Canon Ambassador Jeff Ascough has some initial thoughts on shooting weddings with the EOS-1D X Mark II.
He normally finds the 1D-series too heavy and lacking a silent shutter for weddings, so he is not the main target for this camera, but still have input that people might find interesting. He has this to say about the high ISO performance:
At these ISO levels, the files retain all of the Canon qualities I love, but with very organic noise and exceptional shadow detail. As silly as this sounds, this DSLR at high ISO takes very ‘film-like’ images, and that makes me very happy.
At CP, a Japanese shared his photos taken with 1Dx II at Yellowstone park in winter. He basically focused on wildlife. Some later pix in part 2 were taken in Japan. The big eyed primate was at iso 51k.
Stoffer wrote:
Canon Ambassador Jeff Ascough has some initial thoughts on shooting weddings with the EOS-1D X Mark II.
At these ISO levels, the files retain all of the Canon qualities I love, but with very organic noise and exceptional shadow detail. As silly as this sounds, this DSLR at high ISO takes very ‘film-like’ images, and that makes me very happy.
Hard to really tell anything from those web images. I don't really see anything that my 1DX hasn't given me already. With LR already having the RAW capability to deal with the 1DX2 Canon needs to start getting RAW's out there.
Stoffer wrote:
Canon Ambassador Jeff Ascough has some initial thoughts on shooting weddings with the EOS-1D X Mark II.
Jeff has lots of thoughts always about new Canon cameras. The 5D2 was so nice because it was small and convenient for weddings. Then the 1D4 was so good at higher ISO so he used that for weddings. Then the 5D3 was so nice and small and good AF etc etc. Now he's back to 1D size again? Wait until the 5D4 comes out. He'll switch back in a heart beat.
I think Jeff is a brilliant photographer and I admire his work. His opinions on Canon gear not so much. But that's just me.
The 1DX II also has another silent mode that shoots 60fps at 8mp. It's called 4k video. Most birds by the way flap their wings at 5 to10x a second. Want that perfect pose? Use video. You'll get all the fractions of a entire wing beat.
ggreene wrote:
Hard to really tell anything from those web images. I don't really see anything that my 1DX hasn't given me already.
Yeah, impossible to tell from web images. Maybe his comment is worth something, maybe not.
ggreene wrote:
With LR already having the RAW capability to deal with the 1DX2 Canon needs to start getting RAW's out there.
Exactly. Playing with the raw files yourself in your raw converter of choice is really the only thing that should count. The acceptable balance between detail and noise reduction is very personally, so don't trust others blindly.
AJay wrote:
The 1DX II also has another silent mode that shoots 60fps at 8mp. It's called 4k video. Most birds by the way flap their wings at 5 to10x a second. Want that perfect pose? Use video. You'll get all the fractions of a entire wing beat.
I wonder how fast the camera can AF while shooting the video and how well it t can adapt to erratic subject movement.
AJay wrote:
The 1DX II also has another silent mode that shoots 60fps at 8mp. It's called 4k video. Most birds by the way flap their wings at 5 to10x a second. Want that perfect pose? Use video. You'll get all the fractions of a entire wing beat.
I'm horrible when it comes to video detailed knowledge but what shutter speed is used for those frames? Is it enough to completely stop motion?
So you can select 1/2000 for 1000 frame rate and use the stills? Interesting.
All in all there are many interesting features not seen in the previous bodies that may swing my decision towards the mkII. On my list are even better than 1Dx high ISO noise performance, decent DR, better AF low light sensitivity, multiple f/8 AF points and now this neat video feature. Plus the benefits of shooting more than 6fps. Also, 20 mp is the perfect file size for my work. Can't wait to play with the RAWs.
rabbitmountain wrote:
So you can select 1/2000 for 1000 frame rate and use the stills? Interesting.
Of course not. You can shoot 1/2000 exposures at 30fps or 60fps, just like any other shutter speed. You wouldn't use those short shutter speeds for video, though.
Sorry guys that was silly. Shows I don't know much about video. Let me try again. So for video the rule of thumb is that shutter speed is double the frame rate. then how can I select high shutter speeds like 1/2000? Obviously the camera won't produce 1000 images in a second so ill wind up with 60 images that were shot at 1/2000s. Is this correct? Furthermore, as this breaks the rule of thumb, the images can't be used for video as it won't look natural, still correct?
Think of video as just another high fps continuous mode. You set whatever shutter speed you like for the aperture and ISO combination that produces the results you need, independent of frame rate (to some degree). Just like for stills you set whatever shutter speed you need for shooting at 12/14fps. If you want to grab stills of a high speed action sequence, then set the camera to a high shutter speed like 1/2000. But the tradeoff is if the video is used for actual video, the transitions between frames will look choppy because of the lack of motion blur that normally helps blend frames together.
That said, you'd think there would be some software out there that would take 60fps video shot at short shutter speeds and do some image blending when converting to 24 or30 fps
Ok thanks a lot for your patience and elaborate reply. I would surely be interested to see that effect with my own eyes. I thought motion pictures are still 25fps and when I'm in the cinema I still notice the choppy frame rate. But I guess those 25 images contain enough motion blur to provide a natural viewing experience.
Anyway it's good to know we can shoot 60 8mp stills per second at high shutter speeds. Very interesting. That is almost 1DmkIII resolution, which was once considered enough for many types of photography.
I'm clearly not the normal viewing person as I really don't like the amount of blur at 24fps, especially pans. I prefer 60fps, but shot at 1/120 for video. For still grabs only shoot at shorter shutter speeds if the action is faster.
Just to clarify, this nothing unique to the 1DX II. There are plenty of other mirrorless cameras nowadays that take 4k video, most at a max of 30 fps. I have used them on occasion to successfully record fast moving birds.
As stated by others, video looks most pleasing when the shutter speed is twice the frame rate, but DSLRs and mirrorless cameras that have video capability can vary the shutter speed to be much, much faster. It will look stuttery when viewed as a video, but individual frames will look sharp.
By the way, it doesn't have to be filmed in motion jpg to obtain individual frames. I commonly take 4k video footage (from Sony and Panasonic mirrorless cameras) and bring it directly into PS for editing.
What is different with the 1DX II is that it will record 60fps in 4k. That's twice the speed of most other 4k capable cameras on the market unless you get into really expensive video cameras. The question however is what is the quality of the 1DX II's 60fps 4k video?
As an example of how you can use 4k video to capture birds-in-flight, here is a composite of an American Kestrel flying into a nest cavity (stove pipe) carrying a mouse. It was taken with a Panasonic GH4 attached to a Canon 600mm lens. It was filmed at 30p (30fps) with a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec.:
AJay wrote:
Just to clarify, this nothing unique to the 1DX II. There are plenty of other mirrorless cameras nowadays that take 4k video, most at a max of 30 fps. I have used them on occasion to successfully record fast moving birds.
As stated by others, video looks most pleasing when the shutter speed is twice the frame rate, but DSLRs and mirrorless cameras that have video capability can vary the shutter speed to be much, much faster. It will look stuttery when viewed as a video, but individual frames will look sharp.
By the way, it doesn't have to be filmed in motion jpg to obtain individual frames. I commonly take 4k video footage (from Sony and Panasonic mirrorless cameras) and bring it directly into PS for editing.
What is different with the 1DX II is that it will record 60fps in 4k. That's twice the speed of most other 4k capable cameras on the market unless you get into really expensive video cameras. The question however is what is the quality of the 1DX II's 60fps 4k video?
As an example of how you can use 4k video to capture birds-in-flight, here is a composite of an American Kestrel flying into a nest cavity (stove pipe) carrying a mouse. It was taken with a Panasonic GH4 attached to a Canon 600mm lens. It was filmed at 30p (30fps) with a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec.:
Just to clarify, this nothing unique to the 1DX II. There are plenty of other mirrorless cameras nowadays that take 4k video, most at a max of 30 fps. I have used them on occasion to successfully record fast moving birds.
As stated by others, video looks most pleasing when the shutter speed is twice the frame rate, but DSLRs and mirrorless cameras that have video capability can vary the shutter speed to be much, much faster. It will look stuttery when viewed as a video, but individual frames will look sharp.
By the way, it doesn't have to be filmed in motion jpg to obtain individual frames. I commonly take 4k video footage (from Sony and Panasonic mirrorless cameras) and bring it directly into PS for editing.
What is different with the 1DX II is that it will record 60fps in 4k. That's twice the speed of most other 4k capable cameras on the market unless you get into really expensive video cameras. The question however is what is the quality of the 1DX II's 60fps 4k video?
As an example of how you can use 4k video to capture birds-in-flight, here is a composite of an American Kestrel flying into a nest cavity (stove pipe) carrying a mouse. It was taken with a Panasonic GH4 attached to a Canon 600mm lens. It was filmed at 30p (30fps) with a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec.:
I'm interested in how did you extract the image you posted? I'm assuming the camera was either standing still or the bird entered the frame quickly and the camera movement was minimal in comparison?
