skibum5 wrote:
Will Patterson wrote:
I've been shooting digital for 8 years now and still don't understand why people worry so much about shadow noise. Expose it properly and it's a non-issue.

Because if the scene has a fair amount of DR you are in trouble with a correct exposure. You think everyone goes around not exposing properly on purpose and then complaining? (that said, even for mistakes, who wouldn't want to be able to rescue them)



Actually, yea, I think some people do just to find something to talk about, to be honest.

And these guys are cranking up the exposure by 3 stops in post, you'd never do that in post on a normal basis.

Will Patterson wrote:


Actually, yea, I think some people do just to find something to talk about, to be honest.

And these guys are cranking up the exposure by 3 stops in post, you'd never do that in post on a normal basis.

You might not do 3 stops recovery on a regular basis, but 1 or 2 stops recovery is not uncommon at all. Sometime the scene DR is just two much to capture without certain parts getting very dark and needing recovery. Other times you capture a moment where you didn't have time to adjust exposure and it comes out dark, and so on. Though its not to say that 1Dx did poorly, it might not be as good as D4 in that but the differences are probably not going to be noticeable at normal viewing sizes or print sizes. And at the end of the day it was obviously not the most important consideration for those photographers as the Nikon D4 guy eventually decided to switch over to Canon.

AGeoJO wrote:
LivLif wrote:
Great review! I can't believe the Canon is 3 times faster on AF speed.

Well, you are selling your D4, are you not ? Just kidding....

That the AF of the 1DX is 3X faster is indeed hard to believe although it seems to be that way under that particular shooting condition. In addition, I have to say that the AF of the 70-200mm Mark II lens is superfast. I never used the Nikon counterpart before. For all we know, a part of the reason that they came to that conclusion is partly attributed to the difference in AF speed of the respective lenses.


not really. when canon actually tries, historically they have always had the faster af speed.

the last 8 years they just couldn't be bothered it seemed.

I have found that only RARELY have I needed to recover more than a stop or so. I mean once every few years.
Anyway the recovery test on this blog post shows that the Canon file looks sharper. If they applied some NR, I wonder if the Canon file would still be sharper, but without the noise...

Got my 1DX today at the office. Walked around in the dark warehouse shooting at ISO 40,000 in JPG mode and am blown away by the quality of the photos. Wow.

My D3 has a setting that slows down the response from far to near so that if a referee at a football game runs between me and the guy getting creamed the camera ignores him. Focus Tracking with Lock. Mine is on normal because I shoot bands and peoples arms get in the way. If the arm flashes through the scene it doesn't eliminate the lock on the band.

w-image wrote:
My D3 has a setting that slows down the response from far to near so that if a referee at a football game runs between me and the guy getting creamed the camera ignores him. Focus Tracking with Lock. Mine is on normal because I shoot bands and peoples arms get in the way. If the arm flashes through the scene it doesn't eliminate the lock on the band.

The 1series have always had a range of settings which affect that.
The problem is that many people assume that it works one way but the reality is that it works backwards to their thinking - reading the manual always helps here.