A guy used 1DX yesterday in Germany!!

[gabriele]

switch to nikon and give us some rest.   
you won´t get more MP with a 1D X so why talking about it over and over again?

and why not buying a pentax 645?
it´s not that much more expensive and a great studio camera!

if you need MF .. buy MF... simple as that.

How couldn't I agree more with you!! Once in a while that Canon stopped the horrible megapixel war there are people complaining!! The 1DX is such an awesome camera, and the awesome thing is that it is an all rounder that is not mediocre but great at everything from sports/nature to studio photography.
I can't wait to see the high ISO full res pictures taken by a 1DX, and if there are still people looking for more megapixels they should do only one thing: switch to medium format cameras.
How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?
Astonishingly I sent out some pictures for a contest and they were low res (something like 1600x1200)...well surprisingly they printed them out for an advertisment...it was something like 3x2 meters and they came out good....now imagine a full res 18 or 22 mpixel image...do you want to print on a 10 stories building?

[gmrza]

I used extenders on my telephoto lenses frequently with my 1D MK II.  This ended up being a f/8 combination and autofocus was great.

I also stacked 1.4 and 2X extenders so that I ended up at f/11.  The 1D still autofocused, slowly.  If I manually focused to the approximate correct position, than it instantly snapped to focus.

I'd be missing that f/8 capability, as would many wildlife photographers.  Canon has some high profile wildlife photographers who they sponsor in a television series.  If they jumped to Nikon over the F/8 thing, heads might roll at Canon.

That is the challenge for Canon - Canon stands to lose the wildlife photography market without the ability to autofocus at f/8.  Now, a lot of wildlife photographers shoot landscapes.... it could be dangerous for Canon to lose the ability to service that niche.

[jrista]

It seems Canon is fixing the F8 issue!!
http://www.nikonuser.info/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1481&sid=fc1b93b823dc0fcd687f64f4f2003688

I'll be really curious to see if/how they fix the f/8 issue. I've read and watched a few things about the new 1D X AF that seems to indicate that would be difficult. Something about the size of the AF sensor that really pushes things to the limits like never before (spread of points across the frame area primarily), etc. I wasn't sure about the need for f/8 AF before either...given how it can be painfully slow.

However after looking into it, its only slow on acquiring the lock...once locked, the thing that REALLY matters is the ability to maintain it and track subjects (i.e. birds and wildlife.) Tracking isn't really all that slow, as its not adjusting AF much and the point is to maintain lock. Losing AF AI Servo subject tracking at f/8 would probably cost Canon a lot of users to Nikon permanently, and also likely eat into sales of the 1D X...anyone who needs f/8 AF would either stick with the 1D IV or wait for the 1D X's successor and hope IT did f/8 AF.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The article is about a Nikon user who was apparently misled (or misunderstood) by a dealer, and drove through poor weather to see and get a hands on demo of a production 1DX.  It was neither hands-on , nor was it a production model.

After reading all his misunderstandings and general confusion, I'd be suprised if he got the bit correct about the f/8.  Take it with a grain of salt.

[distant.star]

No offense to those seriously yearning for a 1dx, but this is providing me with endless laughter.

Just the title of this post elevates this whole mythical camera to the level of the abominable snowman.

I hope the people in the world of photography, especially the business end, aren't seeing Canon as a laughingstock over all this.

With nothing invested myself, I will say I'm enjoying the whole comical show very much.

I predict the next sighting will be somewhere in the Azores.

[AprilForever]

As a 1DsIII user, the 1Dx isn't the upgrade I was looking for. My next body will be a 5D3 or D800, so the specs of those two bodies are all that I care about. The 5D3 probably won't be released until after the 1Dx, so that's the only reason I care about when the latter hits the market.

To be sure, it wasn't the camera I was looking for either. I think combining the 1D line was a huge mistake. I mean, isn't one of the main reasons they kept the camera at 18MP was to be able to shoot so quickly? Wouldn't a lot of studio photographers been a lot happier if they could have shot at half the speed but with much bigger images?

I hate it when somebody tells me "you don't need anything more than 18MP." I have heard that a lot. How do they know what I need? When working with a model, I certainly need 27MP much more than double digit frames per second. I was kind of hoping the new 1D would rival medium format. When I'm shooting sports I don't want full frame. It's an impressive camera, but I really think they only people it's perfect for would be like National Geographic photographers and certain kinds of sports on smaller fields/courts. It's just the wrong camera for me and a lot of others, as well, even though it has a lot of really sexy features.

Are was allowed to admit this?    Will Canon revoke my membership? 
I agree completely.  I want more MP than my 5DII for studio and general photography.  And the crop factor on my 7D is much appreciated when I shoot sports, or nature.

Well-said! I love the 1.6 on the 7D. I couldn't imagine losing the reach.

[KeithR]

How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?

It's nothing to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

Just because you don't understand the benefit of high pixel density, don't assume the benefit doesn't exist.

[Astro]

How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?

It's nothing to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations.

why not using a bridge camera with a 35x zoom and 800mm on the long end when pixel size does not matter? you don´t have to crop that much.   

[Ivar]

The fight for the MP is by far over. It is just an intermediary stop, even for Canon. The next whatever upgrade to the 1Dx will have more MP.  It is not even a war,  but rather just using the optimum for the 35mm - which is around 30-35MP (upscale todays APC-C technology and see yourself).  Assuming efficiency goes better over time, nobody is going to loose high ISOs for a given print.

How couldn't I agree more with you!! Once in a while that Canon stopped the horrible megapixel war there are people complaining!! The 1DX is such an awesome camera, and the awesome thing is that it is an all rounder that is not mediocre but great at everything from sports/nature to studio photography.
I can't wait to see the high ISO full res pictures taken by a 1DX, and if there are still people looking for more megapixels they should do only one thing: switch to medium format cameras.
How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?
Astonishingly I sent out some pictures for a contest and they were low res (something like 1600x1200)...well surprisingly they printed them out for an advertisment...it was something like 3x2 meters and they came out good....now imagine a full res 18 or 22 mpixel image...do you want to print on a 10 stories building?

[marinien]

How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?

It's nothing to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations.

why not using a bridge camera with a 35x zoom and 800mm on the long end when pixel size does not matter? you don´t have to crop that much.   

He's saying something like: "For wildlife, given the same sensor size, more pixels is better". Why do you counter him by taking another sensor size? It just doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size and print size.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

[STPhotos]

I totally agree with the medium format switch. If MP is of utmost concern, then make that switch. Even if that 36 MP Nikon is true, you'll still get way better IQ from the lenses. Plus that beautiful big sensor. Even the smallest H4D kit will still produce better images than a high MP Nikon.  I know that the lens investment is rather sizable, it's more beneficial in the long run if more resolution is the biggest concern.  The formats serve different purposes as well IMO.
I do a bit of surf photography here in Hawaii and I would definitely trade in the extra length with a crop for a full frame sensor. Although the 5D II lacks a high fps rate as well as the AF issue, the images are second to none. If the 5D III has 22 MP, higher fps rate and a better AF system, I think that we will see a large jump to that, given the f8 issue doesn't carry over. There's a large amount of sports photographers who need to utilize TC's and that f8 is critical.  Sometimes you need the length and that would kind of make the 600 useless with an extender.
Just some thoughts.

[Viggo]

I am one of those who are the most excited about the 1d X around, but now that we are coming up on release I'm sick of it already. Yes it looks like a  fantastic camera, but seeing that it's not a single image to have a proper look at, all the writing about delay, battery issues, f8 af issues, and seeing that the D4 (which I can't use, it's too clumsy) samples all over that looks great, and the D4 is also ridicolously much lighter than the 1d X, I'm talking hUGE difference.

Where's the weight number? Where are the samples? Where is the info?

Where is the proof THIS is the ultimate camera to get?

And the g0d d$$n availabillty?!?! It is REALLY annoying a lot of the journalists that have NO passion about photography get them first. It's only three weeks ago I spoke to a photo-journalist still using the 1d mkIII, and I asked him about the AF.issues and spoke genreally, he looked at me like I was speaking a different language and answererd :

"Huh? Af.what? I just use it in "P-mode" for the most, and it seems to do the job"

I smacked him and sat down with a tear in my eye, the week was ruined......

[smirkypants]

There are people who are enamored with megapixels... and then there are people who whenever you mention megapixels, they roll their eyes, as if they had no meaning at all. Each is a wrongheaded as the other. More megapixels, all other things being equal, are simply better. You can do a lot more with a bigger image. It has more information and more information in an image mean greater flexibility in post-processing.

Heck, a 36MP image on a full frame gets you to where many crop-sensors are today.

36/1.6^2 = 14.1MP in the same area of an APS-C ... plus you get everything outside of that.

That's pretty handy if you ask me. Now somebody check my math.

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

I'm intrigued about the 3rd slide on the nikonuser.info forum. Can someone who can read German translate that slide for the rest of us? TIA. Is it something about the VF & AF pt. spread or sensor pixel size? 

[Fleetie]

By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size and print size.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

Ok, I still need a bit of education on this one, so be gentle:

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX? If pixel count is irrelevant to noise for a given sensor size, then why not jump to 30+ MPix? That would sure have pleased more people....

I have some difficulty believing it was just to get the frame-rate up.