Hey Canon, I've got cash to burn, but...

[FatDaddyJones]

I am a moderator on another forum. My job there is to keep the discussions on topic and check for inappropriate comments. Some would consider this censorship and suppression of free speech. I personally think that forums like this ought to have posted rules of conduct on the boards with moderators that enforce them. This site DOES have rules:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1442.0

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be enforced very much in quite a few topic threads here lately.

[neuroanatomist]

So for me, the equation might be solved by a 6D (landscape, low light, portrait etc.) + 7D II (fast action, reach etc.) combo in the mid term.

OK, maybe a 1DX might look like an all-in-one equivalent, "just a bit" more expensive than that combo (pure speculation right now, concerning 7D II schedule & pricing)  but I've long been taught not to put all my eggs in the same bag !

I did the 7D + 5DII thing for a couple of years, which is a lot like the 6D + 7DII scenario - the 5DII for landscapes and portraits, the 7D for birds/wildlife.  The thing is, the 1D X is a really nice 'bag'.  It's a lot more robust than the lesser bodies, that great AF and fast frame rate comes in handy for portraits (basically, each shot is a 'double-tap' so there's almost never a lost shot due to a blink, etc.).  As for reach, it's artificial unless you're printing large - a 1D X image cropped to the FoV of the 7D gives a 7 MP image that still has (slightly) better IQ, and if you don't need to crop, the IQ is much better.  If you're always shooting at ISO 400-800 or less, the 7D does very well, but at higher ISOs, the 1D X is much better - enough so that I see no point in keeping the 7D, and unless a 7DII brings ISO improvements that push it into the FF IQ range, it's not particularly tempting to me...

[neuroanatomist]

I am a moderator on another forum. My job there is to keep the discussions on topic and check for inappropriate comments. Some would consider this censorship and suppression of free speech. I personally think that forums like this ought to have posted rules of conduct on the boards with moderators that enforce them. This site DOES have rules:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1442.0

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be enforced very much in quite a few topic threads here lately.

At a guess, I'd say you were typing this as a mod was cleaning up this very thread.     Or so I assume, since I don't see anything particularly objectionable here now...

[FatDaddyJones]

At a guess, I'd say you were typing this as a mod was cleaning up this very thread.     Or so I assume, since I don't see anything particularly objectionable here now...

Thank you

[caruser]

I did the 7D + 5DII thing for a couple of years, which is a lot like the 6D + 7DII scenario - the 5DII for landscapes and portraits, the 7D for birds/wildlife.  The thing is, the 1D X is a really nice 'bag'.  It's a lot more robust than the lesser bodies, that great AF and fast frame rate comes in handy for portraits (basically, each shot is a 'double-tap' so there's almost never a lost shot due to a blink, etc.).  As for reach, it's artificial unless you're printing large - a 1D X image cropped to the FoV of the 7D gives a 7 MP image that still has (slightly) better IQ, and if you don't need to crop, the IQ is much better.

Interesting, did you miss the 3 MP difference when going from the 5D2 to the 1DX? (And, if not, because the images are cleaner to make up the difference or because you never print in the square meter range?)

[neuroanatomist]

Interesting, did you miss the 3 MP difference when going from the 5D2 to the 1DX? (And, if not, because the images are cleaner to make up the difference or because you never print in the square meter range?)

I don't miss the 3 MP, and that's beacuse of the cleaner images.  I do print at up to 24x36", occasionally larger.  I get 1-2 stops better ISO performance with the 1D X compared to the 5DII, a combination of lower noise and better quality of remaining noise.  ISO 3200 was my usual cap for the 5DII, with ISO 6400 for 'emergencies'.  On the 1D X, I routinely shoot at up to ISO 8000, and will go over ISO 12800 if I need to, with decent results. 

[RLPhoto]

...and I'm writing this to counter all the recent Canon bashing and flaming here, I can't find anything worth buying!

My 5D2 needs an upgrade, but the 5D3 doesn't have interchangeable focus-screens which I need for wide-aperture (manual) lenses (and the lack of improvement in the shadow noise is a bit of a let-down). The 1DX would be possible, too, but for that amount of cash I'd like 24 or 28 megapixels (with proportionally slower frame rate), everything else is great.

Since moving to full-frame the 70-200 is a bit short, but I don't want to substitute it with a less-sharp-and-inferior-IS 100-400, give me a new version already, or an updated 300 f/4, I'll take whatever comes first! And what about wide-angle, where is the 14-24 competitor, or even a 17-40 or 16-35 that's half as sharp? Where is the quality 20 IS USM to go with the 24 and 28?

And don't get me started on all the missing or crippled firmware features, some decent updates there might have pushed me to a 5D3 or 1DX, but there's no real auto-iso in m with exposure compensation, no proper way to set the min and max shutter speed or aperture in the semi-auto modes, no histogram when zoomed in like the smallest nikons do, ... ... ...

Rant finished, obviously I don't make my living from photography, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't spend some more on it, because I do shoot a lot and some things are often difficult with my current gear!

I used a 5Dc with the EG-s screen for years! and it was perfect but I dont miss it with the 5D3 AF. Granted, I'd like to have both the EG-S and the 5D3 AF. Even the Focus confirmation is 10x more accurate with manual lenses on all AF points.

As for reach, Just get an new M-III tele-converter but canon is lacking in the wide department but If you that serious to buy a 2000$ 14-24, why not look into the Zeiss 15mm?

If your in M mode, I don't see a need for Expo-comp because there must be a particular reason for the person selecting they're aperture or shutter speed. The Auto ISO works great on my 5D3 In M mode. Granted, I would appreciate a zoom histogram.

But you must appreciate that canon DOES have a 100-400mm, canon DOES have the 600EX-RT, and canon DOES have the Best AF on the Market, The fact that canon DOES allow you to even change focusing screens in the first place and so many things that make this platform unique.

[caruser]

Thanks Neuro, there goes one of my last reasons against the 1DX ;-)

I used a 5Dc with the EG-s screen for years! and it was perfect but I dont miss it with the 5D3 AF. Granted, I'd like to have both the EG-S and the 5D3 AF. Even the Focus confirmation is 10x more accurate with manual lenses on all AF points.

Yeah, I was wondering whether the AF was good enough to make up for the lack of an EG-S equivalent, but...

As for reach, Just get an new M-III tele-converter but canon is lacking in the wide department but If you that serious to buy a 2000$ 14-24, why not look into the Zeiss 15mm?

I am seriously considering the Zeiss 21mm, but I might get a 17-40 first in order to determine which focal length I like best.

If your in M mode, I don't see a need for Expo-comp because there must be a particular reason for the person selecting they're aperture or shutter speed. The Auto ISO works great on my 5D3 In M mode. Granted, I would appreciate a zoom histogram.

The expo-comp in manual with auto iso would bias the automatically selected iso and leave the time and aperture alone.

But you must appreciate that canon DOES have a 100-400mm, canon DOES have the 600EX-RT, and canon DOES have the Best AF on the Market, The fact that canon DOES allow you to even change focusing screens in the first place and so many things that make this platform unique.

Oh yes, I've got my personal prime trinity 35L, 100L, 135L and am very happy them, plus some more stuff that works great, too! If all I had was a 28-135, and I didn't care about the 135L, which is my favorite lens, I might already have a D800e, because what I don't really care for are anti-aliasing filters.

Speaking of AA filters, put that on the list of things for Canon to improve, i.e. optionally get rid of...

[RLPhoto]

Speaking of AA filters, put that on the list of things for Canon to improve, i.e. optionally get rid of...

No one said that you can't get rid of them, Life-pixel.com would be happy to get rid of the AA filter for you. You even get to keep dust-reduction working.

http://shop.lifepixel.com/3-AA-anti-aliasing-filter-removal-for-sharper-photos/1-Canon-DSLR-Anti-Aliasing-Filter-Removal-Service-p123.html

[Ryan708]

Ive seen some reviews stating the 6D has very bad moire in video and pattern shots. Perhaps a very limited AA filter? wonder if anyone has tested this yet? 6D perhaps a good landscape/studio cam?

[RustyTheGeek]

Wow.  $500 + shipping to remove the AA filter.  What level of improvement could be expected after that investment?  And how would it affect the resale value I wonder?

[JonS]

(Zeiss is sooo 60's tech).

The Zeiss lens is based on a symmetrical Planar design originally invented in 1896....and the 100mm Macro-Planar is a formidable competitor to either of the 2 Canon 100m macro lenses we have now

[rs]

Ive seen some reviews stating the 6D has very bad moire in video and pattern shots. Perhaps a very limited AA filter? wonder if anyone has tested this yet? 6D perhaps a good landscape/studio cam?

The AA filter is very different to the software process that goes on to scale down the frame into the video resolution. The AA (or low pass) filter blurs the image to approximately the correct amount to make the four R G G B bayer pixels blend into one - thereby almost completely eliminating false colour from the image that could be caused by high contrast fine detail just exciting the one colour pixel. This AA filter is required for both stills and video as the false colour cannot be removed in post processing, even when downsampled.

The video scaling is needed for rendering a low res image from the high res frame. If its done the simple way as on the 6D (and most other SLR's), instead of using the best part of 9 pixels combined to produce the one in the video, it just uses one. That way, the video has a tendancy to look very sharp, but moire (not colour moire) occurs with high contrast fine detail. For instance, fine parallel lines such as a wire fence could mostly miss the pixels which are used, and the ones which are would intermittently see the fence to produce a fairly ugly looking pattern. Again, this moire is impossible to remove in post processing. The 5D mk III uses exactly 9 sensor pixels downsampled into one video pixel to avoid this moire.

Wow.  $500 + shipping to remove the AA filter.  What level of improvement could be expected after that investment?  And how would it affect the resale value I wonder?

It would get the image nearer to the full native resolution of the sensor, but at the expense of colour moire. Unfortunately, the only time you really want that extra resolution is when shooting fine detail with a very sharp lens, and that's the exact time when colour moire will show up. The best way to avoid it is to use a small aperture to blur the image enough to avoid moire, or tweak the focus ring a bit to deliberately mis-focus the shot. Either way, you're not getting the full resolution. Either that or don't under any circumstances photograph any high contrast fine detail with it.

The D800E gets away with it to some extent because its pixel density is so high that the average lens, its AF system and using it on less than a perfect tripod all add up to produce enough blurring to reduce moire.

Try an original Canon 1D if you want to see moire - such a low res sensor with no AA filter doesn't look pretty with fine repeating patterns.

[K-amps]

Wow.  $500 + shipping to remove the AA filter.  What level of improvement could be expected after that investment?  And how would it affect the resale value I wonder?

Wondered the same thing... they do say they are swamped, so perhaps there is a premium associated these days? But before making any decisions, I need to see the difference of before and after the AA and see if it is worth $500.

Thanks for posting though RL.

[ewg963]

Interesting, did you miss the 3 MP difference when going from the 5D2 to the 1DX? (And, if not, because the images are cleaner to make up the difference or because you never print in the square meter range?)

I don't miss the 3 MP, and that's beacuse of the cleaner images.  I do print at up to 24x36", occasionally larger.  I get 1-2 stops better ISO performance with the 1D X compared to the 5DII, a combination of lower noise and better quality of remaining noise.  ISO 3200 was my usual cap for the 5DII, with ISO 6400 for 'emergencies'.  On the 1D X, I routinely shoot at up to ISO 8000, and will go over ISO 12800 if I need to, with decent results.

Hello Nuero do you have any images that you can post I currently have the Mark II and 3200 ISO was my ceiling. I'd love to see some I DX images above the 6000 ISO. Thanking you in advance.