Canon EOS-1D X Mark III field testing has begun [CR2]

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,306
657
In THEORY, using the sensor is far superior. Period.
The reason off-mirror PDAF sensors maintain some AF advantages even today is because they can be purpose built to more accurately measure phase differences and predict the correct distance the lens has to move. On sensor PDAF and DPAF elements are constrained in their design and therefore in the information they can provide. That's why after 10 years comparatively few MILCs have AF which is as fast or as confident as SLRs on initial acquisition, or as capable on point tracking (as opposed to AI subject tracking).

So no, using the sensor is not far superior in every way period. That doesn't mean MILC AF won't eventually match or exceed SLR AF in all respects. A lot of effort continues to be put into making MILC AF as good as or better than pro sports SLR AF. But they have to rely on more sophisticated software, processing more data points more times per second, to try and beat a simple, purpose built PDAF module.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,306
657
If its that good, I do wish the chasm between it and the 5D were as narrow as that between, say, the D5 and lower nikon dSLR series.

I've tried a D850's AF, its just too good but im not letting go of my EF 50mm F1.2 for it.
Define "good." Nikon has more intelligent subject tracking in their top end SLR AF right now. But do pros use those modes? Or are they just practiced in using a single AF point or point cluster? Canon has always done very well at the top end with single AF point acquisition and tracking speeds.

I can tell you that in the two fields where I have a portfolio of work that's comparable to a paid sports photographer I don't use or care to use any subject tracking modes. Early on...before any of that existed...I learned to make the most of a single AF point. And now I find I can more reliably achieve and track focus with a single point (or single + assist points) than I can with any subject tracking modes.

I'm not saying that's best for any/every situation, or that it will continue to be best years from now. But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a lot of pro photographers are still employing techniques that do not rely on subject recognition and tracking.
 

analoggrotto

EOS T7i
Aug 27, 2016
69
23
Define "good." Nikon has more intelligent subject tracking in their top end SLR AF right now. But do pros use those modes? Or are they just practiced in using a single AF point or point cluster? Canon has always done very well at the top end with single AF point acquisition and tracking speeds.

I can tell you that in the two fields where I have a portfolio of work that's comparable to a paid sports photographer I don't use or care to use any subject tracking modes. Early on...before any of that existed...I learned to make the most of a single AF point. And now I find I can more reliably achieve and track focus with a single point (or single + assist points) than I can with any subject tracking modes.

I'm not saying that's best for any/every situation, or that it will continue to be best years from now. But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a lot of pro photographers are still employing techniques that do not rely on subject recognition and tracking.
On my 5D4, I use single point or 5 point spread to good effect (and much more accurate and reliable than the 5D3). If the subject moves around rapidly, then its lost. The D850's intelligent tracking could save a situation like this. Subject tracking would certainly open up some possiblities and its better than ever. I dont know what pros do, I dont know any. I'd have gotten the 1Dx2 but I crop a lot for birds and such. Somehow this has reminded me that I never updated the firmware on my 5D4 in the year i've owned it.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,024
1,487
Canada
Define "good." Nikon has more intelligent subject tracking in their top end SLR AF right now. But do pros use those modes? Or are they just practiced in using a single AF point or point cluster? Canon has always done very well at the top end with single AF point acquisition and tracking speeds.

I can tell you that in the two fields where I have a portfolio of work that's comparable to a paid sports photographer I don't use or care to use any subject tracking modes. Early on...before any of that existed...I learned to make the most of a single AF point. And now I find I can more reliably achieve and track focus with a single point (or single + assist points) than I can with any subject tracking modes.

I'm not saying that's best for any/every situation, or that it will continue to be best years from now. But it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a lot of pro photographers are still employing techniques that do not rely on subject recognition and tracking.
I also tend to use a single AF point, with the exception ring birds in flight. It is said that the vast majority of DSLRs spend their life in “green box mode” and for that the full spread of AF points is important , but obviously this does not apply to a 1DX2......
 

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
371
364
I don't think that coming close is all that what you call EVF will acomplish.

Focussing isn't about EVF or OVF. Using the imaging sensor vs a dedicated AF sensor is what really matters.

In THEORY, using the sensor is far superior. Period.

The sensor is guaranteed to be in the same plane where the image is captured, unlike a dedicated AF sensor, which could be off by a small distance and therefore require AFMA.

Because the focus sensors in a DSLR are exposed to light only when the mirror is in the optical path, and the light that hits the mirror is mostly used for the OVF, they can utilize only a portion of the light that would be available to sensor based Autofocus, where nothing sits infront of the sensor at any time.

And obviously, since an image sensor can capture an image, it can utilize the image content to make better decisions on focus. Eye AF is an example for this. And I think this is what the guy you responded to meant.

The thing is, making good use of the additional number of focusing points and the much richer amount of information from a sensor based focus system requires much more processing power and faster ways to read the Information from the sensor. And that is something that is difficult with small devices like cameras in general, and Canon seem to be struggling a lot with it in particular.

But they seem to push into very high resolution sensors with the rumored 100 MP mirrorless and the upcoming 32 MP 7D II + 80D replacement. Maybe they managed to get some of that under control.

If they do the same thing with the high res crop camera and the high res mirrorless like they did with the 7D II and 5Ds and just scale up the sensor, the high res mirrorless would have about 32 * 1.6^2 = 82 megapixel. Assuming they wouldn't go backwards from the 5 fps in the 5Ds, but keep it at that speed, it would be a camera with ~30% more throuput than the 1D XII. To acomplish that, they must have made some progress with their weakness.

Factoring in the size difference between 14 and 12 bit, 5 FPS at 82 mp is basically the same throughput as the Sony A9 handles with 20 FPS at 24 mp. It make me hopefull that Canon has suceeded with their stacked sensor research... But being Canon, I better don't get my hopes up.
I think you missed my point. I absolutely agree with you that on sensor AF has more POTENTIAL than off sensor AF but i wasn't talking about the AF. I was specifically referring to the experience of looking through and EVF as opposed to an OVF. It is unpleasant to do so for any length of time and the resolution, refresh rate and computer screen like appearance all combined to make it far poorer than a completely natural OVF. That may change in the future. I don't think it will ever be 100 percent as good but it should get close enough that the overall functionality of an EVF becomes worth the compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,605
679
119
If its that good, I do wish the chasm between it and the 5D were as narrow as that between, say, the D5 and lower nikon dSLR series.

I've tried a D850's AF, its just too good but im not letting go of my EF 50mm F1.2 for it.
Now wouldn't disagree with that necessarily, though I don't have a lot of 5 series shooting experience the main reason I bought 1Ds MkIII's was the superior AF over the 5 series, even though they cost over twice as much at the time.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
Maybe it will be a further evolution (R is supposed to be the revolution...) and besides being a new standard for speed, they will simply add in things that were left out before without compromising durability.

Things like wifi, C-Log, newer codecs, 4k 10-bit HDMI out, true silent mode in LV, all the DPAF focus modes enabled, intervalometer, full touchscreen(probably still fixed), dual CFast, etc.

Of course, if they want to raise eyebrows, they might do a hybrid OVF/EVF as well...
The 1D X has never been mistaken for a video camera. It's built for one thing: speed for stills. You might notice that there has not been a 1D C Mark II version of the 1D X Mark II.

If Canon ever does that in a stills camera (they won't because they sell video cameras that do all of that), it would be in a 5-series type of body, not a 1-series.

You would think they'll release an A9 & A7R3 rival with SDXC UHS-II support before July 2020.
Why? The tracking AF performance of the 1D X Mark II is better than both of those. It doesn't matter how many frames per second one can shoot if 2/3 of them are not acceptably in focus.


It will be a new sensor (as always) and 24MP seems logical, although the video folks will be annoyed by the increased 4k crop factor.
No one buys a 1D X as a video camera. Very few even bought the 1D C as a video camera. You might notice that there has not been a 1D C Mark II version of the 1D X Mark II.


Sony appears to have done that with their A9. Canon has at least 2 more RF bodies to release within 17 months.
Not really. The α9 slows down to 1D X Mark II frame rates when AF tracking is desired between each frame. Or when using the wrong E-mount lenses. It's as slow as the EOS R when using adapted Canon lenses.

I think it all hinges on how capable Canon is able to make the dual pixel focus, and what impact that has on sensor quality. (missing pixels for the AF sensors, heat, electrical noise) That's also going to drive whether an R 5Dsr-ish body appears, as we don't know how small the dual pixel AF sensels can be with good performance, or whether sales volume can justify a new revision of that body. Otherwise a high rez studio body seems like something that'd show off the new top tier glass and be used for things where accuracy is more important than AF speed which also seems to be a good fit.
DP CMOS does not "drop" the sensels it uses for AF. 80% of the sensels on a DP CMOS sensor are available for AF. The data from them are also included in the image. That's one reason reading them out takes so long...

I bet next R camera and 1dx3 are both 35mpix cameras so they can do 8k .
Doesnt sound logical they make highpixel R next ,for marginal highpixel camera user base .
They need good 35mpixel camere next for R
The 1D X Mark III is not about video. It's about sports/reportage.


Yes, but Sony does not have the sort of problem with continuous AF and FPS that Canon appears to.
With continuous AF between every frame, the α9 slows down to 15 fps with all but a handful of lenses.


I'm reluctant to even bring this up but I did see some idiot on some forum referencing this video as proof that using the adapter introduced focusing errors:

That isn't a scientific test and it really just compared the 6dii mirrored focusing system to the R focusing system. The 6dii mirror does better than the R, so its clear canon has a LONG way to go to replicate, let alone exceed 1dx level focusing without a mirror.

Unless canon makes pretty much the exact same version of a lens in both EF and RF mounts and puts the exact same focusing system into an EF body and an RF body we'll never know how the adapter might impact things. But I don't even see how it could negatively affect focusing performance as long as Canon doesn't intentionally cripple adapted lenses in software.

Some people seem to think "adapters = BAD BAD BAD no matter what" , and I can't understand it unless the adapter is not made well and is causing the lens to tilt on the mount. I really don't think pros will mind using EF lenses on RF bodies if that is the best tool for the job.
Pros that use the 1D-series know that their great whites work with 1.4X extenders. They also know that an EF-RF adapter is simpler than an extender.

They're not the same crowd that uses cheap third party adapters in order to use a new mirrorless body that only has electrical connections to its native lenses with a 50 year old mechanically operated lens and then wonders why everything doesn't work perfectly.

Have experienced 1DXii users (those who use the correct or custom case settings) been complaining about not having the fps they need?

Some folks here are great at disguising their lack of experience or ownership of certain models which they harp upon.
Spec sheet warriors have no clue that if you can't get it with 14 fps, 30 fps or 60fps ain't gonna' help you. It's just gonna' give you more bad frames to sort through. (Yes there are very rare use cases where the additional fps is useful, but most of those do not require continuous tracking between frames, and very few would benefit from higher resolution than 4K frame grabs at 30 or 60 fps.)

A bird photographer friend of mine sold his 1DX2 for an A9 to match with his Canon 600 Series 2 lens. He's very happy with it and is not looking at moving back to DSLR.

I would be very surprised if they come out with a DSLR-based replacement of the 1DX2.
Does he realize that with adapted lenses, the α9 slows down to 5 fps in continuous AF tracking mode? Do you before you made that up?

Prepare to be surprised.

I've read elsewhere that Canon tends to price newer models a tad higher as to not force a price down of the model being replaced.
You obviously haven't been paying attention lately. The 5D Mark III dropped about $700 a few months before the introduction of the 5D Mark IV at the same price as the 5DIII had sold for many years before it went on sale. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II sold for $2,300 for years, then for $2,100 for years after the yen dropped against the dollar (so $2,100 USD was actually worth more yen than $2,300 USD had previously been). Six weeks before the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III was announced, the price of the "II" dropped to $1,800. Then the "III" was introduced for the "higher price" of $2,100 USD.

I've noticed Canon lowering prices of the new model to its street price by its 6th month of introduction.

If I were to buy any Canon pro product like the 1DX3 MILC it would be after the 2020 Olympics in August.
If you ever buy a 1D X Mark III MILC it will be in your dreams and nowhere else.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
They would want to release a pro model of 5D and 1D FF mirrorless soon. Nikon, Sony, Panasonic isn't going to sit idle. Tamron already provide great lens for Sony and Sigma will offer for Panasonic option at CP+. As a long time Canon user who has never switch, I'm already toying with the idea of adding a non Canon FF mirrorless camera and using adapter.



It could be a couple things they are working on that they are trying to get perfect: better eyeAF, IBIS, new sensor, 4K, new card format.

If they release a pro body without IBIS and charge $3500, they would definitely get alot of flack.
If they reuse 5D IV sensor or similiar performance (ISO, DR, FPS) for $3500, they would get alot of flack.
If they still have 4K heavily cropped, they would get alot of flack.
It's the sensor readout speed. Period.

Where are you pulling out that $3,500 number from? The 1D X debuted at $6,800. The 1D X Mark II debuted at $5,999. The 1D X Mark III will not debut at $3,500. You can rate that [CR∞]

RF/ML is the future. Just like digital supplanted film, RF / ML will supplant the dSLR/EOS sytem
RF is EOS. So is the mirrorless EOS-M system. They're just not EF.
13. USB-C
Who needs USB-C when the current and previous versions already have gigabit ethernet ports?

...and then there's the CPN support network...which Sony hasn't got. I can't imagine Sony support covering large media events like the Olympics...When a pro buys pro gear, he /she is also buying into a support program. I'm a CPN platinum member and I had a dropped 5DIII which needed some extensive repairs. I dropped it into their service center...through Wex...it was back in my hands 2 days later. It's an amazing service for CPN guys. My old Guitar tech used to say...quality gear is easily repairable gear.
I think you mean CPS - Canon Professional Services. CPN is Canon's communication arm that offers tutorials about how to use their products and white papers about those products.

... a well lit scene looks better with canon color science than a wide open aperture high asa Sony with no lighting.
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^
If its that good, I do wish the chasm between it and the 5D were as narrow as that between, say, the D5 and lower nikon dSLR series.

I've tried a D850's AF, its just too good but im not letting go of my EF 50mm F1.2 for it.
The D5 is on the same level as the EOS 1D X Mark II in terms of AF, but it is the first Nikon flagship that is. The 1D X had better AF than the D4, The 1D Mark IV had far better AF than the D3 and better AF than the D3s. Until the D5, with the exception of the 1D Mark III misstep (where those who switched found out Nikon had nothing any better - the D3 - than the "awful" AF of the 1D Mark III - by the time Nikon released the D3s in 2009 which was what the D3 should have been, Canon had announced the 1D IV), Canon had stayed ahead of Nikon in terms of AF since the introduction of the EOS 1 and USM AF motors in the lens back in the early 1990s.

With the declining revenues possible from shooting the kinds of events we're talking about here (Super Bowl, World Series, etc.), the now prohibitively expensive lens collections have kept most of the existing shooters entrenched in the Canon system, even though Nikon has caught up with the D5, a 500mm prime that is every bit as good as anything Canon sells, and a 70-200/2.8 that is better.

On my 5D4, I use single point or 5 point spread to good effect (and much more accurate and reliable than the 5D3). If the subject moves around rapidly, then its lost. The D850's intelligent tracking could save a situation like this. Subject tracking would certainly open up some possiblities and its better than ever. I dont know what pros do, I dont know any. I'd have gotten the 1Dx2 but I crop a lot for birds and such. Somehow this has reminded me that I never updated the firmware on my 5D4 in the year i've owned it.
Both your 5D Mark IV and the 1D X Mark II are capable of using Canon's EOS iTR tracking that is very similar to what Nikon's intelligent tracking does. Distance information from the PDAF sensor is combined with color information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to provide subject tracking. A lot of Canon shooters are put off by iTR because it requires the AF point selection mode to be set to 'Auto". What they don't realize is that it still allows them to choose a specific AF point for the initial subject acquisition. If Canon had an "iTR" AF point selection mode that was separate from "Auto", a lot more 1D X and 1D X Mark II users would probably try it.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
...Spec sheet warriors have no clue that if you can't get it with 14 fps, 30 fps or 60fps ain't gonna' help you. It's just gonna' give you more bad frames to sort through. (Yes there are very rare use cases where the additional fps is useful, but most of those do not require continuous tracking between frames, and very few would benefit from higher resolution than 4K frame grabs at 30 or 60 fps.)...
Much of what you say is correct, but not this. Golf, baseball and softball are three examples of sports that I shoot where I wouldn't mind having more fps and, sorry, but 4K frame grabs aren't going to do it. Any sport where a small ball is being hit by something big (like a bat, club or racket) can benefit from every possible frame per second. The problem with a frame grab is that you don't have the extra pixels you need for cropping and because you are often distance limited when shooting some sports, the ability to crop the image is critical. Not to mention that framing is often imperfect when shooting sports, so cropping is almost always needed.
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
416
30
The 1D X has never been mistaken for a video camera. It's built for one thing: speed for stills. You might notice that there has not been a 1D C Mark II version of the 1D X Mark II.

No one buys a 1D X as a video camera. Very few even bought the 1D C as a video camera. You might notice that there has not been a 1D C Mark II version of the 1D X Mark II..
--

I kinda beg to differ on that, as our parent company uses the Canon 1Dx Mk2 AS a video camera system for various internal uses AND they bought 32 of them! Yes they bought the 1Dc too but they only bought four of them but once the 1Dx2 came out, they right away got 32 of them too. And when the DCI 4K C700 Global Shutter Cinema Camera came out, they bought 32 of them! AND 32 of the Sony Venice 6K. It depends upon the company, You can use ANY type of camera system for whatever video or still photo use you want. You just have to have the money to buy them. (the parent company can afford it! They're BIG!) Again imagining the amount that was spend to by 64 Fujinon Cinema Zoom lenses! THAT was an incredible bill. Good thing IT WASN'T MY MONEY!
.
.
 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
2,975
453
Spec sheet warriors have no clue that if you can't get it with 14 fps, 30 fps or 60fps ain't gonna' help you. It's just gonna' give you more bad frames to sort through. (Yes there are very rare use cases where the additional fps is useful, but most of those do not require continuous tracking between frames, and very few would benefit from higher resolution than 4K frame grabs at 30 or 60 fps.)
Ahem...I said 'experienced' users... my question still stands unanswered.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
Much of what you say is correct, but not this. Golf, baseball and softball are three examples of sports that I shoot where I wouldn't mind having more fps and, sorry, but 4K frame grabs aren't going to do it. Any sport where a small ball is being hit by something big (like a bat, club or racket) can benefit from every possible frame per second. The problem with a frame grab is that you don't have the extra pixels you need for cropping and because you are often distance limited when shooting some sports, the ability to crop the image is critical. Not to mention that framing is often imperfect when shooting sports, so cropping is almost always needed.
The applications to which you refer are not among the "rare use cases" to which I was referring.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
Ahem...I said 'experienced' users... my question still stands unanswered.
... and I was agreeing with the second half of your comment... (not trying to answer the question in the first half - I don't know every single 1D X Mark II user to know how many of them have complained about not having enough FPS.)
 
Last edited:

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
416
30
At the risk of agreeing with Harry......

Bigfoot! Nessie! UFOs! The only pictures are low resolution and badly blurred, yet there are people who pay plenty for them and they always get featured prominently in the tabloids..... 1DX2 level AF systems are not needed there :)
---

Since I am pretty much right by BigFoot Central (aka Sasquatch Land!) in Southwestern British Columbia and Northern Washington State, I've been TRYING FOR YEARS to get a CRYSTAL CLEAR HIGH RESOLUTION STILL PHOTO and VIDEO (even going as far as bringing along multiple Canon C700 GS cameras!) of said Sasquatch and/or UFO and.or Alien Entity! NOTHING! ZERO! I have NEVER seen or shot anything YET! Carl Sagan once said "Absence of Evidence is NOT necessarily Evidence of Absence", so I'm still OPEN to the ideas of Sasquatch, UFO's and Aliens...BUT.... I haven't seen anything yet OTHER THAN as BLURFOS (i.e. Blurry UFO's), Fluff-Squatch (aka Fluffy Blob of Fur in Photo) and ET-Squints (i.e. ET's needing Squinting into inky blotch on photo).

Again, that Fisher Price plastic toy camera shooting 640 by 480 15 fps MAY YET come in handy to get that MILLION DOLLAR STILL PHOTO OR VIDEO! Key your toy camera in your pocket ready for action! It may YET buy you a new house!
.
.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,055
322
Vancouver, BC
Again, that Fisher Price plastic toy camera shooting 640 by 480 15 fps MAY YET come in handy to get that MILLION DOLLAR STILL PHOTO OR VIDEO! Key your toy camera in your pocket ready for action! It may YET buy you a new house!
.
.
Dumb question. Why not just keep the smartphone in the pocket? :alien:
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
Much of what you say is correct, but not this. Golf, baseball and softball are three examples of sports that I shoot where I wouldn't mind having more fps and, sorry, but 4K frame grabs aren't going to do it. Any sport where a small ball is being hit by something big (like a bat, club or racket) can benefit from every possible frame per second. The problem with a frame grab is that you don't have the extra pixels you need for cropping and because you are often distance limited when shooting some sports, the ability to crop the image is critical. Not to mention that framing is often imperfect when shooting sports, so cropping is almost always needed.
But since you raised the issue: At what resolution are your images most often published? What is the minimum resolution required by those who buy them? Are they paying enough these days to justify the cost of a new set of cameras and long telephoto lenses for a few more fps? Or are you working in academia shooting college sports in the last bastion of the staff photographer with a near unlimited gear budget provided by Uncle Sam's near-limitless student loan guarantees? Just wait until some administrator gets the bright idea to hire out-of-work former PJ's as part-time adjuncts to teach the 'photography/new media journalism/whatever they're calling it these days' classes and let the students pay the school to do all of the shooting. I've seen it happen in more than one place.

Furthermore, 40 years ago 2.5 fps was "blazingly" fast, and you needed fresh batteries in your motor drive and reasonably warm temps (not too hot, not too cold) to get that. Guys still managed to get bat on ball and racquet on ball and golf club on ball on the tee shots because they developed the needed sense of timing. That's something that has been lost in the 12/14/16/20 fps machine-gunning era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,306
657
Both your 5D Mark IV and the 1D X Mark II are capable of using Canon's EOS iTR tracking that is very similar to what Nikon's intelligent tracking does. Distance information from the PDAF sensor is combined with color information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to provide subject tracking. A lot of Canon shooters are put off by iTR because it requires the AF point selection mode to be set to 'Auto". What they don't realize is that it still allows them to choose a specific AF point for the initial subject acquisition. If Canon had an "iTR" AF point selection mode that was separate from "Auto", a lot more 1D X and 1D X Mark II users would probably try it.
My issue with iTR is that it's not "sticky" enough even with all the parameters set to emphasize sticking to the acquired subject. It seems like Nikon's latest iteration sticks better. Given the high-pixel-count metering sensors used in the latest bodies I'm guessing this would require nothing more than a firmware update from Canon. At airshows I bounce back and forth between single point and iTR and it definitely feels like Canon's algorithm just needs to be more stubborn, i.e. give more weight to the color data coming off the metering sensor.

Side note: plenty of people have bought the 1DX II for video. Judging from YouTube videos and commentary the 1DC and 1DX II have a bit of a cult following among cinematographers.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,306
657
Much of what you say is correct, but not this. Golf, baseball and softball are three examples of sports that I shoot where I wouldn't mind having more fps and, sorry, but 4K frame grabs aren't going to do it. Any sport where a small ball is being hit by something big (like a bat, club or racket) can benefit from every possible frame per second.
For capturing the point of contact? That raises the question: what fps would be needed to reliably capture the frame you want assuming 'spray and pray'? I suspect you would be in high video frame rates.

Also: how successful are photographers at capturing that moment without high fps? If you followed a golfer and practiced for a while would you eventually be able to predict when to press the shutter based on his swing to nail the moment you want? (It sounds impossible but I've shocked myself before in other fast moving scenarios. Jumping to baseball, if a batter can make contact with a fast pitch then a photographer should be able to 'make contact' with a shutter button. It's a question of how much practice is required.)
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,306
657
Furthermore, 40 years ago 2.5 fps was "blazingly" fast, and you needed fresh batteries in your motor drive and reasonably warm temps (not too hot, not too cold) to get that. Guys still managed to get bat on ball and racquet on ball and golf club on ball on the tee shots because they developed the needed sense of timing. That's something that has been lost in the 12/14/16/20 fps machine-gunning era.
For years I struggled to capture crossovers at airshows. (Example: two Thunderbirds from opposing directions pass by each other.) More fps didn't help at all. The first show with the 5Ds I zoomed out just a little bit knowing I had ample ability to crop in post, and practiced on a few solo planes as they went by (trying to capture them center frame based on their entry into the OVF). Zooming out gave me just a little bit more lead time.

When the first crossover occurred I nailed it. I didn't need more fps. I just needed one well timed frame.