I suspect I shoot in conditions - lower light, lower contrast - with my 1Dx than I ever even attempted with my 1D Mk4. I routinely shoot star shots at night for instance with my 1Dx, and never even tried with my 1DMk4. I usually use Live View at 10x, but with a clear night and bright stars - or Venus or Jupiter - my 1Dx will autofocus on them. My 1DX AF slows down after sunset when shooting with f4 lenses at deer in the fog, but thats a pretty tough task sometimes.
I used my 1DMk4 a lot for air shows, but air shows are during the summer daylight hours, not in the fog after sunset and for targets with sharp outlines ( airplanes ) rather than softer, blurrier furry critters. I wonder if the 1DMk4 was using all its AF points when it was better in lower light and lower contrast for you, perhaps. There are several balls to juggle in choosing how your AF is set up for various tasks - at least that's how it seems to me, especially with the Mk4.
The 1DX mk2 looks to be a significant improvement in several ways - slightly lower noise and slightly better AF, better file handling in the buffer - and the GPS is now built in and not hanging off the corner ( which is kind of trivial, but really is quite appealing...) I worry about the GPS on the 1DX getting snagged, although mine has survived a fair bit of travel on three continents without any issues. I will see what I think of the 128Gb CFast cards also.
I really like being able to see the direction of my lens as a compass bearing at night on my LCD, in the dark when shooting star shots. I thought GPS would just be a gimmick when it was introduced, and now I find I am annoyed by any camera without it. I use it a lot.
Ultimately, I will probably market my 1Dx this fall, once i have completed a few months with the 1Dx M2.
I've never shot stars with my X bodies, though I suspect they would work fine because the night sky is high contrast. The few times I have shot the night sky I used my old 5D2 because it's much lighter than an X and I was mountaineering or backpacking, where weight mattered. Also didn't use AF.
Oddly, the one new feature on the Mark II I might like is the setting that times the shutter to coincide with cycling lights. I don't need this for my professional assignments, of course, but I sometimes shoot high school basketball for my kids' (now former) high school. The lights in that gym are by far the worst I have ever shot under: they go from brilliant yellow to a dark rusty red. About one in five is actually usable.
But thinking back to the AF comparison with a Mark IV, there is really only one venue where the X seemed to struggle more, and that was a stadium where my daughter played soccer in high school. A night game meant ISO 10,000, and the dark blue uniforms with no numbers on the front meant low contrast. It got ugly. The last game I shot there it was pouring rain and the game went into double overtime before our side finally scored a goal in the very last minute of play. The rain really messed with the AF, though that's a little more understandable as the camera really didn't know where to focus.
I'm sure I'll keep my X bodies for use as remotes. That's my custom when I upgrade. They're still great bodies, after all.
Oddly, the one new feature on the Mark II I might like is the setting that times the shutter to coincide with cycling lights. I don't need this for my professional assignments, of course, but I sometimes shoot high school basketball for my kids' (now former) high school. The lights in that gym are by far the worst I have ever shot under: they go from brilliant yellow to a dark rusty red. About one in five is actually usable. .
I found it odd that Nikon's D5 did not include this feature, since it is on some other Nikon bodies, and it like the 1DX's are widely used for sports.
I am curious how people who have one find it -- does it make a significant difference for you?
I shoot raw and fix the color casts in post, but they are certainly annoying.
I found it odd that Nikon's D5 did not include this feature, since it is on some other Nikon bodies, and it like the 1DX's are widely used for sports.
I am curious how people who have one find it -- does it make a significant difference for you?
I shoot raw and fix the color casts in post, but they are certainly annoying.
Yeah, I heard Nikon has this feature on some cameras. Perhaps it is directed more to the amateur user, as most professionals shoot in venues where cycling isn't a problem. Odd.
A few years ago my son and I embarked on a project to build an external trigger that sensed the cycling period and released the shutter at the appropriate time. However, we never finished building the prototype.
Regarding the color casts, I also shoot RAW and try to fix in the post, but the problem is so bad in this particular gym that there are often red casts in one part of the frame and green-yellow in another part. I guess the lights aren't fully synchronized.
Regarding the color casts, I also shoot RAW and try to fix in the post, but the problem is so bad in this particular gym that there are often red casts in one part of the frame and green-yellow in another part. I guess the lights aren't fully synchronized.
I've seen that at a rodeo arena before. LR's radial filter or paint brush will let you do "local" WB adjustments, but some of those shots for me just became black and white.
Comments
I've never shot stars with my X bodies, though I suspect they would work fine because the night sky is high contrast. The few times I have shot the night sky I used my old 5D2 because it's much lighter than an X and I was mountaineering or backpacking, where weight mattered. Also didn't use AF.
Oddly, the one new feature on the Mark II I might like is the setting that times the shutter to coincide with cycling lights. I don't need this for my professional assignments, of course, but I sometimes shoot high school basketball for my kids' (now former) high school. The lights in that gym are by far the worst I have ever shot under: they go from brilliant yellow to a dark rusty red. About one in five is actually usable.
But thinking back to the AF comparison with a Mark IV, there is really only one venue where the X seemed to struggle more, and that was a stadium where my daughter played soccer in high school. A night game meant ISO 10,000, and the dark blue uniforms with no numbers on the front meant low contrast. It got ugly. The last game I shot there it was pouring rain and the game went into double overtime before our side finally scored a goal in the very last minute of play. The rain really messed with the AF, though that's a little more understandable as the camera really didn't know where to focus.
I'm sure I'll keep my X bodies for use as remotes. That's my custom when I upgrade. They're still great bodies, after all.
I am curious how people who have one find it -- does it make a significant difference for you?
I shoot raw and fix the color casts in post, but they are certainly annoying.
Yeah, I heard Nikon has this feature on some cameras. Perhaps it is directed more to the amateur user, as most professionals shoot in venues where cycling isn't a problem. Odd.
A few years ago my son and I embarked on a project to build an external trigger that sensed the cycling period and released the shutter at the appropriate time. However, we never finished building the prototype.
Regarding the color casts, I also shoot RAW and try to fix in the post, but the problem is so bad in this particular gym that there are often red casts in one part of the frame and green-yellow in another part. I guess the lights aren't fully synchronized.
Glad my kids have graduated!
I've seen that at a rodeo arena before. LR's radial filter or paint brush will let you do "local" WB adjustments, but some of those shots for me just became black and white.