Comparing the EOS-1D X, EOS-1D X Mark II & EOS-1D X Mark III

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
733
875
There is NOT going to be a "jump in IQ", there is nowhere to jump to. Maybe half a stop improvement in camera processed non RAW output, RAW output will be basically identical.

There is NOTHING here for photographers, NOTHING, all the meaningful improvements are video centric, it is essentially a 1DC II.
It all depends on just how big an improvement the AF is. A small improvement will get it to the D5 level but if they manage a large improvement it may tempt people to upgrade. TBH though. If you are a 1dx2 user I doubt you would feel the need to get rid of your body to get the mk3. When the time comes to retire it though you may very well get that newer body rather than another mk2
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,923
Canada
I know the point you're trying to make... there are tradeoffs to be made when increasing both. However it would be incorrect to say you cant increase DR and megapixels at the same time. Just look at sensors now vs. 10 years ago.
Yes, but ten years ago you could also improve the efficiency of the sensor significantly. now almost everything is in the 70-80 percent efficiency range, so that parameter is essentially finished

and yes, my first DSLR had only 8 stops of DR and ISO1600 was as high as it would go, anything over 400 was unusable
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,026
936
I joined CPS nearly 20 years ago, back when it was free if you owned the appropriate kit. Once they replaced an L series AF motor I simply wore out.
Yes, it is good.
Yes it is better than anything Sony has.
No I'm not impressed by the 1DxIII, at least not after the trade marked Canon Cripple Hammer department did it's thing.
I just do not get this “cripple hammer” thingy.
There is technical limitations around DPAF and full frame high speed readout.
20Mp DPAF sensor is technically 40Mp. Reading 40Mp at 60 times per second rates equates to 2.4 Gigapixel per second readout.
That’s a serious number.
I do not believe that Canon would even consider crippling potentially last 1D series DSLR unless there is a serious technical limitation or going higher in Mp or whatever prevents them from delivering a next generation AF performance or any other features they consider mission critical for the success of the product.
I do not use the word “believe me” much. but you can believe me on this. Canon understand pro photography market drivers really well and are focused on delivery of products for photographers that are simply outstanding.
Sony on the other hand is an opportunistic company that would do anything to seize the momentum and use what ever tricks and populistic tools to gain a short term competitive advantage.
They will also dump you as a client without giving it a second thought.
I have multiple evidences of how Sony customer support operates.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,548
2,075
120
Private how do you conclude there will not be better IQ here? Not even half stop better ISO and a slight improvement in dynamic range? Besides, the speed will ensure fewer shots are missed. No?
Because if there was any more to get somebody would have got it without cooking their RAW files with baked in noise reduction, yes I'm looking at you Pentax! I upgraded to the higher DR of the newer sensors (1Ds MkIII's to 1DX MkII's), that was a comparatively large 1.2 stop increase and differences are minimal, indeed if you ETTR they can be mitigated to practically nothing. What I'm saying is a <1.0 stop of DR 'improvement' is basically impossible to see in the real world so is irrelevant.

If after 13 years we have gone backwards in MP (twice!), and in four years increased full functioning fps by 14% then how many more shots are you truthfully going to get?

This is not a photographic upgrade it is a worthy 1DC II, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that in itself, it just isn't the crowning example of the 1 series I was hoping for.

Screen Shot 2020-01-06 at 00.23.08.png
 

Russ6357

I'm New Here
Dec 17, 2019
15
19
I agree but switching brands is neither fun or cheap.
I have more than 30K of Canon lenses that right now I feel like they keep me trapped in the Canon ecosystem.
It was fine for sports and landscape but for birding Canon have no suitable camera and I don’t think they actually care.
The best there’s at this moment is the 1DX Mark II which you can get for a great price.
The resolution could be better but otherwise it’s a great camera for BIF.
+1
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Profit007

EOS T7i
Nov 2, 2014
59
40
Technical limitations??? :ROFLMAO: :LOL:
The C200 offers 4k 60p and costs less than the 1DxIII rumored price. If it was 'so difficult' then just give us 4k 60p with DPAF with a 1.3x crop. Next you'll be saying that's also too hard, execpt whoops, Canon did that with the 4 year old camera it's replacing, with a 4 year old CPUs.

This is a strategic choice because the A9II didn't offer it while the FX9 does. So now Canon is doing the same, even though it means removing a pre-existing 1 series feature. Wake up, you're being robbed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fox40phil

Profit007

EOS T7i
Nov 2, 2014
59
40
This is not a photographic upgrade it is a worthy 1DC II,
It could have been, but just like the 1DC was a con (add a heatsink, switch on features in firmware, and double the price), this is a con as well. Canon still want us to pay double the price for capabilities that have been disallowed in firmware.
 

londonxt

EOS M50
Dec 3, 2018
48
55
I'm guessing that the massive buffer is only possible because of the CFexress cards – they will write data fast enough to keep the buffer from filling.
Don't get that conclusion, the generous size of the buffer, ie large enough to hold 1000+ RAW would be more an advantage of RAM prices and RAM chip density improvements over the years, which also ties in with power requirements. Once the data is written to a persistant state storage like a CFExpress card the data is no longer in a "buffer".

The max frame rate that the buffer can sustain (assuming its the full 16/20fps for the whole 1000 RAW photos) will be down to Canon improving its own tech eco-system ie the brute processing power and the bandwidth of the internal data bus (dual digic xx) plus the speed of the RAM ie DDR 5 or 6.

You could have the slowest storage card tech out there (5.25 floppy anyone?) and still have that same buffer spec, holding max 1000 RAW at 16/20fps but then with a slow storage device, brew a cup of tea or call it a day to allow the buffer enough time to start to empty while the shutter button is forced to pause. We dont yet know the real world timing of the Card Write speed to remove data from the buffer and therefore how long the shutter button pause will be.

Not increasing resolution of the sensor helps to take max advantage of the new Digic processing power and bandwidth plus general RAM improvements. This 'raw' throughput is clearly the prize and is something Canon would have decided to prioritise and even not slightly compromise with a resolution buff after customer consultations.
 
Last edited:

tpatana

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 1, 2012
1,355
132
Don't get that conclusion, the generous size of the buffer, ie large enough to hold 1000+ RAW would be more an advantage of RAM prices and chip density improvements over the years. Once the data is written to a persistant state storage like a CFExpress card the data is no longer in a "buffer".

The max frame rate that the buffer can sustain (assuming its the full 16/20fps for the whole 1000 RAW photos) will be down to Canon improving its own tech eco-system ie the bandwidth of the internal data bus (dual digic xx) plus the speed of the RAM ie DDR 5 or 6.

You could have the slowest card tech out there and still have that same buffer spec, holding max 1000 RAW at 16/20fps but then you would have to brew a cup of tea to allow the buffer to empty. We dont know the real world timing of the Card Write speed to empty the buffer yet.

Not increasing resolution of the sensor helps to take max advantage of the Digic bus bandwidth and general RAM improvements. This 'raw' throughput is clearly the prize and is something Canon would have decided to prioritise after customer consultations.
I'm pretty sure it's mostly due to the CFExpress write speed, only partially on the RAM amount. 1000 RAWs would be something like 20GB. Even with modern chips that'd be lot of space (and money). On the other hand, lets assume Gen3 x4 lane on the card, that could sustain 2GB/s+ fairly easy. 30MB * 16fps = <0.5GB/s, so even if they use one lane on the bus they could probably keep writing as fast as the camera takes, assuming there's no other bottlenecks like the DIGIC or something.

So especially after that calculation, I'm pretty sure it's mostly the write speed and only small part on the RAM buffer.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
733
875
Technical limitations??? :ROFLMAO: :LOL:
The C200 offers 4k 60p and costs less than the 1DxIII rumored price. If it was 'so difficult' then just give us 4k 60p with DPAF with a 1.3x crop. Next you'll be saying that's also too hard, execpt whoops, Canon did that with the 4 year old camera it's replacing, with a 4 year old CPUs.

This is a strategic choice because the A9II didn't offer it while the FX9 does. So now Canon is doing the same, even though it means removing a pre-existing 1 series feature. Wake up, you're being robbed.

Does the c200 have active cooling and/or a bigger more open body therefore meaning it is not weather sealed? Or would that not matter to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
255
167
People want more DR and more megapixels, but ignore the reality that there are only so many photons entering the camera at the exposure time..... you can’t have both At the same time.
Umm, about 10,000,000,000,000,000 photons per square centimetre per second in daylight...

We haven't hit Peak Photon yet!

Scaling-up the pixel density of a sensor doesn't suck photons away from other photosites, it actually makes better use of the incoming photon stream.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aaron Lozano

Profit007

EOS T7i
Nov 2, 2014
59
40
Does the c200 have active cooling and/or a bigger more open body therefore meaning it is not weather sealed? Or would that not matter to you?
The 1DC, remember that extra heat sink that allowed all sorts of impossible physics (according to forum posters of the day, perhaps you were one of them?) to suddenly be switched on with different firmware and a $15k money grab?

I don't know how much heat would be created by switching DPAF back on again, but I doubt it's that big a deal, after all, the 1DxII already does what we want, at least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,026
936
The 1DC, remember that extra heat sink that allowed all sorts of impossible physics (according to forum posters of the day, perhaps you were one of them?) to suddenly be switched on with different firmware and a $15k money grab?

I don't know how much heat would be created by switching DPAF back on again, but I doubt it's that big a deal, after all, the 1DxII already does what we want, at least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to.
“... At least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to...” that’s is quite a possibility. If not at release time but then with a firmware update a bit down the road. My guts feeling that Canon will need a bit more time to sort this issue out.
I would not bet my house on it, but it is highly likely that we will see 4K60 dpaf feature implemented in 1Dx III in one or another form in coming months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie shooter

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
733
875
The 1DC, remember that extra heat sink that allowed all sorts of impossible physics (according to forum posters of the day, perhaps you were one of them?) to suddenly be switched on with different firmware and a $15k money grab?

I don't know how much heat would be created by switching DPAF back on again, but I doubt it's that big a deal, after all, the 1DxII already does what we want, at least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to.
No. I wasnt one of those posters all those years ago. Before my time. But i can say with confidence that the processors in the 1dx3 will put out plenty of heat, especially doing 4k at 60p. And if you had dpaf that is effectively a 40mp sensor running at 60p. That is a LOT of processing power and is sure to generate a LOT of heat. As for the 1.3 crop. Maybe that will happen. But i guarantee if it does all we will hear is whinging about the canon cripple hammer forcing users to live with a crop. Because people just want to whinge.
 

Profit007

EOS T7i
Nov 2, 2014
59
40
Actually, there are some interesting "video" options. I suspect the "buffer" is effectively unlimited with HEIF, so set the camera to electronic shutter and HEIF mode and you have 5.4k 20 fps video with AF.
There's a lot of people waiting for 24/25 fps stills. We're almost there, but it looks like it will be Sony that bring it to market.
 

tarjei99

EOS M50
Dec 27, 2013
25
29
I don't see much of an understanding of heat consequences of features here. And I doubt that most people actual understands the extent to which Canon is checking their assumptions with the professionals. So the professional sports photographers get what they need the most.

If we have 4K on a 1D X, Canon shooters expect it to be available all the time. They would be frothing if Canon starts talking about the camera needing time to cool down. Cooling down periods is OK for consumer stuff, but not for an 1D X.

I will expect that around 20Mpx is about the sweet spot for a professional sports and wildlife camera. If I had one I would probably try to use the 4K or 6K video in order to get the frame rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aussie shooter

londonxt

EOS M50
Dec 3, 2018
48
55
I'm pretty sure it's mostly due to the CFExpress write speed, only partially on the RAM amount. 1000 RAWs would be something like 20GB. Even with modern chips that'd be lot of space (and money). On the other hand, lets assume Gen3 x4 lane on the card, that could sustain 2GB/s+ fairly easy. 30MB * 16fps = <0.5GB/s, so even if they use one lane on the bus they could probably keep writing as fast as the camera takes, assuming there's no other bottlenecks like the DIGIC or something.

So especially after that calculation, I'm pretty sure it's mostly the write speed and only small part on the RAM buffer.
Or its more likely that they would be using a cheaper NAND based memory buffer running on a faster NVMe memory controller, but still means a persistant state storage buffer. Canon couldn't claim a fixed "buffer" specification if they were relying on a users storage card and using a slower while more expensive removable storage spec like CFExpress for a dedicated internal buffer doesnt make sense to me (edit: perhaps there are some power consumption benefits with CFExpress). Either way it would mean the buffer would persist even after a power loss, interesting.
 
Last edited:

StoicalEtcher

EOS RP
Jan 3, 2018
290
208
Yorkshire
This comparison guide should also show the A9II.

* 24Mp,
* 20FPS,
* 693-Point Phase-Detection AF System
* real time eye tracking AF
Yeah, but then not only would that not fit with the title of the article, but you'd need extra columns for things like weather sealing, ergonomics, colour science, menu usability, ability to cope with internal light flickering, professional back-up, customer service, lens range, .....

Oh, wait, no, I see ... we just pick on certain specs that suit our own requirements for photography and ignore the whole package...? :) :)
 

makera

I'm New Here
Feb 25, 2019
9
6
Technical limitations??? :ROFLMAO: :LOL:
The C200 offers 4k 60p and costs less than the 1DxIII rumored price. If it was 'so difficult' then just give us 4k 60p with DPAF with a 1.3x crop. Next you'll be saying that's also too hard, execpt whoops, Canon did that with the 4 year old camera it's replacing, with a 4 year old CPUs.

This is a strategic choice because the A9II didn't offer it while the FX9 does. So now Canon is doing the same, even though it means removing a pre-existing 1 series feature. Wake up, you're being robbed.
I think most of the target group the full frame is more important than DPAF.
Professional cameramen prefer manual focusing anyway.
There will never be a camera that can do everything.
You must buy the C500 II and you have your wishes.