Thank you Nils, that review I like better. It shows some intelligent comparo methodology, and the conclusions, while perhaps debateable, at least do not sound far fetched.
I guess his bottom line is that 1DXII has exceeded his expectations re metering, AF tracking and ISO noise. Fair enough.
Good to see further confirmation that the gap "could be" larger then expected between the 1DX2/1DX especially with a test in a sports venue but I'm still reserving judgment until I read/watch something from an independent source.
jcolwell wrote:
Resolution is determined by pixel density. Both the 1DIV (175 ppmm) and 1DsIII (156 ppmm) have higher pixel density than the 1DX (144 ppmm).
I've used all three of these cameras extensively. I sold my 1DsIII to get the 1DX when the X first arrived, because I wanted a full frame, high-fps body to shoot alongside my 1DIV. Now, I use the 1DX more often than the 1DIV, because the 1DX is a better camera from almost every perspective. OTOH, I still use the 1DX and 1DIV together, whenever I'm shooting action or shooting in really bad weather, and the 1DIV is my go-to camera for most focal length-limited situations (e.g. BIF with 1DIV + 4500/4L IS). The 1DIV and 1DsIII are still excellent cameras, but the 1DX is better. ...Show more →
The 1dx is better, but is it three times better? Personally, at today's prices, you can easily have two, realsitically three 1d mk IV's for the price of a single 1dx.
gordorad wrote:
The 1dx is better, but is it three times better? Personally, at today's prices, you can easily have two, realsitically three 1d mk IV's for the price of a single 1dx.
At high ISO, yes.
P.S. "today's prices" aren't particularly relevant to my decision making. I bought both the 1DX and 1DIV when they were new. Each one was well worth the price.
ggreene wrote:
Good to see further confirmation that the gap "could be" larger then expected between the 1DX2/1DX especially with a test in a sports venue but I'm still reserving judgment until I read/watch something from an independent source.
At the end of the article, like he was going to say "There wasn't much difference between them". While the gap between the the two bodies should be noticeable, your wallet as usual is where it will be significant. His images at 1000 - 2000 iso @ 1/1600, that's no high-iso for sports. Something to be said for the metering if that's been significantly improved to deal with shadows.
If I recall the 1dx to shoot 12fps has to be at 1/1000 minimum, at 14fps I'd think it's up a bit which is maybe why all his shots were at 1/1600.
Yeah, that's why I am waiting to see a 1DX2 vs. 1DX comparison in the 6400-12800 ISO range before I make any decision. That's where I shoot a lot of indoor sports. I don't know why but I just have a feeling I'm going to look at it and say, "meh".
adamx12m wrote:
If I recall the 1dx to shoot 12fps has to be at 1/1000 minimum, at 14fps I'd think it's up a bit which is maybe why all his shots were at 1/1600.
My experience shooting sports has been that 1/1600 and higher is desirable to minimize subject motion blur. It becomes rather more noticeable at 1/1000 and of course when lower than that. This was first more evident with the 1DIV, which compared to the 1DIII was of course higher pixel density. With cameras like the 1DII my general rule was 1/800 and 1/640 was definitely preferable over 1/500, which was kind of the golden standard of the film era (trying to get to 1/500 @ f/2.8 shooting night sports back then was a challenge).
JaimitoFrog wrote:
here's some amateur shots of the viewfinder in action, looks like AI-Servo with center Large Zone on.
neat stand at Canon for people to try. summer Olympics coming up.
Sounds just as loud as the 1DX, unfortunately.
Stoffer wrote:
Some more impressions, this time from Canon Explorer Ángel Martínez:
"Regarding the new autofocus system, I had already seen the improvement in tracking and speed-servo AF in previous days, but this match also showed that performance in strong backlight situations is very good. It all related to the increase in frames-per-second which allowed me more images to choose from for decisive moments."
Interestingly, this is very similar to my feelings about the 1DX vs. the 1DIV back in 2012. I was skeptical about the on-paper differences but was pleasantly surprised with the more consistent AF that coupled with higher fps rate considerably increased my productivity at sports events.
On the note of high fps, here is another interesting improvement:
When doing 14 fps in live view on the original 1D X, you could only shoot in jpeg and the live view screen would go blank.
On the Mark II, you can now shoot 16 fps in raw, and the screen will no longer go blank while you rattle all those shots off. This means that you can now pan and follow your subject like a mirrorless pro.
AF and exposure is still locked of course, but if you can pre focus on where the action will happen, like an athlete jumping over a bar, those 16 fps might be a whole lot more useful than the 14 fps on the 1D X. Just something to think about.
Stoffer wrote:
On the Mark II, you can now shoot 16 fps in raw, and the screen will no longer go blank while you rattle all those shots off. This means that you can now pan and follow your subject like a mirrorless pro.
I am sure our bird photography buddy known as "Machine gun" Joe (not his real name) will buy 1DXMkII if only for the ability to fire away at 14/16 FPS.
While many photographers love the sound of their dSLRs at a fast frame rate, "Machine gun" Joe shoots EVERYTHING at 12 FPS using his 1DX, be that a landscape, a portrait, a bird in flight, or a duck slowly drifting on water.
When we shoot the same thing together, he'd take home typically some 3000 shots while on my card I'd have about 300 frames.
At any point of time he has a backlog of tens of thousands of image files he has yet to review and sort out. Obviously most of those images are redundant repeats.
If you ask "Machine gun" Joe, he'd tell you he needs a very fast FPS in order to not miss any action. I do not think that is the real reason. I think he just likes to hear the prattle 12FPS makes because that makes him feel like a "pro". Moreover, the crackling of 1DX going at 12/14 FPS also intimidates other photographers whose "inferior" cameras are limited to "only" 10 or 8 FPS max frame rate.
In reality, when one stands next to "Machine gun" Joe in the field, the incessant fast prattle his camera makes is annoying.
PetKal wrote:
Moreover, the crackling of 1DX going at 12/14 FPS also intimidates other photographers whose "inferior" cameras are limited to "only" 10 or 8 FPS max frame rate.
.
Doing a quick word search on this thread, one gets a repetitive return for the entry of 14/16, (which by the way is not a fraction)! I spend a lot of time in the forest — alone, so 'prattling' is an annoyance only for the four legged creatures. Unfortunately, for the 1Dx, single shot mode can be enough to send wildlife scurrying for whereabouts unknown. Thankfully, there is an alternative solution, the (little bit more) Silent Mode.
One nice attraction of the 1Dx II is the 4/5 silent mode burst, which btw is much faster than my trigger finger works on the current model.
Well, I often photograph pijuns using economy gears such as 135L, 200 f/2.8, 100L and 80-200L on 40D, T6s or 1DsMkII. Whenever I succeed in getting a nice picture or two with such gears, that gives me much satisfaction.
PetKal wrote:
"Machine gun" Joe shoots EVERYTHING at 12 FPS using his 1DX, be that a landscape, a portrait, a bird in flight, or a duck slowly drifting on water.
When we shoot the same thing together, he'd take home typically some 3000 shots while on my card I'd have about 300 frames.
At any point of time he has a backlog of tens of thousands of image files he has yet to review and sort out. Obviously most of those images are redundant repeats.
Peter, no question that your approach is the more smart one and 12 fps is far from needed for everything.
Live view 16 fps is obviously not aimed at BIF at all, since AF and exposure is locked at the first frame. It could be put to good use, however, if one has the imagination to exploit 16 fps and work around the limitations. Maybe one would like to capture the right pose during a golf swing. There is other sports where you will know more or less exactly where the action is going to be but the timing is critical. 16 fps will help you. Or you can shoot with a bit of wide angle to get enough DOF to get the shot even if the athlete is a bit off focus.
As I said, just something to get people's imagination flowing.
Stoffer wrote:
Live view 16 fps is obviously not aimed at BIF at all, since AF and exposure is locked at the first frame. It could be put to good use, however, if one has the imagination to exploit 16 fps and work around the limitations. Maybe one would like to capture the right pose during a golf swing. There is other sports where you will know more or less exactly where the action is going to be but the timing is critical. 16 fps will help you. Or you can shoot with a bit of wide angle to get enough DOF to get the shot even if the athlete is a bit off focus.
Nils, I agree with you, 14/16 FPS may come handy where the action evolution is so fast that one needs to have a commensurately quick stopping action.
I have shot a number of birds in flight where there is 2-3 seconds window of opportunity available, and the birds not only fly fast, they also flap their wings rapidly. I also wanted to get one particular wing attitude, all of which can be best captured by the fastest available frame rate.
However, like any other feature, a less than purposeful use of 12/14/16 FPS results in needless wear of the shutter/mirror mechanisms, it overloads us with redundant files, and it may diminish our mental focus on the target/scene we are photographing.
PetKal wrote:
Well, I often photograph pijuns using economy gears such as 135L, 200 f/2.8, 100L and 80-200L on 40D, T6s or 1DsMkII. Whenever I succeed in getting a nice picture or two with such gears, that gives me much satisfaction.
