Canon EOS-1D X Mark III Summary

[unfocused]

...I have railed against people who dump on the new releases before they have been fully tested but this release is a bad joke.

Wow! This is coming from someone who is even more loyal to Canon than I am. Something that too many in these threads don't seem to get is that unlike many Canon releases, the complaining seems to be coming largely from actual 1D series users.

We may be surprised when the release hits and it gets out into the field (crossing my fingers). But, Canon has a steep hill to climb with this release. I'm still scratching my head as to why they went this route and if the high ISO IQ isn't stupendous, I'll be even more perplexed.

 

[s87343jim]

I'm from the Nikon and Fuji camp and I don't mind it. I actually think its quite good.

New AF system (not just minor refresh)
faster FPS
4K60 internal with 10 bit Canon log in H265 codec
5.4K 12bit 60fps RAW internal recording

I don't mind the 20MP sensor and since there are improvements for both video and stills, I don't mind it still uses the same processor.

It is a beast!

 

[peters]

The A7III has more pdaf points to the edge borrowing from the A9, but the A7RIII does not, so there is a difference depending on how it is setup and where it is being focused. I believe the A9 is a better direct comparison to the 1DXII since the processing speed is exclusive to the A9, and not on the III/RIII. There really used to be a day and night difference with DPAF. One other thing to consider is that all of the Sony lenses you pick up for stills/video are (like the RF mount lenses) designed for mirrorless and are mostly quiet for video AF/IS. The same cannot be said for all EF mount lenses, except for some of the STM lenses. Some lenses are slow to AF, clunky and/or noisy and some are not compatible with DPAF. Something to consider as well.

Jeah thats true. I think we compared the GM 24-70 on the A7III and the 24-70L on the 1DXII. I think the GM is a bit quieter and in general a bit sharper overall. (But my 24-70LII seen some battle over the time :-D). Some older Canon lenses are indeed not that great with DPAF.
Overall the 24-70GM is impressive when it comes to sharpness on the A7RIII but I dont like the colors that much. Its hard to tell why this is, I think its mostly the camera, not the lense though. I was at at wedding in thailand and the colors where not as beautiful as I hoped, especialy in difficul lighting situations.
However, given the Sonys offer IBIS AND a comparable Servo AF, its a very decent package overall. I think right now the a7III is the best camera when it comes to "video-and-photo-all-in-one-camera-for-cheap".

 

[Jethro]

I have railed against people who dump on the new releases before they have been fully tested but this release is a bad joke.

I've missed a lot of the argument on this thread - is the gist that you think they have 'sacrificed' extra MP (from a still photography point of view) to allow the unlimited buffer and added video uncropped frame-rates etc? The specs are … unexpected.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've missed a lot of the argument on this thread - is the gist that you think they have 'sacrificed' extra MP (from a still photography point of view) to allow the unlimited buffer and added video uncropped frame-rates etc? The specs are … unexpected.

My assertion has been that from a photography point of view it isn't even a stumble forward; but for video and crossover people it is great, indeed I have said I believe it is, in spirit, a 1DC II not a 1D X III or a 1DS VI.

I truly don't believe there is a photography market for a 20MP camera nowadays, obviously I don't know the sales figures or what segments they go to with the big agencies, then news services, the few news organizations that still have photo departments that include photographers, freelancers, semi pros and keen amateurs, but I'm pretty sure a few of those groups are going to struggle to justify this release.

 

[tron]

If it was close to 30 (say 28Mp) I would be tempted (as a 5DIV replacement). So one temptation less for me (for now).
But I am not a 1D user so I do not represent this category.

I have other priorities (errr hobbies but you get the point!)

I started this year by ordering RF 15-35 2.8L IS.
And maybe 24-70 will follow.

And for 2021 I am thinking about something from the dark side: Nikon 500mm f/5.6PF (its only drawback is it needs a Nikon camera behind it!)

I would say 2022 but meanwhile I should be the owner of a 5DMkV so ….

Choices …

 

[tron]

3 hours for the disa… errh announcement I mean

 

[richperson]

I truly don't believe there is a photography market for a 20MP camera nowadays, obviously I don't know the sales figures or what segments they go to with the big agencies, then news services, the few news organizations that still have photo departments that include photographers, freelancers, semi pros and keen amateurs, but I'm pretty sure a few of those groups are going to struggle to justify this release.

Yet the sports market is dominated dated by 20-24mp camera bodies.

I have a 1DXii, crop 7Dii and an R. In low light, I take the 1DXii and the R. In full light I take the 7Dii and the 1DXii. The common part is the 1DXii, which always has my key lens on it. It is basic physics that more MP in the same size (full frame 35mm) means each pixel takes in less light. It is another rule that fps will be inversely proportional to MP count/buffer depth.

Until I start seeing pixelation in my images at the size I print/post them, then 20MP will be sufficient and I will take my low ISO performance, buffer and fast FPS to the bank.

I do use my R for the few portraits/head shots I do each year, but I don't need either low ISO or fast FPS for that. The 1DX# is a sports and news camera primarily. Fast, reliable and weather sealed. If high MP is your top priority the 1DX is not your camera.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yet the sports market is dominated dated by 20-24mp camera bodies.

I have a 1DXii, crop 7Dii and an R. In low light, I take the 1DXii and the R. In full light I take the 7Dii and the 1DXii. The common part is the 1DXii, which always has my key lens on it. It is basic physics that more MP in the same size (full frame 35mm) means each pixel takes in less light. It is another rule that fps will be inversely proportional to MP count/buffer depth.

Until I start seeing pixelation in my images at the size I print/post them, then 20MP will be sufficient and I will take my low ISO performance, buffer and fast FPS to the bank.

I do use my R for the few portraits/head shots I do each year, but I don't need either low ISO or fast FPS for that. The 1DX# is a sports and news camera primarily. Fast, reliable and weather sealed. If high MP is your top priority the 1DX is not your camera.

I have never met a pro sports shooter who didn't regret having a longer lens or the ability to crop more on occasion. The market is dominated by that number of MP because if you want high fps and the best AF that is the only non choice they have! I have seen so many sports shots taken in landscape and cropped to full page portrait it isn't funny.

But another part of my point was the 1 series market stretches way beyond 'sports shooters' anyway, all wildlife shooters want more than 20MP, everybody that owned a 1DS series camera wants more than 20MP, Canon have effectively reduced the target market for this camera down, I don't understand why other than because they could do 2.4k but couldn't push it to 2.9k. @!&$ing video shooters.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Being professional was not the point. The point was that if you have a DSLR you are kind of stuck with it untill the newer version comes out. With mirrorless bodies, firmware updates can add new functions and not only bugfixes.

Apart from marketing department decisions, why can't you add new functions to a DSLR?

 

[Go Wild]

Yet the sports market is dominated dated by 20-24mp camera bodies.

I have a 1DXii, crop 7Dii and an R. In low light, I take the 1DXii and the R. In full light I take the 7Dii and the 1DXii. The common part is the 1DXii, which always has my key lens on it. It is basic physics that more MP in the same size (full frame 35mm) means each pixel takes in less light. It is another rule that fps will be inversely proportional to MP count/buffer depth.

Until I start seeing pixelation in my images at the size I print/post them, then 20MP will be sufficient and I will take my low ISO performance, buffer and fast FPS to the bank.

I do use my R for the few portraits/head shots I do each year, but I don't need either low ISO or fast FPS for that. The 1DX# is a sports and news camera primarily. Fast, reliable and weather sealed. If high MP is your top priority the 1DX is not your camera.

Well....Ok and i also agree with you! My sports field combination (to soccer games)is the 500mmF4 with 1dxmkII and used to have the 5d3 witch i replaced for the Sony a7r3. Like you, the main camera is of course the 1dx mkII for several reasons. However....I cannot second you opinion about high iso noise and the relation with MP. Just because at same ISO of for example 6400, the ISO of the 1dxmkII is not significantly better than the sony A7r3 and we are talking about more than double MP! From 20 to 42 MP! Even with a slight amount of visible noise you can clean it really fast and/or using the NR in camera...So yes...less MP usually give less noise, but its not a hell of a difference or not so visible! At least between this 2 bodies!

If High ISO is the reason of reducing MP its not valid! I mean.....Cmon, i can use 30MP all ocasions, and shooting at 12800 only about 10 times a year!!

 

[nonac]

If they are not boosting the resolution, it better have some much improved low light ability or I'm not upgrading.....from a series 1.

 

[PureClassA]

Apart from marketing department decisions, why can't you add new functions to a DSLR?

Yeah I keep waiting for this to be answered properly myself. Having a Mirror and pentaprism is merely a mechanical variance. Every single DSLR right now has a LIVE VIEW mode which effectively becomes a MILC using EVF on the Live view screen. I can't fathom what on earth you could firmware into a camera differently based on totally unrelated mechanical issues. Maybe there's an update to DPAF? DPAF only works in Live View. DSLRs have DPAF. So update it on one, update it on all. I didn't understand the original post whatsoever, and it hasn't seemed to have been answered yet.

 

[Profit007]

My assertion has been that from a photography point of view it isn't even a stumble forward; but for video and crossover people it is great, indeed I have said I believe it is, in spirit, a 1DC II not a 1D X III or a 1DS VI.

I truly don't believe there is a photography market for a 20MP camera nowadays

It sounds like you don't actually shoot video. Like stills, there are different market segments. Those producing content have good options in the $12-25k range, or for under $10k there is the Pocket Cinema Camera 6K with no AF. It records straight to interchangable SSDs with better options than Canon Raw Light, 265, etc.
Then there is the content gathering crowd: documentary production, news, and live events like weddings. These folk need AF in a way that controlled productions don't. This numerically much larger market segment is never going to turn up at weddings with a pair of C500s, and Canon doesn't understand this.

The 1DxIII is only a worthy successor to the 1DC in that it was a Canon strategy to withhold tech and charge more of it.

Remember the 1DC was just a vanilla 1Dx with an extra heatsink, different firmware, and a $15k price tag.
It was a stunningly blatant cash grab from Canon which exposed that they really would switch off a feature in firmware unless you paid an extra $8.5k for it..... with all other hardware being the same. (And in this case it failed, sales were dismal.)

 

[David_E]

The Canon EOS-1D X Mark III will be announced on Monday

OK, Monday has come and gone, with no announcement. Any more WAGs?

 

[tpatana]

My last guess for the surprise feature they are keeping under the wraps: They'll release 2 versions, one as specced here and another with 30-40Mpix (and slower fps).

 

[djack41]

I too use 400DOII either with 7DII or with 5DsR. I haven't been able to use it with teleconverter with 5DsR, I guess I will have to check AFMA. I have used it twice with 7D2 and the results were decent. A 600DO would go a long way towards portability though. Not very probable since 600III is a reality though. A 1Dx series would require a 2XIII permanently on the 400DOII by the way Acceptable only if AF remains super fast.

The 400 DO ll is a super lens. Congrats! Wish I owned one. I opted for the reach (and weight) of the 600mm. Comparing 400mm vs 600mm focal lengths, a 600mm lens will put 40% more pixels on the subject. This really helps when shooting 20 MP files. But the 400 DO ll is exceptional.

 

[Profit007]

For those who don't understand why DPAF in 4k 60p is a big deal:

With stills, serious pros want primarily either speed and AF, or very high resolution, while the volume market wants pretty pictures of their family or cat.

With video it's totally different. The high end pros don't care so much about AF because they're filming actors in a controlled environment, but the volume market can't shoot video without good AF. If the moment is OOF, it's lost forever.

A 1DxIII with DPAF @ 4k 60p would pull tens of housands of wedding videographers (who buy 2-3 cameras each) up from the Sonys, Lumix, etc that they currently buy. 60p is critical for that lovey/dovey wedding stuff, and 4k allows cropping and shake removal.

Canon are afraid that the higher end pros will buy a 1DxIII instead of the C400 they're apparently planning as a direct competitor to the industry standard champ Sony FX9, but in reality TV production wants the efficiency of built in ND etc. All they're really doing is snobbing a huge market they could have won over with this camera.

 

[Quirkz]

The 400 DO ll is a super lens. Congrats! Wish I owned one. I opted for the reach (and weight) of the 600mm. Comparing 400mm vs 600mm focal lengths, a 600mm lens will put 40% more pixels on the subject. This really helps when shooting 20 MP files. But the 400 DO ll is exceptional.

40% more? Isn't it over twice the number of pixels? (125% more)

 

[tron]

The 400 DO ll is a super lens. Congrats! Wish I owned one. I opted for the reach (and weight) of the 600mm. Comparing 400mm vs 600mm focal lengths, a 600mm lens will put 40% more pixels on the subject. This really helps when shooting 20 MP files. But the 400 DO ll is exceptional.

The difference of 600 to 400 is much more. More specifically it will put (600/400)**2 = 1.5**2 = 2.25X the pixels of 400mm (which means 125% more)

But that's more or less the difference of 5DsR with 1DxII (or III now!) 50 vs 20. Of course the quality is not the same but when the light is good it's more than enough.