A guy used 1DX yesterday in Germany!!

[Fleetie]

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

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......

HA HA HA!!! I actually laughed out loud at that. Nice one!

[RobertG.]

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? 

Hi,
the third slide with the title "Bewegungsunschärfe" translates as the following:

Motion blur
- because of the larger pixel motion blur is reduced compared to the EOS-1Ds Mark III
- What is motion blur?
- Faster shutter times are needed to freeze moving objects, the size of the pixel influences this
- smaller pixels need a faster shutter speed for sharp pictures without motion blur

[weixing]

Hi,
    Auto focus for F8 is actually quite importance especially for those who shoot birds. A lot of birds are quite small even using a 600mm and lots of birds won't let you go near. So many bird photographers who own a 500mm/600mm and 1D DSLR usually also owned a 2x extender, so they might not upgrade their DSLR. Also, if 1DX cannot AF at F8, the lens that can use the 2x extender will be limited to those f2.8 lenses. By looking at the 2x extender description in Canon website, it's obvious that the 2x extender is design to be used on super telephoto lenses which most of them are at F4... so I was quite surprise when I heard that 1DX cannot focus at F8.

   

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.

    Technically, 1DX is the replacement for 1D4, so the MP is actually increase, not decrease. 

     Anyway, I think the frame rate might be one of the major limitation that limit the MP in 1DX. How big is 1DX 18MP RAW file going to be?? My 60D (also a 18MP DSLR) usually had a RAW file of around 22MB. So if I assume that 1DX RAW file is going to be around that size, at 12FPS, you'll need to store 264MB of data in one second. If 1DX using 36MP, the RAW files size should double and you'll need to store 528MB of data in one second. So let assume that 1DX had unlimited  internal memory and we use a 100MB/s write speed CF card to shoot 12FPS for 1s and how long we need to wait for all the pictures in the internal memory to write to the CF cards:
1) @18MP:
     Total data = 12FPS x 1s x 22MB = 264MB.
     Total time wait = (264MB / 100MB/s)  = ~2.6s

2)  @36MP:
     Total data = 12FPS x 1s x 44MB = 528MB.
     Total time wait = (528MB / 100MB/s) = ~5.2s

    Just wonder how many people will wait for 5.2s in order to get the card out of the DSLR after shooting 1s(@12fps) of photo without curse and swear and how many people can afford the 100MB/s write speed CF card?? 

    Just my $0.02.

    Have a nice day.

   

[KeithR]

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX?

By Canon's own reckoning, 18 mps is the optimum sensor "size" to allow the throughput of HQ video - it is nothing to do with "less pixels = better IQ".

But it's obvious that - given the constant clamour out there about this - Canon's marketing boys have allowed the connection to be made between "better high ISO" and "(relatively) low pixel density": not because it's true, but because people still think it's true, and marketing being what it is...

Don't take my word for it though: just try and find any compelling example in the last ten years of a newer, more densely-packed sensor body that has worse noise than the camera it superseded.

And read this: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#8


 

[Viggo]

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX?

By Canon's own reckoning, 18 mps is the optimum sensor "size" to allow the throughput of HQ video - it is nothing to do with "less pixels = better IQ".

But it's obvious that - given the constant clamour out there about this - Canon's marketing boys have allowed the connection to be made between "better high ISO" and "(relatively) low pixel density": not because it's true, but because people still think it's true, and marketing being what it is...

Don't take my word for it though: just try and find any compelling example in the last ten years of a newer, more densely-packed sensor body that has worse noise than the camera it superseded.

And read this: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#8

40d vs 50d.... besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...

[smirkypants]

    Technically, 1DX is the replacement for 1D4, so the MP is actually increase, not decrease. 

If you're shooting something far away, you're only getting 10.6 megapixels in the same crop area as the 1D4. For people who do birding or sports it's a huge step down. This is one reason why the f8 issue is so important. To make up for the loss of the 1D4's crop, you could use a 1.4 adapter. Oh wait, maybe you can't depending on the lens.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been.  Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway.  Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?

Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.

Lenses + TCs or extension tubes.

[KeithR]

40d vs 50d...

It wasn't, at the image level. It had more of a tendency to high ISO banding than the 40D, but it wasn't noisier.

besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...

Easy to say. Where's the proof?

The simple fact is this: more pixels does not "guarantee" more noise, despite the insistence of some people that it does.

[Viggo]

40d vs 50d...

It wasn't, at the image level. It had more of a tendency to high ISO banding than the 40D, but it wasn't noisier.

besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...

Easy to say. Where's the proof?

The simple fact is this: more pixels does not "guarantee" more noise, despite the insistence of some people that it does.

If you use the the 1d3 side by side the 1d4 you have the same noise when shooting action , at least, because you need to double the shutterspeed of the mk4 to get no motion blur due to the smaller pixels. It's not just noise that becomes an issue when increasing the res.

And how much better do you think the noiselevels of a 5d3 would be compared to a 5d mk1 if it had the same sensor and a digic5+ processor? I say A LOT.