching more closely then few minutes later I was stopped by security telling that to use professional camera and lens without park authorities permission is not allowed (((.

As for 1Dx autofocus - it is exellent - almost 100% images are perfect in this respect. 
Even for 85 1.2L USM II i have almost 100% of the perfectly autofocused shots at F=1.2. 

The only one thing that I found dissapointing is that in AI Servo mode i could start object tracking only from central AF point. 
If I set any periferal point as starting point then 1Dx autofocus OK initially but not tracking the object. This is not very convinent in many situations when object is moving accross the frame and I want to catch it at one side of the frame and track it without camera movement while it crossing the frame. 
So nothing is perfect - even 1Dx is still far away from my vision of perfect camera - but this is separate subject.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2012)

Neutral said:


> If I set any periferal point as starting point then 1Dx autofocus OK initially but not tracking the object. This is not very convinent in many situations when object is moving accross the frame and I want to catch it at one side of the frame and track it without camera movement while it crossing the frame.



What AF selection mode are you using? You need to be in 61-pt auto selection for it to track across the frame (in AI Servo, you can still select the starting AF point in 61-pt auto).


----------



## Viggo (Oct 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > If I set any periferal point as starting point then 1Dx autofocus OK initially but not tracking the object. This is not very convinent in many situations when object is moving accross the frame and I want to catch it at one side of the frame and track it without camera movement while it crossing the frame.
> ...



I'm curious, does that type of tracking provide any hitrate at all? I've briefly tried it, but feel it's like the lottery... any other setting to accompanie that mode for better accuracy?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


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



I've found it to work very well with faces. Haven't tried it with birds or other subjects.


----------



## Neutral (Oct 21, 2012)

Aglet said:


> <..>
> And yes, my 40D has less obvious FPN than my 5D2 at lower ISO values. Doesn't yours?



I have the almost same experience with my 5DM2. 
I was so excited about the camera - tons of positive reviews with many exclamation marks - so I bought it to replace my EOS 40D as second camera to my 1Ds M3 ( which I actually selling now after I got 1Dx).
One of my favorites is evening/night shooting attempting to capture that special feeling that they carry on but dissapointemet came after first session - and after few more attempts I end up using it as point and shoot camera in normal conditions - whenever going out with my wife or friends. And for the rest 1Ds M3 was still mostly used camera as 5D M2 could not even come close to what 1Ds M3 was capable of regarding autofocus quality, ability to AF at F=8 etc. Also 1Ds M3 images at low ISO were looking better as well.
And for the night shots with high shadow recovery 40D images were still looking better than 5DM2 dispite the fact that 40D resolusion is twice less than 5DM2 and older sensor
So finally I sold 5DM2 after few years of almost not using it and now waiting for new Big Mpxl High DR Canon camera announcement - hope they will do something up to date regarding sensor and with 16bit ADC together with extreme low noise circuitry design will reach 15.9 stops DR ))))


----------



## Neutral (Oct 21, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > If I set any periferal point as starting point then 1Dx autofocus OK initially but not tracking the object. This is not very convinent in many situations when object is moving accross the frame and I want to catch it at one side of the frame and track it without camera movement while it crossing the frame.
> ...



So far mode 1 was working well for what was required. 
Yes I was using 61-pt autoselection - Canon AF manual is kinda Bible for me))) I studied it very carefully and for easy reference and reading put it in my tablet as well.
Initial focusing was OK for any point but to start tracking accross the frame it was working only from central point. Discovered that on shooting at Swimming Wold Cup recently - was trying to track start of swim with HS FPS when all were jumping out and crossing the frame while flying to the water. Wanted not to move camera to produce nice multy-shot (I like that feature) with fixed backgroung but when checking shots found that focusing point stays where it was initially for all the shots. So had to forgot about multi-shot mode and move camera lens to follow the jump into the water. After that did some tests and was having the same results. And I now remember seeing some post somewhwere regarding the same problem. Will do some more tests later when have time and will update on results. Unfortunatly usually getting very tired at my work (telecomms projects and operations in a very big company - a lot of work pressure) so do not have too much relaxed time on the photography and playing with my lovely photographic toys (((


----------



## Neutral (Oct 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


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



You could set it to whatever you want - second tab in AF settings is for AI Servo 1st and 2d image priority.
If you want speed compromising focus accuracy set it close to release (at the left) If you want focus accuracy priority (shutter is not released unless focus is achived) then set it closer to focus - this could significanly slow down FPS. 
You can do that separetely for the first shot and separately for the rest of them.
For myself I set both to focus priority and the same for one short AF - so I know that most of my shots will be 100% accurately focused. And for conditions suitable for AI Servo Mode 1 I did not notice any slowness in FPS - 1Dx AI Servo tracking is very "catchy" - before we could see that only in astronomically expensive science installations and military tracking systems - now with increased processing power in camera that became available for us as well ))


----------



## Viggo (Oct 21, 2012)

Neutral said:


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



Well, yeah, I know. I have almost no oof shots at all. But I meant when using ALL 61 points autoselect. I normally use one point and perhaps expansion. But the auto all points on the mk4 for example was an absolute joke...


----------



## Neutral (Oct 21, 2012)

Viggo said:


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



Maybe I was a bit confused what you were asking. By "hitrate" you meant how many shots were in focus and I understood that as how FPS is affected by AI Servo. With 61 autoselect I found some problems as well. This is actually not focus accuracy but the fact that in this mode focusing point has auto-expansion by default so if there are anything else in this area closer to camera then AF could switch to closer object in certain conditions.
As example recent Swimming Wold Cup - I had 70-200 and I tried to use 61 pt autoselection with starting AF point to follow swimmer and found that in this mode frequently get focused on the swimming lane border which falls in this area because frame at 200mm FL was covering several lanes and closest lane border was always in the area of bottom expansion point - and it was my fault - forgot about that autoexpansion. Whenever I used single point AF Servo - all was perfect 100% AF hitrate.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 22, 2012)

Neutral said:


> ..camera off the bag and started approching more closely then few minutes later I was stopped by security telling that to use professional camera and lens without park authorities permission is not allowed (((.



THAT is certainly even more disconcerting than low ISO FPN! 

I've only had someone ask me to stop taking pictures of plants at a retail greenhouse with my little point'n'shoot camera... HAHA! Not like this was going to be a source of commercial poster images, I was just trying to record them so I could remember what plant was what as I was planning what I wanted for my garden.

Since that was private property I complied with their request. But did my best to explain the above and make them feel silly for asking when other people were doing the same thing with their cell phone cameras.


----------

