Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary

[padrepaul]

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.
[/QUOTE]

That's really all I care about - can it shoot fast, and more importantly can it autofocus, and give me a decent file for a print in lower light when I'm shooting birds, sunrises, sunsets, landscapes. If it had no video at all I'd be fine with that.

 

[Canon-Chas]

this will blow the A9 II out of the water, which is why you will see this dominating the Olympics this year and not the A9 II

Absolutely no chance, take it from me ..a Canon user long term who still owns Canon prime lenses and 1DX II and EOS R and Sony A9II , the A9II leaves Canon and Nikon for dead and in complete silence. I can't imagine trying to take live view pics with any enthusiasm on the 1DXIII , get real

 

[Michael Clark]

What nonsense. Any computer from the past 10 years will chomp a 30MP file without breaking sweat. Do you think that the average mid-tier buyer of a 32MP M6-2 is also upgrading their computing hardware at the same time? Of course not. So why would it be a problem to pros?

20MP is abysmal in 2020. Quite often I reach for the 21MP 1Ds3 to get a minor resolution bump and a bit more cropability. That camera was announced in August 2007. But it was also the last of the stills-only 1D line, before videography starting screwing with the specifications.

I'd bet that a 30MP 1DX3 would be possible if they removed all that video processing overhead and left that to the EOS C line. After all we're constantly told on this forum that the 1DX is for sports shooters uploading JPEGs in real-time to their editors, so why bother with video?

There are a LOT of shooters in the 1D X and 1D X Mark II user base that rarely transfer images to a computer for processing before pushing them for publication. It's all about the in-camera JPEG engine doing it right and getting the image on the wire services minutes after the shot was taken.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

It has built in WiFi as well. The external unit is for when greater distance range is needed.

 

[Michael Clark]

The examples you quote account for printing differences, but not for what you gain in cropping ability and being able to adjust the composition.

The math is the same. "Reach" is measured in linear units, not areal units.

 

[ToonD]

I saw a few of your sports photos and they seem very good. I do not believe that 4 more Mpixels would mean anything.
I also do not believe that a Sony system would beat Canon at sport shooting but I am not speaking out of experience. I do not even have 1Dx series. I use the 5 series as a hobbyist (with lenses between 14mm and 500mm). I recently tried a friend's Nikon D750 and I felt frustrated. Canon ergonomics are great. Even the EOS R was worse than 5 series.

Also if autofocusing was vastly improved that would be the best for your expertise.

Imagine a close to 100% - let's say 90% - keepers ratio. That is much more important than a few more mpixels.

Thanks, I have been shooting with the A9 during a Sony Pro Event at Tenerife, and I was impressed as a Canon shooter with the Sony autofocus and all the Sony engineers were really engaged with our wishes. I never had this with Canon. It's just a feeling that Canon is moving too slow and holding back some tech. I have the feeling that at least Canon could give us some megapixels. I guess mirrorless is the future and why invest another 20000 euros in old tech?

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

I swear I lost brain cells reading this thread. I now only have a brain that can deal with 10MP cameras

 

[Michael Clark]

'Twas ever thus. I expect the 5D4 (if it comes out) or else the next RF bodies, will have the resolution desired, and their AF will probably be good enough in most situations (the 1Dx3 will outperform it but only a bit). The higher the resolution, the lower the fps naturally, where your cutoff is will vary. I never found the 5D3/5Ds too slow, but I find the 90D tempting because it combines high pixel density and higher fps (but doubtless lesser AF capability). But there is akways a compromise. I don't for a second believe Sony or Nikon's bodies offer everything to everyone. Or if they do, that's the solution.

There's certainly good reason to say Canon's lineup has a gap for wildlife shooters, especially discontinuing the 7 series. Perhaps they just aren't a big enough segment for it to be worth targeting? But in any case, there are still options, just with more compromises.

PS is it just Canon? What is the rumoured resolution of the D6? I don't follow other brands closely.

The EOS 5D Mark IV was released in 2016. It's been out almost four years.

 

[Cryhavoc]

Personally, I've seen many absolutely fantastic shots taken with the 1dx series of cameras and never once did I say to myself that the image would be even more fantastic if there were more megapixels used during the creation of the image.

Those true pros who use the 1dx ii for it's intended purpose really know how to utilize the right lens for the right scenario.

 

[peters]

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.

Its not about delivering in a higher framerate, its about using slowmotions which is a HUGE bonus for a lot of different videos - commercial (where this camera could certainly shine), Event documentation, weddings, promo videos ...
Using DPAF on a gimbal with the 1DXII is a charme. Its a good image quality and looks stunning in 4k60. Withouth DPAF working on a gimbal turns from an easy one-men-job to a cumbersome 2 person job.

 

[peters]

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

We where talking about video mode with 4k60 and DPAF. This got nothing to do with the OVF or what the 1D was "supposed to be".
The mark II was great for video, mostly because of the nice 4k60 image and the perfect DPAF. With DPAF the Mark III could have become a tremendous camera. Now there is no real reason to not go with a panasonic S1h for video work.

 

[GoldWing]

Personally, I've seen many absolutely fantastic shots taken with the 1dx series of cameras and never once did I say to myself that the image would be even more fantastic if there were more megapixels used during the creation of the image.

Those true pros who use the 1dx ii for it's intended purpose really know how to utilize the right lens for the right scenario.

I can't tell you how many times we wished the 1DXMKII's has more resolution.

 

[ToonD]

Personally, I've seen many absolutely fantastic shots taken with the 1dx series of cameras and never once did I say to myself that the image would be even more fantastic if there were more megapixels used during the creation of the image.

Those true pros who use the 1dx ii for it's intended purpose really know how to utilize the right lens for the right scenario.

It's obvious that you are not a working pro sports photographer. Nothing wrong with that but .....

 

[djack41]

If the AF is fast, accurate and stable, I may buy it. Canon has to take the lead somewhere. The AF of the D5 and A92 nas been superior. Maybe Canon has put some AF magic into the 1DX3. If not, watch Canon's market share deflate.

Continue reading...

Canon said to expect a lighter weight camera. Well, the 1DX3 weighs 3.2 lbs while the 1DX2 weighs 3.4 lbs. Small progress. The Sony A92 weighs only 1.4 lbs. This makes a big difference when handholding super telephoto lenses.

I had hoped that Canon would include a feature that is cutting edge. Remember all the rumors about IBIS, 26 MP, or hybrid technology? Oh well. If nothing else, Canon is predictable.

 

[Michael Clark]

How about when you use the 600mm lens with the 1.4x TC or 2x TC and you still need to crop because it's impossible to get closer to the subject for objective reasons?
Is that still the wrong piece of equipment for the job?

In which case the difference between 20MP and 24MP is still only 9.5% more "reach". The 24MP camera could put the same number of pixels on the subject with a 600mm lens that a 20MP camera with a 657mm lens could put on the same subject from the same distance.

 

[scyrene]

The EOS 5D Mark IV was released in 2016. It's been out almost four years.

I'm not sure what you're driving at.

 

[scyrene]

If the AF is fast, accurate and stable, I may buy it. Canon has to take the lead somewhere. The AF of the D5 and A92 nas been superior. Maybe Canon has put some AF magic into the 1DX3. If not, watch Canon's market share deflate.

Canon said to expect a lighter weight camera. Well, the 1DX3 weighs 3.2 lbs while the 1DX2 weighs 3.4 lbs. Small progress. The Sony A92 weighs only 1.4 lbs. This makes a big difference when handholding super telephoto lenses.

I had hoped that Canon would include a feature that is cutting edge. Remember all the rumors about IBIS, 26 MP, or hybrid technology? Oh well. If nothing else, Canon is predictable.

I'm not sure the 1 series accounts for much of their market share tbh. As for lighter means better with superteles, I think that's a matter of taste. I've seen plenty of people saying the 1 series bodies balance well with them. They may still do with a lighter body, but it may not be better for everyone.

 

[Michael Clark]

If the AF is fast, accurate and stable, I may buy it. Canon has to take the lead somewhere. The AF of the D5 and A92 nas been superior. Maybe Canon has put some AF magic into the 1DX3. If not, watch Canon's market share deflate.

Canon said to expect a lighter weight camera. Well, the 1DX3 weighs 3.2 lbs while the 1DX2 weighs 3.4 lbs. Small progress. The Sony A92 weighs only 1.4 lbs. This makes a big difference when handholding super telephoto lenses.

I had hoped that Canon would include a feature that is cutting edge. Remember all the rumors about IBIS, 26 MP, or hybrid technology? Oh well. If nothing else, Canon is predictable.

What raised Canon to prominence in sports/action photography in the early 1990s was the superior AF speed and accuracy enabled by their invention of the lens based UltraSonic AF Motor and the all electronic connection between lens and camera body that was able to utilize that speed.

They kept that lead for two decades by continuing to offer the best high speed tracking AF, along with the best long focal length lenses capable of using that superior AF system, while also leveraging the ubiquity of their products on the sidelines of high profile sporting events into selling more entry level ILCs than anyone else.

 

[reef58]

Not really. The difference in linear terms is only 9.5%. The square root of 1.2 is 1.095...

I have asked this question before and I thought it was answered in the affirmative. I don't know. I am not a technical guy. Can I not print 20% larger with 24mp image vs 20mp at 300dpi?

 

[Mikehit]

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?!

viewing larger and ping are the same thing.
Regards cropping, you are talking about an ability to crop the image 10% either way. That will make a difference to an editor in an amazingly small number of requirements. And if they are 'cropping the hell' out of images, that 10% of the full frame will pale into insignificance.
And as for printing, I doubt a majority of magazine articles are printed at anything like 300 dpi. And any professional I have spoken to has said that if the image in itself is good enough, such small differences (detail, noise etc) are almost meaningless.