Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Thank you so much. Since about 90% of my paid work is sports photography, I really appreciate people like you telling me what I do and don't want or need. I don't know how I have gotten along without you and others who so confidently can tell me my own needs.
Upvote
0
Who runs into buffer depth issues with the MkII?sure if you ignore the buffer depth, card write speed to both slots, video functionality greatly enhanced from pedestrian MJPEG and crop factor, AF points, AF-ON joystick control, eyeAF, better liveview AF, greater AF sensitivity in both AF and liveview,etc,etc.
if you ignore all that and look I guess at 20MP.. then yes, it's a minor update
Who runs into card write speed issues with the MKII even with awful MJPEG CODEC in 4K at 60?
Agree the CODECs needed updating but mainly of interest to primarily video/crossover shooters.
I don’t struggle with AF point with the MkII, do you?
Wow yet another way of fiddling with the AF, sure it might be nice if you dedicate the time to overcome your muscle memory.
It has been well established that eye AF is firmware related and could be added to the MkII if there wwas the desire.
How many people struggle with LiveView AF now? I find it very good.
Greater sensitivity? Most people refuse to delve into the settings enough to use the current sensitivity adjustments...
I am not one to dismiss Canon‘s releases but this, as the blue ribbon (probable) last hurrah of the best of the best DSLR is a dud. Nothing is compelling for the vast majority of users unless your focus is video.
Upvote
0
I respect you guys as regular conributors to the forum, and I've no doubt you're speaking from an honest and considered position, but not everybody is. I'd just reiterate that while more is often better (and I love high resolution), 22MP is only <5% more reach, and as discussed above, 24MP is <10% more reach than 20MP. The idea that such fine margins make the difference between a world beater and a dud, as some here are implying, is frankly bizarre.
Upvote
0
I’d hoped for 28-30 and expected 24...silly me. This would give a circa 15-20% more pixels on the bird which is half a 1.4 Converter with much less IQ/AF impact on big glass and could allow the use of a 400 2.8 (close to 500s reach on 1Dx) but with a full extra stop if light to play with.
That’s a big deal.
I sincerely hope the new R is 30ish 10fps+
Upvote
0
I won't get into the megapixel "debate" as far as how much is or is not necessary for any given application, but to directly answer your factual question, if you're gauging a 20% increase as a 20% increase in the height and a 20% increase in the width of the print, then correct, you cannot print 20% larger with a bump from 20mp to 24mp. As someone else mentioned, 20mp to 24mp is less than a 10% increase in the height and width. If you're interested, here's the math:
20mp = 5480 x 3653 pixels. At 300 pixels per inch print, that's an 18.27 x 12.18" print
24mp = 6000 x 4000 pixels. At 300 pixels per inch print, that's a 20 x 13.3" print.
So the print is a little over 9% larger in height and width dimensions.
To get 20% larger print, you'd need about 28.7 megapixels:
6560 x 4373 pixels. That would get you a 21.87 x 14.5" print which is 20% larger than the 20 megapixel print in height and width.
For visualization, here is a 100% crop of a bird. The left is 20mp, the right is 24mp. That's the different in "reach" you would see between a 20mp and a 24mp image. I posted both bird photos a single image so that both photos will scale together no matter what device you're looking at, like a phone, iPad, or laptop screen.
Don't get me wrong, I like to crop a lot. I appreciate more megapixels. I just wanted to point out that the difference between 20mp and 24mp is not as significant as it might seem.
Upvote
0
Exactly what Im inclined to think as well. DPAF still available at least in the current 1.3x crop factor of that sensor dimension at 4k60 like the current DX2.
Upvote
0
Let me also add that even with Canon’s history of giving us a dedicated CPU for AF in the 1DX line, there are still limits. While it may be able to handle servo AF at a crop In 4K60, it may not be able to as faithfully do that over the entire sensor plane at (full frame) at 60FPS in 4k. Then again, im not sure the difference between doing 1080p60 with servoAF/DPAF that is also a FF readout On the same dedicated CPU. Canon may have simply left that feature off at FF 4K60 to create space between this and the Cinema Line
Upvote
0
Right on! My thoughts,exactly.
Now, if the AF is going to be that much better to allow me to actually use the 2x TC with the 600 mm lens then I might even consider this camera. Otherwise is just a waste of money for a birder.
For almost any kind of sports photography 20mp should be enough. Sure, more is better but I don’t think Canon can deliver more, not without other compromises.
I sincerely hope the new R is 30ish 10fps+ ...and an EVF usable for fast action.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
It's not that I think it will be a dud. My reaction is mostly that I am perplexed by the decision and I am more than a little frustrated by fools that insist on telling me what I need or don't need for my work.
Both Canon and Nikon have landed on 20mp. So, Canon is not an outlier. But, what perplexes me is why.
As I've said, I've used the 1Dx beside the 5DIV and R and not seen much if any penalty for the higher resolution, so I am curious as to what benefits Canon and Nikon see to less resolution. For years, people on this forum who understand technology better than I do have said that there is really no benefit in terms of noise control. So, I wonder, if I am not going to get significantly less noise at high ISO with a 20mp sensor, what is the advantage? For me personally, transfer speed and file size are irrelevant because I don't have any staff to transfer the files to during a game.
Again, based on the 30mp sensor Canon already has, it seemed to me that a 24-28 mp sensor would have made more sense. So now, I am curious why both companies choose not to up the resolution.
Autofocus improvements have always been my main interest, so if the 1DxIII delivers on my very specific autofocus needs for sports, I will still upgrade, just not as quickly as I would have had they given me a bit more flexibility in resolution for cropping.
What does set me off though is not the specs from Canon and Nikon, but instead the fools who take it upon themselves to lecture actual 1DX users on our needs. Many of these people have a very narrow concept of what constitutes a sports photographer (mostly gained from sitting in their armchairs in front of the television eating Doritos). That is the source of most of my frustration.
As for the camera itself, I'm taking a wait and see attitude and I think that's what many other users on this forum are doing as well.
Upvote
0
Very anxious to see what it can do, but I've shot the 7DII for years, then moved to the 5D IV recently. I tried the 90D and was very let down by it; it had a higher MP count, but I found it bad in low light and autofocusing wasn't what I'd hoped.
As a bird/wildlife/landscape guy, I'm excited. Ill be using it with the 800 5.6 which I've enjoyed, and hopefully it will do well too with the 1.4 III extender. If it's good at higher ISOs for low light and birds in flight especialy raptors at sunrise and sunset I'll be happy if it will provide good 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 prints and does good tracking the bird.
As a bird/wildlife/landscape guy, I'm excited. Ill be using it with the 800 5.6 which I've enjoyed, and hopefully it will do well too with the 1.4 III extender. If it's good at higher ISOs for low light and birds in flight especialy raptors at sunrise and sunset I'll be happy if it will provide good 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 prints and does good tracking the bird.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
I've used the 2x TCs with the 500L (which is functionally the same as the 600) a lot, and with 'lesser' cameras (the 5D3 and 5Ds). From what I've heard, AF has always been faster with the 1-series, so I'd expect this combination to already be usable with the 1Dx2, even more so with the newest one.
Upvote
0
The "old" af is completely unusable. It takes up to 10 seconds for the hunting focus to find something, IF it finds anything. There is no possibility for continous focus pull. It just keeps on hunting and hunting.
DPAF is without much doubt the best AF in the industry and incredible smooth and reliable. If looks like pulled by hand. It tracks smooth and completely quiet, without ANY pumping or hunting.
Its like the difference between analog and digital.
Upvote
0
