The Canon EOS-1D X Mark III is coming in 2020

richperson

EOS M50
Sep 6, 2019
43
65
From my regular viewing position of 15' from a 65" screen I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 1080, I don't know how that fits in with your 'fact,' which seems dubious anyway, because you don't even include a screen size. Do you mean 2' from a 20" screen or an 85" screen?
You have better eyes than me. I have a 100" screen with a laser projector. Sitting about 10-15' from the screen I can hardly tell a difference in 4k and 1080 resolution. I can certainly see the HDR difference, which is why I buy 4k discs, but in normal watching I don't miss much with the 1080 disks.
 

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,576
679
Southeastern USA
You have better eyes than me. I have a 100" screen with a laser projector. Sitting about 10-15' from the screen I can hardly tell a difference in 4k and 1080 resolution. I can certainly see the HDR difference, which is why I buy 4k discs, but in normal watching I don't miss much with the 1080 disks.
Many people overlook the upscaling ability of a TV. With some TV's, 1080p from 15 ft away can be nearly indistinguishable from 4k; with others, the difference is obvious even further back. And then there is compression of streamed material, other factors, etc.

I'm not familiar with projectors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,142
1,673
Canada
Time to make a prediction with no insider news to back it up.....

I predict that this camera will have quad processors!
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,249
281
Davidson, NC
If that is the conclusion you want to draw from the several real world examples I gave then feel comfortable with your opinion, clearly there is no point to anything I say...
There are so many apples and oranges in the bunch, that was a start on my part. Compression, streaming, bitrates, etc., are all factors, including sharpening algorithms. At least you didn't say you could tell 720p from 1080i. For people with less than 20/15 vision, around 8 feet is supposedly the distance where one can start to see the difference between 4K and 1080p on a screen about 65" diagonal. I don't doubt that you see differences, but many of them are likely artifacts of something other than just resolution. And you are right that upscaling can be done really well. I'm sitting two feet from my 27" 5K monitor, and when I watch some 1080p material full screen, it can look really good. It is hard to see much difference between upscaled 4K and upscaled 1080p. On my 46" 1080p TV seen from 10 feet away, I think I can often see a difference between 1080i received OTA from the same station seen via cable.
 

richperson

EOS M50
Sep 6, 2019
43
65
Many people overlook the upscaling ability of a TV. With some TV's, 1080p from 15 ft away can be nearly indistinguishable from 4k; with others, the difference is obvious even further back. And then there is compression of streamed material, other factors, etc.

I'm not familiar with projectors.
My projector does upscale, so that may be part of the reason I can't see a big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
You have better eyes than me. I have a 100" screen with a laser projector. Sitting about 10-15' from the screen I can hardly tell a difference in 4k and 1080 resolution. I can certainly see the HDR difference, which is why I buy 4k discs, but in normal watching I don't miss much with the 1080 disks.
With projectors screen irregularities tend to limit resolution.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
I was under the impression that people by the 1DX for stills, it is not a video camera. It does shoot video but the main purpose is stills, so I wonder why 4K,6K,8K, zillion K is the factor that matters that much? What does matter is FPS (should be over 14), ISO range (which is already very high), senosr dinamic range (using Dual focus as a means to increase dynamic range), noise reduction (in high ISO), sensor size, burst shooting. I would not really care for the video 4K, 6K, 8K or whatever. If I want video (and can afford the 1Dx) I would buy a video camera dedicated for that purpose.
I made a similar statement once... (be ready to read several pages of replies to see the full conversation)

 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,609
2,071
I think as someone else mentioned, my projector definitely upscales 1080 to 4k, so that likely helps a lot with making the difference harder to see.
I think his point was not about the projector, but about the screen. If you're projecting onto a textured surface (which most screens are), subtle differences (and even less subtle ones) will be more difficult to perceive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
144
100
I made a similar statement once... (be ready to read several pages of replies to see the full conversation)

Thanks, it was long.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
I was under the impression that people by the 1DX for stills, it is not a video camera. It does shoot video but the main purpose is stills, so I wonder why 4K,6K,8K, zillion K is the factor that matters that much? What does matter is FPS (should be over 14), ISO range (which is already very high), senosr dinamic range (using Dual focus as a means to increase dynamic range), noise reduction (in high ISO), sensor size, burst shooting. I would not really care for the video 4K, 6K, 8K or whatever. If I want video (and can afford the 1Dx) I would buy a video camera dedicated for that purpose.
Just one small problem with that: what if someone is actually serious about photo And video, but want One camera that can do Both very well? :) If one buys a cinema camera, there always has to be a second camera in the bag just to be able to take stills as well.
Plenty of people (who are not sports photographers hired by agencies) get the 1DX II to shoot video, but that does not mean that they won't utilise its still capabilities as well when needed.
Of course there are other cameras which really aim to fill in this exact same target audience, and yet none of them manage to really nail it so far (maybe intentionally).
The 1DX II is already strong as-is, so even with minor tweaks to enhance it in both ways will be enough for its target audience. More interesting is what they are going to do lower down their product range, besides the sheer speed and best AF, what other features will be restricted to keep them at a fair distance from the top level.
 

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
144
100
Just one small problem with that: what if someone is actually serious about photo And video, but want One camera that can do Both very well? :) If one buys a cinema camera, there always has to be a second camera in the bag just to be able to take stills as well.
Plenty of people (who are not sports photographers hired by agencies) get the 1DX II to shoot video, but that does not mean that they won't utilise its still capabilities as well when needed.
Of course there are other cameras which really aim to fill in this exact same target audience, and yet none of them manage to really nail it so far (maybe intentionally).
The 1DX II is already strong as-is, so even with minor tweaks to enhance it in both ways will be enough for its target audience. More interesting is what they are going to do lower down their product range, besides the sheer speed and best AF, what other features will be restricted to keep them at a fair distance from the top level.
It is like wanting to have a family race car. You can have a race car, but I wonder if they make it a 5 seat race car. on the other hand, a family car is nto expected to drive as fast, for it needs to accomodate different needs. Any combination will mean that you give up on some of the features of one to accomodate the other. You need to buy a race car for the races and a family car to bring the family to see you race with the other car.

One can have diffeferent opinion about what they like to see in a cemara, however, we also need to be realistic that every camera, or any device for that matter, is a compromise between many, sometimes different, needs, and how technology can perfomr them all. You need to loose some to gain others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
It is like wanting to have a family race car. You can have a race car, but I wonder if they make it a 5 seat race car. on the other hand, a family car is nto expected to drive as fast, for it needs to accomodate different needs. Any combination will mean that you give up on some of the features of one to accomodate the other. You need to buy a race car for the races and a family car to bring the family to see you race with the other car.

One can have diffeferent opinion about what they like to see in a cemara, however, we also need to be realistic that every camera, or any device for that matter, is a compromise between many, sometimes different, needs, and how technology can perfomr them all. You need to loose some to gain others.
It is a bad analogy in this case. It is simply a case of paying more for more features. The good thing is that technology in recent years has gotten so good, that it is not necessary anymore, the capabilities are already there to produce products with certain features, but the bad thing is that they are simply deliberately limit some of these features. (Or what others perceive as 'not trying as hard as they can')

With some differences between steps, Canon's model lineup is structured in a way, that a higher-end camera is better in photo And video as well with some features missing. Like C-Log in the case of the 1DX II, but that does not mean that the video is not good, far from it, but just this one single software related feature would already lift the 1DX III even higher, and it could get IBIS as well, which would be another significant step forward, and it is questionable where they will draw the line of which level of product can have this.

So basically, to have Canon's best video features in a stills camera like 4k60p or 1080p 120fps with DPAF one has to go to get the sports body amongst them - unless they decide to change their marketing strategy.
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
452
49
The sheer number of frames to go through? No one has got time for that.

The economic impact of spending that much on a camera to do what a $1500-2000 camera can do with cheaper lenses?

Those who select 7D Mark II bodies instead of more expensive 1D X Mark II bodies for shooting action/sports do so for economic reasons. Not only does the camera cost 1/4-1/3 as much, but a $2000 70-200/2.8 can get most of the same shots as a $6100 300/2.8 on FF can.

7D Mark II ($1500) + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($1800) = $3,300

1D X Mark II ($6000) + EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II ($6100) + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II ($1800) = $13,900

---

Hmmmmm..... !!!! You DO KNOW I'm being sarcastic right?

I do know MOST people would NOT do what I have suggested! I have actually used the C700 FF for my soccer/hockey games and after-work-hours funtime MANY TIMES just for such type of 60 fps burst rate 18 megapixel still image gathering. It's a little overkill ... BUT WHY NOT?

Since I've got acces to 40+ of the C700's and probably 60 of the C300mk2 and who knows how many 1Dx2's, 1Dc's, 5D 3/4's, Arri Alexa's, Sony Venices and XDcams, I can pretty much take any camera and cinema lens kits I want from the parent aerospace company's inventory. I just use whatever works for ME!

AND YES! I actually DO have permission from the owner(s) to use ANY of the gear for personal use so long I buy the gear insurance and 3rd party liability insurance which works out to barely $300 a month on an all-perils and COMPREHENSIVE insurance gear and 3rd party liability policy !!!

Don't skimp and go for the super-cheapest policy! Get the one that actually COVERS WHAT you do and WHERE you actually go! No point in spending wasted money on cheap insurance if the claim is denied because you're too cheap to by a decent policy! Shop around because policy fine print and prices are VARIABLE ranging from $99 US per month to $2000 US per month!

NOTE: When you have access to or use expensive gear (Your own or others!) , MAKE SURE YOU ALWAYS BUY AND HAVE an ALL-PERILS and COMPREHENSIVE insurance policy that covers ALL COUNTRIES you travel to AND which includes theft and damage to gear (2 million US+) , water/weather damage, Acts-of-God, vandalism, 3rd party liability ($10 million US), accidental self-breakage, etc. AND REMEMBER to take PHOTOS of the production gear on your smartphone (including the gear serial numbers and model number tags usually stamped or printed on the underside of your camera and production gear) BEFORE you take it out! I make sure my gear photos have a date/time stamp BURNED into the JPEG photos in case something happens and the insurance company wants to see PHOTO EVIDENCE of before and after gear damage!

.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
It is a bad analogy in this case. It is simply a case of paying more for more features. The good thing is that technology in recent years has gotten so good, that it is not necessary anymore, the capabilities are already there to produce products with certain features, but the bad thing is that they are simply deliberately limit some of these features. (Or what others perceive as 'not trying as hard as they can')

With some differences between steps, Canon's model lineup is structured in a way, that a higher-end camera is better in photo And video as well with some features missing. Like C-Log in the case of the 1DX II, but that does not mean that the video is not good, far from it, but just this one single software related feature would already lift the 1DX III even higher, and it could get IBIS as well, which would be another significant step forward, and it is questionable where they will draw the line of which level of product can have this.

So basically, to have Canon's best video features in a stills camera like 4k60p or 1080p 120fps with DPAF one has to go to get the sports body amongst them - unless they decide to change their marketing strategy.
You can get C-log in the 5D Mark IV for an about $100 premium. That's still far cheaper than a 1D X Mark II.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
598
217
You can get C-log in the 5D Mark IV for an about $100 premium. That's still far cheaper than a 1D X Mark II.
Or there is the EOS R similar but even cheaper with C-Log included. But is that good enough? 4k 30fps, the 4k crop is way more, the rolling shutter is way more, only 720p 120 fps and no AF at all in that mode. As I said before, yes it is not at the same price level, but it is also much weaker overall (if one intends to use these extra features or one could try and live with it as-is). If they can put what the 1DX II does now a level down in the next generation of cameras, it would be a big step up(because I don't think 6k is that necessary), but maybe they simply won't to keep them at a fair distance.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Or there is the EOS R similar but even cheaper with C-Log included. But is that good enough? 4k 30fps, the 4k crop is way more, the rolling shutter is way more, only 720p 120 fps and no AF at all in that mode. As I said before, yes it is not at the same price level, but it is also much weaker overall (if one intends to use these extra features or one could try and live with it as-is). If they can put what the 1DX II does now a level down in the next generation of cameras, it would be a big step up(because I don't think 6k is that necessary), but maybe they simply won't to keep them at a fair distance.
Imagine that! Having to pay more to get more. It's unfair, I tell you, TOTALLY UNFAIR! They should give us EVERYTHING in the cheapest models. Everything!!
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,304
301
IMNSHO, anyone who wants C-Log in a camera designed primarily for stills is a joke.
Disagree. Canon explicitly charge Clients for the feature. If in their opinion c-log implementation is not up to sniff And not in line with their standards then they should not offer substandard quality or at least do not charge.