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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,038
496
---

Within the last week, the specs for a 60 FPS BURST RATE 18.6 megapixel (5952 x 3140) Canon Full Frame camera came out which could solve ALL your fast action issues. It's a tad expensive BUT the Canon C500 Mk2 Cinema Camera is the PERFECT size and weight for your football (soccer), hockey, basketball, rugby, skiing, cycling, F1, Rallycar and other fast action sports AND for wildlife imagery.

At 60 fps and 18.6 megapixels, you shoot flat log or 12 bit RAW colour and then download your videos into Blackmagic Resolve colour corrector and choose the frames you like. Export each selected video frame to PNG at uncompressed 12 bit or 10 bits per colour channel and send to your editors via email! And Bob's Your Uncle! YOUR DONE! Put the c500 Mk2 into a shoulder mount rig and you can hold it all day no problemo.

What's not to like?

.
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,038
496
Trust me, having Dual Pixel was worth it alone. They could have changed absolutely nothing and just added that and I would have been happy! LOL
Not for those who never use AF in Live View.


The addition of flicker reduction is the primary thing that finally compelled me to replace my 5D Mark III with a 5D Mark IV (and make the III my backup FF body and retire my II) when the price dropped low enough. So it was worth it to me for that feature alone.

But for someone who does not shoot under flickering lighting, such as is found in most high school and small college stadiums and gyms, flicker reduction would not be a compelling differentiator.
 
Last edited:
Aug 22, 2019
7
3
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main difference between DSLR and DSLM that you don't need micro adjustment on a DSLM?
All other features (except EVF) are software based i guess. In this case we are not talking about the DSLM features we are talking about the functions and performance in Live-View.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,038
496
Indeed, but I was just reacting to the original post, which implied it didn't happen. The Digic 5 was first in the 1D X (announcement - it took a long while to appear)

The appearance of different digic chips over the years and in different models. This is the latest I've used (good to see Digic 4 still going strong from 2008 [50D])

View attachment 186663
I suspect we'll see some big changes to the bottom the table in just a few years - perhaps time to spit it into DSLR and Mirrorless versions.
It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, the 1D X was announced first but the 5D Mark III actually shipped first?
 

$winter

EOS M50
Sep 12, 2014
27
15
The 1DX2 has the earlier, 7D2 generation DPAF. Servo AF in Live View was introduced in the 80D.
ye but still stange in video that one works perfect ;) - i hope Mk3 gets it, becaus meanwhile i love to shoot weddings over the display, only real citical stuff, where i need the ranrate i shoot over the viefinder. This way of shooting much less exhausing. So defacto i have already a mirroless with the MK2 ;) with a hammer battery life...
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,610
2,072
Well let's see: If the reason I need to think about replacing my aging 7D Mark II is because it has 300,000+ clicks on the shutter then how much sense does it make to think about replacing it with a camera rated for 120,000 clicks that costs about the same as another 7D mark II rated for 200,000 clicks would?

If spending $12K for a 600/4 was an economically viable choice in terms of still making a profit instead of going in the hole using it, then I probably wouldn't need to worry about the economic advantages of using a $1,500 APS-C sports camera with a $2,000 70-200/2.8 lens instead of using a 1D X Mark II with 300-400/2.8 lenses and still needing the 70-200 for shorter distances.
Regarding the thread topic, presumably the 1D X III is not in your cards. So, then...lucky for you the 7DII is widely available.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
364
316
117
Williamsport, PA
You stated, "I do not see anywhere that this is a DSLR except in the first sentence which is just saying a continuing possible DSLR." The first sentence is, "We’ve confirmed from a very solid source one of the worst kept secrets for 2020, that Canon will announce the EOS-1D X Mark III." If Canon announces an EOS 1D X Mark III, it will be a DSLR. Period.

Now, if you want to question the validity of this rumor more generally, and are suggesting that Canon will not release a successor to the 1D X II but instead will release a MILC that delivers the specs and performance of a 1D X III, that's a different discussion. If that's the path Canon takes, they will announce something that will not be called an EOS 1D X Mark III. That was my point.
I am sure you know all. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,038
496
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main difference between DSLR and DSLM that you don't need micro adjustment on a DSLM?
All other features (except EVF) are software based i guess. In this case we are not talking about the DSLM features we are talking about the functions and performance in Live-View.
AFMA can be a pain, but once done for a particular body/lens combo it works fairly well without needing to be redone very much, particularly for primes.

The real advantage of main sensor based AF over dedicated AF sensor based PDAF is that it's right at all subject distances if the camera optically confirms AF rather than only confirming the lens moved the instructed amount (which is what the most advanced PDAF systems do when shooting fast bursts). By the time the lens has moved, the mirror is already swinging up again and the lens position is measured by position sensors rather than optically. But some DSLMs also do not wait to optically confirm AF before resetting the shutter curtains to take the next frame in a fast burst. That's why some DSLMs also have forms of micro adjustment - to calibrate the lens' AF position sensor(s).

You can't use a DSLR in Live View with your eye to a viewfinder.
You can use a DSLM with your eye to an EVF.

There's still a fundamental difference there. Sometimes camera stability is critical in an environment where using a tripod is not practical or even possible.

Maybe there is someone somewhere that does it that way, but I know of no pro or even advanced amateur who uses a rear LCD screen to shoot sports/action stills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadisonMike

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
492
291
[..]

The real advantage of main sensor based AF over dedicated AF sensor based PDAF is that it's right at all subject distances if the camera optically confirms AF rather than only confirming the lens moved the instructed amount (which is what the most advanced PDAF systems do when shooting fast bursts).
[..]
And 'older' lenses don't have enough resolution in their encoders to read back small intervals, so the camera saying "Move to 7.41 meters" the lens might say "Well, I can do 7.0 or 7.5, so I'll move to 7.0 and you can tell me to do relative adjustments after that."
In one of the RF announcement interviews Canon mentioned that they have been improving the encoder resolution for a few years now due to DPAF and that the RF lenses will have The Best(TM) ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,038
496
Regarding the thread topic, presumably the 1D X III is not in your cards. So, then...lucky for you the 7DII is widely available.
Probably not in the cards unless shooting sports miraculously again starts paying what it was paying 20 years ago.

But this sub-conversation started by David16 was about what body to replace a 7D Mark II with that doesn't cost as much as the 1D X Mark III is likely to cost. Right now it's pretty much another 7D mark II or switching to a nikon D500 with Nikon already having officially announced there will be no D500 replacement (and the price of the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR is about $2,800 right now...).
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,508
393
UK
www.flickr.com
30-32mp would not shock me. 22-24mp might be disappointing. But what if Canon could do 26-28mp but improve noise at high ISO by one stop? That could be the winner. Higher resolution is nice, but I could be pretty happy with 24mp and half or less than half of the noise at high ISO.
As far as I can gather from what knowledgable folks say, there isn't a whole stop of extra high ISO performance to be had with current technology, no matter what manufacturer we're talking about. Sensors are already nearly as efficient as they can be in low light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,038
496
And 'older' lenses don't have enough resolution in their encoders to read back small intervals, so the camera saying "Move to 7.41 meters" the lens might say "Well, I can do 7.0 or 7.5, so I'll move to 7.0 and you can tell me to do relative adjustments after that."
In one of the RF announcement interviews Canon mentioned that they have been improving the encoder resolution for a few years now due to DPAF and that the RF lenses will have The Best(TM) ones.
The older EF lenses (if we're talking about telephoto L lenses) are about as capable as the newer EF lenses in terms of the smallest increments the lens can be instructed to move, they're just not as precise when measuring exactly how far they have then moved as the newer lenses are.

The watershed for that seems to have been about 2010, at least according to Roger Cicala. I don't doubt that the RF lenses can be even more accurate with the increased bandwidth between RF body and RF lens, but the Super Telephoto IS II series are remarkably consistent from frame to frame in burst mode when used with one of the latest top tier bodies.
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,061
559
Turku, Finland
As far as I can gather from what knowledgable folks say, there isn't a whole stop of extra high ISO performance to be had with current technology, no matter what manufacturer we're talking about. Sensors are already nearly as efficient as they can be in low light.
Indeed. The D5 has a roughly half a stop lead over the 1DX2 and is ridiculously close to a theoretical ideal sensor only limited by photon shot noise. Modern Sony FF sensors lie somewhere between the two DSLRs.
 

Skyscraperfan

EOS M50
Aug 7, 2018
25
10
More megapixels would be very bad news for me. If I needed many megapixels, I would buy a 5Ds, which is much cheaper. Canon still has big problems with noise. Even at ISO 100 you see a lot of noise if you try to recover shadows. Sony is in another league in that regard. If Canon really wants 30 megapixels, they either need to develope a totally new sensor technology or just buy Sony sensors like Nikon and even Phase One do. Otherwise more megapixels will mean even more noise - at least at a pixel level.

I already booked tickets for the Olympics and will use my very old 1DX (Mark I) there unless I find $7000 somewhere under my couch.
 

Sharlin

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 26, 2015
1,061
559
Turku, Finland
More megapixels would be very bad news for me. If I needed many megapixels, I would buy a 5Ds, which is much cheaper. Canon still has big problems with noise. Even at ISO 100 you see a lot of noise if you try to recover shadows. Sony is in another league in that regard.
I think you meant "only at ISO 100". And interestingly NOT with the a9 which is pretty much equal to the 1DX2 in low ISO performance. And the D5 is quite a bit poorer, by the way… gee, it's almost as if extremely fast sensor readout is not compatible with extremely low readout noise! Fascinating. Admittedly the D5 and the a9 have a ⅓ to ½ stop lead at high ISOs, so there's that. But how often is that a problem in practice, when not pixel-peeping studio shots?

Otherwise more megapixels will mean even more noise - at least at a pixel level.
Yes, if you compare apples to oranges. More pixels means MORE DETAIL and yes, more pixel-level noise. It makes zero sense to compare the noise of two photos that have different resolutions, without normalizing resolution first.
 
Last edited:

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,202
74
Now I regret selling my EF lenses. I thought it is all about mirrorless now and should move in that direction because of the better lenses.
Canon is making it difficult for people (like me) who are about to update their system. I had most of my gear stolen. Just 24ts and 24-70 remained which I sold. Need to start from scratch. Honestly I wish there was a mirrorless like 1dx3. I would buy that already.