# Real 1DXm2 vs 1DX high ISO performance comparison.



## Neutral (Jun 10, 2016)

Some time ago DPR added 1DXm2 to their comparison chart.
There 1DXm2 high ISO performance looked slightly better than 1DX. 
The only one strange thing was there that 1DXm2 shots were brighter than 1DX shots.
Actually, it was required in LR to move exposure slider about 0.5 stop down for 1DXm2 and raise it about 0.2 stop up for 1DX to make them equal in brightness and the same histogram distributions.
Some people were telling that this is OK and this is just due to difference in analog gain setting in different cameras for different ISOs.

Therefore, when I got my 1DXm2 few days back I did some tests to check different things including high ISO performance. 
For 1DXm2 my primary interest was better AF, especially in in dim light conditions and slightly better ISO, which was noticeable in DPR test. 
My tests were done in dim light conditions using the same EF70-200 F/2.8L IS USM II lens fixed on the heavy and sturdy tripod. Once test done with first camera then it was detached from the lens and then other one was attached to the same lens on tripod. So all test conditions were identical for both 1DX and 1DXmII.

So first set of tests discovered that for the same ISO settings and same aperture value 1DX and 1DXm2 were using different exposure values, 1DXm2 was doing approximately from 1.3 to 1.67 longer exposure compared to 1DX and this difference was increasing at higher ISOs.

As result I had to do exposure corrections described above for both 1DXm2 and 1Dx to bring shots from them to the same brightness level.
For me this means that 1DXm2 high ISO comparison test presented so far at different sources using the same ISO settings and auto-exposure are not correct source for comparison ISO performance and this would be cheating people around the world. Definitely, with the same ISO settings camera that captured 1.7 more light by its sensor will have less noise in output RAW files.
On the other hand, this simply means that exposure meter on 1DXm2 does better job compared to 1DX and it does not underexpose shots, as it was the case for many Canon cameras including previous 1D series bodies. With 1Dxm2 shot histogram is now about 0.7 stops closer to the right.
But proper High ISO comparison test must be done using the same exposure time and same aperture value for given ISO at both compared cameras and only such test could give proper results.

Therefore, I did another set of test shots, first with 1DX with auto exposure and then for 1DXm2 in manual setting using exactly the same exposure and aperture as for test shots with 1DX. 
This ensured that both sensors captured exactly the same amount of light for each ISO .
As result, these sensor ISO performance test shots now could be directly compared.
There were four (4) test shots for each camera - aperture 4.0 for all shots, ISO values 6400, 12800, 25600 and 51200 with shutter speeds 1/10, 1/20, 1/40, 1/80 respectively. 
So all test shots had absolutely the same amount of light captured by each camera sensor for each ISO settings.
What I had at the end is something that I was expecting before but could not check that myself until I got my 1Dxm2. 

As I was suspecting comparison results were not a big surprise for me – my old 1DX has slightly better high ISO performance compared to new 1DXm2.
Here are attached snapshots done by Window snipping tool from LR screen at 100% view - left side is 1DX, right side is 1DXm2. All have the same LR default NR setting, luminous NR sliders set to zero. No exposure corrections – both shot get exactly the same amount of light captured by sensors.
One real surprise for me was that all 1DX shots are perfectly sharp while some 1DXm2 shorts are slightly blurred. For both I was using one-shot AF mode with one center point surrounded by 8 expansion point.
Both were pointing at exactly the same are on the target, as lens on tripod was not moved while changing camera body attached to the lens. Shots was done using remote control and 2sec self-timer. IS was switched OFF.
This was kind of AF precision test in dim light condition.
I did not do yet AFMA for my lens on new 1DXm2 body and it could be result of that, but that would be affecting all test shots for 1DXm2, but some are more or less sharp and some not and all 1DX shots are sharper than 1DXm2 shots.
This is some kind of disappointment for me and I need to investigate that later.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 10, 2016)

Seems that both Nikon and Canon reached their high ISO sensor technology limit at the previous cameras generation and with this cameras generation they both were not able to add something substantial better and even has slightly worse high ISO performance. 

This is possibly something good for those who decided to keep their old cameras and skip this upgrade.

Seems that even Canon started to cheat customers now regarding high ISO performance to look better (by increasing exposure time for high ISO (compared to 1DX ) so that results looks better.

Would be really interesting to see DXO sensor measurements results for 1DXm2 sensor.

So far I have mixed feelings about my new toy.
Probably I need to have some treatment against my GAS.
Will see how 1DXm2 will perform in real life.

Anyway as 1Dxm2 has better exposure meter and exposing more to the right (probably due to the better exposure meter intelligence) then overall ISO results and image quality looks better in general compared to old 1DX. At lower ISOs sky is more clean and silky - looking somewhat better than with 1DX.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2016)

Thanks for your tests and comments. 

I remain a happy 1D X owner.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for your tests and comments.
> 
> I remain a happy 1D X owner.




I also might keep my 1DX as well for a while after that tests.

I believe that most happiest are people at Sony Corporation.
They obviously do not need now to hurry up to come up with the new A9 pro body using new generation stacked sensor technology and they have plenty of time to work on the new sensor to get most out of it to have better chance to jump far ahead of all the competitors.

Canon and Nikon gave Sony another 2-3 years to jump to one more sensor generation ahead of them and increase difference count from at least one generation to two (if we consider a7rII BSI sensor is a real technology jump and ignore A7R and A7S considering them as old sensor tech).

So far the best still images I am getting out of my A7RII using Canon lenses and Metabone IV adaptor.
Images IQ is just amazing.
But still have need for Canon 1DX or 1DXm2 body for fast action events.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 10, 2016)

Thanks for sharing, this is very enlightening. 

It also reinforces something else I picked up on while reading reviews of the new 1DX II - the AA filter must have been strengthened compared to the original 1DX and 5D3. On DPR's test shots, the difference is noticeable - downloading the RAWs, I'm finding that the 5D3 is capturing noticeably more detail - and it's not _just_ the 2 extra MP at work here. Even compared to the 6D (which has the same resolution) the 1DX II image is a tad softer. About .5 sharpness points were needed in DPP to get the 2 images to match - and even then, the 1D was still missing a bit of the fine detail captured by the 5D3 sensor.

Now, having said all that, the improved metering system and AF performance may very well negate that difference in low to moderate light conditions, which would still make the 1DX king for stopping action and for overall IQ with minimal post work. Considering the audience this camera is aimed at, it makes total sense. For applications where maximum detail is desired or critical, though, the 5D series is the better choice. 

Again, thanks for sharing. It doesn't make my decision any easier...


----------



## Memdroid (Jun 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for your tests and comments.
> 
> I remain a happy 1D X owner.



+1
The GAS got me. But I am glad I was able to myself out of it.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 10, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Thanks for sharing, this is very enlightening.
> 
> It also reinforces something else I picked up on while reading reviews of the new 1DX II - the AA filter must have been strengthened compared to the original 1DX and 5D3. On DPR's test shots, the difference is noticeable - downloading the RAWs, I'm finding that the 5D3 is capturing noticeably more detail - and it's not just the 2 extra MP at work here. Even compared to the 6D (which has the same resolution) the 1DX II image is a tad softer. About .5 sharpness points were needed in DPP to get the 2 images to match - and even then, the 1D was still missing a bit of the fine detail captured by the 5D3 sensor.
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing this info regarding AA filter
This might explain why my 1DX test images look sharper than images from 1DXm2 which has more resolving pixels. May be what I observed with my test shots has nothing to do with lens AFMA but rather with this AA filter metrics change.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2016)

So DPR was correct?



> high ISO Raw performance remains fairly similar to its predecessor, which is actually impressive considering the 1D-X II gains dual-pixel architecture for decisive video AF.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for sharing, this is very enlightening.
> ...



I should emphasize that I do not know for sure whether this is true - but it seems to consistently be the case that the 1DX II images, as a rule, appear to be a bit softer. Particularly since the same lens was in use in DPR's test (that was my first suspicion, maybe a softer lens was used, but it's the same 85 1.8...). The only other reason left I can think of, besides some manufacturing issue, is a stronger AA filter. It would be nice if we can get this confirmed though. 

Also, even the original 1DX images appear to be a hair softer than images from the 5D and 6D series (with the 1DX II even softer), leaving me to think it's a design decision on Canon's part to implement stronger AA filters in the 1D bodies...


----------



## jaayres20 (Jun 10, 2016)

From my personal experience and the review on The Digital Picture, the 1DX II has better high ISO noise performance. When I look at your images see that the blacks on the 1DX are darker than on the 1DX II. I am sure the camera settings are the same, but for some reason the images, and tonal ranges are differing for whatever reason. 

It the best IQ is the goal, then you have to choose the 5Dsr (assuming you don't need the better AF or quicker shutter, or DPAF). Sure it does not have the same high ISO performance or as much DR as the 1dx2, but with those huge MP files you can overcome any of those weaknesses in post production, and then some. 

I do agree that we are at a point where gains in high ISO performance are going to be minimal until there is a break through in new sensor technology.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jun 10, 2016)

Tests like this provide good data, but for me nothing beats how a camera performs shooting what the photographer bought the camera to shoot. I shot the 1Dx for years doing mostly birds in flight. I switched to the 1DxII and received my camera very early in the release. So, I have been shooting it for a few weeks now. 

Overall, I could not be more pleased. I actually am seeing a bit better high ISO performance (high ISO for me is 800 - 6400). ISO 800 is cleaner compared to the IDx and 800 is my "base" ISO for the type of work I do. Personally, I believe before you can really judge a camera's AF ability you need to micro adjust. I shoot the 600 f/4 IS II with both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs depending on what is needed. The AF on the 1DxII is super fast and accurate with all my lens and TC combos. Is it better than the 1Dx? Yes. It does not "waiver" as much as my 1Dx did. When I shoot a burst of 30-50 images in a row and I do my job of keeping the AF point on the bird just about all the shot are tack sharp. The 1Dx would be tack on for a few shots off for a couple and then back on. I have never used an AF system like the one on the 1DxII before. It is the best I have ever used.

The 14 fps is great for my type of photography where getting the best frame out of a bird in flight sequence can be a matter of a split second. 14 fps gives me wing positions I hardly ever captured with the 1Dx. Seems like going from 12 to 14 fps should not make much of a difference but it does.

Overall, the IQ of the images coming from the new sensor are just better than the 1Dx. For me, the 1DxII is a great step forward for my type of photography and I have no regrets what so ever for trading in my old 1Dx for the new camera. For me the proof of a camera's worth is in the field. The camera has already proved itself to me. 

I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII, so you know I am just not blowing smoke.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (Jun 10, 2016)

The 'darker' blacks of the 1DX vs the 1DX_II can be a few things: LR / Adobe profile (you should see the terrible crushing black profile it applies for the 5DSR), a visual expression of the DR being slightly larger on the 1DX_II (i.e. a larger gradient of colours close to black), a pixel density / crop / magnification issue as the original post has not sized the images the same - i.e. the 1Dx_II files are shown bigger because they have more pixels in them - they would have looked 'better' if the image was shrunk / displayed at the same size as the 1DX files. As a 1DX_II owner, the biggest difference by far is in the base ISO files - here you see over a 1 stop improvement in DR. I have run tests versus a 1DC, shooting a high DR scene, and the difference is visually obvious in the darks - far more detail being available - that said, this isn't particularly why people are buying a 1DX_II to shoot at 100 ISO - but that is where the big improvement is to be found. 

In terms of high ISO, you can make the end pictures look slightly better. As this post highlights, there are more megapixels in the 1DX_II - ie the OP did not resize down the larger files. Secondly, and this is extremely obvious with the 5DSR because of the massive pixel density - and that is the benefit of using selective NR to carefully trade off some of the extra pixels to clean the image with NR. The 1DX_II only has a tiny pixel density benefit over the 1DX - but it can be used - and when you combine this, and then display the images at the same size, it won't be extremely noticeable (unlike the 5DSR vs the 5D3) but that small benefit is still real in a small way. The 3rd benefit comes from the slightly improved nature of the noise is the blacks (my own tests of the the 1DX_II vs the 1DC showed this clearly - the noise is less bad). When you combine this, with NR software, the slightly higher DR and pixel density, it all adds up to a slightly better high ISO image (which is what you care about - the end image). From what I have personally seen working the files of high ISO, high DR images between the new and old 1DX, the new images are about 1/4 to 1/2 stop better at high ISO when you work the files (6400 to 51,200 iso).

So from a DR perspective, 100-400 ISO you gain a full stop, 6400-51,200 you gain 1/4 to 1/2 stop using pixel density / NR / cleaner noise tradeoff with PP (requires effort), you can easily Frame Grab 8megapixel 4K 60P frames (using any SS require to freeze the action), Metering is improved, ergonomics slightly better with the improved joystick, Silent Shutter is better, 16FPS is Liveview is near silent and awesome and the Red AF points are great - overall an improved camera - but like the 5D3 vs the 5D2, most pros still used their 5D2 with their 5D3 all day long because 96% of the time there was no difference.

For me, the 3 negatives of the 1DX_II are:
1) the in Optical Viewfinder menu items that you can display (drive mode, metering mode, WB, Program mode, etc) are displayed in BLACK not RED like the 5DSR - when it is dark YOU CAN'T SEE THEM
2) once you have seen a D5 using LEDs to display the buttons you realize what an awesome idea this was (I would actually pay, if it was possible, for Canon to retrofit this as an upgrade)
3) The Sony A7Rii sensor at 25,600 and 51,200 is still better by about 1/2-2/3 stop. That 1/2 stop really becomes obvious when jump from 12,600 to 25,600. If ISO 25,600 had that 1/2 stop, plus the Pixel density (which is pretty much the point of this original post), there would be lots and lots of 1DXs for sale - but it isn't quite there.


----------



## Bennie_CanonShooter (Jun 10, 2016)

thanks for the wonderful review/test and the time you put into this.

I do agree on your pointers.... that the newer cameras dont have a linear path to technological advancements.

When I got my 1DX July 2013 - with the first firmware installed - the AF was terrible in low light - even though they marketed it as better - to a point, at events, I started using my trusty 1D Mark II N for these low-light shoots.

It wasnt until FW #2 that the AF matches the 1D Mark II N in speed and accuracy.

Even with FW #2 - the 1DX that time still have AF issues with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses - a very sad fact that with these newer cameras - we cant use the special focus screens anymore 

All in all, the new releases that Canon made dont bring much anticipation for me anymore that I start looking to SONY A7 and now own the A7m2 and A6300 and Have used the A7R2 which much delight - so happy indeed that I hold my purchase of the 5DSR (very tempting with the current lens/body combo rebates) and waiting for the A7R3 to arrive ( will just rent the A7R2 ).

I am and was a loyal CANON user/buyer (cameras, lenses, 17" printers, video cams) but NOT anymore.

I am glad that I dont have plans to upgrade to the 1DXm2, will keep my 1DX until it quits, same for my 1D Mark II and Mark II N (as my rough up cameras) myb remove the AA filter for the Mark II N, the Mark II is now full spectrum.

I do confess, the DPAF is awesome and for that - I bought the 80D and is very HAPPY with it.

Even the touch screen on the 80D is way better than the 1DXm2 - funny but sad as to how CANON logic implements their segmentation of technology (give some, take some) - and with their 5DSR - it will be somewhat hard to imagine that CANON will give us lesser AA filters for the 1D series as it is now clear with the advent on the 5DSR product line.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 10, 2016)

It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply _clean up better_ in post, giving more pleasing NR results?


----------



## rbielefeld (Jun 10, 2016)

Act444 said:


> It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply _clean up better_ in post, giving more pleasing NR results?



Thing is I find myself using NR less often on my backgrounds (I never use NR on the bird). To me this means there is just less noise or noise that is "less intrusive" on image quality.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2016)

rbielefeld said:


> I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII



Awesome!


----------



## Neutral (Jun 10, 2016)

Act444 said:


> It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply _clean up better_ in post, giving more pleasing NR results?



Yes, in general 1DXm2 provides slightly better high ISO output (both RAW and OOC JPEG) compared to 1DX despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below compared to 1DX sensor per my tests.
And the reason for that is very simple as my tests discovered for me.
Reason is that 1DXm2 has better and more intelligent exposure meter which in general exposes about 0.7 stops more to the right compared to 1DX ( see in my first post) so camera sensor receives more light (from 1.3 to 1.7 depending on ISO settings - about 1.3 at ISO100 and about 1.7 at ISO25600).
So if you rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter for your shooting then results would be definitely better and images more clean compared to 1DX and as result general perception that 1DXm2 output is better.
To make it short Canon is now better utilizing sensor by using more intelligent exposure meter which does not afraid to expose more to the right. Actually Canon just fixed issue that was somewhat irritating in previous cameras generation (underexposing) - user had to care himself about exposing to the right - now you can rely on camera meter for that.

The other factor is 1DXm2 better DR at lower ISOs so there are less noise in a shadows and in the sky, so again images look cleaner and better. I think that this difference disappears somewhere above ISO 400 or ISO 800 - I still need to check that for myself.

But if 1DXm2 is set manually to exactly the same exposure settings as 1DX so that 1DXm2 is not exposing to the right and getting EXACTLY the same amount of light on the sensor then 1DX sensor demonstrates slightly better ISO performance. 
This is what I actually was testing for myself - when checking DPR comparisons tests earlier this exposure difference had caught my eye but I could not check that before getting my 1DXm2.
As I said before I just see that now Canon is better utilizing sensor capabilities by doing intelligent exposure to the right so that resulting image SNR is better.


----------



## GuyF (Jun 10, 2016)

Further DR shenanigans here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=18030856


----------



## Act444 (Jun 10, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply _clean up better_ in post, giving more pleasing NR results?
> ...



Ah interesting. I see. 

Yes, probably my biggest pet peeve about the 5D3 - its tendency to underexpose. Once recovered in post, there's a small to moderate hit taken on details, particularly in darker areas. In situations (events) where the lighting is constant, often I have to shoot in full manual to ensure pics are exposed properly. When they are, though, the IQ is simply _phenomenal_...


----------



## Neutral (Jun 10, 2016)

And here is just real life 1DXm2 outdoor shot in normal light conditions

560mm (EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II USM + 1.4x III), 1/1000sec, f9.0, ISO640.
Looks good, nothing to complain, image is very clean.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Jun 10, 2016)

Act444 said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



I solved this on the 5D3 by installing a chinese super fine focus screen which shifted the exposure about 3/4 stop to the right. It was an inadvertant benefit. All of these posts about noise and DR between models is so fine that it doesnt really make any difference in real world shots. The 1DX2 offers so much more in technical improvements that it's really difficult to compare.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 11, 2016)

Dove into the RAW files of the 5D3 and 1DX II a bit more (process in DPP 4). While the 5D3 clearly has the edge on detail at base ISO (100), at the higher ISOs, I'm finding that the gap begins to close and the two cameras converge. By ISO 3200, the difference becomes negligible (slight edge to 5D3, nudge the 1DX II NR down a couple points and they're similar); at ISO 6400 the two cameras are the same; and by ISO 12,800 the 1DX II has actually pulled ahead slightly. At ISO 25,600 the 1DX II has established itself as the better performer. What surprised me as well is that at high ISO, the 1D files indeed clean up better, and the blacks remain black even into the 5-figure ISOs (!) which I find an impressive feat. 

Depends on what you do I guess. If you live above ISO 3200, the sharpness difference starts to cancel out and the benefits of the 1DX II sensor start to become apparent.


----------



## tpatana (Jun 11, 2016)

Neutral said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply _clean up better_ in post, giving more pleasing NR results?
> ...



Interesting. For my sports shooting, I know exactly how slow I can go, and given the lens is same, I have to use the same ISO also. So based on what you're saying, I might be better off with Mk1?


----------



## Neutral (Jun 11, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > Act444 said:
> ...



This is exactly the same question I was asking myself.

Normally, when I get new gear, I do number of tests to get answers on all my questions and learn gear performance limits to know what to expect in extreme conditions and how to handle it for the best results.
Based on what I discovered I tend to think that for sports shooting with 1DXm2 one can get similar or even slightly better results despite 1DXm2 sensor high ISO performance is slightly below than 1DX.
What helps is the much better performance and intelligence of exposure meter in 1DXm2, which allows to get most out of sensor. 
This means that user do not need to care himself about proper exposure settings and can mostly rely on 1DXm2 exposure meter. 
Therefore, setting 1DXm2 to TV mode and doing auto ISO settings per user scenario requirements will allow 1DXm2 to go to high ISO limited by MAX auto ISO value that could be set differently depending on distance to the object. When object close and taking most of the frame space ISO could be higher, when object is far and small in the frame the max auto ISO need to be reduced so that object would be not so grainy at high ISOs
As 1DXm2 is exposing more to the right, it will pick higher ISO than 1DX in the same conditions.
But the resulting shot will be better exposed and resulting image might be even better than with 1DX with lower ISO.
Properly exposed (to the right) 1DXm2 frame with ISO16000 might be looking better than 1DX ISO10000, which is slightly underexposed and have more noise in shadows. So far, with 1DXm2 I can get reasonable good shots at ISO25600 due to better-exposed shots.

As I mention in my first post the purpose of my tests was to compare real high ISO performance of both sensors.
However, these tests discovered one more interesting thing for me.
This is that 1DXm2 exposure meter is doing much better and more intelligent job than exposer meter on 1DX. This alone is a very good reason to upgrade to 1DXm2 as I know that I will be getting maximum out of the camera sensor and do not need to worry about old cameras tendency to underexpose and check every time if I need to go to manual mode or correct EV shift to cope with this. This is a big relieve and time saver. 
In general, exposer-metering function is one of the camera main functions together with autofocus function.
If both work perfectly then user will be getting the best results from the camera.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 11, 2016)

The other interesting thing for 1DXm2 owners who want to get best landscape/cityscape shots but do not willing to buy Nikon D810 or Sony A7R2 or Pentax K-1, is better DR at base ISO compared to 1DX.
To me – the best one now for this is Pentax K-1 (using pixel shift) and K-Amp was presenting excellent shots recently done by using Pentax K-1. 
For myself for this kind of photography I am using Sony A7R2 with Canon EF24-70 f/2.8L USM II lens, which is my mostly used combo now.

Back to 1DXm2 low ISO DR:
When I get my 1DX in 2012, I was disappointed with the shadows noise level at base ISO for night shots.
So I was looking how to get most of the camera and found that I could get single RAW file out of 1DX with SNR increased by about 6db using in camera multi-exposure function. 
I posted that method here in CR in November 2012.

Here are couple of references to some posts there:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10693.msg194293#msg194293
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10693.msg195622#msg195622
At that time, this method was giving extremely good-looking night images.
When I got Sony A7R and then later A7R2, due to better base ISO DR, they gave me ability to obtain desired results using single shot so since then I was not using 1DX for that.

Now with 1DXm2, having better base ISO DR and the same functionality as 1DX, it is possible to get extremely clean night images using this method on 1DXm2. This could provide image SNR similar or better than even Pentax K-1 with pixel shift. 
Actual numerical results could be estimated when we see 1DXm2 sensor measurements graphs on dxomark.
Also due to better noise pattern/distribution on 1DXm2 compared to 1DX, I would expect better NR results using DXO Prime noise reduction for 1DXm2 compared to 1DX when DXO will release update for DXO Optic Pro supporting 1DXm2.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 12, 2016)

Neutral said:


> The other interesting thing for 1DXm2 owners who want to get best landscape/cityscape shots but do not willing to buy Nikon D810 or Sony A7R2 or Pentax K-1, is better DR at base ISO compared to 1DX.
> To me – the best one now for this is Pentax K-1 (using pixel shift) and K-Amp was presenting excellent shots recently done by using Pentax K-1.
> For myself for this kind of photography I am using Sony A7R2 with Canon EF24-70 f/2.8L USM II lens, which is my mostly used combo now.
> 
> ...



Interesting, I had missed that thread and am just now getting more interested in landscapes. Glad you're sharing this 1DX II feedback since I hope to have one this fall.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 12, 2016)

rbielefeld said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that many 1DX II owners claim that high ISO performance is better, which I'm just not seeing in the RAW image files. Perhaps it might be that the 1DX II files simply _clean up better_ in post, giving more pleasing NR results?
> ...



I have see that in the 7D vs 7D2 as well - noise aabout 2/3 stop better but the way the noise is rendered makes it more pleasing and easier to work with giving an effective boost to 1 or 1.5 stops improvement. Also in line with the comments above, I have found the 7D2 underexposes by half to 2/3 stop. 
It seems these are the new Canon way of doing things.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 12, 2016)

Neutral said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...



Just adjust the 0 ev offset in either camera and they will expose equally. Lol, that was the first thing I calibrated. Mine is set to +5/8.


----------



## scottkinfw (Jun 13, 2016)

rbielefeld said:


> Tests like this provide good data, but for me nothing beats how a camera performs shooting what the photographer bought the camera to shoot. I shot the 1Dx for years doing mostly birds in flight. I switched to the 1DxII and received my camera very early in the release. So, I have been shooting it for a few weeks now.
> 
> Overall, I could not be more pleased. I actually am seeing a bit better high ISO performance (high ISO for me is 800 - 6400). ISO 800 is cleaner compared to the IDx and 800 is my "base" ISO for the type of work I do. Personally, I believe before you can really judge a camera's AF ability you need to micro adjust. I shoot the 600 f/4 IS II with both the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs depending on what is needed. The AF on the 1DxII is super fast and accurate with all my lens and TC combos. Is it better than the 1Dx? Yes. It does not "waiver" as much as my 1Dx did. When I shoot a burst of 30-50 images in a row and I do my job of keeping the AF point on the bird just about all the shot are tack sharp. The 1Dx would be tack on for a few shots off for a couple and then back on. I have never used an AF system like the one on the 1DxII before. It is the best I have ever used.
> 
> ...


Outstanding pics, thanks for your remarks. What were your aperture settings?

sek


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> To understand how well the 1DXII responds at a given ISO you first need to know how accurate its ISO is.
> 
> The attached image comes from DxO and documents the actual ISO sensitivity of the 1DX vs the nominal sensitivity. It is very rare for a camera to match 1:1. But what it is saying is that when you meter for shooting ISO 100 with the 1DX, you should calculate for ISO 80 (or thereabouts) instead. So if a light meter said you would need 1/60 at f/4 for ISO 100 then on the 1DX, you would need to shoot at 1/50 at f/4 if the camera was set to ISO 100. (If I've understood the graph correctly.) As yet I haven't seen anyone evaluate the ISO accuracy of the 1DXII but seemingly the two cameras are not equivalent.



DxO themselves admit that there are different ways of measuring ISO which means that you cannot define "how accurate its ISO is" in absolute terms. At the end of the day it is irrelevant - the only thing you can rely on is the sort of test that Neutral has done so you understand how it works in the field for the type of photography you normally do.


----------



## rbielefeld (Jun 13, 2016)

scottkinfw said:


> rbielefeld said:
> 
> 
> > Tests like this provide good data, but for me nothing beats how a camera performs shooting what the photographer bought the camera to shoot. I shot the 1Dx for years doing mostly birds in flight. I switched to the 1DxII and received my camera very early in the release. So, I have been shooting it for a few weeks now.
> ...



My aperture settings were f/5.6 to f/8


----------



## M_S (Jun 13, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> Act444 said:
> 
> 
> > Neutral said:
> ...



What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?


----------



## Eldar (Jun 13, 2016)

M_S said:


> What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?


I have used S-type screens from Focusingscreen.com (Taiwan) for both my 5DIII and 5DSR. They cost about 3x a standard Canon screen and the installation process is a bit cumbersome the first time you do it. You'll find instruction videos on Youtube.

A standard focusing screen is accurate to about f2.8. If you shoot wider than that, you need a better screen. With the S-screen I get very high keeper rates all the way to f1.4. I use this primarily with my Zeiss lenses.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 13, 2016)

Eldar said:


> M_S said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of focus screen ? Please elaborate?
> ...



Do you find that the camera's light meter is effected with the fine focus screen? The 5DII had an option to adapt the meter for the different screen.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 13, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > M_S said:
> ...



I used the S-screen, but it seem to throw off metering much more often, and not in a consistent way, Canon doesn't support a correction for it with the 1dxand I grew tired of adjusting the EC aaaall the time, so went back to the standard one.


----------



## rcarca (Jun 13, 2016)

rbielefeld said:


> I have included some images I have captured with the 1DxII, so you know I am just not blowing smoke.



Fabulous photographs - thank you for sharing. At the end of the day, anything that can help you capture this quality has to be an awesome beast (accepting that you must be a pretty fantastic photographer as well!!!)

Richard


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> DxO themselves admit that there are different ways of measuring ISO



I wouldn't characterize it as "admitting." It's just a statement of fact.

If I had to guess, it would be that manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Ricoh, etc. lean towards Standard Output Sensitivity as defined by CIPA DC-004, which the ISO standard allows. DXO uses Saturation Based Sensitivity.


----------



## Neutral (Jun 13, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



Hahaha, this is funny)

1. Is it not supposed that professional tools which cost from 3K to 7K USD must be properly calibrated before leaving production facilities?

2. In your statement, you says that this is not necessary – it is OK for 1DX (and other older Canon cameras) to underexpose in average by 0.7 stops and the first step required for the user is to calibrate exposure meter.
Therefore, you admit that Canon was doing things wrong and you need to correct them.

What about if autofocus meter gives you strong focus shift and on the new camera and all images are blurred and you need to apply +20 AFMA to all lenses before using camera for the first time?
OK, what about you buying professional photographic light meter and it gives 0.7EV shift from real values and you need to calibrate that before first use?
What you says is that this is normal and acceptable.
How about buying a car and speedometer shows you 60mph instead of real 40mph and you need to calibrate speedometer to show correct results before using your car?
There are billions examples like that.

When majority of people buy their Pro level cameras they expect that ALL meters in this cameras are properly calibrated and they can rely on them. 

Canon had problem in the past, never admitted that publically and finally they silently fixed the issue.
Issue was that their exposure meters were not enough intelligent and in many situations (but not always) they were underexposing to protect highlights.
Now with 1DXm2 and possibly other new cameras they have more intelligent exposure meter, which can better evaluate scene light distribution and make more intelligent exposure decision.

3. What you were doing is just adding permanent bias (exposure shift) to 0EV.
Many people including myself prefer to change EV correction on spot depending on the lighting conditions so required EV shift is always visible and not doing shifting 0EV permanently 
Yes , I admit if you shoot always at the same lighting conditions (e.g. in studio) that what you are doing is OK. However, for different light conditions it could give problems as this is permanent “brute” “non-intelligent” EV shift 

On the contrary I see that 1DXm2 exposure meter doing intelligent evaluation and depending on situation deciding how much to right it could expose.
And this is proper behavior for professional photographic tool – you can trust that all meters in this tool are properly calibrated , working as desired and in most cases you can totally rely on them and concentrate on your photography and not on camera EV calibrations and EV +- adjustments


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 13, 2016)

Can be frustrating at times! 

I'm quite intrigued by what this and your previous thread have brought forward and will do my best to incorporate the information to improve my shots. Thanks. And you are right; sharing is a blessing and it contributes positively to this sometimes mixed up world. Keep up the good work.

Jack


----------

