Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary

[Michael Clark]

OK, so all complaining aside, who exactly is this camera aimed at?

Bird / Nature Photographers that shoot full-frame? You have the FPS, but then you have way less ability to crop than say the A9ii. So that's a no to me.

Sports photographers? Similar to the bird/nature photographers, but the cropping issue is lessened. So maybe that's who this is aimed at? But why would you upgrade over the Mk ii?

Videographers? There's some great features (5.xK)...but then at the highest levels you remove DPAF, or even it appears ANY autofocus from 4k60/raw60. This from a flagship camera. You can point out that other brands don't have DPAF...but that was Canon's advantage. So they're removing that from the highest levels of shooting.

Studio shooters? Again, super low MP count...in a controlled environment with controlled lighting the high-ISO capabilities are negated somewhat.

Those waiting for the pro-body R? Maybe people that need to upgrade now (or just want to) but don't want to wait 2 years for a pro-body R? That seems the most likely to me.

How about those who use their 1-series cameras so hard every day that their 1D X Mark II bodies are starting to show their age (not in terms of specs, but in terms of wear and tear) and need to be replaced?

That and sports photographers, if the AF improvements are truly that much better.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yeah. 24MP is so much more than 20MP...

Just for those who don't understand square roots, the difference in linear resolution between 3:2 20MP and 3:2 24MP is only 9.5%.

 

[Michael Clark]

20% or so, which is decent. I think what frustrates people is Canon is basically saying you cannot have a pixel dense sensor, with great auto focus and good frames rates.

Mega Pixels, Frame Rate Auto Focus, Canon says pick two.

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

 

[Michael Clark]

20%. If of no consequence then drop it to 16MP.

20% more pixels per area translate to only 9.5% more pixels in linear terms, which is how we measure resolution (and focal length "reach").

 

[AccipiterQ]

How about those who use their 1-series cameras so hard every day that their 1D X Mark II bodies are starting to show their age (not in terms of specs, but in terms of wear and tear) and need to be replaced?

That and sports photographers, if the AF improvements are truly that much better.

Why wouldn't you just get another 1DX ii at a lower price? Unless of course the AF really is THAT much better.

 

[Michael Clark]

I will admit I am not a technical guy, but if I have two files with the same aspect one is 20mp and the other is 24mp are you saying I cannot print 20% larger at 300dpi with the 24mp file?

You can print 9.5% longer along each side, which gives you 20% more area.

Look at it in very simple terms: A 16x20 is twice the linear size of an 8x10. Each edge is twice as long. It has four times the area. To get the same resolution using the same printer pixel density, one would need an 80 MP camera to print the 16x20 compared to a 20 MP camera to print the 8x10.

If you're printing at 8x12 (to preserve the 3:2 ratio) with a 20 MP camera, with a 24 MP camera you could print at only 8.76x13.15 with the same pixel density from the printer.

 

[Michael Clark]

Besides the 1.9:1 aspect ratio and the AF being disabled in this mode, the 2600 Mbps bitrate is insanely high.

It does shoot 20fps RAW stils with live-view, although the Servo-AF is probably not in its best mode.

If it is anything like the 90D, the live view Servo AF will be noticeably *better* than the OVF Servo AF. (At least if you believe DP review and their testing methods, mostly using an STM kit lens optimized for smooth video focusing.)

 

[Michael Clark]

A quick hack job, but this is what 191 af points could look like...

View attachment 188010

It will probably be more like the Nikon D5, where only about 1/4 of the AF points are user selectable and the rest are "assist" points surrounding the selectable ones.

 

[GoldWing]

20% more pixels per area translate to only 9.5% more pixels in linear terms, which is how we measure resolution (and focal length "reach").

Could be, there will be less MP's in the MKIII than the MKII.

This was required for the Video frame rates?

 

[-pekr-]

I’ve been saying this all along. Why are they releasing this a month before the big show? Why are we starting to hear rumors about multiple cameras being unveiled at CP+ at the end of February? Because the 1dxmiii is a sideshow, its just an iterative upgrade to the existing camera line to meet promises made to professionals that need to refresh their lineup and maximize their ef lens investments. I suspect the sensor is new only to the point that they used the same design on a new smaller more efficient die process, like the ‘tock’ in intel‘s tick-tock cycle. If they have done this, that probably accounts for the greatly improved read speeds of the chip.

But the real magic will come at the end of February, with cameras that may meet or exceed the 1dxmiii in certain situations, to entice people to start replacing all of their lenses with better RF optics. Then next year we’ll see the hybrid viewfinder RF/EF 1d series with a higher megapixel count and king of the hill camera at the top of canons performance pyramid.

Real magic? You mean ultra-high mpx R body, noone asked for?

 

[cpreston]

Something that seems to be missed is that the 1DX III does list cropped 4K and UHD modes. There's a good chance that these modes will allow 60P and DPAF.

 

[Michael Clark]

Why wouldn't you just get another 1DX ii at a lower price? Unless of course the AF really is THAT much better.

Have you tried finding a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II for a lower price than a new EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III lately? The pipeline is empty. The window for buying remaining stock of 1D X mark II bodies will be even narrower, as most dealers inventory far fewer 1-series bodies than they inventory 70-200/2.8 lenses.

 

[tron]

No dslr has. A9 has. That's what I was trying to say. (English is not my native language). The 1DX III lacks some features compared to the A9. So in that respect I was expecting some upping on the MP side. But it appears Canon is not thinking like that. Maybe time for a switch.

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

WOOHOO! Now, my hunt is on for someone trying to sell their low mileage 1DX Mk II for a great low price.

Which won't be quite as low as it would have been if the new 1D X Mark III had hit it out of the park on the spec sheet.

 

[Architect1776]

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

Cropping is so minimal as to be negligible unless you are doing huge crops then you obviously are using the wrong piece of equipment for the job, need a longer lens.

 

[Michael Clark]

I would bet that most Canon Rumors readers are not in the target market for this camera. Reuters, AP, AFP, SI, etc... probably told Canon that 20mpx is plenty -- and those organizations are buying thousands of cameras.

20 megapixels is enough to fill a double spread in Sports Illustrated at 300 dpi, and even then it is the rare photo that gets the double spread treatment. Most photos gets thrown out immediately, and most of the selected ones will just end up on Twitter feeds / web galleries at 2 or 3 mp, so why process 30 megapixel files?

Why would Reuters, AP, AFP, SI, etc. buy thousands of new cameras? They no longer have thousands of staff photographers to issue such cameras to. Only a handful remain. Most of their work is now hired out to freelancers working for pennies on the dollar who couldn't afford to upgrade their 1D X Mark II bodies until they actually break beyond reasonable repair.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not in 4k RAW either.

How about 4K24p? isn't that the Holy Grail of videographers? It sure was when certain Canon cameras did not offer 24p...

 

[Nelu]

Cropping is so minimal as to be negligible unless you are doing huge crops then you obviously are using the wrong piece of equipment for the job, need a longer lens.

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?

 

[Bishop80]

Which DSLR has eye autofocus using OVF?

No dslr has. A9 has. That's what I was trying to say. (English is not my native language). The 1DX III lacks some features compared to the A9. So in that respect I was expecting some upping on the MP side. But it appears Canon is not thinking like that. Maybe time for a switch.

The EOS 3 had eye autofocus through the OVF, but it was whatever YOUR eye focused on!

 

[unfocused]

Cropping is so minimal as to be negligible unless you are doing huge crops then you obviously are using the wrong piece of equipment for the job, need a longer lens.

How about when you need a horizontal crop for the website, a square crop for social media, a vertical for printing at 300 dpi and another horizontal crop for large wall displays and posters? The days of an image being destined for a single medium are over. Loose cropping is needed because you never know how the image will be used.