Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary

[peters]

you cannot be serious. Right???

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...

 

[slclick]

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.

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

 

[koch1948]

I have read many comments saying 20 MP is not large enough. No one will know how this EOS-1D Mark III camera body will perform until it goes it goes on the market and out into the field.

Hopefully, this EOS-1D Mark III camera body in combination with Canon EF "L" lenses will provide super sharp images, fantastic color, and require little or no post processing. If that is the case, everyone will be happy to work with a compact 20 MP file instead of having these large MP files that strain your camera, computer hardware, and wi-fi/Internet file transfer speeds.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Not in 4k RAW either.

True. But there is 4k with dpaf. Anyone saying there isnt is wrong

 

[scyrene]

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.

I suppose what I find odd is, the 1Dx and 1Dx2 were relatively low resolution when they came out - compared to the other FF bodies available at the time. So this was always an issue, it's something known, and I wouldn't have expected a big bump in MP any more than a major change to form factor. I concede that the gap has widened as other bodies have increased their resolution, so perhaps it stands out more now. People used to say you could crop harder with the 1Dx than the 5D3, say, because the IQ was 'better' but I don't know how true that was.

As for why, well there's a couple of possibilities. Maybe consultation with the user base showed they didn't need to increase the resolution. Maybe they couldn't do that at the same time as significantly improving other aspects like speed, for technical reasons. 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.

 

[degos]

If that is the case, everyone will be happy to work with a compact 20 MP file instead of having these large MP files that strain your camera, computer hardware, and wi-fi/Internet file transfer speeds.

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?

 

[Architect1776]

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.

View attachment 188031

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.

Thank you for the comparison and example. This helps better to visualize and understand the difference especially explanation of print sizes in inches. So it does appear that the difference between 20 and 24 mp would be a pixel peeper or spec chaser issue and a real user would not see a difference, especially if color and DR is superior with the 20 mp sensor.

 

[serhatakbal]

all they do is update the product software
!!! disappointment !!!
even Magic Lantern could do better..

 

[Ethan S]

As a photojournalist, the built in wifi is a huge added benefit for faster filing.

 

[Nelu]

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.

Of course it’s faster on my 1DX than on my 5D Mark, no doubt about it. The problem is that 18 mp is not enough when you need to crop, even with the 600mm and the 2x TC. Also, on the 1DX (the original one), the AF with the 2x TC is way slower than even with the 1.4TC, not to mention the bare lens.
If the Mark III actually brings something better on the AF side, I’ll give it a thought, even I profoundly dislike the 20mp resolution. To be determined.

 

[Profit007]

As a photojournalist, the built in wifi is a huge added benefit for faster filing.

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.

 

[$winter]

What's about silent shooting? Any info?

 

[GoldWing]

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.

I want 30MP's if I can have them. Who are these people telling us what we want? Real arrogance and ignorance. I'm a sports shooter and 20MP CoulD use a kick for my magazine work and when we crop. THAT EXTRA 20% GOES A LONG WAY

 

[raptor3x]

you cannot be serious. Right???

Not at all, if you're shooting 4K60 it's very often for moving subjects and Canon's contrast based video AF is completely useless. It's similar to the 120p modes many other cameras offer than don't include AF. It makes them almost worthless unless you have a subject that doesn't change distance from the camera.

 

[navastronia]

Thank you for the comparison and example. This helps better to visualize and understand the difference especially explanation of print sizes in inches. So it does appear that the difference between 20 and 24 mp would be a pixel peeper or spec chaser issue and a real user would not see a difference, especially if color and DR is superior with the 20 mp sensor.

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

 

[Jack Douglas]

Not at all, if you're shooting 4K60 it's very often for moving subjects and Canon's contrast based video AF is completely useless. It's similar to the 120p modes many other cameras offer than don't include AF. It makes them almost worthless unless you have a subject that doesn't change distance from the camera.

You obviously haven't shot 4K60 with the 1DX2. Useless.

Jack

 

[Romain]

What's about silent shooting? Any info?

Silent shooting? EOS R!.. Kalachnikov shooting? 1DX III haha...

 

[navastronia]

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.

I mean, I wouldn't rave about it in those exact terms, but yeah, it's certainly better than any other Canon AF option. My experience is that DPAF does sometimes lose focus for seemingly no reason, and it won't replace a professional focus puller on a film set anytime soon. It's (probably) the best video AF consumers have (for now).

 

[navastronia]

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

The RP will do this when it isn't using DPAF. That body is 10 months old.

 

[RayValdez360]

Needs clarification, but I think that it will have autofocus at 4K/60, but just not DPAF. The amount of data being processed is insane at that level.

It appears that it does DPAF at 4K/30 as well as all the 1080 modes, but I'd wait until the official announcement and specs are released to be sure.

EDIT: From looking at another site, it appears that there's no AF at 4K/60 or RAW/60. Not even a lessor mode of AF.

the c200 did it years ago. this camera will actually cost more than a c200 and is like 3 years newer. that makes no sense