Canon EOS-1D X Mark III rumoured specifications [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

It makes a lot of sense for Canon to develop the 1DxIII alongside the Rf variant. Cross feeding the tech and needs, spanning the dev across two cameras. It bodes well for the Rf mount in general but it's a snub to the 5D5 hopes. The 5D3 and 4 were co-developed with the 1 Series cameras. I dare say that the 5D5 will be co-developed with the Eos RII which will probably improve the R series substantially, but devalue the 5D5 somewhat. Canon have never really understood the market needs for a 5 Series. It took Jeff Ascough's inspired input to get the 5DIII spec from the weird spec of the 5DII. Canon likewise didn't understand what the market wanted with the Eos R....not even close. A great little camera, but shameful compared to a 5D4. Baring in mind that there are more 5D's in the hands of pros around the world than all the other camera brands and models combined.

 

[SteveC]

I would be a bit more optimistic in your place.

He's rooting for Canon to fail, so he should actually be a bit more pessimistic.

 

[richperson]

My quote is that the A9 has better Af
that remains correct
The A9 simply has a better af system
I don’t know or care about your usage. I’m talking about technology and the camera not you

The A9 is just better with af
Period

This is the difference between an MD and a PhD. PhD's look at all the facts and make accurate conclusions. MDs just know they are right . . . because . . . reasons. I know that was a bit mean, but restating the same thing over and over without adding any evidence or detail . . .

 

[SteveC]

This is the difference between an MD and a PhD. PhD's look at all the facts and make accurate conclusions. MDs just know they are right . . . because . . . reasons. I know that was a bit mean, but restating the same thing over and over without adding any evidence or detail . . .

Yes, precisely that.

I tend to assume if someone can't explain his assertion he doesn't actually know it to be true in any meaningful sense of the word "know."

(And secondarily, if they refuse to do so but continue talking...they probably can't.)

 

[Drcampbellicu]

This is the difference between an MD and a PhD. PhD's look at all the facts and make accurate conclusions. MDs just know they are right . . . because . . . reasons. I know that was a bit mean, but restating the same thing over and over without adding any evidence or detail . . .

My statement is concise and accurate
The 1dx2 is no longer class leading in terms of autofocus. The A9 took that mantle.
most reviewers have come to this conclusion.

it’s not worth repeating anymore
The new 1D will be our soon and I hope that canon pours some innovations into it
cameras are about technology now. Things have to move forward

 

[bestpractices]

30 fps still shooting.. how?

Probably in live view only. The dual axis motor drive for the mirror can be engineered for speeds well into 20+ FPS, but 30 may be pushing it.

 

[bestpractices]

My statement is concise and accurate
The 1dx2 is no longer class leading in terms of autofocus. The A9 took that mantle.
most reviewers have come to this conclusion.

it’s not worth repeating anymore
The new 1D will be our soon and I hope that canon pours some innovations into it
cameras are about technology now. Things have to move forward

The 1DX series is a showcase for what can be done mechanically. Canon engineers have said recently there is still much room to innovate.

 

[Kit.]

Probably in live view only. The dual axis motor drive for the mirror can be engineered for speeds well into 20+ FPS, but 30 may be pushing it.

A pellicle mirror and a rotary disc shutter

 

[djack41]

I have a feeling that the “complainers “of the 1dxII AF have not really understood the AF system. It is a very complex system, with different preset cases that is highly customisable based on your needs. Once you get a hang of this everything is much controllable and easier with a tremendous hit rate. Most reviewers and users that I have found, did not study this extensively and probably are basing their reports on the basic servo mode, which is indeed subpar but not a show stopper at all.

Sorry but the 1DX2 AF problem exists regardless of settings and technique. Canon needs to address it in the 1DX3.

 

[privatebydesign]

Sorry but the 1DX2 AF problem exists regardless of settings and technique. Canon needs to address it in the 1DX3.

So now it has a problem? Has this been documented? What specific situations can you not get your 1DX MkII to get you the shots you need?

 

[Aussie shooter]

It makes a lot of sense for Canon to develop the 1DxIII alongside the Rf variant. Cross feeding the tech and needs, spanning the dev across two cameras. It bodes well for the Rf mount in general but it's a snub to the 5D5 hopes. The 5D3 and 4 were co-developed with the 1 Series cameras. I dare say that the 5D5 will be co-developed with the Eos RII which will probably improve the R series substantially, but devalue the 5D5 somewhat. Canon have never really understood the market needs for a 5 Series. It took Jeff Ascough's inspired input to get the 5DIII spec from the weird spec of the 5DII. Canon likewise didn't understand what the market wanted with the Eos R....not even close. A great little camera, but shameful compared to a 5D4. Baring in mind that there are more 5D's in the hands of pros around the world than all the other camera brands and models combined.

Canon never understood? The 5d3 is possibly the greatest selling FF camera in history. I am pretty sure understanding was required to be produce something that popular. And I would also say they knew exactly what the market wanted with the eos r. But if they gave it to them they would compete too directly with the 5d4. The true mirrorless 5d4 equivalent will appear when canon chooses to discontinue the dslr 5d camera. I am guessing a 5d5 will never exist but will be replaced with a quick upgrade to the eos r.

 

[unfocused]

So now it has a problem? Has this been documented? What specific situations can you not get your 1DX MkII to get you the shots you need?

I find the 1Dx II has problems in a number of sports situations. Nailing the face of a volleyball player when shooting through the net. Staying focused on a soccer player when another player enters the frame. Tracking a basketball player going in for a layup when there are defenders in the frame. Like many sports photographers I limit myself to single point or expanded single point in most sports situations. I don’t know if Nikon or Sony are better as I have never used them and never will, but there is plenty of room for improvement by Canon. What is so wrong with just acknowledging that Canon can improve on its product?

 

[AlanF]

My experience too. Would often miss shots that were dead easy and get shots that were tough. The easy ones p!ssed me off no end. I know a guy that takes bird tours to Iceland to shoot puffins amongst other things and as a die hard Canon guy said he rarely got many keepers. I know I struggled with the 1DX. He's since switched to D5 and now gets 80% keep[ers. All the Canon users this year still using 1DXII had very poor hit rates. Even my D500 could do better than the 1DX in certain circumstances. 1DXIII needs to fix this behaviour to be taken seriously by a lot of birders again.

You know a guy who only rarely gets keepers shooting puffins with Canon. Well, I am a guy who goes out shooting them with a Canon 5DIV and believe me I get at least 80% keepers - see https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/puffins-guillemots-and-razorbills.37217/

 

[richperson]

I find the 1Dx II has problems in a number of sports situations. Nailing the face of a volleyball player when shooting through the net. Staying focused on a soccer player when another player enters the frame. Tracking a basketball player going in for a layup when there are defenders in the frame. Like many sports photographers I limit myself to single point or expanded single point in most sports situations. I don’t know if Nikon or Sony are better as I have never used them and never will, but there is plenty of room for improvement by Canon. What is so wrong with just acknowledging that Canon can improve on its product?

Likely depends on the conditions (net and background). For this game I didn't get one net focus using single point. I have shot a lot of tournaments, and at times hit the net, but it's less than 5% of the time. Not sure I would call that a problem.

From a tournament last year. Maybe the combination of the 1DXii with the 200mm f/2 helps.

 

[djack41]

So now it has a problem? Has this been documented? What specific situations can you not get your 1DX MkII to get you the shots you need?

When the keeper rate for BIF is significantly lower than a competitors' camera, it as a problem.

 

[unfocused]

Likely depends on the conditions (net and background). For this game I didn't get one net focus using single point. I have shot a lot of tournaments, and at times hit the net, but it's less than 5% of the time. Not sure I would call that a problem.

From a tournament last year. Maybe the combination of the 1DXii with the 200mm f/2 helps.

Excellent shots. And, they prove my point. Single-point or expanded single-point for sports shooting with Canon. I hope that someday, Canon's autofocus is good enough to allow it to track the subject. I'd also like to be able to afford a 200 f2.

 

[privatebydesign]

When the keeper rate for BIF is significantly lower than a competitors' camera, it as a problem.

Apart from the fact that is just more hyperbole.

1st, by problem I meant actual issue like in the 1D MkIII. 2nd, even the very best avian raptor in flight specialists say there is no more than a 5% difference in keeper rate between the best AF currently available for that speciality and the 1DX MkII, and even that difference is predicated on a specific shooting style with both systems having different advantages.

I would have said (indeed I have been) a 5% difference makes the various systems comparable, not one 'a problem'. Now I can understand the very best of the best deciding that a 5% difference for their particular specialty is a significant enough benefit for them to change system. However I have no time or inclination for the vast majority of sheep who bleat endlessly when they don't have 1/10 the skill of those at the very top hiding behind idiot comments like 'the AF has a problem' because a rarified few have found the limits of the various AF algorithms, especially when there are instances of high profile high speed nature shooters who have gone the other way.

So now we have proven the A9/II, 1DX MkII and D5 have comparable iso performance LINK, and that the best of the best who are also genuinely analytical about their AF rate the differences in keepers at around 5% for any of the top three I'd say the AF was also comparable.

To be sure I can understand why any individual might find one of the top three advantageous for their specific subjects and personal use, however I find the suggestion that any one of the three has 'a problem' or lags seriously behind any of the others as proof of only one issue and that issue is 6" behind the viewfinder.

I am no Canon apologist I am a photographer, give me a 1DX MKII, a D5 or an A9 and I'll take the same images, if I don't get the image the problem is me and you won't find me blaming any of the gear.

 

[stevelee]

I'm hoping my lawnmower can be repaired a few times until I can buy one that supports 24p

I have given up and hired a lawn guy. Before I left on my travels, he killed everything. I think they just had some rain at home, so maybe he is ready to reseed.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon never understood? The 5d3 is possibly the greatest selling FF camera in history. I am pretty sure understanding was required to be produce something that popular. And I would also say they knew exactly what the market wanted with the eos r. But if they gave it to them they would compete too directly with the 5d4. The true mirrorless 5d4 equivalent will appear when canon chooses to discontinue the dslr 5d camera. I am guessing a 5d5 will never exist but will be replaced with a quick upgrade to the eos r.

I don't think you understood my post. Canon only understood the 5D3 because of Jeff's input. The 5D2 was a very poor camera in terms of functionality until Jeff gave Canon a list of things needed to take it to a more professional level. Jeff openly admitted that he never though Canon would put all of his suggestions in the 5D3...but Canon did. It's a great camera and I've been running a pair of 5D3's for a long time now. Canon haven't understood the Eos R because Canon internally developed it and quite frankly...that shows. I just hope Canon is wise and gets some smart Photo journalistic input for the Eos RII and 5D5.

 

[djack41]

Apart from the fact that is just more hyperbole.

1st, by problem I meant actual issue like in the 1D MkIII. 2nd, even the very best avian raptor in flight specialists say there is no more than a 5% difference in keeper rate between the best AF currently available for that speciality and the 1DX MkII, and even that difference is predicated on a specific shooting style with both systems having different advantages.

I would have said (indeed I have been) a 5% difference makes the various systems comparable, not one 'a problem'. Now I can understand the very best of the best deciding that a 5% difference for their particular specialty is a significant enough benefit for them to change system. However I have no time or inclination for the vast majority of sheep who bleat endlessly when they don't have 1/10 the skill of those at the very top hiding behind idiot comments like 'the AF has a problem' because a rarified few have found the limits of the various AF algorithms, especially when there are instances of high profile high speed nature shooters who have gone the other way.

So now we have proven the A9/II, 1DX MkII and D5 have comparable iso performance LINK, and that the best of the best who are also genuinely analytical about their AF rate the differences in keepers at around 5% for any of the top three I'd say the AF was also comparable.

To be sure I can understand why any individual might find one of the top three advantageous for their specific subjects and personal use, however I find the suggestion that any one of the three has 'a problem' or lags seriously behind any of the others as proof of only one issue and that issue is 6" behind the viewfinder.

I am no Canon apologist I am a photographer, give me a 1DX MKII, a D5 or an A9 and I'll take the same images, if I don't get the image the problem is me and you won't find me blaming any of the gear.

Blaa, blab, blaa. Save the stale "gear doesn't matter" argument. It is an unfortunate reality that the AF 1DX2 falls short of the D5 for BIF. Hopefully, Canon will address the problem with the 1DX3.