Image Corruption with Sandisk CFast cards in the 1Dx Mk II

pathfinder

There has been an announcement from Canon describing image corruption in the lower right corner of RAW and jpg images stored on Sandisk branded CFast cards used in the new 1DX MK II. I can confirm that that does occur, i experienced about 6 frames from my recent trip to Svalbard. Canon recommends avoiding Sandisk CFast cards until a new firmware update corrects this issue.

I first read about this in Longyearbyen after returning from my workshop on Svalbard with Andy, here - http://www.canonrumors.com/eos-1d-x-mark-ii-image-corruption-with-sandisk-cfast-cards/

Apparently there is an issue with large files and how soon the camera is turned off - it has been recommended that one always shoot one or more extra files just before turning the camera off to prevent this. Canon has been quite insistent that this is a flaw in Sandisk's CFast cards, and is not seen in Lexar cars which a fellow workshop participant agreed with - he was shooting Lexar CFast cards without issue. Interestingly, my 1DX Mk I was sold as a package with the body, a Sandisk CFast card reader, and a Sandisk 128Gb CFast card. Canon does say that they will have a firmware corrections for this issue this summer yet. Somewhere a few heads will roll I suspect.

Sandisk CFast cards do not corrupt video files, according to Canon. I did not shoot video with my 1DXMk II, so I do not know if this is accurate myself.

I will say I was pleasantly pleased with just how fast one can now download 60+ Gbs of image files to an external USB 3.0 SSD. Literally within a few seconds.

Canon's announcement is here - https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/product-advisories/detail/service%20notice%20eos-1d%20x%20mark%20ii%20%20image%20corruption%20with%20some%20sandisk%20cfast%20cards/!ut/p/z1/jZJLc5swFIV_SxYsZV0e4dEdYGfs1jSxY2xg41EQBk1AYgQx9b-vaDvJpCRutZPmu_ecOUc4wwnOODmzkvRMcFKre5rZx2izdJerENb3u28B-Ivg_tG05yaEJj78AuCT4wPO_mf-DbgzFuBHu_06MlcmbO1_ze9xGuA0vjwQDTaTbRM8u272619yEzcqD0NGYVTirCV9hRg_CZzkpCkk6XBCu1ripBAd0in6gRoinxFjylb2fjFsPQd8e24vve8BrDa3E2AfWArw5qFp3I3m_gDXgr4alQU4VeE4nwKG6uLMigHHXMhGVf84bmxzRnHq5GBY1HERdU4EWcQwkEcdG1HdtHTigmtSe6QPYXTcxIutUjrsZk1-HIdD3bB1y8PLabzT3xC-dZnpI1_W4un3P_T5k-mq3GVxKmQhZy9SPVd9337RQINhGGaUlawndS8LTrtZLhoN2kr0opSkrS4adIRT1j2jXEj50vYdYg0piw6dpGhQTrjgSEf0tTYNPpKtRNfj5EM53DZxzC8oSx_axdYddkV6nK9v6_Pav7n5CaM3dVw!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?WT.mc_id=C126149

I am quite pleased with the camera, and await the firmware update to correct the issue with the Sandisk CFast cards. I didn't lose any significant images, but I will post a few below so folks can see what the corrupted images look like

ziggy53

Sorry to hear, but good to know about it.

pathfinder

Not really a significant issue for me, since I was shooting in high speed frame rate a lot of the time, but I can see that potentially it could be quite annoying.

I am sure Canon feels embarrassed that their Series One camera is having this issue.

The good news is that a firmware update should be available before the end of July to deal with the issue and allow me to use my Sandisk CFast cards. I may, or may not, pick up a couple Lexar cards in the meantime.

The cards are getting so big, that you can shoot all week without needing to swap them out now.

jhefti

Sorry to hear as well, but this is an example of why I always wait a few months before buying a newly introduced camera. IIRC there was a problem with the X when it first came out as well. Beta testing only goes so far.

How are you liking the Mark II? Planning to upgrade my X-bodies later this summer, though I must say there isn't a whole lot in the Mark II specs that wow me. Seems the big improvements are in the video capabilities, and I only shoot stills.

pathfinder

I think the useable ISO continues to rise, up to 6400-12800, if the files are not under exposed. The CFast cards are a real speed improvement over the CF cards for downloading, and I am sure the video people find them better for video, but that is not a consideration for me.

I like that the GPS is built in and not outside and at risk of being damaged - I consistently got GPS lock at 80 degrees N for what its worth. Makes it easier to get the camera back into a camera bag also.

Canon says the AF is faster and more precise, but I don't really notice a real change - I always felt the AF in the 1DX worked pretty good for me, as it was.

I will say that we had several days of very dark overcast foggy conditions, and I was able to shoot and capture images pretty consistently despite the weather. I was shooting with a 100-400 f5.6->6.3 VII lens. I really would have liked to have had an f4, or even a 400 f2.8. But that gets really, really heavy in a pitching jerking Zodiac in the Arctic Ocean. I shot some arctic fox images in lighting that was so dark I had trouble even seeing the fox. We were too far away, in the wrong position frequently, in a pitching boat, and I still got focus lock ( usually ) and reasonable images all things considered. My 7 D MK II would not have succeeded in those conditions.

Canon insists that the fault is with Sandisk, and not the camera. It will get resolved, I have no doubt.

The 1Dx or the MkII versions, are always too heavy and too large, but they come home with images that surprise me at times with their sharpness and clarity and the AF just rocks for me. I did have to make a few minor AF adjustments to catch birds diving down a cliff face at me - the birds accelerated so rapidly falling vertical for the first hundred feet or so. At first I would start in focus with them and then lose them as they accelerated, so I had to switch to #4 in the AF panel and that seemed to help.

jhefti

Thanks for the review.

My only complaint with the X Mk I is that it can struggle to focus in low light and/or very low contrast. For my professional work, this isn't much of a limitation as the lighting is always decent if not great. (One NBA venue requires ISO 6400 but it will be replaced before the next season.) No complaints about the burst mode, and not sure if going from 12 to 14 FPS is meaningful, especially in focus priority, where FPS is almost always less that the highest claimed).

Higher ISO--I'll assume a full stop, as that's how it's been in the last few generations--is worth something for my performing arts work, as I can get up to ISO 10,000 or higher on occasion.

Anyway, looks like you had a great trip. I am going to Iceland the end of August, and am heading to Cabo today for some diving. Hope to get some good images on both trips.

Thanks again!

John

ziggy53

jhefti wrote: »

... Higher ISO--I'll assume a full stop, as that's how it's been in the last few generations--is worth something for my performing arts work, as I can get up to ISO 10,000 or higher on occasion. ...

Tim Gangloff, of SportsShooter, is showing some fairly nice results from the Canon 1D X Mark II and very high ISOs, as long as he:

Properly exposes.
Uses a custom processing profile in Lightroom.
Uses Neat Image to finish the job of noise reduction.

Example here at ISO 25,600:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1427026/4#13554672

David_S85

ziggy53 wrote: »

Tim Gangloff,
...
Example here at ISO 25,600:
...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1427026/4#13554672

Dang! Not bad! Of course, the small web size makes it more difficult to really get a handle on real noise. A 100% section would be more helpful.

jhefti

David_S85 wrote: »

Dang! Not bad! Of course, the small web size makes it more difficult to really get a handle on real noise. A 100% section would be more helpful.

Yeah, I've gotten some decent images off my X at that ISO when I don't crop and I downrezz for online display.

I so rarely need to shoot with an ISO that high. I'd be more interested in the highest usable ISO, meaning that I get a usable image after I've cropped as needed and displayed a reasonable size. Currently my X-bodies have an upper limit of ~6400. One of my Getty colleagues claims that he can push his Mark II up to 10,000 and get the same results as his Mark I at 6400. This is a useful difference for me, as occasionally I still have to shoot sports in that ISO range.

Regardless, I'll probably bite the bullet and upgrade my X-mark I bodies in another few months, as both of my X-bodies are over 300K clicks and will need to be replaced in the not-to-distant future.

David_S85

jhefti wrote: »

...
Regardless, I'll probably bite the bullet and upgrade my X-mark I bodies in another few months, as both of my X-bodies are over 300K clicks and will need to be replaced in the not-to-distant future.

Wow. 600,000+ shots. Gads. I'd say you easily got your money's worth out of them. Onward and upward!

pathfinder

I agree with John, one can't expect to crop and strongly edit ISO 10,000 images - the do have some noise, but they are still quite useful if properly captured and rendered.

I have lots of them shot with a 1Dx Mk II, as well as a Panasonic GX8 and even a GX7, and an EOS 7D Mk II.

Here is a jpg of my unedited imported 1Dx MKII Raw file ( DNG since I actually convert to DNG ) shot at ISO 10,000 in Tv at 1/2000th shutter speed, f6.3, and below it is a partial crop as finally edited in Lightroom CC only . No other noise reduction nor Photoshop editing.





Here is an unedited jpg conversion straight from RAW in LR CC - there is noise in the grey mountain background, but in an unprocessed image is does not intrude, unless you are pixel peeping on a monitor. In print, not a real issue. NoiseWare would render it gone, of course.



An unstated issue with very high ISO images is the they are frequently shot in very flat low light like these above. The dull flat lighting leads to less than stellar images, not the ISO I think.

On the other hand, ISO 1600 can look pretty nice at times too - from a standard 1Dx at ISO 1600 - note the excessive noise ( that comment is a joke ! )

jhefti

Wow, that does look nice!! Now I'm feeling better about spending $12K on new bodies

jhefti

David_S85 wrote: »

Wow. 600,000+ shots. Gads. I'd say you easily got your money's worth out of them. Onward and upward!

Haha, well, yes I did. I generally shoot about 2000 images per assignment, and take about 6-10 assignments per month, give or take. Then there's all my non-sports work (performing arts, mostly) and personal shots on top of that. It ends up being a lot of clicks.

Overall I've been really happy with my X bodies: totally trouble free and dependable, save for the occasional difficulty focusing in low light or low contrast environments. The X was a huge improvement over my Mark IV bodies, and I look forward to relegating by X bodies to remote camera duties and seeing what the Mark II can do.

pathfinder

The firmware update of V1.0.2 is now available here - https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/support/details/cameras/dslr/eos-1d-x-mark-ii?tab=drivers#Z7_MQH8HIC0L88RB0AMD0F1Q42K25

I have updated my 1DX Mk II without incident. It is too early to tell if the corruption issue with the Sandisk CFast 2.0 cards are resolved, but heres what Canon says about the issue below....

Changes:
Firmware Version 1.0.2 incorporates the following functional improvements and fixes.

1. Incorporates countermeasures for a phenomenon in which the bottom part of still images recorded to SanDisk CFast cards become corrupted.
2. Enhances communication reliability between the camera and CFast cards.

If you are using the affected CFast cards, after having updated the camera firmware to Firmware Version 1.0.2, please make sure to use the camera to format the CFast card.

The Version 1.0.2 firmware being released at this time is for cameras with Firmware Version 1.0.0. If the camera's firmware is already Version 1.0.2, it is not necessary to update the firmware.
When updating the firmware of your camera, please first go over the instructions thoroughly before you download the firmware.
The firmware update takes approximately six minutes.

<Cautions in the Use of SanDisk CFast Cards>
Please note that when using the SanDisk CFast cards listed below with the EOS-1D X Mark II, the bottom part of still photos may become corrupted.
Affected CFast Cards:
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast2.0 64GB (SDCFSP-064G-xxx)
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast2.0 128GB (SDCFSP-128G-xxx)
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast2.0 64GB (SDCFSP-064G-xxxA)
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast2.0 128GB (SDCFSP-128G-xxxA)
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast2.0 64GB (SDCFSP-064G-xxxB)
- SanDisk Extreme PRO CFast2.0 128GB (SDCFSP-128G-xxxB)
*The "xxx" at the end of the product number varies depending on the sales region.

When using the affected CFast cards with the EOS-1D X Mark II, follow the steps below.
1: Check whether the firmware version of the EOS-1D X Mark II is Version 1.0.2 or later. If the firmware version of the camera is Version 1.0.0, update the firmware to Version 1.0.2 or later.
2: Format the affected CFast card with the EOS-1D X Mark II with firmware version 1.0.2 or later.

Note that when using a CFast card formatted according to the above step 2, the following operations will take place.
- An "ImgSaver.bin" file of several MB in capacity will be created in the "MISC" folder on the card. Do not move or delete the folder or the file on the card.
- When opening the card slot cover, the access lamp may remain lit or blink for a longer duration.
Remove the card only after having confirmed that the access lamp is off. When the access lamp is lit or blinking, recording to the card is in progress.
Never perform the operations below when the access lamp is lit or blinking as doing so may result in corrupted image data or may cause damage to the card or the camera.
- Removing the card
- Removing the battery pack
- Applying vibration or shock to the camera
- Unplugging and replugging the power cord (when using the separately-sold household power outlet accessories)

When using SanDisk CFast cards, to fully utilize the card performance, use the refresh tool provided by SanDisk before formatting the card with a camera with the above step 1 applied.
Refresh tool: http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17370

In addition, if an affected SanDisk CFast card has already been formatted with a computer or another device, please format the card again with a camera with the above step 1 applied.

About the "Refresh Tool" of SanDisk cards:
Q1: Whenever the camera is used to format a SanDisk CFast card, is it mandatory to use the refresh tool? If the refresh tool is not used, will the bottom part of still images become corrupted?
A1: The refresh tool is not related to image corruption that appears at the bottom part of still images. We are informing users about this tool as SanDisk recommends regular use of the refresh tool when using SanDisk CFast cards. For details about the use of the refresh tool, please inquire with SanDisk.
Q2: How often does the refresh tool have to be used?
A2: For details about use frequency, and the use of the refresh tool, please inquire with SanDisk.
Q3: What will happen to camera operations if I continue using a SanDisk CFast card without using the refresh tool?
A3: The speed for continuous data writing may decrease. If the data writing speed seems to have decreased during high-speed continuous shooting, please try to use the refresh tool to alleviate the problem. For any other technical questions concerning CFast cards, please inquire with SanDisk.


I have not yet investigated the Sandisk refresh tool yet. That's next I guess.

Here is the link for the Sandisk Refresh app - http://kb.sandisk.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/17370

jhefti

Thanks Pathfinder--good to know, since I just ordered my Mark II bodies. Hopefully the firmware update is done on these.

pathfinder

Just check the firmware version when yours arrive. Mine was shipped with v 1.0.0, but is now v 1.0.2 since I updated the firmware with the link above

ziggy53

Thanks, Pathfinder, for the link and discussion. An entry has been added to the "[thread=128992]Camera Firmware Update Discussion Links[/thread]" thread.

pathfinder

Just a follow up note that I haven't seen any new corrupted image files since doing the Canon firmware update and running my CFast cards through the Sandisk Refreshing software as well.