1D X review and iso tests - Holy sh**!

T

tombu

Member
http://blog.martinbaileyphotography.com/2012/06/27/podcast-341-canon-eos-1d-x-digital-slr-review/

MBP_1DX_Comparison_Shots_20120624_0704.jpg
 
i dont believe that the picture is 25,600 ISO. I can not. No no no! That's not possible for it to be 25600 and not have crazy noise.
 
Mind=Blown

Canon absolutely nailed Digic 5 after the horrendous digic 4. Can't wait to see what they come up with for the entry level FF camera.
 
Sick camera if you ask me. Don't know why everyone is hating on it - like on ALL Canon products after the t2i on here. I'll say it again and again, but Canon puts out some great products.
 
GREAT camera for weddings too, apart from sports of course. The low-light capabilities on this are sick.

Great cam for pretty much anything really. If I only had 8k$ to blow...
 
Yes and no. Even though I shoot Canon I've always been jealous of Nikon's bodies. I think that Nikon makes better ones, the d7000 almost made me switch systems, if Canon doesn't nail the d600 equiv I just might. I do think that Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, which is one reason I stuck with them.
 
I think its funny how Canon makes lenses with WORSE glass in them and then charges out the ass for the BOMB L glass. While at the same time, nikon makes all of their lenses with the same top of the line glass. Plus, canons focus the wrong way! ;)
 
WRONGG!!!!!

Nikon does use "better" and "worse" glass in its lenses. They may not say it, but they definitely do. Their vintage stuff was across the board very high quality, but their are newer lenses with inferior optics and coatings.

Oh, and Nikon is asshat backwards with their lenses ;) Cine direction lenses have infinity to the right
 
haha yeah i know i was joking about the focus stuff.

thats interesting, i thought nikon just used the same glass for everything. I still like the fact they don't talk it up though, cause i feel like everyone has a hard on for canon L glass.
 
Yeah, ask any photog/video guy (dslr or similar) if he wanted to use a nikon 70-200 f2.8 or canon 70-200 2.8 and 99 out 100 times i bet they'd pick canon OMG L GLASS.
 
It's funny because I was entirely unimpressed with every variant of the Canon 70-200 L I've used...boring optics, no aperture ring, crazy distortion...

I feel like Nikon pays more attention to the little things that often go overlooked. For instance, the 80-200 2.8 has a recessed front element. The Canon has technically more accurate optics, but to me this is a flaw. Lens choice should be a more artistic process than choosing which one has less character or accuracy.

Also, it's easier to brand a product line with a common cosmetic theme and name like "L" than it is to brand a "FX VRII" lens that looks the same as their $200 lens. If it doesn't look more expensive, how will people know you have expensive equipment??
 
You can deny it, but photography/video is largely about appearance. Who would you rather hire to shoot your wedding; a classy, young, well dressed person or a fat, old, sweaty, balding guy. Same thing with equipment, if you look more pro people will think that you are more pro, regardless of your images. Photography/video is about selling yourself to the client, and appearance is a huge part of that.

Classic example, Terry Richardson got so much shit when he started using a P&S for his work instead of a hasselblad or SLR. Now a little ways down the road every hipster kid and their dog has a Yashica T4/5.
 
I never denied it. I just think caring how you look (or how others look) is fucking stupid and childish.
 
I didn't directly mean to say you where the one denying it, it was a general statement. I too think it is dumb, but try and tell that to a client who is paying a lot of money for you to shoot a wedding where re-shooting isn't an option.
 
Idk why everyone is hating on canon glass. Is it expensive? Yeah. But some invalid points are brought up, not to mention personal opinion plays a vital role in choosing glass. Why do i need an aperture ring if im shooting on a canon body? I dont. I think there are a lot of bias opinions in this thread
 
All that matters is your final product. And obviously a nice piece of L glass can help you get that product.
 
Might have came off wrong with that. What Im trying to say is that your opinion towards Canon is kinda flawed IMO. If your trying to use it on a gh2 or fs100, then you would be correct. Anyway, MOST people that own Canon glass are using it on a Canon body, correct? So why should it matter if there is an aperture ring on it? 99% of the people using this glass is using a t2i/7d. Also, saying the 70-200L has poor optics is just a false statement. I dont have an extensive amount of knowledge on other glass, but this lens does not disappoint me nor many other people. I know theres a ton of hype with the gh2 and shit, but I dont know why people are still ripping on Canon. I agree that their L series lenses are over priced, but you get what you pay for. Nikons equivalents are around the same price, they just dont have the "L" symbol on it. For example, Nikons 80-200 is around the same price point as Canons 70-200 f/2.8L. You also say Canons glass is flawed because it technically has better optics, but choosing a lens should be more artistic? What is that supposed to even mean? You cant say that their glass is "flawed" because of that. Your being way to bias towards Canon just because you have a gh2. Even if Nikons glass is better in the outrun, stop saying that Canons glass is complete trash.

end rant/
 
Bravo.

Well said. I've had it with the Canon-hate on here. Canons glass is awesome, as is Nikons. And to say Canon glass is more expensive as well is bullshit. Both are equally way-too-fucking-expensive.

 
What I mean is that for some people optical accuracy isn't the holy grail of image quality. Some people place more emphasis on optical characteristics (or flaws) because they find it more aesthetically relevant. I can understand why someone would want quality optics, and Canon L glass is far from not having it's own character; it just isn't a character I prefer. Optical quality matters to a degree, but I think it's silly to rank lenses as technological feats rather than their subjective aesthetic value.

I wasn't aware my opinions were supposed to be unbiased. I never said Canon glass was "trash," and even if I did-what does it matter? These are inanimate objects. It isn't something worth getting butt hurt over.
 
Bottom line is that if your image is creative and actually SAYS something, nobody is going to give a shit about edge sharpness, aberrations, distortion, contrast, or which way you turn the focus ring. Glass quality between brands now is so close it doesn't even matter. Shoot film and fuck bitches.
 
Im not getting butt hurt about it, I just dont know why your giving such a bad name for Canon ever since you switched over to a gh2.
 
This has kind of been addressed in another thread, but your image should bring you a sense of satisfaction. If there are things about your image that annoy you (such as CA, distortion, whatever) why settle? Who cares if other people will notice, do what you can to make your work as satisfying to yourself as possible. The focus ring thing is another matter because that can really mess with your head if you're switching lens brands.

And glass quality is not the only thing being debated here. I don't see myself buying many more, if any, other Canon lenses because they don't have an aperture ring on the lens. That's a point worth noting and something that highly irritates me about Canon's way of doing things.

Let's not forget this is a media and arts forum. It's a great place for people to geek out and debate over edge sharpness, aberrations, distortion, and contrast.
 
In all fairness I've disliked Canon L glass long before they had video DSLRs. I was hesitant to buy the 7D in the first place but decided to take a chance. I ended up being less than pleased with it, so I moved on. Me using a GH2 has nothing to do with it.
 
after much thought, i would like to rescind my previous statement.....

however, for most people the 50mm 1.4 is just fine

that being said, i would love to own the 1.2L
 
Canon's 50's all are mediocre, compared to the others in the respected range.

Rokkor-X 58 1.2 > 50L

Sigma 50 1.4 > Canon 1.4, and arguably the 50L too if you have a good copy

Pretty much any ~1.8 > Canon's...
 
Yes, the 50L is overpriced, but it is one hell of a sharp lens. Zeiss also makes a 50mm 1.4, considering one as an upgrade from my nifty fifty.
 
man... 50s are 50s. They are all sharp. It the character of the bokeh you really need to discern as an artistic choice (without sounding too much like slandypooface)
 
Let me start this by saying that I understand your point entirely. I shoot only film now because I didn't enjoy the process of shooting digital. It wasn't "satisfying", as you said it, to me anymore. There is no difference between me looking up the characteristics of different films on Flickr and other people shooting lens caps to test noise, blowing up 100% crops to check sharpness, or doing any other sort of "test" to asses technical image quality. If your an artist you have to understand your medium and be able to manipulate it. Photographer, cinematographer, painter, carpenter, whatever.
I'm all for "gear whoring", if you will, up until the point where it has no effect on the art itself. If you take pictures just because you like seeing perfect corner sharpness or zero noise without trying to convey a larger message, all the power to you, but don't call yourself a photographer. As a photographer or videographer, working as an artist and not just someone who likes cameras, you have to be able to identify the point where the "image quality" stuff doesn't affect the "content" stuff. The "power" stuff. The "wow" stuff. The "goosebumps" stuff. You can't be so focused on the gear in your hand that you forget to get creative.
Debates over sharpness, noise, etc. have a time and a place. They're important and I'll be the first to advocate them. But, when you have to turn to a forum and have other people tell you what camera is better or what lens is sharper when they're looking at the exact same sample pictures you're looking at, I think it's gone a little too far.

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"

 
I disagree; vingetting, CA, distortion, and overal look are huge factors when picking a lens. Realistically, for real life you'd never be shooting with such a shallow depth of field, for general operators I usually shoot at F4 or F5.6, and photo's of random shit and then bokeh is stupid...
 
I like that last quote a lot. I have never really gotten into the whole specs side of shooting because to be honest it is not a huge deal to me.

I'm happy with the image my camera puts out. I use my camera to capture the good times with my friends so i can share them and also so I have something to bring back memories. One of my close friends passed away recently and it was awesome to have clips of cliff jumping and skiing that i could share with his family and friends, something that we can all remember him by.
 
This is somewhat true, but there is more to a 50mm than how it looks, at least for video, most AF lenses have terrible focus rings. Build quality is also huge when it comes to price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top