Reading mode: Light Dark

Just played with the 1DX & 24-70 II

Go to last post
Alastair Norcross said:
When you say you used spot AF, do you mean the reduced area spot AF like the 7D has, or do you just mean you used one AF point, as opposed to also using the assist points? I'm puzzled as to why this would be better than using the assist points. As I understand it, the assist points only kick in if the single point can't get a high enough contrast area. So you shouldn't do any better without them. Also, since the spot AF, if it's the reduced size AF point, uses a smaller area, it's also not clear why it would be better at locking on. It should be worse. Can't argue with experience, though.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Click to expand...
I used as it was set up, a group of focus points in the middle, 25000 iso dark roof 3 shots off in a blink of touching the shutter all nice and sharp.

Kevin.
 
Modeling lights are usually variable in intensity.

I suspect your issues of AF comes at the Last dance photo. By this time you as a photographer have been snapping hundreds if not 1000s of photos all day long. The mood for most couples has long since past since the kiss at the church. lol

Turning on a dim modeling light briefly is not going to spoil the "mood".

Ever do a wedding with film? That was much more difficult than it is today.

BTW thanks for the review of the new Camera and lens.
 
xerojay said:
That's all we could do for now. Like I said, I'll reserve verdict for the Raw files. The camera's lcd and zooming in was obviously not conclusive, but believe me, when you really get used to a 1DIV, or a 5DII and then handle the 1DX, it's enough to give you an idea - especially when you're holding them side-by-side.
Click to expand...
The ISO 12,800 files I've shot on my 1D Mark IV look fairly clean zoomed in on the LCD.
 
xerojay said:
Both. Smaller point size AND eliminating the assist points.

I don't understand either, but this helped with the 1DIV, and now it looks like it will help with the 1DX. The difference is that the 1DX can use spot focus with all lenses.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks. I didn't know there are lenses the 1DIV can't use spot with. AFAIK, the 7D can use spot with all lenses. I must try switching to spot in low light to see if it works any better on the 7D too.

--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 
xerojay said:
ISO/Noise:

Before today, I was estimating a realistic 1-stop RAW advantage over the 1DIV. After playing with the 1DX, I actually feel like I would be surprised if it were "Only" 2-stops better, and that there's no way the iso improvement that I "felt" could only be jpeg... It really took me by surprise. We've heard other who have tried the 1DX say that iso25,600 looks ridiculously clean. It does.

Put another way, it would take a bloody lot of jpeg magic to make jpeg files look THAT much better than raw...
Click to expand...
Chuck Westfall has already said in multiple interviews that the 2-stop improvement is based on Digic 5+ processing improvements (JPEG) and that the raw improvement is less than that.
 
Horshack said:
Chuck Westfall has already said in multiple interviews that the 2-stop improvement is based on Digic 5+ processing improvements (JPEG) and that the raw improvement is less than that.
Click to expand...
I hope it's more than the equivalent of setting the noise reduction to "strong" on the Mark IV.
 
Keyser Sze said:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/ziv_koren_eos_1dx.do

pre-production and JPegs only, it holds some hope...
Click to expand...
Ziv Koren is happy about the quality of the 18mp. Well. That is fine for journalists and paparazzi, but now that we have a 36mp to compare it to, the 18mp jpeg images when looked at 100% are in my opinion a mixed bag and pixelated, with a lot of NR.

I wish Canon would have produced a 1DX with 21-24mp, 10fps instead of 12; and reduced slightly the iso instead of the stupid 204800.
Just my opinion
 
Why compare it to 36mp? how stupid even Cliff Mautner said his workhorse will be his D4, the 1Dx will go up against the D4, also in no way the 1Dx is as noisy as you claim.
ukat123 said:
Keyser Sze said:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/ziv_koren_eos_1dx.do

pre-production and JPegs only, it holds some hope...
Click to expand...
Ziv Koren is happy about the quality of the 18mp. Well. That is fine for journalists and paparazzi, but now that we have a 36mp to compare it to, the 18mp jpeg images when looked at 100% are in my opinion a mixed bag and pixelated, with a lot of NR.

I wish Canon would have produced a 1DX with 21-24mp, 10fps instead of 12; and reduced slightly the iso instead of the stupid 204800.
Just my opinion
Click to expand...
 
To me, a two stop improvement in iso would mean a lot of savings!

No need for a 24 1.4, 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 coz a 24-70 2.8 II will be able to handle most situations. No need to carry around a 2nd body too (other than as a backup on the sideline). ill keep the 50L for dreamy/ bokeh shots.
Horshack said:
xerojay said:
ISO/Noise:

Before today, I was estimating a realistic 1-stop RAW advantage over the 1DIV. After playing with the 1DX, I actually feel like I would be surprised if it were "Only" 2-stops better, and that there's no way the iso improvement that I "felt" could only be jpeg... It really took me by surprise. We've heard other who have tried the 1DX say that iso25,600 looks ridiculously clean. It does.

Put another way, it would take a bloody lot of jpeg magic to make jpeg files look THAT much better than raw...
Click to expand...
Chuck Westfall has already said in multiple interviews that the 2-stop improvement is based on Digic 5+ processing improvements (JPEG) and that the raw improvement is less than that.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like it matches the MTFs (which predicted a much larger increase compared to the old 24-70 than the 70-200 2.8 IS II is over the I and that it will beat the new 24 2.8 IS prime and match or beat the 24 1.4 II stopped down!).

I had hopes it would be, perhaps, the best non-totally esoteric zoom lens ever produced.
xerojay said:
It was perfect. I don't know what else to say. It was lighter and tighter. It focused insanely fast. Most importantly, it was ridiculously sharp throughout the entire frame, at any focal length. It has that same "contrasty micro-detail" look, similar to the 70-200 II. No fringing or softness in the in-focus area. It just made my 24-70 feel antiquated.

It just felt like you could pop it on a theoretical 80mp body and shoot wide open. Like even the 7D's sensor wouldn't break a sweat at 2.8.

You just know. Just like the 70-200 II, which until now had set the bar for me.

I actually started a thread last weak calling Canon "Out of their minds" for asking $2300 for this lens...
...(Tail between my legs) It's worth it. I'm going to order one tomorrow.

Also, I was told between 4 to 6 weeks before the absolute first batches begin to hit shelves.

--
http://www.jamiesondean.com/blog
Click to expand...
 
bronxbombers said:
Sounds like it matches the MTFs (which predicted a much larger increase compared to the old 24-70 than the 70-200 2.8 IS II is over the I and that it will beat the new 24 2.8 IS prime and match or beat the 24 1.4 II stopped down!).

I had hopes it would be, perhaps, the best non-totally esoteric zoom lens ever produced.
Click to expand...
Hey knock it off.........if Canon hears these accolades they'll jack the price up to $2499
--
Regards,
Hank

 
Hank3152 said:
bronxbombers said:
Sounds like it matches the MTFs (which predicted a much larger increase compared to the old 24-70 than the 70-200 2.8 IS II is over the I and that it will beat the new 24 2.8 IS prime and match or beat the 24 1.4 II stopped down!).

I had hopes it would be, perhaps, the best non-totally esoteric zoom lens ever produced.
Click to expand...
Hey knock it off.........if Canon hears these accolades they'll jack the price up to $2499
--
Click to expand...
actually I just head from a friend who tried it and he said that he doubted it's worht more than the current one, said the Mark II really didn't impress him at all....
 
With all due respect to the overwhelming enthusiasm of the TO, we have yet to see some evidence of that new ueber-lens.

Putting an article like that online in advance would be a fine strategy to increase the number of pre-orders for an unborn product. It is still Canon we're talking about, not Zeiss or Leica, and 2.300 bucks might be a new lesson to learn the hard way.

But that's just me, maybe I'm wrong.
 
This lens gets the same coatings as the 24L II which turned out to be a huge improvement over the original 24L for outdoors shooting (but of course, no lens is failsafe against flare & glare). I am excited by the 24-70 II but fear it will not be available in time for my first photo trip of the year next coming in August. I am hoping the early adopter pricing will be gone by Aug.
xerojay said:
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.
Click to expand...
--

Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
 
So.. if you didn't use your own CF card.. are your observations solely from LCD chimping after shooting?
xerojay said:
They actually didn't have any tape over the CF door. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was brave enough to snag some Raws today.
Michael Todd said:
I assume they did not let you use your own CF cards?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron
 
SpartanWarrior said:
Why compare it to 36mp? how stupid even Cliff Mautner said his workhorse will be his D4, the 1Dx will go up against the D4, also in no way the 1Dx is as noisy as you claim.
ukat123 said:
Keyser Sze said:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/ziv_koren_eos_1dx.do

pre-production and JPegs only, it holds some hope...
Click to expand...
Ziv Koren is happy about the quality of the 18mp. Well. That is fine for journalists and paparazzi, but now that we have a 36mp to compare it to, the 18mp jpeg images when looked at 100% are in my opinion a mixed bag and pixelated, with a lot of NR.

I wish Canon would have produced a 1DX with 21-24mp, 10fps instead of 12; and reduced slightly the iso instead of the stupid 204800.
Just my opinion
Click to expand...
Once again, 18mp is a poor upgrade and they should have gone for 21-24mp in the D1X. I don't see who can make use of this stupid 204800 iso. But I DO SEE who can make use of more cropping capabilities.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top