# 1Dx mk2...The end of an era



## brianftpc (May 11, 2016)

There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement. Clearly they were saying what they needed to say to get the camera early or free. So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps. The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement. You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.

Will Canon be using Sony sensors in their next 1D body to keep people from jumping ship. Sony now has 2-4 years to get a camera between the a7s2 and a7II with high framerates and canon league autofocus. Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.

Honestly....how LITTLE could Canon upgrade the next 1D body to match this 1 in the relm of actual picture quality upgrades...18fps...more auto focus points....what a joke.

I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB

if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!

http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg


----------



## edoorn (May 11, 2016)

I'd say we might have hit some sort of high iso limit. The d5, supposedly the best high iso cam out there, is only about half a stop better at the 6400 - 25600 range (but at the expense of less dr at lower iso's).

Good thing is: the 1dx still is a great camera able to shoot good quality images ;D


----------



## Sharlin (May 11, 2016)

Photons are discrete, unfortunately. Current sensors are getting very close to what's physically possible.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement. Clearly they were saying what they needed to say to get the camera early or free. So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps. The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement. You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.
> 
> Will Canon be using Sony sensors in their next 1D body to keep people from jumping ship. Sony now has 2-4 years to get a camera between the a7s2 and a7II with high framerates and canon league autofocus. Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.
> 
> ...



I don't know of any professional photographers who have left Canon for Sony. Most wildlife guys say that the 1DX is THE camera to beat in their genre and nothing else comes close. So I suspect the 1DXII will build on that, but Canon doesn't need to push the curve much as nothing has caught up. Sure, you personal shooting needs might need a different spec sheet or you have an itch that needs scratching. But Canon did their research to professional photographers and they knocked the ball out of the park with the 1DX.


----------



## Luds34 (May 11, 2016)

Sensor tech does seem to have hit a bit of a saturation limit. And frankly basically any sensor in the last 5 years is capable of taking an awesome image.

So for most shooters, I don't think sensor tech is what is driving them. I think the intangibles, camera operation/ergonomics, focus ability performance, and of course glass are all much more important to a lot of folks.


----------



## Luds34 (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....



I meant to comment on this. Not everyone needs video in their DSLR. I still feel if one is moderately serious about video you buy a rig dedicated for video (even if it's a good stills camera for video like a GH4). Right tool for the job. You buy a good stills camera for taking stills, and that is definitely what a 1D camera from Canon is good at.


----------



## Mikehit (May 11, 2016)

It's like anything else, if you don't need the developments it is not worth it, if you do need them then it may well be a significant improvement. The days of major improvement with each generation are long gone and I can't remember much in the last 5 years where a change in sensor has had people going 'WOW'!. Maybe the D800 but little else. Problem is each time a new model is announced people still expect that Damascene revelation and it ain't going to happen. 
The camera market became commoditised years ago and the law of diminishing returns is hitting hard. If my own experience is anything to go by, even people like me who like owning gear despite knowing that it exceeds their capabilities, the capability of what I have got is so good that I am wondering if there are other things to spend my money on. Or (gasp!) save it instead!!

Let's face it, most enthusiasm for the 1Dx2 has been for things other than image quality. So you can either be as cynical as you have been about the motivation behind people comments, or accept that maybe they are real-world improvements but just not for you. Or maybe you expected too much.


----------



## TeT (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB
> 
> if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!
> 
> http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg



*You are mistaken..*

If the picture taken with the 1DX is properly exposed then the 1DXII pic is overexposed in comparison. You should have dialed back your exposure or ISO or something to compensate for the *better performance* of the *1DXII*. 

It is fairly obvious that one picture is brighter than the other.... I will take your word that the shots are identical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2016)

TeT said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > *...what a joke. *
> ...



Indeed, that's very apparent when you flip one image so the same region is mirrored. Since shot noise has a proportionately greater effect with less light, a small difference in exposure with low light input (either because of low illumination, or in this case, because of a short 1/2500 s exposure time) can make a big difference in shot noise, and that difference is amplified at high ISO.

The OP is basing conclusions about noise on exposures that differ (even with the same settings, a few minutes during sunrise can make a big difference in light levels which is why most of the comparison testing is done in a studio under controlled illumination), so the *joke* is on him.


----------



## TeT (May 11, 2016)

I don't even think he was talking specifically about visible noise. Just performance in general. He was disappointed that the the mark II exhibited the same light collection abilities as the mark I. His pics show otherwise... He could have dropped his exposure by at least -1/2 or more. At 6400 that is huge (?).

Is 6400 still considered HIGH ISO? 3200?

Noise on a 1DX I or II at 6400 is negligible for most properly exposed pictures.


----------



## GuyF (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.



Sweet. So at 14 fps it'll only take 14.28 seconds to realise the AF is better. Result!


----------



## GuyF (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB



ISO 6400 comparison here looks more convincing i.e. 1DX2 looks a little bit cleaner to me.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1041&Test=0&ISO=6400&CameraComp=779&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400


----------



## unfocused (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement.



What? You mean DPReview is correct?



DPReview]
Although the 1D-X II shows significant increase in dynamic range at low ISOs in our dynamic range tests said:


> So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps... Will Canon be using Sony sensors in their next 1D body to keep people from jumping ship.



Considering that the 1DX II just hit the shelves, it's pretty hard to predict where the 1DX III will go, but barring some major technology breakthrough that defies physics, I'm guessing the 1DX III will be an incremental improvement over the 1D X II. And, no, Canon won't be using Sony sensors – which seems ludicrous since it's now apparent that Canon has narrowed the small gap between their sensors and their competitors to virtually nothing. Again, see this quote from DPReview:



DPReview]
[b][u]The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II shows very similar amounts of noise to the excellent sensor in the Sony a7R II [/u][/b]up until a 3EV push said:


> The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement.



I'm afraid that there isn't a camera in the world that's capable of improving the quality of your light. You will have to talk to the sun about that if you are shooting natural light.

I've seen this phenomenon many times before. People are upset with a product so they decide to write about it on a public forum. That's always an unsatisfactory experience because you are likely to elicit very little sympathy and in some cases you will generate contempt.

If you are genuinely disappointed with the marginal improvements of the 1DX II, then I'd suggest you simply return the camera. That is a much better way of getting satisfaction.


----------



## Refurb7 (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> I shot this picture this morning with my 1dx and 1dx mk2. 6400 ISO 1/2500 f8 6500WB
> 
> if not for the extra 2MP I could just lie to you as to which is which...or just use the same camera and changed the image size on 1 of the pics!!!
> 
> http://www.deanjohnsonvideo.com/djp/64002500f8compared.jpg



Both pics look fine and I frankly don't care about the difference. It's ISO 6400, thank you. If that's somehow a joke to you, please jump ship already. Please, just jump ship.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 11, 2016)

The whole premise of this thread is staggeringly wrong-headed.

Brian, the Mk II isn't meant to the upgrade path for the 1D-x. It's meant to be the new upgrade path for 7D Mk II/5D Mk III etc. users who are ready to move to a pro camera.

It's patently obvious that the built-in longevity of a pro body like the 1D-x and the refresh period between it and the Mk II _do not_ intersect: if Canon wanted 1D-x owners to go to the Mk II, the previous body wouldn't last as long, and the gap between releases would be longer.

So what - exactly - is your problem? That you _chose_ to buy a camera you didn't really need, in the misguided and uninformed assumption that you might get c. 1/2 stop high ISO improvement?

Seriously? 

Besides, as others have pointed out, there's so much exposure difference between those two frames, you might be _looking at_ your half a stop.

Want better pictures? Maybe learn to use the camera better (or as I continually suggest, _use a better Raw converter_). As Unfocused says, you won't get better light from a new camera.

Nobody (least of all Canon) forced you to buy the new body. Take some personal responsibility for your decisions.

(Someone else can point out to him that if you're doing a high ISO noise comparison, you do it _at the equalised image level_, not at two unequal 100% views. I suspect that the noise difference between the two cameras would actually be quite compelling _if they were compared *properly*_).


----------



## jaayres20 (May 11, 2016)

I shot with the 1DX for 3 years and have gotten a chance to shoot a wedding with my new 1DX mark ii and without doing any scientific testing, the 1DX mark ii images, overall, look cleaner and more pleasing to me at all ISOs. I would have only used ISO 25,600 on the 1DX in an absolute emergency and I am comfortable using it for paid wedding work on the 1DX mark ii. There are so many variations that can cause an image to look good or bad at high ISOs and I feel like it is very difficult to take one shot and say it proves anything. I think it is something at you can get a sense of with a lot of shooting in differing situations.

Now the auto focus is much improved and highly underrated in my opinion. It is very fast and accurate in the most difficult of lighting situations. The 1DX was great, but in darker areas I would often get a few slightly missed shots and sometimes had issues shooting into the sun. The 1DX almost never misses no matter what I am shooting. The DPAF also makes it possible to take pictures easily with accurate focus when you can't hold the camera to your face. I got so many shots with the camera hight over my head or right up close to a wall that I couldn' have gotten with the 1DX up to my eye. It just feel like the 1DX2 makes it so easy to make the best images possible quickly and with ease.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 11, 2016)

In the future, we will see continued high ISO improvement, but using some of the various tricks like control of individual pixels so that those receiving less light will have a longer exposure. There are several patents for that sort of thing. Some of the manufacturers already use some software enhancements to improve high ISO, that's likely the path going forward.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 11, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.



As has been mentioned, the 1Dx ii photo is clearly brighter, so you're comparing different amplifications (albeit from the same setting).

But I'm perplexed by the above statement. Whose four years is wasted? Were you not using your 1Dx for four years in anticipation of a replacement? Does that fact that you aren't impressed by the 1Dx ii mean you won't shoot photos until there is a iii?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (May 11, 2016)

Completely missing the point. Like others have said, the mark 2 update (much like most other body updates) should be looked at in their entirety. Simply latching onto something like the photo comparison you provided means less than nothing (if that's possible). 

For the most part, what I am finding with the most recent updates of sensors (in my case, Sony and Fuji bodies), you will notice some better noise characteristics at higher ISOs and maybe some bump in resolution, but the images/light you get are what they are (SOOC). Generally speaking, the differences will not be monumental. Where the advancements really show are in the quality of the data in post processing and how malleable they are. 

In the lighting scenario you sampled for us, you could basically shoot that with any camera body in the last five years and it would not look all that different SOOC. You have to use the tool in the ways where the benefits would more likely show themselves in order to exploit/enjoy said advancements/improvements.

Go out and shoot the thing. Shoot it a lot. Shoot different things. Play with the files. Don't sit on your deck making test photos and disappointing yourself with the less than monumental SOOC results.


----------



## slclick (May 11, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > Lets hope it happens or your next upgrade will be like this 1.....a waste of 4 years for anyone who doesnt use the camera for video unless F8 autofocus points was a must have for you.
> ...



4 years wasted= drama


----------



## d (May 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The OP is basing conclusions about noise on exposures that differ...



A quick perusal of the OP's homepage reveals that differing exposure is a common theme.

I wonder what will advance the most between now and the release of the 1DxII's successor; the technology inside cameras, or the skills of those using them?


----------



## lux (May 12, 2016)

well i'm someone who would have loved a stop or two improvement in noise at high ISO. Any improvements in that realm are important to me...

I've been trying to figure out what the consensus is for the 1dxii and it seems that it has a little improvement...maybe 1/2 stop over 1dx/5D3/6D. I was hoping for 1 stop better than the 6D...and then have the tech trickle down to the 5div and 6dii. 

One stop better noise would mean I could shoot at 12800 with a 5div or 6dii and handle the noise...that would be a very big difference to me. I take a lot of photos in dark gyms or in poorly lit churches of moving subjects.

I understand the op's point...it is discouraging to think that we may be reaching a limit on high iso photography without some big change in tech. over the last 10 years it seemed like you got a 1/2-1 stop every couple years...so I've gone from not liking to go over ISO 400 to ISO 6400...and a big jump when you want to ff from crop. It may be that that is no longer the case. 

for some folks AF speed is the most critical...for others ergonomics or fps, DR etc. For me high iso performance is important and while I am happy to get improvements in other areas I'm sorry that there is limited improvement in high iso performance. 

Shockingly I'm not Canon's most important customer.


----------



## KiagiJ (May 12, 2016)

Id like to remark that the OP is correct, well most likely, as I tested my 1dx2 for a while comparing with my 6D at all isos up to 25600 of the same low light night time indoor room setting and visually they were basically the same! Very disappointing after all those hyped canon sponsored reviewers lying/claiming a stop approx improvement over the 1dx in their videos. I mean I was hoping for 1 or 2 stops because it was a 6d I was upgrading from! But it just looks even the same to that :/ I have ocd over noise so trust me, I over-the-top analysed hehe :/

Still, I'm very happy with the upgrade from a functional perspective, it's amazing!


----------



## scottkinfw (May 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > brianftpc said:
> ...



Thank you Neuro. I noted that but you were the first to mention it. Glad I'm not going crazy, just ordered my 1DX II. I will be stepping up from 5DIII directly, so if the 1DXII isn't a quantum leap over the 1DX, that won't matter at all to me. Even if it is a hair better than the I, it will be a big step up, and the price certainly is excellent, especially with the card and card reader included.

Unlike OP, I am thrilled and can't wait to get my camera (B&H said end of month).

sek


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2. Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement. Clearly they were saying what they needed to say to get the camera early or free. So where does Canon go from here. What will the next 1D body have to offer to compel people to buy it. Canon is going to need more than uncompressed 4k HDMI out or 6k internally.....or 18fps. The quality of my light and focus is what makes or breaks a picture and the 1dx 2 failed to give any type of noticeable improvement. You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.
> ...



+1, well said...


----------



## scyrene (May 12, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> In the future, we will see continued high ISO improvement, but using some of the various tricks like control of individual pixels so that those receiving less light will have a longer exposure. There are several patents for that sort of thing. Some of the manufacturers already use some software enhancements to improve high ISO, that's likely the path going forward.



Good point, and reassuring to those of us who never want the improvements to end!  Also, judging especially by the D5, in-camera jpeg processing at higher ISOs is where a lot of progress is still being made. Judging by DPR's studio scene, the raw files don't look much better than the D4s, but some of the highest ISO jpegs are much cleaner.


----------



## romanr74 (May 12, 2016)

GuyF said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > You have to take like 200 pictures to notice that the auto focus has gotten better bc it was already so good.
> ...



ROTFL


----------



## expatinasia (May 12, 2016)

brianftpc said:


> There is ZERO low light ISO quality difference between the 1Dx and 1Dx mk2.
> 
> Every review I saw from these people who got this camera early said it had half-1 stop low light ISO improvement. Clearly they were saying what they needed to say to get the camera early or free. So where does Canon go from here.
> 
> ...



I found your post quite amusing. The 1DX Mark II is going to be better in many ways than the 1DX Mark I. Not just in specs but in price too. In Hong Kong for example the 1DX was around HK$58,000 at launch from memory, the 1DX Mark II is HK$42,000. WOW!

I expect a lot of people who would not normally be buying 1DX cameras to enter the 1D arena, and this will raise many issues.

I do a lot with my 1DX - stills and video - and it is amazing. I will probably upgrade to the 1DX Mark II towards the end of the year.

ISO is not a big deal for me, and frankly Sony do not have the lenses to compete in the pro-field. But even if they did, I will stick with Canon, I know the CPS guys well over the years, they help me a lot and there is 0 reason to change.


----------



## Besisika (May 12, 2016)

OK,
1DX II is the only full frame high fps sport camera that can detect flicker and for someone shooting in dark high school gym like you and I, you should value that very much.

If you are like me and that the only shots that really matter are the ones where the puck is about to leave the gloves of the goalie, or the punch just broke the jaw then you would appreciate the much better auto focus of the 1DX II. It is way snappier, it holds that focus much longer and regain it faster, which in turn allows you to get closer to 12 fps, while on the original good luck in having 7 or 8fps.

Back to the high ISO, I agree with you, me too I don't see much of improvement especially in the mid tones quantity wise, again shooting in dark high school gyms. These people claiming 1 stop improvements shoot outdoor or in well lit labs. 
However (however, however, however) the 1DX II detains remarkably more detail and sharpness in the "in focus" portion of the photos. Bring your photos to Photoshop and do your standard post, then create a composite layer (Ctl+Shift+Alt+E), apply a noise reduction until you like the noise level at the background, create a mask and paint away the noise reduction on the in focus portion of the photo, compare 3200 from the 1DX vs 6400 and 12800 from the II and see for yourself the difference. Don't take my word and don't expect any photo from me either.
Not the best solution for JPEG shooter who had to deliver the photo right away, but if you have the time to post, the II has more latitude left for you to make it a keeper.
Just my 2 cents. 
I am very happy with mine, especially that I bought it for the DPAF on video.


----------



## lux (May 13, 2016)

I was never going to buy a 1dxii. Too expensive. However, if the next generation of full,frame cameras has no,iso improvement then I would probably be happy with a used 5d3. A step up,from my 6d and likely coming down in price. Had there been an iso improvement it would have been harder not to upgrade.


----------



## KiagiJ (May 13, 2016)

lux said:


> I was never going to buy a 1dxii. Too expensive. However, if the next generation of full,frame cameras has no,iso improvement then I would probably be happy with a used 5d3. A step up,from my 6d and likely coming down in price. Had there been an iso improvement it would have been harder not to upgrade.



Getting a 5d3 would be a downgrade in iso as the 6d is cleaner, that's why I got a 6d instead of a 5d3, also can't focus in lower light as good, 6d center point -3 ev 5d3 -2. The 6d2 I think is possible to be cleaner than the 1dx2 as they may omit any dpaf, which shares the sensor and may be why the 1dx2 hasn't improved. I may get a 6d2 as a 2nd body to my 1dx2 for high ISO if this is the case. The 5d4 if it has dpaf will likely have the same iso as before if this is the cause of iso stagnation


----------



## lux (May 13, 2016)

Hmm it seems ill just to wait and see. I can do most things I want with 6d 7dii and 70d


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 13, 2016)

So many improvements on the 1dx mark ii that its silly to compare on just sensor noise alone. The improvement as a system is rather huge with incremental improvements in almost all areas. Ive been running it through the mill shooting night sports at iso 51200. Never could concieve of that with my 5d3 and on the original 1dx those shots were not very pleasing but i could make them work with dxo optics pro.

Is it worth the money to buy one? Depends on how bad your GAS is and wether you have good stuff to trade in. Every feature added is worth the money if you need/desire those features. If its out of your budget then a 5diii will get you close...but you dont get 4k video and dual pixel af with touch screen with a 5d mark iii, you dont get 14fps burst, you dont get illuminated af points so you can see them in the dark, you dont get the improved af servo iii for faster and more accurate af tracking, you dont get gps tagging if thats your thing, and you dont get weather sealing like the 1dx so you can keep shooting when the weather is bad. Shall i go on?

My bank account is quite a bit less though because of it.


----------

