Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary

[privatebydesign]

Very nice comparison and pretty much stops the discussion with this simple and perfect example 4mpixel is simply not relevant.

Bullsh!t. If 20 isn't enough then 24 might be, 24 isn't as useful as 28 but it is a damn sight more useful than 20. My 1Ds MkIII's had 21MP 13 YEARS AGO!

 

[Antono Refa]

It really sucks if its true no 4k60p af. This is insane especially when they talked about it having DPAF in 4k. Looks like the Canon Cripple hammer is at it again

Why do 1DX owners need 4K 60fps w/ AF?

Last I've heard, The Hobbit was shown on the silver screen at 48 fps, and the audience didn't like it.

 

[tpatana]

, I for one would be disappointed because the Mark II has been lagging behind for a while, especially with the autofocus system.

I'm curious on this since so many people complain about the Mk2 autofocus. I'm shooting with Mark1, and my sports is very challenging. Poorly lit gyms (usually ISO6400 1/400 F2.8, then ~0.5stop add on post for proper exposure) with randomly moving competitors wearing dark indigo robes (and usually more colorful background with spectators that are easier for the AF system to catch on). And I think Mark1 does stellar job there, nothing short of magic.

So is Mark2 worse than that, because I can't really imagine being better than what the Mark1 does.

 

[tpatana]

The faster wifi is via a paid accessory, just vanilla wifi is included. Still, worthwhile in the right situation. I'd want it if I was going to Tokyo this year.

Right, the 2.4GHz .11n can probably do some 100Mbps give or take. If you're shooting RAW, that's some 3 seconds per picture.

 

[navastronia]

Why do 1DX owners need 4K 60fps w/ AF?

Last I've heard, The Hobbit was shown on the silver screen at 48 fps, and the audience didn't like it.

Canon Rumors: "Come for the discussion, stay for the discussion that's indistinguishable from trolling."

 

[Travel_Photographer]

The bird on the left and the bird on the right, these are two very different compositions. Aside from that, what I'm saying is that more megapixels equates to more ability to crop and adjust the composition without sacrificing maximum usable size in print. You may be one of those shooters who "doesn't crop," and so, yeah, the difference in mp is negligible to you (and without cropping and recomposing taken into account, sure, it's not that many pixels). However, in my experience as a freelance photographer, magazine editors crop the hell out of photos for all kinds of reasons when an issue goes to layout. Because of this, they want the highest resolution images they can get, and in 2020, 20mp looks a little skimpy.

Hey, maybe that's why it's 20 mp. It's the 1DX mk. III 2020 edition! Get it?!

Live view has nothing to do with shooting sports and needing an OVF. The 1DXMKIII was supposed to be

Both images are of poor quality. The one supposed to be 24MP has better color and the shadows are more defined. I can clearly see the difference between my 1DX and MKII shots. An extra 4MP's in the hands of a skilled photographer and editor who has used the camera for years would be substantial. The key words being professional and skilled.

This is comical. PEOPLE: I took ONE PHOTO, the SAME PHOTO, and resized it twice in software to show the exact difference in megapixels and cropping ability you would get between 20mp and 24mp. IT'S THE SAME PHOTO. Better color and shadows? IT'S THE SAME PHOTO.

I opened my laptop and found some random bird photo. I resized it in software to make it exactly 20 megapixels. I then took the exact same photo and resized it to be exactly 24 megapixels. I then put both images, side-by-side on the screen, and used the image viewer to ensure each was being viewed at "100%". I then took a screenshot. The "composition" may be different because of where I happened to scroll the image to position it on my screen. Zero relevance. Each photo, side-by-side, viewed at 100%, represents the exact difference a photographer would get had they photographed that bird (1) with a 20 megapixel camera and (2) with a 24 megapixel camera. The purpose of the comparison is so that someone can look at the size of the eye of the birds, or look at the size of the beak of the bird, or any other part of the bird, and THAT IS THE SIZE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20MP AND 24MP. That's it. THERE IS NO MORE CROPPING ABILITY THAN WHAT YOU SEE IN THOSE TWO BIRD PHOTOS. I don't know how to further make it understandable. That is the cropping ability. I have already done it for you. It is already cropped and being viewed at 100% for each of the two megapixel sizes. The bird photo on the right is the extra reach you get from the extra 4 megapixels. The increase in the size of the eye, that you see in those two photos, IS ALL YOU GET with an extra four megapixels. The increase in the size of the beak is ALL YOU GET. That's it. It may be frustrating to realize how little it is, but THAT IS IT. If you had an editor that wanted a large photo of the bird, and you owned a 20 megapixel camera, and a photographer who was your competitor had a 24 megapixel camera, and the editor said they wanted a bigger, higher resolution photo of the bird, the difference that editor would get between you and your competitor is the difference between the bird on the left and the bird on the right. That is the sum total of size increase between the two cameras.

As far as the "skilled photographer" comment, stop being patronizing. I'm a professional commercial photographer and have my photos in countless magazines. This is the first time I've mentioned that on this forum and hopefully the last. Personally I don't find it relevant to having fun on these forums, so I don't say it. But I don't need the attitude. I literally opened my laptop and grabbed the first random photo that popped up on the screen (I was testing a telephoto lens if you must know) and used it as an example. Your statement about 4 megapixels being 'substantial" in the hands of a skilled photographer is, quite honestly, preposterous.

To sum up, the difference between 24 megapixels and 20 megapixels in practicality is very, very small. It just is. It can easily be seen by looking at the two bird photos. That's the difference. If someone wants to look at the two bird photos and say they see a very significant difference in the size of the eye, or the beak, great. Go for it. I don't see such a material difference that it would possibly affect anything. If any of my clients saw this discussion about the size of the bird in each phto, they would laugh and have no idea what we were talking about. They'd probably see no difference whatsoever.

 

[djack41]

I'm curious on this since so many people complain about the Mk2 autofocus. I'm shooting with Mark1, and my sports is very challenging. Poorly lit gyms (usually ISO6400 1/400 F2.8, then ~0.5stop add on post for proper exposure) with randomly moving competitors wearing dark indigo robes (and usually more colorful background with spectators that are easier for the AF system to catch on). And I think Mark1 does stellar job there, nothing short of magic.

So is Mark2 worse than that, because I can't really imagine being better than what the Mark1 does.

Hmmm. Try fast moving birds in flight against contrasty backgrounds. The 1Dx2 underperforms the hit rate of the D5 or A92. Canon announced that the 1DX3 will have improvements in AF tracking and stability . So Canon saw the need to improve the AF.

 

[degos]

The bird photo "comparison" is a red herring. In practise the zoomed-out composition would be the same ( pixel density doesn't change FoV ) but the difference would be found when the editor says "I want it cropped to the eye and head only". Ooops megapixels.

Just to illustrate how far behind the 1DX3's pixel density will be: 2.34 per sq cm versus 9.81 for the 90D.

I've been using the 1D series since the 1D3 but I'm about to add a tiny M6-2 for static and slower shooting since the sheer pixel density gives so many post-processing options. Depending how the AF functions it might also be used for faster purposes.

 

[Travel_Photographer]

The bird photo "comparison" is a red herring. In practise the zoomed-out composition would be the same ( pixel density doesn't change FoV ) but the difference would be found when the editor says "I want it cropped to the eye and head only". Ooops megapixels.

Agreed, which is exactly what I simulated. Here is the original photo:




The two photos in the megapixel comparison are exactly what you describe, a simulation of an editor asking for a crop, from this photo, of just the head and eyes. That's precisely what I showed: the difference the editor would receive between a 20 megapixel camera and a 24 megapixel camera. Each "head and eye" photo in my side-by-side would be at native resolution. So the difference the editor would see is the difference in size in you see in the side-by-side below. To me, that is minimal.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]Or maybe they're saving the best for the RF mount in a bid to tempt people across, as they have done with some of the new lenses. Time will tell.

I was about to suggest that same theory, but it feels way too cynical for Canon. Then again, looking at what the 32MP M6II can do with a Digic 8, an 26MP R1 could easily do 20fps.

 

[navastronia]

Agreed, which is exactly what I simulated. Here is the original photo:

View attachment 188047


The two photos in the megapixel comparison are exactly what you describe, a simulation of an editor asking for a crop, from this photo, of just the head and eyes. That's precisely what I showed: the difference the editor would receive between a 20 megapixel camera and a 24 megapixel camera. Each "head and eye" photo in my side-by-side would be at native resolution. So the difference the editor would see is the difference in size in you see in the side-by-side below. To me, that is minimal.

View attachment 188048

I think we're talking past each other.

Going from a 24 mp sensor down to a 20 mp sensor, you lose about 530 pixels on the horizontal axis and 350 on the vertical axis.

That doesn't sound like much, but if I crop a 24 mp image down to 20 mp, it looks like this (24 mp on the left, 20 mp on the right)



Losing resolution means that an editor has less room to crop while still maintaining the quality necessary for print (for argument's sake, at 300 DPI). When an editor has a problem using an image because they need to crop it, but there isn't enough resolution to use it at the size they want, in layout, it means they have to use a different image. This could mean the difference between you making the cover of a magazine or not!

All this to say, yeah, it would be better if the 1DX mk. III had a higher resolution sensor, because having one would make the camera more versatile. This is inarguable even if one's own specific usage will not benefit from increased resolution.

 

[scyrene]

The bird photo "comparison" is a red herring. In practise the zoomed-out composition would be the same ( pixel density doesn't change FoV ) but the difference would be found when the editor says "I want it cropped to the eye and head only". Ooops megapixels.

Just to illustrate how far behind the 1DX3's pixel density will be: 2.34 per sq cm versus 9.81 for the 90D.

I've been using the 1D series since the 1D3 but I'm about to add a tiny M6-2 for static and slower shooting since the sheer pixel density gives so many post-processing options. Depending how the AF functions it might also be used for faster purposes.

Well another way of looking at it is, as mentioned a few pages ago, it's like going from a 500mm lens to a ~548mm lens. If it had been 28MP then the equivalent would be 592mm. That's a measurable difference, but is it a substantial one? Comparing it to the 90D and M6II is a bit beside the point, as the 1Dx was never going to approach those pixel densities. (Caveat: I appreciate some people object to the idea of 'equivalent reach', but I think it's helpful in situations like this).

My style of shooting very much favours cropping ability, and I've chased MPs more than many. I went from the 5D3 to the 5Ds, and now I'm likely to get the 90D. So I totally get where people are coming from on this. But we mustn't lose sight of reality. PBD is correct above in saying that sometimes 24 vs 20 would make the difference - but for most people, in most situations, I'd argue that difference, of less than 10%, is marginal and can be covered by slightly wider cropping or intelligent upscaling, things people have been doing for years. If you want to crop a lot, then the 1 series as it currently stands (and has since the 1Dx came out) is not the optimum choice. I know that's a bummer when Canon only offers certain features (larger size, big battery, top of the line ruggedness, etc) in those bodies. But that's how it has been for nearly a decade. Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth now? Because people got ahead of themselves and dreamed of a major change with the mark III. But the chances of anything more than the high 20s was negligable.

A new high MP FF camera will come out, but of course it won't be a 1 series, and it'll almost certainly be RF mount. And then (different) people will complain that the resolution is too high, that it harms image quality (myths we see perpetuated even now about the 5Ds(R)). A one-size-fits-all camera body is not possible. And each person's 'sweet spot' is in a different place. I genuinely don't get why the discussion gets so heated. It's not personal.

A genuine question, as I've never worked for publishing - would an editor care whether the crop was a tiny bit different? Whether there was a bit more of the background around the edge, whether the subject was slightly smaller in the frame? I've been imagining the fine margins/boundary pushing is more for fine art, than magazines or websites, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

 

[scyrene]

I think we're talking past each other.

Going from a 24 mp sensor down to a 20 mp sensor, you lose about 530 pixels on the horizontal axis and 350 on the vertical axis.

That doesn't sound like much, but if I crop a 24 mp image down to 20 mp, it looks like this (24 mp on the left, 20 mp on the right)

View attachment 188049

Losing resolution means that an editor has less room to crop while still maintaining the quality necessary for print (for argument's sake, at 300 DPI). When an editor has a problem using an image because they need to crop it, but there isn't enough resolution to use it at the size they want, in layout, it means they have to use a different image. This could mean the difference between you making the cover of a magazine or not!

All this to say, yeah, it would be better if the 1DX mk. III had a higher resolution sensor, because having one would make the camera more versatile. This is inarguable even if one's own specific usage will not benefit from increased resolution.

This is helpful, thanks. A followup question then, has there been a clamour amongst pros using the 1Dx2 for more resolution generally? How often does this come up? I'm not pushing an agenda, I have no experience in this, but trying to understand the reasoning behind Canon's decisions, I'd be surprised if they'd ignore a major complaint/desire from their cherished user base. In which case the motivation would either be technical (can't be done for some reason), or strategic (the RF 'pro' body is the one they want you guys to start using).

 

[Joules]

The two photos in the megapixel comparison are exactly what you describe, a simulation of an editor asking for a crop, from this photo, of just the head and eyes. That's precisely what I showed: the difference the editor would receive between a 20 megapixel camera and a 24 megapixel camera.

I just want to applaud you for actually demonstrating differences. In this thread, letting the reader make up their mind based on evidence, instead of pushing some opinion as if it was a fact, is really valuable I think.

I absolutely understand that people need to vent if they are so invested in the gear and their anticipation has turned to disappointment, even though it may not seem justified to feel this way at the moment. Canon have a way of taking away a few things that make an otherwise perfect looking product appear unattractive to some people.

But the camera isn't even out yet, and all the screaming in the world won't change the specs at this point. Maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised once it is actually released and we know the finer details of how the AF performance looks in the real world and how the image quality looks. And maybe some people could just find happiness and spare us their negative comments by finally making the switch, to Sony or where ever the grass is greenest.

 

[reef58]

This is comical. PEOPLE: I took ONE PHOTO, the SAME PHOTO, and resized it twice in software to show the exact difference in megapixels and cropping ability you would get between 20mp and 24mp. IT'S THE SAME PHOTO. Better color and shadows? IT'S THE SAME PHOTO.

I opened my laptop and found some random bird photo. I resized it in software to make it exactly 20 megapixels. I then took the exact same photo and resized it to be exactly 24 megapixels. I then put both images, side-by-side on the screen, and used the image viewer to ensure each was being viewed at "100%". I then took a screenshot. The "composition" may be different because of where I happened to scroll the image to position it on my screen. Zero relevance. Each photo, side-by-side, viewed at 100%, represents the exact difference a photographer would get had they photographed that bird (1) with a 20 megapixel camera and (2) with a 24 megapixel camera. The purpose of the comparison is so that someone can look at the size of the eye of the birds, or look at the size of the beak of the bird, or any other part of the bird, and THAT IS THE SIZE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20MP AND 24MP. That's it. THERE IS NO MORE CROPPING ABILITY THAN WHAT YOU SEE IN THOSE TWO BIRD PHOTOS. I don't know how to further make it understandable. That is the cropping ability. I have already done it for you. It is already cropped and being viewed at 100% for each of the two megapixel sizes. The bird photo on the right is the extra reach you get from the extra 4 megapixels. The increase in the size of the eye, that you see in those two photos, IS ALL YOU GET with an extra four megapixels. The increase in the size of the beak is ALL YOU GET. That's it. It may be frustrating to realize how little it is, but THAT IS IT. If you had an editor that wanted a large photo of the bird, and you owned a 20 megapixel camera, and a photographer who was your competitor had a 24 megapixel camera, and the editor said they wanted a bigger, higher resolution photo of the bird, the difference that editor would get between you and your competitor is the difference between the bird on the left and the bird on the right. That is the sum total of size increase between the two cameras.

As far as the "skilled photographer" comment, stop being patronizing. I'm a professional commercial photographer and have my photos in countless magazines. This is the first time I've mentioned that on this forum and hopefully the last. Personally I don't find it relevant to having fun on these forums, so I don't say it. But I don't need the attitude. I literally opened my laptop and grabbed the first random photo that popped up on the screen (I was testing a telephoto lens if you must know) and used it as an example. Your statement about 4 megapixels being 'substantial" in the hands of a skilled photographer is, quite honestly, preposterous.

To sum up, the difference between 24 megapixels and 20 megapixels in practicality is very, very small. It just is. It can easily be seen by looking at the two bird photos. That's the difference. If someone wants to look at the two bird photos and say they see a very significant difference in the size of the eye, or the beak, great. Go for it. I don't see such a material difference that it would possibly affect anything. If any of my clients saw this discussion about the size of the bird in each phto, they would laugh and have no idea what we were talking about. They'd probably see no difference whatsoever.

I appreciated your efforts. I still want my megapixels. Ha.

 

[Joules]

I appreciated your efforts. I still want my megapixels. Ha.

I think many want and few have a problem with saying that you want more. It is only frustrating if people act like the 1DX III is a catastrophic failure for being 20 MP and praise the A9 II as clearly superior in the next sentence And that's the attitude that the images provide some context for.

 

[reef58]

Well another way of looking at it is, as mentioned a few pages ago, it's like going from a 500mm lens to a ~548mm lens. If it had been 28MP then the equivalent would be 592mm. That's a measurable difference, but is it a substantial one? Comparing it to the 90D and M6II is a bit beside the point, as the 1Dx was never going to approach those pixel densities. (Caveat: I appreciate some people object to the idea of 'equivalent reach', but I think it's helpful in situations like this).

My style of shooting very much favours cropping ability, and I've chased MPs more than many. I went from the 5D3 to the 5Ds, and now I'm likely to get the 90D. So I totally get where people are coming from on this. But we mustn't lose sight of reality. PBD is correct above in saying that sometimes 24 vs 20 would make the difference - but for most people, in most situations, I'd argue that difference, of less than 10%, is marginal and can be covered by slightly wider cropping or intelligent upscaling, things people have been doing for years. If you want to crop a lot, then the 1 series as it currently stands (and has since the 1Dx came out) is not the optimum choice. I know that's a bummer when Canon only offers certain features (larger size, big battery, top of the line ruggedness, etc) in those bodies. But that's how it has been for nearly a decade. Why the wailing and gnashing of teeth now? Because people got ahead of themselves and dreamed of a major change with the mark III. But the chances of anything more than the high 20s was negligable.

A new high MP FF camera will come out, but of course it won't be a 1 series, and it'll almost certainly be RF mount. And then (different) people will complain that the resolution is too high, that it harms image quality (myths we see perpetuated even now about the 5Ds(R)). A one-size-fits-all camera body is not possible. And each person's 'sweet spot' is in a different place. I genuinely don't get why the discussion gets so heated. It's not personal.

A genuine question, as I've never worked for publishing - would an editor care whether the crop was a tiny bit different? Whether there was a bit more of the background around the edge, whether the subject was slightly smaller in the frame? I've been imagining the fine margins/boundary pushing is more for fine art, than magazines or websites, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

I understand a high mega pixel body will be coming out, but it will probably lack either the auto focus abilities of the new 1dx3 or the speed and possibly both. I keep going back to this:

1) Mega Pixels
2) Superb Auto Focus
3) High Frame Rate

Canon says you can have two. There seems to be a real demand on this forum for the resolution of the 5d4 along with the speed and auto focus of the 1dx3. I realize it is just internet noise and represent a small fraction of camera buyers, but buyers of the 1d series are a small fraction of camera buyers. I am just shocked it appear this segment is not going to be addressed by Canon. It seems mostly related to wildlife shooters, some portrait shooters and all rounders. Who is buying 600f4 and 500F4 and 800f5.6 lenses?

 

[Don Haines]

we live in an era of entitled people, demanding they need to be served the best, 20mp was good yesterday but its not good today in their minds everything must keep getting better, here to read all the angry entitled comments as well

It’s when they have conflicting demands, and want them both met.....

 

[reef58]

I think many want and few have a problem with saying that you want more. It is only frustrating if people act like the 1DX III is a catastrophic failure for being 20 MP and praise the A9 II as clearly superior in the next sentence And that's the attitude that the images provide some context for.

I don't think it is a failure, and I still want one. $6500 in 2020 for a 20mp sensor is just surprising.

 

[Joules]

I understand a high mega pixel body will be coming out, but it will probably lack either the auto focus abilities of the new 1dx3 or the speed and possibly both. I keep going back to this:

1) Mega Pixels
2) Superb Auto Focus
3) High Frame Rate

Canon says you can have two. There seems to be a real demand on this forum for the resolution of the 5d4 along with the speed and auto focus of the 1dx3. I realize it is just internet noise and represent a small fraction of camera buyers, but buyers of the 1d series are a small fraction of camera buyers. I am just shocked it appear this segment is not going to be addressed by Canon.

Just as a reminder, the M6 II has a 32.5 MP sensor and does 14 FPS at full autofocus, with admirable tracking for all but the most tiny subjects, like certain birds. If it was given the superior processors and a modern EVF, it should do quite well for many circumstances that a 1DX II would have been great today. In any case, Canon had as the technology that you ask for and I think they will deliver it eventually.

I would be shocked if the upcoming 5D V and R II will come with substantially lesser speeds. Obviously, they won't do 14 FPS, since they are FF cameras (talking only about mechanical shutter here), but above 10 should be feasible, given that the 1DX III does 20, right? And I've read often that 20 FPS is not needed by many folks.

Maybe Canon feels like the 1DX line should be about upmost speed and it is finde for the 5D V / R II to cannibalize some of the wildlife and cropping enthusiasts.