Yes, he is a Canon Ambassador. Yes it is done by CPN. Yes, he only shot jpeg. And yes, the camera was pre-production. But still, we have so little feedback on this elusive camera that everything counts.
Some tidsbits:
”From my testing, and looking at the images I produced, I think that [ISO] 25,600 is about the same in terms of noise performance as the EOS-1D Mark IV is when shooting around 4,000 to 5,000 ISO.”
“… the results from the camera were so good, the printer I use for my exhibition prints even noticed the difference in the files. He was making 120x80cm exhibition prints from the JPEGs I’d shot. The difference in image quality was sufficient for him to call me and ask what camera I was now using because these files where so clear and sharp compared to previous images!”
"With all other cameras you have to make a compromise somewhere. With the EOS-1D X, you don’t make compromises… anywhere. The most annoying thing about having had the camera for a shoot was that I had to return it. It’s the best tool I’ve ever worked with."
Sounds great. I just would like to see an ISO 25k shot and I ask myself, why he was not allowed/able to shoot raw.
"I have been very skeptical about the "2-stop" claims. I'm no longer skeptical. I was mainly using the body at iso25,600, and to be honest, it truly felt like the 1DIV at iso3200 or better. ... "
"24-70 II: Damn. The biggest surprise of the day. Now I need one. It was perfect. Literally. This thing will be more legendary than any other Canon lens.
Except for the price. "
I like the fact that he was honest about what he used it for and that he wasn't stressing it particularly in the areas it's been most updated in. He wasn't gushing and that makes it as a review much more palateable for all that he's a canon spokesman.
The new digic V can apply much more sophisticated processing to in-camera jpeg images, but a personal computer already can do better from Raw images.
If we get 1 stop better using Raw over the 1DS MK III, that would be suprising. They are comparing jpeg images with old processing versus jpeg with new processing. With raw. we can compare them with the same processing to see hhow much better, and I don't expect much, but hope I'm wrong.
Beni wrote:
I like the fact that he was honest about what he used it for and that he wasn't stressing it particularly in the areas it's been most updated in.
Yeah. "I like your new camera, Canon, but just like 99% of photographers I don't need any of the new features and capabilities you've put in it."
(I know he used some of them.)
I liked this bit from CPN: "The new sensor technology has meant increased ability to capture shadows and highlights..."
I am just not excited about high ISO. I'm sure it will be useful for some people... but like I said, noise is only one factor in IQ and for fashion/landscape, don't see high ISO being a selling point when DR plummets and color is wacky and details are mushy, but wow, hey the image has no noise!
Stoffer wrote:
Send me a EOS-1D X and I will tell you!
But yes, I agree that detail retention and color fidelity is crucial. Don't know about DR at ISO 25K though.
Sounds great. I just would like to see an ISO 25k shot and I ask myself, why he was not allowed/able to shoot raw.
He shoot in both raw & jpeg but had no software to view RAW files...
ZK: “Because I had the camera so early in the production cycle, the DPP software for RAW conversion was not yet available, so, although I was shooting in both RAW and JPEG, the only images I have so far seen have been the JPEGs – all the images included here are from the JPEGs.
chez wrote:
Seems odd no raw images. I've heard the jpeg's processing was really improved in the 1dx...but maybe not so much with raw files.
yes exactly, because of noise reduction on jpgs, but geez I want at least two stops improvement on RAWS...and why, why, no samples out there yet of files over ISO 1600 (?) where there is smoke there is fire....
pompo wrote:
yes exactly, because of noise reduction on jpgs, but geez I want at least two stops improvement on RAWS...and why, why, no samples out there yet of files over ISO 1600 (?) where there is smoke there is fire....
I believe Chuck Westfall has already come out and said that the 2-stops is only jpegs and didn't give any value for Raws. I would guess maximum 1-stop and probably around 3/4 or so.
drobertfranz wrote:
He shoot in both raw & jpeg but had no software to view RAW files...
ZK: “Because I had the camera so early in the production cycle, the DPP software for RAW conversion was not yet available, so, although I was shooting in both RAW and JPEG, the only images I have so far seen have been the JPEGs – all the images included here are from the JPEGs.
Yes. Thank you. Oversaw this somehow.
His description of the printer asking, what camera he was shooting gives me a good feeling. "because these files where so clear and sharp compared to previous images!"
I am pretty sure, his older pictures where develloped raws.
Given that they have i'd imagine just finished the final tweaks in RAW algorithms etc prior to a March release i really think they are only now finding out what its capable of.
If its 2 stops in JPG given the bigger pixels and FF who knows how much better a final print may look.
And prints will always be the ultimate test not 100% screen view which has never been an effective comparison.
Getting 1 stop extra out of RAW isn't really impressive considering the price tag. The image of the boy in the article didn't look that impressive to me at ISO 1600. There's still a good bit of noise and this was a JPG so they're expecting RAW performance to be sub par to this? Hmmmm...... My interest in a new camera is high ISO. Clean 12,800 is the magic spot for me for weddings but low ISO performance is just as important for commercial shooting. Even the 5D2 can shoot decent 6400 but the issue is if your flash didn't ETTL correctly there's not a lick of room to adjust exposure in post because the image will fall apart.
The one thing that bothers me is that Canon has said the noise improvements will only really be seen when shooting .jpg. The RAW files will be less of an improvement.
Nothing new here, typical new camera rhetoric The 1ds3 was supposed to blow the 1Ds2 away, less noise blah blah blah. The 1D4 was supposed to blow the 1D3 away but only provided a better working focusing system and a few other do dads. Canon told us 21MP was supposed to blow 16MP away. Now they tell us 16MP blows 21MP away and again has an improved focusing system. However the 1DX can't focus at F8. I still have tack sharp 13X19 prints from older generation 1D2 and 2n bodies that are not blown away by my 1D4. So where is the beef is my question? A $6800 question!
. I still have tack sharp 13X19 prints from older generation 1D2 and 2n bodies that are not blown away by my 1D4. So where is the beef is my question? A $6800 question!