Interview with Canon "EOS-1D X" high-end strategy

[TonyY]

10 New Year's Eve realized. 2-line integration of the 1D and 1Ds...
full link (translated): http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdc.watch.impress.co.jp%2Fdocs%2Fnews%2Finterview%2F20111121_490831.html&act=url

[ferdi]

The EOS-1D Mark IV "EF 400mm F2.8 L IS USM" (old model) and equipped with, EOS-on 1D X "EF 400mm F2.8 L IS II USM" (new model) and "EXTENDER EF 1.4X III "were compared to those fitted, good quality I very I wore the extender. And still, AF sensor is compatible with the F4 is not a problem at all.

They are telling us to upgrade our lens (Mk II costs about USD 3000 more), use an extender (another USD 450) and be happy with just f/4? Bullsh*t.
Quality is also not comparable IMO: ISO-12233 comparison at TDP

[AprilForever]

Dude... this thing is weird reading! Backstroke of the West, anyone? 

The nerve of them about the f4 thing... it seems that they're telling everyone who want's 5.6 + TC1.4 (or 4 + TC2) and autofocus to jump in a lake... Arthur Morris, from all he writes on his blog, is nearly glued to his 800 5.6, and often with 1.4x TC... he won't like this change, I predict...

[Edwin Herdman]

This is on the front page:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/this-and-that-3/

A word of caution though - the translation they give is spurious.

[neuroanatomist]

They are telling us to upgrade our lens (Mk II costs about USD 3000 more), use an extender (another USD 450) and be happy with just f/4? Bullsh*t.
Quality is also not comparable IMO: ISO-12233 comparison at TDP

But it's not f/2.8 vs. f/4 - it's f/3.6 vs. f/4, since f/2.8 on APS-H gives a DoF equivalent to f/3.6 on FF.  The improved ISO performance on the 1D X (including the fact that it's FF, not APS-H) makes up for the loss of a stop of light in terms of shutter speed.  Likewise, for the IQ comparison, the TDP link is comparing the 400/2.8 I vs. the 400/2.8 II + 1.4x III, both on the same FF camera - that's not the comparison Canon is talking about.  The IQ decrement seen in the link you provided is not as great as what is seen comparing the same lens on the 1DsIII vs. the 1DIV (TDP comparison on 200/2).   

So, overall I'd say Canon is right - the IQ of the 400/2.8 II + 1.4x III on the 1D X will equal or quite possibly exceed the IQ of the 400/2.8 on the 1D IV.  I sincerely doubt that the loss of less than 1/3-stop of DoF is anything to cry about.  OTOH, the loss of >$5K additional spend might be worth a few tears...

[ferdi]

But it's not f/2.8 vs. f/4 - it's f/3.6 vs. f/4, since f/2.8 on APS-H gives a DoF equivalent to f/3.6 on FF.  The improved ISO performance on the 1D X (including the fact that it's FF, not APS-H) makes up for the loss of a stop of light in terms of shutter speed.

At apertures f/2.8 to f/4.0 the DoF is less important to me than shutter speed and ISO.
Let's hope you are right and the 1DX at ISO 25600 beats the 1D4 at ISO 12800.

[briansquibb]

But it's not f/2.8 vs. f/4 - it's f/3.6 vs. f/4, since f/2.8 on APS-H gives a DoF equivalent to f/3.6 on FF.  The improved ISO performance on the 1D X (including the fact that it's FF, not APS-H) makes up for the loss of a stop of light in terms of shutter speed.

At apertures f/2.8 to f/4.0 the DoF is less important to me than shutter speed and ISO.
Let's hope you are right and the 1DX at ISO 25600 beats the 1D4 at ISO 12800.

Using a large white, the DOF and bokeh is everything

[smirkypants]

So what if you use a 1D4 and a 100-400mm? If what I'm reading is true, it won't focus with a 1.4 extender, right? I don't want to give up my flexibility.

[neuroanatomist]

So what if you use a 1D4 and a 100-400mm? If what I'm reading is true, it won't focus with a 1.4 extender, right? I don't want to give up my flexibility.

Correct. The current 1-series bodies will AF (center point only) with an f/8 combo like f/5.6 + 1.4x or f/4 + 2x. The 1D X will not, it requires f/5.6 for any AF point to function.

For you, at least, there's a viable solution (optically, although not necessarily financially) - the 500mm f/4L IS II + 1.4x III will AF on the 1D X and compensate for the loss of the 1.3x crop factor.  That scenario might even be part of the reason they dropped f/8 support (not that I'm cynical or anything).  But the folks who really get screwed are those who depend on combos where there will be no option going forward (500/4 or 600/4 + 2x, 800/5.6 + 1.4x).

[AprilForever]

So what if you use a 1D4 and a 100-400mm? If what I'm reading is true, it won't focus with a 1.4 extender, right? I don't want to give up my flexibility.

Correct. The current 1-series bodies will AF (center point only) with an f/8 combo like f/5.6 + 1.4x or f/4 + 2x. The 1D X will not, it requires f/5.6 for any AF point to function.

For you, at least, there's a viable solution (optically, although not necessarily financially) - the 500mm f/4L IS II + 1.4x III will AF on the 1D X and compensate for the loss of the 1.3x crop factor.  That scenario might even be part of the reason they dropped f/8 support (not that I'm cynical or anything).  But the folks who really get screwed are those who depend on combos where there will be no option going forward (500/4 or 600/4 + 2x, 800/5.6 + 1.4x).

Think they might release a 1DmkV-like thingie with f8 autofocus ever?

[smirkypants]

The current 1-series bodies will AF (center point only) with an f/8 combo like f/5.6 + 1.4x or f/4 + 2x. The 1D X will not, it requires f/5.6 for any AF point to function.

For you, at least, there's a viable solution (optically, although not necessarily financially) - the 500mm f/4L IS II + 1.4x III will AF on the 1D X and compensate for the loss of the 1.3x crop factor.  That scenario might even be part of the reason they dropped f/8 support (not that I'm cynical or anything).  But the folks who really get screwed are those who depend on combos where there will be no option going forward (500/4 or 600/4 + 2x, 800/5.6 + 1.4x).

I'm not concerned with money, I'm concerned with mobility. Believe me, there are days that I curse the IQ and AF of my 100-400. I literally run around the sidelines of a huge sports field (300 yards long/100 yards wide) and I can't be weighed down by an 8.5 pound monster + monopod. I guess when we see version 2 of the lens it'll only weigh 7 pounds, but still, when the action passes 20 feet in front of me—and mind you, these are ALWAYS the coolest shots—500mm is pretty useless.

No. Canon's 1.4x solution isn't really a solution if you cripple the ability to use it.

[neuroanatomist]

No. Canon's 1.4x solution isn't really a solution if you cripple the ability to use it.

Totally agree on that one.  On the product pages of the new 500/4 II and 600/4 II they show the MTF curves of lens + 2xIII, just to show how relatively great they look (and in fact, the MkII lens + 2x curves don't look all that different from the MkI bare lens curves).  But that's almost false advertising, as they took away the ability of the 1-series to Af with those combos.

The weight issue makes sense.  I ran into an prominent birder (author of several bestselling bird guides) on the top of a mountain (literally!).  She has both a 500L and an 800L, and uses them when she can drive to her location, but for hiking she uses a 300/4 + 2x on a 1D IV because that's a carryable combination that will still AF.

Think they might release a 1DmkV-like thingie with f8 autofocus ever?

I do think there will be some backlash over this.  There already has been, in fact.  Prominent bird photographer Art Morris (who's also a Canon Explorer of Light) was "stunned" by this issue. 

Obviously, no one knows what Canon will do.  But if I had to guess, I think that if they apply the same circuitry improvements (and maybe a few more) to an APS-C sensor, they might release a pro-style (integrated grip, fully sealed) APS-C body to fill the gap left by elininating the APS-H line.  If they do that, I expect that body would retain AF at f/8 (perhaps even with more than just the center point).

[smirkypants]

I think that if they apply the same circuitry improvements (and maybe a few more) to an APS-C sensor, they might release a pro-style (integrated grip, fully sealed) APS-C body to fill the gap left by elininating the APS-H line.  If they do that, I expect that body would retain AF at f/8 (perhaps even with more than just the center point).

Oh now you're just talking crazy. A 7D/1D4 Hybrid with a 1.6 crop, lowish noise and great IQ? Yeah, I'd pay five grand for that!