# 1DX Mark II vs 7D Mark II experience



## kaptainkatsu (May 24, 2016)

I upgraded to a 1DX mark II from a 7D mark II and this is my experience from the upgrade.

I previously had 2 7D Mark II's and now have upgraded my main camera to a 1DX mark II. I still have 1 7D Mark II as my second body. My primary lens on the 1DX2 is the 70-200 2.8 II and secondary lens (on the 7D2 the 16-35 f4 IS). I primarily shoot cycling photos.

I have to say the AF performance is hands down better than the 7D2. I have a higher keeper rate and the images are noticeably better. A no brainer since we are comparing full frame to crop. I never really used AF zone or AF full on the 7D2 because the AF would slow down noticeably. Not the case with the 1DX2.

I usually use AF 9pt expansion but in certain situations I will use AF zone or AF full with ITR (face recognition) and I notice no noticeable difference in AF performance. It does everything I want with no performance hit and a higher keeper rate than the 7D2. 

The extra 14 fps is certainly noticeable especially since you don't see a slowdown when you are using expanded AF points with AF point switching. 

There are two downsides, though they are outweighed by the better performance. 1 is the fact that the AF points are more centered in the frame. But in all honesty, the AF spread in the crop vs full frame is the same, you just have extra space outside of the AF zone. 2nd is the extra reach. I sometimes miss the extra reach the crop sensor gives you. I was usually fine with the 320mm the 7D2 gave me with me 70-200 but it may be a matter of retraining my mind with the full frame sensor. I wouldn't mind having a 300 or 400 2.8 but that is an extra $8-10000 i'll need to invest.

But the image quality, high ISO performance and all around better AF performance outweighs the two downsides I noticed with the 7D2. Also there are ergonomic differences that make the 1DX2 better. The body feels a lot more solid and the vertical thumb stick is in a better position where I can reach the main dial without much effort. Another advantage is getting to image review is much faster on the 1DX2.

Is it worth the price? If you have the glass and want to step up to the next level, yes. But starting new, you can buy 2 7D2's, a 70-200 2.8 II and 16-35 f4 IS for the same price as just the 1DX2 body.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 24, 2016)

Thanks for a succinct and useful comparison!


----------



## J.R. (May 24, 2016)

+1

I sold my 7D Mark II as soon as I got the 1DX II. For me there is light and day difference between the two cameras. 

That being said, after having used the 1DX II, I'm selling my 5D Mark III as well. I was initially thinking about retaining it as a backup body but after the 1DX II experience I'm going back to shooting with it any more. No use keeping it as an expensive paperweight.


----------



## kirispupis (May 24, 2016)

I also upgraded from a 7d2 to a 1Dx2 and the difference is incredible. I now shoot at ISOs that I never would have dreamed on the 5D3, let alone the 7D2. I agree that the AF is much better. The weight doesn't bother me too much, because I use it with a 200-400/1.4x. The shorter reach isn't so bad - mainly because the image quality makes up a portion of it.

The only thing I'm not crazy about is the size of the charger. I understand the battery size, but I would've been fine with charging just one battery at a time. Also, the cord is huge. This makes a difference when travelling.


----------



## j-nord (May 24, 2016)

I hope the brand new $6k body is better than the several year old $1.5k body  

That said, its an interesting and relevent comparison. Any thoughts on going from crop to FF? Did you keep the same lenses or did you go longer with the switch? Is the size and weight increase a noticable burden for shooting on the go/ with a lot of walking?


----------



## canon1dxman (May 24, 2016)

Interesting, thanks. I currently use an original 1Dx and 7D mark II but am considering upgrading to the 1Dx Mark II.


----------



## fentiger (May 24, 2016)

I'm currently using a 1Dmk4, just bought a 400 f2.8 2nd hand, the heavy version!!! the images i am getting are stunningly good, now if the 1DX2 was a 1.3 crop i'd rip your arm off for it.
however still keep pondering the idea of a 1DX2 and keeping the mk4


----------



## kaptainkatsu (May 24, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I hope the brand new $6k body is better than the several year old $1.5k body
> 
> That said, its an interesting and relevent comparison. Any thoughts on going from crop to FF? Did you keep the same lenses or did you go longer with the switch? Is the size and weight increase a noticable burden for shooting on the go/ with a lot of walking?



Most of my lenses are already EF lenses. I only have two EF-S lenses. Since I'm still keeping one of my 7D2's as my B camera, I'm not going to sell any lenses. My walk around lens for the 1DX2 is the 16-35. The weight isn't a huge deal since my 7D2 had a grip and it's only a slight increase in weight. 

I'll probably end up getting a 100-400 II, but I really want to get a 300 or 400 2.8 but that's big money, especially now I want to get a second 1DX2 (though money spent on the glass is probably a better investment)


----------



## kaptainkatsu (May 24, 2016)

kirispupis said:


> The only thing I'm not crazy about is the size of the charger. I understand the battery size, but I would've been fine with charging just one battery at a time. Also, the cord is huge. This makes a difference when travelling.



Yeah the huge charger is a turnoff. It takes up so much room in my pelican case. I also do wish for a single charger but since canon is asking $400 for a replacement charger, I would imagine the hypothetical single charger would also cost an arm and a leg.


----------



## pwp (May 24, 2016)

kaptainkatsu said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I'm not crazy about is the size of the charger. I understand the battery size, but I would've been fine with charging just one battery at a time. Also, the cord is huge. This makes a difference when travelling.
> ...



One way of reducing battery charger mass and bulk is to lose the cable. Apple charger adapters are a perfect identical fit. Ditch the cord and put the Apple charger adapter straight into the charger. I bought 10 clones on eBay for just a few dollars each. Perfect!

-pw


----------



## JMZawodny (May 24, 2016)

pwp said:


> kaptainkatsu said:
> 
> 
> > kirispupis said:
> ...



At first glance this seems brilliant. Thanks. I have one of those things around here somewhere. I'll have to give it a go.


----------



## Maui5150 (May 24, 2016)

I just picked up a Lamborghini Huracan. While I loved my old Trans Am... It just didn't stand up to the performance of the Lambo.

On the down side... By Trans-Am had really cool graphics on the car and the rear view mirror had a lot more room to the dash... My fuzzy dice keep banging against the dash in the Lambo... Not to mention the better gas milage

Was a tough decision, but will keep the Lambo and get rid of my back up Yugo as well


----------



## Act444 (May 24, 2016)

Thanks for the feedback, keep the impressions coming. Contemplating a similar move....got a 7D2 right now and to put it frankly, after years of anticipation it has, sadly, been a disappointment. So...now with a little extra $ I'm thinking of either replacing or complementing it with one of the new 1DXs. 

Your stories will help me with my decision, thanks!


----------



## Valvebounce (May 24, 2016)

Hi PWP. 
I have to say at first glance this looks like a bad idea, closer looking it looks even worse! Initially I thought these outlets were installed horizontally, like in a desk top or similar and would only actually save you the length of cord as the plug brick looks about the same size. Then I see from the way the spare plug brick is sitting the outlet appears to be wall mounted, this to me would suggest a rotational force on the pins well outside what I would be comfortable with, (and possibly outside of design parameters, but I'm only guessing on that) then add two 1 series batteries and I would be very concerned about the physics of the setup. 
I wouldn't do this but each to their own. My preference is a couple of cheap figure 8 leads cut short enough that they just reach the floor from most outlets and both wired in to the same plug, similar bulk but without the stresses. 

Quite honestly, when we travel we usually find that there are way too few wall outlets (sockets) so we pack a 4 or 6 way extension lead to plug all the gadgets into, much more bulky than all the charging bricks added up, until I add 2 LP-E6 chargers! 
At home I use 2 custom length leads tucked away neatly, on the road I have 2 very short leads for use from the extension lead. I will add a pic later when I get home. 

Cheers, Graham. 



pwp said:


> One way of reducing battery charger mass and bulk is to lose the cable. Apple charger adapters are a perfect identical fit. Ditch the cord and put the Apple charger adapter straight into the charger. I bought 10 clones on eBay for just a few dollars each. Perfect!
> 
> -pw


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2016)

Honestly this shouldn't be a big surprise. Even the 1Dx is light years ahead of the 7D2 in terms of just about everything. The 1Dx2 is only going to widen that gap.


----------



## j-nord (May 24, 2016)

kaptainkatsu said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the brand new $6k body is better than the several year old $1.5k body
> ...



Are you a pro in need of a 2nd 1Dxii body?? If not, I can't fathom the desire to drop that kind of money on a 2nd pro body when there is glass you want/need.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 24, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Honestly this shouldn't be a big surprise. Even the 1Dx is light years ahead of the 7D2 in terms of just about everything. The 1Dx2 is only going to widen that gap.



My thoughts exactly! Much as I like my 7D2 it simply does not stack up against my 1DX (mk1) in less than good condidtions.
I use my 7D2 as a travel camera and for walkabout with a lightweight lens like my 100-400 Mk2 - everything else it's the 1DX.


----------



## Larsskv (May 24, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly this shouldn't be a big surprise. Even the 1Dx is light years ahead of the 7D2 in terms of just about everything. The 1Dx2 is only going to widen that gap.
> ...



I'm a little curious. If the conditions are good, and apart from the frame rate, do you think the 7DII stack up fairly well against the 1DX?


----------



## pwp (May 25, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi PWP.
> I have to say at first glance this looks like a bad idea, closer looking it looks even worse!
> Cheers, Graham.
> 
> ...



Oh well never mind. It works for me. Maybe it depends on the physical setup of your studio charging station. Most people I've showed it to go straight out and buy a few Apple charger adapter clones from eBay. 

With the heavier 1-Series twin charger, even with the weight of two batteries there is more than enough resistance/grip in the plug to hold the weight when hanging vertically from a wall socket. 

Apologies for the diversion. This is a 7DII vs 1DX-II thread!

-pw


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Not well at all. In April 2015 I ran the 1Dx vs. the 1D4 vs. the 7D2 in sports. Not even close. One other big problem was driving my 400 f/2.8 lens. The 1D's were superiorly faster and less draining on the battery. Plus the other obvious stuff.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 25, 2016)

I had to sell the 7Dii and 5Diii to fund the purchase of the 1DXii, so for me there was no choosing between the two.
I was never really happy with my copy of the 7Dii so to say that I am stoked with the 1DXii would be an understatement.
Even if I had been happy with the 7Dii, the comparison isn't really a fair one. The 7Dii is not a mini-1DX as the marketing suggested. It has speed and improved AF (for some, not me) and reach but really the reach for me is now irrelevant given the quality of the images coming out of the 1DXii.
You would expect the most expensive Canon DSLR to be the best by some margin and it is.
I had the 7Dii gripped so even the weight hasn't bothered me so far.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 25, 2016)

dslrdummy said:


> I had to sell the 7Dii and 5Diii to fund the purchase of the 1DXii, so for me there was no choosing between the two.
> I was never really happy with my copy of the 7Dii so to say that I am stoked with the 1DXii would be an understatement.
> Even if I had been happy with the 7Dii, the comparison isn't really a fair one. The 7Dii is not a mini-1DX as the marketing suggested. It has speed and improved AF (for some, not me) and reach but really the reach for me is now irrelevant given the quality of the images coming out of the 1DXii.
> You would expect the most expensive Canon DSLR to be the best by some margin and it is.
> I had the 7Dii gripped so even the weight hasn't bothered me so far.



Shame that you weren't too happy with your 7D2 - I rate mine highly. However the 1Dx is simply better as to your 1DX Mk2 - let's just say JEALOUS! :'(


----------



## j-nord (May 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...


I feel like this is an under mentioned point, the 1D series is designed to drive the big whites better than the other bodies.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2016)

I would just like to add that the IQ from the 7D2 was pretty good. The camera overall is much better than the 7D IMO. But yeah like you said, the 1Dx and 1Dx2 have seperate wattage to the AF motors and this becomes increasingly noticeable when driving a big, heavy lens quickly. The battery grip will not help this. The AF was slightly snappier and also more accurate on the 1Dx, not to mention the IQ. 

I think the 7D2 is meant for people upgrading from a lower-series model or the 7D. It is not meant to compete with the 1Dx and there really isn't anything about it that can compete to any degree.


----------



## j-nord (May 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> I would just like to add that the IQ from the 7D2 was pretty good. The camera overall is much better than the 7D IMO. But yeah like you said, the 1Dx and 1Dx2 have seperate wattage to the AF motors and this becomes increasingly noticeable when driving a big, heavy lens quickly. The battery grip will not help this. The AF was slightly snappier and also more accurate on the 1Dx, not to mention the IQ.
> 
> I think the 7D2 is meant for people upgrading from a lower-series model or the 7D. It is not meant to compete with the 1Dx and there really isn't anything about it that can compete to any degree.



It's the poor man/non-pro/beginner sports and wildlife body and does it's job very well especially if you want to factor price to performance. If you move to big whites then you are entering a different world and will also want the best possible body for it.


----------



## coreyhkh (May 27, 2016)

Its odd you say the 7Dmkii drives the lens slower when Canon states its the same as the 1dx, the camera has the circuitry to deliver more power to the lens.

I bought a 7Dmkii and it replaced the 1dmkiv because the AF was Superior, it not only drove the lens faster but gave way more in focus images.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2016)

coreyhkh said:


> Its odd you say the 7Dmkii drives the lens slower when Canon states its the same as the 1dx, the camera has the circuitry to deliver more power to the lens.
> 
> I bought a 7Dmkii and it replaced the 1dmkiv because the AF was Superior, it not only drove the lens faster but gave way more in focus images.



No, read the specs again. There is seperate circuitry, but less power than the 1Dx. So it's slower and my real life experience supported that.

I will agree that the accuracy was better in the 7D2 vs. 1D4. I would pick the 7D2 over the 1D4. But not the 1Dx. 1Dx was clearly more accurate, precise, and faster to focus with both the 400 f/2.8 and 300 f/2.8.


----------



## pwp (May 29, 2016)

coreyhkh said:


> Its odd you say the 7Dmkii drives the lens slower when Canon states its the same as the 1dx, the camera has the circuitry to deliver more power to the lens.
> 
> I bought a 7Dmkii and it replaced the 1dmkiv because the AF was Superior, it not only drove the lens faster but gave way more in focus images.



This is exactly my experience too, a gripped 7DII to replace a retired 1DIV. And getting more keepers by a bigger than expected margin. The 1DIV was better at higher ISO's, but honestly the 7DII has eclipsed my expectations. 

That said, if I can string together another couple of strong months in my business the CFO (Mrs pwp) will give the green light for a 1DXII which will patently leave my current cameras (5DIII & 7DII) gasping for respectability. 

-pw


----------



## avbmenon (May 29, 2016)

Quite honestly, I feel it isn't very fair to compare the two. They are in different leagues.

I owned a 7dm2 and have already used the 1dx/1dxm2 (beta). Getting my own 1dxm2 tomorrow (fingers crossed)

Just sharing my experience, I was one of the earliest people to pre-order and get the 7dm2. I was excited about the 10fps and the cost savings as I shoot mostly wildlife. I get to travel only a few times (owing to my main job) a year so I am quite serious about making full use of my trips (expensive these days) and the images I capture. Took the 7dm2 body on three occasions over last year into the forests in India. I just wasn't happy with the image quality (low light, shadow recovery) especially in non-favorable situations (which is when the action happens) and I tried umpteen things to reduce the number of unsuccessfully focussed shots, but in vain. I am sure 7dm2 is an excellent choice during good conditions. I really feel that most of the cost of the 1dxm2 or the 1dx is actually in the reliability it offers. I don't want to make expensive dream trips to exotic locations (spending all the money) with the wrong equipment and loose out on some marvelous images. I'd rather go somewhere with the family and enjoy a nice sunny day by the beach for the money.

Anyways lets hope that things improve with my new equipment.


----------



## tron (May 31, 2016)

Comparison is meaningless when we are free to fill the frame. Question is which is better when we are FL limited... alot!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 31, 2016)

tron said:


> Comparison is meaningless when we are free to fill the frame. Question is which is better when we are FL limited... alot!



When severely FL limited I cannot speak for the 1DX2 - I don't have one! I can only relate my experience with the 1DX and 7D2.
When everything is perfect (or close to) then the 7D2 can have a slight advantage - if conditions are less than perfect then the 1DX. For example we recently had a Squacco Heron here in South Wales for the first time since 2003 (apparently) so I wanted to get some shots. Unfortunately there was no way I could get close to the bird without disturbing it and the light, although good, was a little hazy. Due to the range I had to resort to my 2 x extender on my 800 F5.6 - frankly my shots with the 1DX were record shots at best. The 7D2? Well the heron was bigger in the frame but it was just mush.
Short range Kingfishers in good light - here the 7D2 is excellent, better than the 1DX. However if the conditions are not perfect then the 1DX shows it's mettle.
I am not knocking the 7D2, I love mine, but it is simply not a 1 series.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 31, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Comparison is meaningless when we are free to fill the frame. Question is which is better when we are FL limited... alot!
> ...


That is the same on every same generation of crop camera vs cropped ff camera (focal length limited) that I have either tested or seen. Pixel quality trumps pixel numbers in every situation apart from when conditions allow for the smaller pixels to perform at their full potential, which is practically never for most people most of the time.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 1, 2016)

I bought the 1Dx2 to replace a 5D2 and also have a 7D2. To the extent possible, I have the buttons programmed on the 7D2 to put the same functionality in the same place as on the 1Dx2 (mostly back button focus options), so I can switch between the 1Dx2 to the 7D2 and not have to worry about which body (with grip on the 7D2) I am shooting with. That is a huge plus in favor of pairing the 1Dx2 with a 7D2 - kudos to Canon for that ergonomic decision. Obviously there is a major performance difference between the two, but they are highly complimentary. Depending upon the event, I'll put a big white on the 1Dx2 and a L zoom on the 7D2. If conditions permit, I always have the option of putting the 7D2 on the big white if I need the extra reach. It is a very flexible combination. If you have the option of keeping the 7D2 while adding the 1Dx2, I think you'll be very glad you did.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 1, 2016)

The 1DXII should beat the 7D2 in every metric but two, cost and size.

As someone who is not willing to spend that much money on a body and is unwilling to carry the weight on hikes, my choice is simple


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> The 1DXII should beat the 7D2 in every metric but two, cost and size.
> 
> As someone who is not willing to spend that much money on a body and is unwilling to carry the weight on hikes, my choice is simple



+1


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> The 1DXII should beat the 7D2 in every metric but two, cost and size.
> 
> As someone who is not willing to spend that much money on a body and is unwilling to carry the weight on hikes, my choice is simple



Actually if you shoot with a grip, the size or weight difference between any of the 5D's or 7D2 and the 1Dx2 is minimal. Cost is vastly different, however, and so is performance. Certainly the 1Dx2 is not for everyone. YMMV.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 1, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DXII should beat the 7D2 in every metric but two, cost and size.
> ...


Yes, but you can't take the grip off of a 1DXII.... As a backpacker, the size and weight is a huge (pun intended) issue....

The point that I am trying to make is that there are more criteria to evaluate than just image quality and performance numbers. A camera such as the 1DXII is technically superior to everything else in the Canon line, but depending on the person, ergonomics (physical size, weight, tilt/swivel touchscreen, etc) may be such a concern that they are willing to forgo that superiority in order to get what they want..... and the next person may make the exact opposite decision.... Same for cost.....

As a 7D2 owner, I am very comfortable saying that the 1DXII is a far superior camera. If I had one, It would definitely be my number one camera for in town and in studio.... It would be the one that accompanied me on car trips.... As a backpacker and a canoeist, NO FREAKING WAY! It is too big and too heavy! Different needs, different choice.....


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 1, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> JMZawodny said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I agree. I have no desire to part with my 7D2. It fills a real need. Then again, why limit yourself to only one body? (expecting the porno photog to jump in here and agree with me ;-) )


----------



## RGF (Jun 10, 2016)

JMZawodny said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The 1DXII should beat the 7D2 in every metric but two, cost and size.
> ...



Size is similar but weight of the 1Dx M2 is slightly greater than 7D M2 w grip. Not so much that it is really noticeable.

Performance, in my limited experience with the 1Dx M2, is vastly superior to the 7DM2. Nice thing about the 7D M2 is that you can take the grip off and save the weight. then again after the 1Dx m2 my wallet is much lighter so I am eating less and my personal weight is down (I wish).


----------



## j-nord (Jun 10, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> JMZawodny said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Agreed, 1D series would be nice but completely impractical for on the go, hiking, biking, etc. Putting a grip on a 7Dii? No chance. They have no place for those applications. What benefit does a grip give anyway? Easier portrait shooting and not having to swap batteries as frequently? At least the permanent grip on the 1D series gives you more power to drive the big whites.


----------



## JMZawodny (Jun 11, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > JMZawodny said:
> ...



Yes, all of the above. I personally like the feel and balance with the lenses I use most (big whites). If I'm going to shoot with a smaller lens, I'll take the grip off. Most of the time the grip stays on my 7D2. Having both the 1Dx2 and 7D2 allows me to adapt what I shoot with to the situation.


----------



## Rejay14 (Nov 12, 2016)

Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 12, 2016)

Rejay14 said:


> Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..



It depends if you're evaluating at the beginning of the 10 mile hike or end and whether the camera and big white actually captured any great photos.  

Sometimes that combo can be mighty heavy and take some of the _pleasure_ out of the activity. As usual, it depends on each individual. I rated my hikes with 1D4/300 2.8 X2 as acceptable but there is no way I would go significantly heavier, and my excursions were not overnight, so no camping gear. Those who hike with 600 have my admiration and respect but it's not for me.

Jack


----------



## tron (Nov 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


+1 I have excellent 7d2 shots at iso 1250 and 1600 with optimal sunlight. At the same time I have mediocre iso 400 cloudy shots...


----------



## KWSW (Nov 19, 2016)

I used to have the 5D3 as my main camera and t he 7D2 for anything else that needs faster AF and FPS plus it gives a nice reach with my 70200LmkII. Sold my 5D3 thinking to upgrade to the 5D4 but also toying with the idea of selling my 7D2 as well and getting the 1Dx2 for everything.

Only thing holding me back is the crop advantage that the 7D2 has which makes my 70200LmkII a 320mm f/2.8. For those who upgraded from 7D2 to 1Dx2, how is the pixel quality in terms of cropping to make up for the "lack" of reach from the crop sensor?


----------



## Cthulhu (Nov 21, 2016)

KWSW said:


> Only thing holding me back is the crop advantage that the 7D2 has which makes my 70200LmkII a 320mm f/2.8. For those who upgraded from 7D2 to 1Dx2, how is the pixel quality in terms of cropping to make up for the "lack" of reach from the crop sensor?



No it doesn't, it makes it a 320 f/4.

I have all 3 cameras and it sure does take a minute adjusting to the lack of reach, but at the end of the day the 1dx mk2 is such a fine camera, I haven't touched my other bodies since it arrived - I pre ordered it - save for a few tests. The advantage the 5dmk3 had over the original 1dx was the higher mp, which is noticeable, and I suspect if I had the 5d mk4 it would be uses just as much as the 1dx mk2.

At the end of the day I'd say if you find yourself cropping your images often, then the 1dx mk2 isn't going to make you happy.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 21, 2016)

I have had the 7D2 for about 18months and rented the 1Dx2 a couple of weeks ago. Although I still need to finish reviewing the files I think the reach advantage in good light is not huge in my opinion (I can post a couple of images a bit later today). In fact it is so close I would look at other reasons for changing bodies.

With birds in flight, the wider view of the 1Dx2 (or any FF camera) makes it easier to track if the focus point moves off the subject. But because the subject is smaller in the VF it can make it harder to keep the focus point in precisely the right place (for example the eye). 
The reason I was really interested in the 1Dx2 was performance at ISO 1600 and above, and it seems the 1Dx2 does have some advantages (or more exactly, is no worse) even when cropped to the same FOV as the 7D2. Again, examples to follow.

But the AF....that is a different matter. The 1Dx2 is far more assured and I can feel the difference in how is snaps the lens into focus. And it is better at tracking moving subjects especially in lower light levels. 

For me, the choice is wider aperture lens or the 1Dx2. Wider aperture or better ISO performance. And a damned difficult choice it is.

If the refinements of 1Dx2 over 1Dx are not high priority, and if image quality is the main driver then seriously consider the 1Dx over the Mkii.


----------



## Rejay14 (Dec 29, 2016)

Cthulhu said:


> KWSW said:
> 
> 
> > Only thing holding me back is the crop advantage that the 7D2 has which makes my 70200LmkII a 320mm f/2.8. For those who upgraded from 7D2 to 1Dx2, how is the pixel quality in terms of cropping to make up for the "lack" of reach from the crop sensor?
> ...



It's still a 2.8 with the crop sensor..?


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 29, 2016)

Its a very complimentary pair which i use frequently. The 1dx2 gets more use but i can tell you that the 1dx2 is far better at high iso and as such is far better in low light situations such as before sunrise or after sunset...or more importantly during a rain shower. The 7d2 is ok for a little gental rain but it cant hold up to a deluge.

The reach is better with the 7d2 but the 1dx2 has quite a bit more DR, less noise at a similar iso, and stands up better to post enhancement. I think the reach issue is pretty much equalized by all of the other enhane,ents on the 1dx2 sensor.

For sports i shoot 1dx2+300 f2.8 II. And 7d2+70-200 f2.8L II
For wildlife i use the 1dx2+600mm f4 and 7d2+300mm f2.8L II

The 600mm is a mark I so i dont use extenders on it. However the 300mm and 70-200mm are mark II lenses and work exceptionally with and without extenders.

I have no issues with shooting the 1dx2 to iso12800. The 7d2 is pushing the limits at 6400.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Dec 29, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Rejay14 said:
> 
> 
> > Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..
> ...



Im not one to claim im fit but i was able to carry a two camera rig including a 300mm f2.8 on a spiderpro belt system and hiked 42 miles in about a weeks time period through the tetons, yellowstone, and glacier NP. It was not as bad as packing everything in a back pack where your spine takes the beating every step you take. My point is if you are motivated to use your best gear on an excursion, you will find a way and maybe suffer quite a bit to make sure you get your shot.

I would have taken my 600mm f4 but it would not fit in my carryon and I would have had to use a backpack as the 600 exceeds the design limits of the spiderpro system. I chose to use the 300 with the 2xiii extender and I think it was a better choice in the end. There were many times i had to be quite mobile to photograph bears and with the 600 you cant be that mobile unless you are still in your car. The 1dx2 with the 300mm and extender is still easily hand held and you can run and gun easily with it. 600mm f4 needs a monopod at least if not a full gimbal tripod setup.


----------



## mihazero (Jan 3, 2017)

Maui5150 said:


> Was a tough decision, but will keep the Lambo and get rid of my back up Yugo as well



Mate don't bash Yugo  Yugos are like funkiest things EVER


----------



## reef58 (Jan 7, 2017)

Rejay14 said:


> Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..



That kind of thinking will make your pack heavy. Also skipping lunch is not a good idea prior to a long hike.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 8, 2017)

reef58 said:


> Rejay14 said:
> 
> 
> > Does 520 grams (1.15 lbs) really make you stay home from a hike? If so, I would re-evaluate the goal of my hikes. I would think that one less lunch would negate that weight, just thinking out loud..
> ...



Consider Art Morris, he has recently commented about taking two 5D4's and leaving the 1DX (II?) behind. Clearly his age is making the weight simply too challenging or not enjoyable. I'm guessing a fair number of CR members are older like myself and making similar decisions. And of course there can be travel bag issues as well.

Jack


----------



## reef58 (Jan 11, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Rejay14 said:
> ...



I am fortunate in that I can carry a heavy pack if needed. That being said I do a lot of flyfishing / photography hikes, so i am carrying quite a bit of stuff. It helps to trim the fat or I could easily end up with 40 pounds or more wading in a river trying not to get wet. At times the Olympus omd10 sure seems like a great option.


----------



## ems1 (Jan 16, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Rejay14 said:
> ...



Art always "promotes" Canons latest camera, he did the same thing with the 5DIII & 7DII


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 16, 2017)

And the 5DSR.
To be fair he would not use the camera if it did not produce the quality he needed to maintain his reputation as a quality photographer. And each of his changes has been better than the last - he has the 1Dx2 and still prefers the 5DIV for his style of photography (and his age!). Many I know (and many on this site) would advise having the 5DIV for most situations with the 5DSR for its pixel count in good light. 
Of course, Art can afford to change with every new model release whereas most people skip models.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 16, 2017)

ems1 said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > reef58 said:
> ...



Interesting, I never thought of that since I'm a newer follower of his. Interesting also how Tin Man Lee was praising the 1DX2 - like 10 times better AF - makes for entertaining reading. 

I'm probably not unique in this but lately I've realized that I always expand images if they are high enough resolution and look critically at the highest resolution for detail. What that implies is that I will never be satisfied because each magnification always brings details that are not quite as clear as I'd prefer. So, in that sense, 100 MP won't satisfy me. Imagine taking a _beautiful composition_ and enlarging it so all you see is one small item, completely _losing the overall impact_.

What this does is allow me to brag about my technical prowess (sharpness, resolution) and ignore my lack of artistic ability or compositional skills (true quality) and I'm not thrilled about that!

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 17, 2017)

I know what you mean, Jack!
With wildlife photography I have started to become more brutal in my culling: once I have deleted the completely missed shots, then with Lightroom on a 24" screen I can see quite easily if any are OOF enough to ruin the shot (even if they look sharp at thumbnail size). 
Then I start to look at composition - does it look good as an image. This includes an animal turned too much away from camera will often get deleted no matter how sharp it is. After that, if I have sequences or sets of similar shots the critical factor is 'how sharp is the eye' - that often deletes a significant number. 

But coming back to your post, one thing about the 400mm DOii is that it has raised my expectations on what I should be achieving. I thought the 100-400 ii was a good lens (and it is, even without AFMA) but when I got the 400DOii, I was amazed how sharp the images can be even with zero sharpening applied - in fact my average sharpening levels in LR have dropped from about 105 to about 60 (or less!). And my decision 'is the eye sharp' is often done viewed at 100% with no sharpening!!

There was a quote from Ansel Adams that resonates with me: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"
What is the point of a sharp image of an animal if the image overall is mediocre? And sometimes if the composition is good and the image looks decently sharp when viewed at 50% it stays.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 17, 2017)

The book, The Photographer's Eye hit me like a 2X4 in the head as I realized what I'd been doing. Just to comment on one thing, I'd been cropping in too close to "show off" a bird as large as possible, completely ignoring what his environment was contributing to the overall image. I'm now a little over 3 years from being a totally clueless beginner and hopefully improving significantly; at least I'm trying hard.

Jack


----------



## DaveGershon (Feb 10, 2017)

I had a similar experience moving from the 7Dmk2 to the 1Dxmk2. I shoot sports and had been using a combo of 7Dmk2 and a 5DIII bodies. When shooting High School Friday night lights football, the 7Dmk2 would not cut it when I needed high iso for the low light. I would use the 5DIII, but the FPS was not fast enough.

I really liked the 7Dmk2 in bright daylight when I was around 100 ISO.

I shot mostly with my 70-200mm f2.8 IS II lens and occasionally with the 1.4III extender.

I recently moved to the 100-400mm II lens for Baseball to get the reach, but not willing to make the jump to the 200-400mm f4 / 1.4 extender lens yet due to cost, but I can dream. The 100-400mm II lens has really impressed me in good light. The pictures have been very sharp with great color. 

I really like the image quality of the 1Dxmk2 and its low light AF works great. To afford it I had to sell off both camera bodies. But in the long run I will be happier.

Dave


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 11, 2017)

Dave I'm still trying to wrap my head around the almost endless choices with the 1DX2. Today I configured "my menu 1" so I'd have AFMA always at my finger tips along with a few other choices. I love everything except the weight, although it's not that bad considering with the 400 DO II it balances nicely and provides a substantial grip. For wide lenses I'd prefer a lighter body and may be tempted to upgrade my 6D if Canon will just place it around 30MP.

Jack


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 11, 2017)

This all sounds like my recent (a week ago) upgrade from the Canon 20D (best crop body at the time), to the 1D Mark II (flagship sports camera at the time)... only I'm 13 years out of date 

I hope you are enjoying your new setup. I know I am experiencing that more shallow depth of field going from 1.6x crop to 1.3x crop, and the effect you are experiencing must be much more pronounced going all the way to full frame.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 11, 2017)

mistaspeedy said:


> This all sounds like my recent (a week ago) upgrade from the Canon 20D (best crop body at the time), to the 1D Mark II (flagship sports camera at the time)... only I'm 13 years out of date
> 
> I hope you are enjoying your new setup. I know I am experiencing that more shallow depth of field going from 1.6x crop to 1.3x crop, and the effect you are experiencing must be much more pronounced going all the way to full frame.



I bought the iDX2 before I had intended (prefer not to be an early adopter) since CPW offered a good price and I thought it'll take a while to get up to speed. Well, getting up to speed midwinter is a lot more challenging than I imagined given the often poor light and the restricted shooting opportunities. Couple that with a lot of work/jobs in the shop and it has been very frustrating. I'm now pretty comfortable with the controls and options but still am not confident in my AFMA. I prefer to get outside in good light to do this and at -20C .....  I seem to be getting differing degrees of focus accuracy depending on the mode so maybe it's time to ship to Canon.

Jack


----------



## East Wind Photography (Feb 14, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> mistaspeedy said:
> 
> 
> > This all sounds like my recent (a week ago) upgrade from the Canon 20D (best crop body at the time), to the 1D Mark II (flagship sports camera at the time)... only I'm 13 years out of date
> ...



The mode has little to do with afma. It does however impact how the system focuses on various objects. I can tell you also that an incorrect afma can give you very inconsistent results, even when its just marginally off. When it is set correctly, the accuracy goes way up. I wouldnt have thought that was the case but in testing with Focal and looking at the charts i can see the accuracy go way up when its set correctly. Perhaps there is also some kind of phase feedback that doesnt work as it should when afma is off spec. You should also be setting afma using one shot af, not servo. One shot takes the af mode out of the picture and is supposed to be more accurate for stationary subjects.

I can afma wide to short telephotos in the house rather easily but the long teles take more space and are more temperamental. Temperature has a large impact on big teles. I no longer even bother unless the lens has aclimated to the air temp for at least an hour. I would even go as far as saying some may have a different afma at 80 degrees than at 10 degrees.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2017)

East Wind Photography said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > mistaspeedy said:
> ...



Thanks for this encouraging reply. As it happens today was somewhat sunny and +4C, so comfortable enough, so I set up the tripod and my targets on my stucco wire fence as illustrated here and ran through a series of shots. I used a distance of about 40 feet (this was 400 DO II X2 III). The targets were at the camera height and perpendicular and based on the wire dimensions, the top closest was 2" ahead, the bottom, furthest was 2" behind. Focused on the center/middle one. I have a fancier target but wanted to try this. It wasn't bright enough so ISO 1250 to keep the shutter at 1/1000. Spot focus and one-shot for all shots. 

I think where I've gotten off track is judging the best focus to be somewhat midway when it's not as the three samples show. From all the shots my best value seems to be AFMA = 3 but get this, here is a chickadee taken when I was at +11. That's what has been driving me crazy.

Jack


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 14, 2017)

kaptainkatsu said:


> I upgraded to a 1DX mark II from a 7D mark II and this is my experience from the upgrade.
> 
> I previously had 2 7D Mark II's and now have upgraded my main camera to a 1DX mark II. I still have 1 7D Mark II as my second body. My primary lens on the 1DX2 is the 70-200 2.8 II and secondary lens (on the 7D2 the 16-35 f4 IS). I primarily shoot cycling photos.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing.
Photography is not for the financially faint of heart. Yes you can two 7D2's for the price of a 1DX II, but as you pointed out, they are NOT a 1DXII, and you don't get full frame sweetness.

Enjoy your purchase.

sek


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I think where I've gotten off track is judging the best focus to be somewhat midway when it's not as the three samples show. From all the shots my best value seems to be AFMA = 3 but get this, here is a chickadee taken when I was at +11. That's what has been driving me crazy.
> 
> Jack



Although it is hard to tell on such a small file, I think the feather detail on the bird's flank just over and just beneath the wing are in focus but the eye is not - going from +11 to about +3 may well address that. 
I AFMA my 7D2 with the 400DO out in the field by focussing on a bird (on a feeder at the time so relatively steady) and looking at the image on the camera screen. AFMA of about 5 made the difference between the eye pin sharp and the focus being on the side of the head.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 14, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > I think where I've gotten off track is judging the best focus to be somewhat midway when it's not as the three samples show. From all the shots my best value seems to be AFMA = 3 but get this, here is a chickadee taken when I was at +11. That's what has been driving me crazy.
> ...



But Mike, unless my fuzzy old brain is really in trouble, +11 should be producing a strong back focus (see AFMA10 shot) but I see earth in front of his feet in focus. This is not my birding mode but here I purposely used auto-selection for a comparison (3 squares on the wing area). Could it have more brains that spot focus??

Very off topic so I'll possibly post more photos to a new thread if necessary.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2017)

If you focused on the wing then focus is pretty OK at the AFMA setting you have. But again it depends on which part of the wing you focused on. 
My point was more about how big an effect that AFMA has. My photos were taken at about 4meters (probably about the same as your picture of the chicakdee) and it seems that at those distance a seemingly large AFMA can have a relatively small effect on what is in focus. At distances of 20 or 30 metres AFMA will be less critical. I recall reading that AFMA at long distances may not be the best setting at shorter distances so I wonder if that is what you are seeing. 

The AF works within depth of focus which is similar to Depth of field. Depth of field is the area around the point of focus that appears to be sharp. Depth of focus is the limits at which the sensor can be placed within the cone of light coming from the lens and the image still look sharp. So if you think about it, you had three AF points light up on a curved surface (the bird's wing) which means not all of them can have been perfectly in focus but were within Canon's defined limits for depth of focus. Which is also why they say you should do AFMA with single point focus.


----------



## puffo25 (Jul 18, 2017)

Hi, I am wondering if anyone has any news for a possible upgrade of the 1DX mark II to a even better body?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 18, 2017)

Kind of a strange question given it's relatively new. What would you be expecting Canon to do?

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2017)

If you mean 'when will the 1Dx2 be upgraded by Canon', I doubt that will happen before 2021 given the 1Dx2 was released only one year ago. 

If you mean 'any camera currently on the market' I would say there isn't one. Different, yes - different bodies with different compromises but overall 'better'? I very much doubt it.

What problems or deficiencies are you trying to resolve?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2017)

puffo25 said:


> Hi, I am wondering if anyone has any news for a possible upgrade of the 1DX mark II to a even better body?



I'd be shocked if there isn't a 1DX MkIII in 2020, if not retail then many press and agency user cameras with retail stock available late 2020. Tokyo is hosting the 2020 Summer Olympics and that has been a key aspect of high end camera releases.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> What problems or deficiencies are you trying to resolve?



I don't have any issues with mine yet, but as upgrades I can see:-
1/ Touchscreen actually work all of the time with an option to turn it off. Goodness only knows why that isn't an option now! Not having the touchscreen enabled for review is dumb.
2/ Even more customization. There is no real reason why every button can't be assigned any or every function of choice.
3/ Built in Wifi. With the Ethernet port all the firmware and most of the hardware is already there, why not just put that chip in the GPS 'bubble'.
4/ Built in RT control of flashes. That would be an industry first, as was the RT system and there are precious few 'firsts' left now.
5/ MP bump. Very few people are put off by modest MP raises, say 24 or 26. That would put this camera into final dream configuration for me, personally.
6/ I'd expect a silly mirror up fps boost. At least 20fps with DPAF but probably more to be higher than the A9.
7/ Outside the box, how about an accompanying EVF, like the M6, to use with this mirror up functionality?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 18, 2017)

Maybe the OP is just bate to get us worked up! 

Hard to argue with this list , other than what happens to video. The programmability restrictions seem unjustifiable too. 

A small thing - I get annoyed by CF being default (forced on me by having the card out in the reader for a few minutes). Why would any designer default a function to a lower spec'd setting. To please folk who would never pony up a few $$ for a small Cfast card?? 

I'm not shooting double images but losing speed that way is also a negative. And why not an option to trade off some speed against a greater MP sensor, like your 24-26 @ 12 fps but 20 @ 14 fps. This may be more technical than I realize.

Then there is, how to cut the weight down.

Regardless, I won't be able to justify/afford it anyway 

Jack


----------



## Cthulhu (Jul 18, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



I'm a little lost as to why you'd be even messing with AFMA working like that, and so will you until you get your process right. Get actual focus targets, tripods and measure your distances accurately or you'll forever be wondering why it's sometimes right and sometimes wrong - which entirely defeats the point of AFMA.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 18, 2017)

Cthulhu said:


> I'm a little lost as to why you'd be even messing with AFMA working like that, and so will you until you get your process right. Get actual focus targets, tripods and measure your distances accurately or you'll forever be wondering why it's sometimes right and sometimes wrong - which entirely defeats the point of AFMA.



Why do you need actual focus targets? 
I AFMA'd my 7D2 with 100-400ii using a stick in the ground and seeing which blades of grass are in focus. Mind you, I chose a bright sunny day when contrast was high and I think that is the only real proviso - it is also where I believe Jack made an error because February in Canada is not the sort of conditions I would do AFMA.
Why is exact distance necessary? All you need is to AFMA at a distance that optically approximates your shooting conditions.


----------



## arbitrage (Jul 19, 2017)

puffo25 said:


> Hi, I am wondering if anyone has any news for a possible upgrade of the 1DX mark II to a even better body?



The 1DX3 will be out some time before the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. Probably announced late 2019 and out sometime in Spring 2020 before the Summer games. You won't hear anything about it till closer to that time.

I thought the 1DX2 from 1DX would be a hard upgrade to justify, and it was, but the f/8 AF, red AF points and a few other minor things have made it a worthwhile upgrade to me. That said, I'm finding it very hard to even imagine a spec sheet that would make me buy a 1DX3. I think it will need to be a radical improvement to the AF system or a much higher MP sensor with different FPS options based on internal crop of the RAW file (not useless 5DSR crop modes). Some sort of OVF/EVF hybrid to see the actual exposure in the VF but still retain the beautiful view of an OVF (I hate EVFs other than the benefit of previewing your image before the shot).

Anyways, still a few years before we will hear anything meaningful.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 19, 2017)

@ Cthulhu

I had a target with a sloping scale, which was on a tripod to adjust height and angle. The camera was on a tripod and I used the camera level to insure that I was shooting perpendicular to the target which was square to the camera. There were a couple things that influenced my situation. One was needing to be outdoors in Alberta in February and another was using equal distance front/back rather than simply the sharpest image. There may have been other inconsistencies in spite of my best efforts as my hands were freezing not to mention .... 

One thing I didn't realize is that even the 1DX2 doesn't focus that great with back light and due to temperatures I was shooting test shots out a south window with my birdie subjects rather poorly illuminated. I imagined that the camera would refocus on a transitory bird and well, it can't, in spite of fiddling with the settings. Furthermore, I was sometimes using the 400DO II X2 III @ F8 and outer focus points, which I didn't realize were not cross type. Steep learning curve for me at a poor time of the year!

Sometimes I do dumb things but for the most part the AFMA wasn't in that class. I'd done AFMA numerous times with my 6D but coincidentally always with the luxury of spring/summer/fall. 

And, I'm now enjoying the 1DX2 with good focus so the AFMA values I achieved at the end seem fine.

Jack


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2017)

There was a case where I could not focus correctly on a bird (Great Reed Warbler). Lighting was not ideal (it was not front lit for sure).

Fortunately after driving a few hundred meters I found a similar (if not the same  ) bird and I was able to focus successfully. The funny thing was that the focusing conditions were harder (this time there were moving reed beds due to air) in that case but everything went OK. The shooting angle was different than the first case of course....

In both cases the gear was the same: 5DsR + 500 f/4 IS II.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 20, 2017)

tron said:


> There was a case where I could not focus correctly on a bird (Great Reed Warbler). Lighting was not ideal (it was not front lit for sure).
> 
> Fortunately after driving a few hundred meters I found a similar (if not the same  ) bird and I was able to focus successfully. The funny thing was that the focusing conditions were harder (this time there were moving reed beds due to air) in that case but everything went OK. The shooting angle was different than the first case of course....
> 
> In both cases the gear was the same: 5DsR + 500 f/4 IS II.



I had great expectations for the 1DX2 and for the most part it has been delivering but I now comprehend that some flittering bird shots are only going to be in focus by luck. I thought (how dumb of me) that if focus point(s) were over a bird's head when shot that the head had to be in focus, assuming correct AFMA. I also didn't realize how much difference cross or double cross points make compared with single line. Factor in 400 X2, which just isn't up to 400 levels and well ...

And of course the better the lighting the better the focus performance. I smile when I hear/see these DR debates with illustrative shots that are so challenging that I'd just say, "what are you so stupid as to think that this situation would give you a good usable photo". Next thing we'll hear is that one should be able to shoot directly into the sun. 

I'm learning that I still have to be skilled and creative to acquire challenging shots and fortunately am still thrilled with the amazing camera I have and what it's potentially going to do for me if I persist.  The problem is behind the camera. 

Jack


----------

