A bit more about the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III [CR2]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
I doubt this modest change would cause people to start using the more battery-draining live view mode for remotes which they sometimes can't access for hours. I have never used live view for a remote - and can't recall seeing anyone else doing that - either in person or in a tv broadcast. The light from the screens might also not be popular with tv broadcasters if you have 10 of them close to a long jump sandpit for instance. Unless you can turn off the screen while still in live view technically speaking. But not sure if this is doable.

It's easily doable. Anyone with the resources to have a remote camera inside the competition areas of a world class gymnastics meet also has access to electrical power at that location. AC couplers (instead of batteries) and outputting the video over LAN or HDMI cable allows the screen to be left off and the camera powered indefinitely.


I don't know that, but seeing there is no mention of what could be potentially be a groundbreaking new feature for many sports shooters, I assume it sounds pretty much like the predecessors. Which is not surprising, of course. I'm just listing things that would be strong selling points. Esp. for shooters considering a switch to mirrorless.

The press release does mention electronic shutter, which even a sceptic like yourself should surely assume is silent? How long do you want the press release to be in order to explicitly mention every single feature of a camera that will have a User's Manual that is 500-600 pages or more?


I didn't read that from the press release. Are you sure you can transfer files from the built-in WiFi unit - and does it support both ad hoc (direct connection to another device) and infrastructure (connection to an Access Point)? I was excited to read this part, but they immediately go on to mention a new WFT device in relation to file transfers. It just doesn't seem very innovative for 2020 to still have to rely on a clunky 500-600 USD appendage.


It may not have been in the actual press release. The video posted about 2 minutes after midnight EDT by B&H on the date of the announcement may have been where I first saw it. The external WiFi unit is for when longer radio range is needed. The internal WiFi radio is capable of all the same functions as the external unit. The difference is that the non-external antenna is more limited in range due to the camera's metal alloy body.

I guess they might, but no real mention of this in the press release. AF improvements seemed mostly to be in live view mode.

Again, how long do you want a press release announcement telling of a camera under development that is still a few months away from release to be?


No, and it is indeed an interesting new addition/potential improvement if it can be pulled off successfully. So I hope they know what they are doing as this is an essential working function.

So basically, you're assuming anything they are claiming to improve won't be an actual improvement because you hope it is the case so that you'll feel more secure in being a fan of another brand's products?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
The electronic shutter may be silent, but what about the mirror?

I assume you've used current Canon DSLRs in Live View? The mirror stays locked up the entire time unless one has selected using the dedicated viewfinder PDAF system for AF instead of the using the default main imaging sensor based AF.
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
I assume you've used current Canon DSLRs in Live View? The mirror stays locked up the entire time unless one has selected using the dedicated viewfinder PDAF system for AF instead of the using the default main imaging sensor based AF.
I think the comment's point was to show that the silence can only be achieved in LiveView, which is a limitation.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 22, 2014
168
126
It's money you might have wanted to use for something else. Like a downpayment for your new home. Or paid education for your children. Or, if you are really cheap, even a photo tour to Serengeti.


How much do you think an average pro photographer earns?
According the internet, around $52k - $72k a year, depending on what they do, their location, and how many clients they can take on. Most of the working (commercial) professionals I know are more around the $55-$60k mark. The one I work with/ for earns closer to $70k and will likely make a lot more in the coming year due to scoring three new contracts for GM events.
If we're talking the working wedding, senior, and/ or baby photographers (usually overlapping, but not always), I know and work with about a dozen or so (I'm the person they buy their prints from, framed, edited, etc...) and they all make around $30-$40k from the photography, and probably a little more from the prints, depending how they handle that part. It varies a lot.
None of them are using a 1D level of camera, or even Nikon D[x] level camera. Just a whole lot of 5DII/ III/ IV, and D700/ D800/810/ 850. Buy the camera you can afford, that gets the job done that you need. Not a single one of them are require a 1Dx level camera. I do know a few photographers who sport a 1Dx and and 1DxII. They're not professionals by any means. Just wealthy folk who are really really really into birding.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
According the internet, around $52k - $72k a year, depending on what they do, their location, and how many clients they can take on. Most of the working (commercial) professionals I know are more around the $55-$60k mark. The one I work with/ for earns closer to $70k and will likely make a lot more in the coming year due to scoring three new contracts for GM events.
If we're talking the working wedding, senior, and/ or baby photographers (usually overlapping, but not always), I know and work with about a dozen or so (I'm the person they buy their prints from, framed, edited, etc...) and they all make around $30-$40k from the photography, and probably a little more from the prints, depending how they handle that part. It varies a lot.
None of them are using a 1D level of camera, or even Nikon D[x] level camera. Just a whole lot of 5DII/ III/ IV, and D700/ D800/810/ 850. Buy the camera you can afford, that gets the job done that you need. Not a single one of them are require a 1Dx level camera. I do know a few photographers who sport a 1Dx and and 1DxII. They're not professionals by any means. Just wealthy folk who are really really really into birding.

How many salaried staff photographers do you know? I realize there are a lot fewer of them than just 5-10 years ago. Not many of them are making more than mid-five figures, and many do well to make the lower threshold of a mid-five figure salary. Of course, lots of them also do freelancing on the side...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary of a photographer working in the United States was $36,580 as of May 2011. This is based on income actually reported to the IRS by people filing their tax return listing "photographer" as their primary occupation...

Yes, 2011 was eight years ago. While the cost of living has increased since then, the law of supply and demand has held full time photographer's compensation stagnant for the most part. The number of career staff photographers at media companies large and small has plummeted to near nothing.

Edit: OK, I found the most recent BLS numbers: In May, 2018 the average annual salary had increased to $42,770, but the median salary (the point at which half of the people make more and the other half make less) is only $34,000.

Here's zip recruiter's info as of 10/24/2019:

20191031ss1.png

A good number of folks in the U.S. in 2019 who describe themselves as a "photographer" for their primary occupation work for places that do school photos, guest photos at tourist attractions, etc. Those folks rarely make more than 10-15 bucks an hour. Many of them are seasonal workers who work full time for 3-4 months in the fall and another 2-3 months in the spring (school photography companies) or only work full time during peak tourist season for their locale.

Then there is the whole issue of self-employed photographers reporting their gross income rather than their net income when discussing it with others or self-reporting to sites like GlassDoor. As this slrlounge article illustrates, net income for independent wedding photographers is usually somewhere around half of gross after business expenses and taxes are subtracted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
All of that and voiding your camera warranty at the same time - the benefits never end!

We've voided the warranty of EVERY camera we've got because we customize so much ...BUT... when you're a company that has 40+ C700's and 40+ C300 mk2's and 60+ 1Dx2s and who knows how many 5D 2's/3's/4's, Canon will do whatever we want them to if they want to ensure we buy another 40+ C500 mk2s! or 60 more 1Dx3's! And ADD other few million dollars worth of L-series lenses!

.

When we say fix it! Canon Says When Do You Need it By?

We haven't YET had a problem from Canon about getting our gear fixed/upgraded!

.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
How many salaried staff photographers do you know? I realize there are a lot fewer of them than just 5-10 years ago. Not many of them are making more than mid-five figures, and many do well to make the lower threshold of a mid-five figure salary. Of course, lots of them also do freelancing on the side...

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual salary of a photographer working in the United States was $36,580 as of May 2011. This is based on income actually reported to the IRS by people filing their tax return listing "photographer" as their primary occupation...

Yes, 2011 was eight years ago. While the cost of living has increased since then, the law of supply and demand has held full time photographer's compensation stagnant for the most part. The number of career staff photographers at media companies large and small has plummeted to near nothing.

Edit: OK, I found the most recent BLS numbers: In May, 2018 the average annual salary had increased to $42,770, but the median salary (the point at which half of the people make more and the other half make less) is only $34,000.

Here's zip recruiter's info as of 10/24/2019:

View attachment 187307

A good number of folks in the U.S. in 2019 who describe themselves as a "photographer" for their primary occupation work for places that do school photos, guest photos at tourist attractions, etc. Those folks rarely make more than 10-15 bucks an hour. Many of them are seasonal workers who work full time for 3-4 months in the fall and another 2-3 months in the spring (school photography companies) or only work full time during peak tourist season for their locale.

Then there is the whole issue of self-employed photographers reporting their gross income rather than their net income when discussing it with others or self-reporting to sites like GlassDoor. As this slrlounge article illustrates, net income for independent wedding photographers is usually somewhere around half of gross after business expenses and taxes are subtracted.
Thanks for the thorough research. Interesting to know. But, I've forgotten what the debate was about. I think it had something to do with batteries. :)
 
Upvote 0