Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary

[PureClassA]

I totaly agree. For any work on a gimbal its REALY nice to have DPAF like on the 1DXII.
I would ABSOLUTELY prefer the small crop over this ******* idiotic idea to leave out DPAF...

why I bought the EOS R. Gimbal run and gun with the DX2 was an upperbody workout and was much harder to balance properly since its so tall. No 4k60 on the R but ok

 

[PureClassA]

you want 30 megapixel photos that will just slow down your camera and your workflow and make ZERO difference in photo quality there genius? Move on to a 5Div then. Bye

That isnt necessary.

Unfocused, like all of us, have varying requirements for pro work. And 30MP vs 20MP does make a difference in the real world. I have a DX2 and an EOS R. That’s 20 vs 30. I can crop down a fair bit more, faithfully, on my EOS R than I can my DX2. I can crop out 30% of the pixels and still have 20 on my subject.

 

[Travel_Photographer]

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

I'm not sure what you mean. The images below are specifically to show cropping ability and composition. What you see in the photo below is it. That's what you gain going from 20 megapixels to 24 megapixels in cropping ability and composition. The photo on the left is what you would get at 20mp. The photo on the right is what you would get at 24mp. Cropping would get you no difference in size than what you see from the left image to the right image. If that difference in image size is a showstopper for some people, I'm totally fine with that. It's not a showstopper for me.

All this debate about no increase in megapixels in summarized in the simple photo of the bird below. The difference between the left photo and the right photo is what all the chat about megapixels is about. Nearly 350 comments, many about the lack of megapixel increase. And we're talking about the size of the bird on the left compared to the right. Seems pretty minimal to me.

 

[peters]

The 'old af'...which bodies are you referring to? 10 seconds? I've got to hear this response.

I mean for example the Canon 5D III. I think its phase detect if its not DPAF? This applies to pretty much every canon camera with Phase detect. Its ultra slow, IF it gets focus at all. Maybe not 10 seconds, but COMPLETELY not usable, even for photos.

 

[Dexter75]

That isnt necessary.

Unfocused, like all of us, have varying requirements for pro work. And 30MP vs 20MP does make a difference in the real world. I have a DX2 and an EOS R. That’s 20 vs 30. I can crop down a fair bit more, faithfully, on my EOS R than I can my DX2. I can crop out 30% of the pixels and still have 20 on my subject.

Then use your R or a 5Div. The 1DX series is about speed, not megapixels.

 

[peters]

I'm not sure what you mean. The images below are specifically to show cropping ability and composition. What you see in the photo below is it. That's what you gain going from 20 megapixels to 24 megapixels in cropping ability and composition. The photo on the left is what you would get at 20mp. The photo on the right is what you would get at 24mp. Cropping would get you no difference in size than what you see from the left image to the right image. If that difference in image size is a showstopper for some people, I'm totally fine with that. It's not a showstopper for me.

All this debate about no increase in megapixels in summarized in the simple photo of the bird below. The difference between the left photo and the right photo is what all the chat about megapixels is about. Nearly 350 comments, many about the lack of megapixel increase. And we're talking about the size of the bird on the left compared to the right. Seems pretty minimal to me.

View attachment 188045

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

 

[Richard CR]

That isnt necessary.

Unfocused, like all of us, have varying requirements for pro work. And 30MP vs 20MP does make a difference in the real world. I have a DX2 and an EOS R. That’s 20 vs 30. I can crop down a fair bit more, faithfully, on my EOS R than I can my DX2. I can crop out 30% of the pixels and still have 20 on my subject.

The 1DX Mark III was never going to be 30mp.

that would have significantly added to both the video processing and the stills processing.

assuming the ratio between fps and MP's is linear, that would have forced the 1DX Mark III to shoot at around 11 fps .. that was never going to happen.

with Sony hitting the spec sheet 20fps, it should have been no surprise that Canon as well would have wanted to match.

Supporting full with 4K is far more of a burden on the system than with the 1DX Mark II that only supported it via a crop mode. DPAF doesn't come without a cost - and that cost is at least one sensor read per frame. So a 4K full width video - has to read and process approximately 40MP x 60 per second or around 30Gbps of data. That is kind of .. well. huge.

 

[Nelu]

Then use your R or a 5Div. The 1DX series is about speed, not megapixels.

Listen dude, you'd better stop telling people what cameras to use! Nobody was asking for your opinion on that.
You have a really nasty habit, keep it in your basement, for God sake!

 

[slclick]

I mean for example the Canon 5D III. I think its phase detect if its not DPAF? This applies to pretty much every canon camera with Phase detect. Its ultra slow, IF it gets focus at all. Maybe not 10 seconds, but COMPLETELY not usable, even for photos.

Most idiotic thing I've ever heard. So for the past 7 years I've been using a completely unusable AF system. What planet are you even living on?

 

[unfocused]

Listen dude, you'd better stop telling people what cameras to use! Nobody was asking for your opinion on that.
You have a really nasty habit, keep it in you basement, for God sake!

Mr. Dexter seems to be some kind of troll. Joined the forum last month and just wants to pick a fight with people. He's not contributing anything.

 

[unfocused]

Most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

That's a pretty high standard for this forum. Lots of other competition for that honor.

 

[peters]

Supporting full with 4K is far more of a burden on the system than with the 1DX Mark II that only supported it via a crop mode. DPAF doesn't come without a cost - and that cost is at least one sensor read per frame. So a 4K full width video - has to read and process approximately 40MP x 60 per second or around 30Gbps of data. That is kind of .. well. huge.

Which is understandable, but I REALY wished they would have included a crop mode with 1:1 pixel readout (which would be 1,3) and DPAF with 60fps.
4k60 with DPAF It is truely a beautiful tool. Especialy on a gimbal it works like a charme and works perfect for stuff like image videos, event promos etc.
It was the most important feature on the 1DXII - 4k60 on a big sensor and a perfect working AF - its just beautiful. Though I realy wished for a better codec, better Dynamic range and maybe fullframe. Which they delivered on the Mark III - but no AF..... brrr :-( :-( :-( :-( :-(

 

[peters]

Most idiotic thing I've ever heard. So for the past 7 years I've been using a completely unusable AF system. What planet are you even living on?

Dude, in live view, not through the viewfinder. Read what the discussion is about...

 

[slclick]

Dude, in live view, not through the viewfinder.

Dude?

Are you 19? Listen son, you should state your case clearly from the onset if you wish you make outlandish claims. Omitting certain key words and needing to backtrack does not lend any credence to your earlier posts, just adds ridicule. Futhermore, Live View in the 5D3 has contributed to 100's of thousands of remarkable landscape images. Sorry your technique is lacking with phase detect. I know, I just got back from a fantastic shoot an hour ago. All Live View, ~ 125 of 146 keepers.

 

[Nelu]

Dude?

Are you 19? Listen son, you should state your case clearly from the onset if you wish you make outlandish claims. Omitting certain key words and needing to backtrack does not lend any credence to your earlier posts, just adds ridicule. Futhermore, Live View in the 5D3 has contributed to 100's of thousands of remarkable landscape images. Sorry your technique is lacking with phase detect. I know, I just got back from a fantastic shoot an hour ago. All Live View, ~ 125 of 146 keepers.

Live view AF uses contrast detection, not phase detection. It’s a bit slower than phase detection but it’s more accurate.
I would say it’s as accurate as the manual focus, that’s why you have so many keepers.

 

[navastronia]

. . . That's what you gain going from 20 megapixels to 24 megapixels in cropping ability and composition. The photo on the left is what you would get at 20mp. The photo on the right is what you would get at 24mp. Cropping would get you no difference in size than what you see from the left image to the right image . . . All this debate about no increase in megapixels in summarized in the simple photo of the bird below. The difference between the left photo and the right photo is what all the chat about megapixels is about. Nearly 350 comments, many about the lack of megapixel increase. And we're talking about the size of the bird on the left compared to the right. Seems pretty minimal to me.

View attachment 188045

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?!

 

[peters]

Dude?

Are you 19? Listen son, you should state your case clearly from the onset if you wish you make outlandish claims. Omitting certain key words and needing to backtrack does not lend any credence to your earlier posts, just adds ridicule. Futhermore, Live View in the 5D3 has contributed to 100's of thousands of remarkable landscape images. Sorry your technique is lacking with phase detect. I know, I just got back from a fantastic shoot an hour ago. All Live View, ~ 125 of 146 keepers.

Jeah, Phase detect in Live view is great. Realy comparable with DPAF. Wake up oh holy father.

 

[expatinasia]

There are plenty of strange comments on this forum.

1DX II lagging behind in AF - LOL
Sports photographers do not need/want more MP - LOL
1DX to 1DX II was a massive upgrade - LOL
Comments about the buffer - LOL the buffer on the 1DX and II is sufficient and I doubt few have filled it.

The 1DX is still an amazing camera, still one of the best on the market. The Mark II is very similar, the biggest difference, for me at least, was DPAF being added to the new version. The DPAF is absolutely invaluable for the video work I do. For stills, I shoot a lot of sport and yes I want as many MP as possible. Using a 400 f/2.8 ii is great, but that doesn't mean the players on a pitch are all exactly where I want them to be. Cropping is great as it allows me to capture more images, in better quality, than would otherwise be possible. So as long as FPS is not negatively affected I do want more MP for stills. For video, I rarely shoot at 4K, every video I do is normally at 1080p.

I will wait for proper reviews to come out, but looking at these specs I think I probably will not be selling my Mark I or II to get the Mark III, which is what I would have done if it had been more interesting for my needs. This is not a negative about Canon, just shows how great the 1DX I and II are.

 

[GoldWing]

Jeah, Phase detect in Live view is great. Realy comparable with DPAF. Wake up oh holy father.

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

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?!

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.

 

[RayValdez360]

As a Canon 1DX Mark II photographer (and other Canon bodies as well) assuming the released specs are accurate, I for one would be disappointed because the Mark II has been lagging behind for a while, especially with the autofocus system. The Mark III version sounds like we're just catching up to where the Mark II should have been. Canon claimed to have such a wonderful autofocus system when the Mark II was released, but it wasn't. Finally, asking me to shell out $6500 for a Mark III with no bump in resolution and very few other enhancements is evidence that they simply don't have the knowledge and skill to make something better. Canon is much larger than Nikon, yet they always are playing catch up, never leading with new technology. It's terribly disappointing. The Nikon autofocus system has been better for many years, but they have far fewer engineers. It doesn't make sense. If they have new innovations, then prove it. They haven't, so it is only logical to assume that they don't. DSLRs are dying, and with this lack luster release Canon is asking us to hold on for 4-5 more years until they have something really good. Sorry, but that's insulting and disrespectful to their customer base, you know, the people that buy stuff so that they can put food on the table. It really feels like Canon has the same arrogance that Sony had years ago when they thought the beta-max was going to take over the world. Canon shouldn't assume that people are going to pay $6500 every few years forever.

canon is stingy. we have been seeing this for awhile. some peopel will defend this by calling it being "more profitable." why make the best when you can make more money by giving us less.