Comparing the EOS-1D X, EOS-1D X Mark II & EOS-1D X Mark III

This is a humorous conclusion at best. While there are certainly advancements in specifications, the improvements are relatively meaningless to photographers. Had they achieved the same thing with a 45 MP sensor which could also operate in a smaller “H” crop mode, it might be worth the $7k price tag. I’ll pass.

The mk3 spec sheet looks great. Let's see it in action.

I'd buy one if I had the money... along with a 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm. People keep saying that it is not enough reason to upgrade. Maybe not. However, it is enough for first time buyers of 1 series cameras.

One has to wonder how many 1DC were sold at $14,999. Wow.

I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.

Canon Rumors Guy said:

Yeah, the all-new image sensor (and hopefully jump in IQ) and an all-new and more precise autofocus system are definitely not for photographers. Obviously we have to see it in action first, but to claim there's nothing here for photographers is silly.

Click to expand...

As a stills camera I must confess I was hoping to see some new in-the-pipeline features (IBIS high among them), but if the performance enhancements with focus, battery and *particularly* high ISO, are as strong as the PR suggests, then I'd deffo think to swap my older mk2 over in time.

Shutter speed and buffer are crazy and I guess they can just do that now anyway, so why not and, assuming it isn't for buffer speed, I care less about a bump in megapixels than I do about a stop of high ISO performance.

Built in wifi knocks off an additional (and irrepairable/easily losable and clumsy) £500 purchase for many who shoot live from their hands. Saving 100g is nice, and it's prob double that if the battery life improvement hits the mark.

But, while I'd consider this over time, I'd immediately buy this kind of spec in a lightweight mirrorless (or even 5d5), with a removable grip, IBIS and a flippy screen.

I bet they still haven't added in-camera 0.1 degree fidelity rotation

woodman411 said:

I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing that the massive buffer is only possible because of the CFexress cards – they will write data fast enough to keep the buffer from filling.

I'm curious to know how they managed all of that camera and to shave off over 100 grams of weight.

CanonFanBoy said:

I'd buy one if I had the money... along with a 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm. People keep saying that it is not enough reason to upgrade. Maybe not. However, it is enough for first time buyers of 1 series cameras.

One has to wonder how many 1DC were sold at $14,999. Wow.

Click to expand...

If I had the money... , I'd buy one today if it weren't for the weight...

If only IBIS and more pixels were added, this would instantly become the greatest camera for every pro shooter. Now Canon just limited this model to news agencies. Maybe, Canon don't really care for other types of photographers to be interested in this.

Some others have picked up on it and taken notice, as well, but the HUGE buffer is incredible and not to just be glossed over. If you’re a sports photographer you can basically just hold down the shutter during an entire play and not have to worry about the camera choking or slowing down.

People want more DR and more megapixels, but ignore the reality that there are only so many photons entering the camera at the exposure time..... you can’t have both At the same time.

I don't see the specs as anything that will sell this camera. The real question comes down to autofocus and high ISO performance, neither of which can be determined by specs. If the autofocus lives up to the hype and there are significant but realistic improvements in noise at high ISO, it will be worth the trade off of less resolution. I'm sincerely hoping that will be the case.

The larger buffer is, in my opinion, little more than a spec sheet advantage. The truth is, shooting raw to a cfast card I can't recall ever having the buffer fill shooting sports. The reason being that most sports plays only take a few seconds before they are over with, giving plenty of time to clear the buffer before the next play. In contrast, I've had to wait for the buffer to clear on the 5DIV and R many, many times.

Eh....compared in a chart like that it's a marginal improvement at best. As others noted the buffer is huge, but even for sports photographers, I can't imagine many situations where you need to hold a shutter for a minute straight, unless you're in spray & pray mode or have no idea where big moments are in the sport you're covering. I get that sports are fast and you never know EXACTLY when something will happen...but if you can't narrow it down to less than a minute maybe go do something else with your time.

woodman411 said:

I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.

Click to expand...

True. I was thinking air shows too. Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Racing, etc. But I don't really know.

Removed WIFI?

Actually, there are some interesting "video" options. I suspect the "buffer" is effectively unlimited with HEIF, so set the camera to electronic shutter and HEIF mode and you have 5.4k 20 fps video with AF.

Just wondering if we are talking about the same old sensor or a totally new tech.