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

Sep 12, 2019
6
6
Mmmhhh....
Sony is rumored to bring the A9II with 32-36 MP at the same fps the A9I has.
Canon will be a lot behind, if the sensor will not be in the same league (28-....MP).
What is it with this rage to compare Canon to Sony or Nikon? I compare Canon cameras to my requirements, technical and ergonomic, and they pass every test. I've nothing against Sony or Nikon, certainly they are fine cameras, but they simply aren't relevant to me, even if a certain specification may look better on paper. Out in the world, neither brand can make better photos than a Canon. As good, almost certainly. But not better. Nor is the race to higher and higher pixel counts, which is driven by marketing departments and Kool-Aid drinkers, and not by engineers or serious photographers who are too busy for such nonsense.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
918
438
What is it with this rage to compare Canon to Sony or Nikon? I compare Canon cameras to my requirements, technical and ergonomic, and they pass every test. I've nothing against Sony or Nikon, certainly they are fine cameras, but they simply aren't relevant to me, even if a certain specification may look better on paper. Out in the world, neither brand can make better photos than a Canon. As good, almost certainly. But not better. Nor is the race to higher and higher pixel counts, which is driven by marketing departments and Kool-Aid drinkers, and not by engineers or serious photographers who are too busy for such nonsense.
Some folks actually believe Sony hires people to troll on Canon and Nikon sites, as well as YouTube reviews and constantly point out every little spec where Sony exceeds the others while never mentioning the areas where Sony falls short compared to the others. They all do seem to be reading the same script at times... I guess it could be web crawling spam bots.
 

masterpix

EOS 80D
Jun 29, 2016
124
85
If he can't shoot 6k, I think this is my last year with a Canon...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pape and slclick

sid.safari

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
38
30
Why dual CFexpress cards when DxII users already invested in the CFAST which is incredibly powerful cards still.

One Cfast and Cfexpress would have been perfect for legacy users. Damnit Canon -- why not protect the users who have bought your halo products instead of making them shell out more every 4 years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: richperson

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,793
884
119
Why dual CFexpress cards when DxII users already invested in the CFAST which is incredibly powerful cards still.

One Cfast and Cfexpress would have been perfect for legacy users. Damnit Canon -- why not protect the users who have bought your halo products instead of making them shell out more every 4 years?
Considering it is almost certainly the last of the 1series and users already have them and the card speed is easily up to the task I agree sticking with CFast makes more sense to me, which means they won't do it! Though I would much prefer two slots the same than mixed.

Ideally, were Canon to ask me (which they won't), I'd like two CFast slots.
 

sid.safari

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
38
30
Considering it is almost certainly the last of the 1series and users already have them and the card speed is easily up to the task I agree sticking with CFast makes more sense to me, which means they won't do it! Though I would much prefer two slots the same than mixed.

Ideally, were Canon to ask me (which they won't), I'd like two CFast slots.
Look I get it. CFexpress is faster and likely to be used as the standard going forward. But why force users to shift when it's easier to give them a choice. The ones who want to pay for top of the line cards can go the CFExpress route. I imagine that for 6k video CFexpress will be a minimum -- but leave the customer an option to keep using legacy storage...and CFAST isn't even that legacy! It was until a few years ago one of the fastest protocols out there. I just don't get it with Canon sometimes. It's like someone in a black suit is twirling his razer thin moustache and saying "yes...do that...that will annoy them."
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,793
884
119
That's risible. Blind tests show that viewers can't tell 720p from 6k unless they're about 2 feet from the screen.
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?
 

Codebunny

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
37
17
Look I get it. CFexpress is faster and likely to be used as the standard going forward. But why force users to shift when it's easier to give them a choice. The ones who want to pay for top of the line cards can go the CFExpress route. I image that for 6k video CFexpress will be a minimum -- but leave the customer an option to keep using legacy storage...and CFAST isn't even that legacy! It was until a few years ago one of the fastest protocols out there. I just don't get it with Canon sometimes. It's like someone in a black suit is twirling his razer thin moustache and saying "yes...do that...that will annoy them."
They could do a Nikon and launch a legacy dual CFast version and a dual CFExpress version. Franky, they should not have implemented CFast at all. SATA was already on its way out so they must have caught on that It was a dead end.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,793
884
119
Look I get it. CFexpress is faster and likely to be used as the standard going forward. But why force users to shift when it's easier to give them a choice. The ones who want to pay for top of the line cards can go the CFExpress route. I image that for 6k video CFexpress will be a minimum -- but leave the customer an option to keep using legacy storage...and CFAST isn't even that legacy! It was until a few years ago one of the fastest protocols out there. I just don't get it with Canon sometimes. It's like someone in a black suit is twirling his razer thin moustache and saying "yes...do that...that will annoy them."
Nikon did that with the D5 and XQD and CF cards. I dot think it worked out too well for them but who actually knows. For sure I never saw a D5 with CF cards....

The problem with mixed cards is that the camera can only run at the slowest one. I basically never used the SD slot in my 1DS MkIII's because it slowed the camera down to the slower card, same with the 1DX MkII and CF ad CFast. Only the 1DX got dual CF cards and that can be used effectively with no speed penalty for genuine real time backup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

sid.safari

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
38
30
They could do a Nikon and launch a legacy dual CFast version and a dual CFExpress version. Franky, they should not have implemented CFast at all. SATA was already on its way out so they must have caught on that It was a dead end.
I agree. Canon picked the wrong horse...that being said Cfast is no donkey. I'll be surprised if the DxIII pushes the CFast to the limit except possibly in 6k video. But for all other functions Cfast has been proven to work very well. Hopefully they follow Nikon and do a dual release...anything less is insulting.
 
Aug 4, 2018
3
2
Dual C-Fast = user is locked in ‘old’ tech with ‘low’ performance - bad camera maker!
Dual CFexpress = user’s old cards are rendered useless & user is forced to buy expensive new cards - bad camera maker!
C-Fast plus CFexpress = top performance is only available without the essential dual card backup - bad camera maker!
Hope that summary helps Canon (& others) with their decision making ...
 

sid.safari

EOS M50
Sep 5, 2018
38
30
The problem with mixed cards is that the camera can only run at the slowest one. I basically never used the SD slot in my 1DS MkIII's because it slowed the camera down to the slower card, same with the 1DX MkII and CF ad CFast. Only the 1DX got dual CF cards and that can be used effectively with no speed penalty for genuine real time backup.
I agree about the speed -- you do sacrifice some speed. But CFast isn't slow...so the lag may not be noticeable unless you are doing some extreme stuff (dual saving 6k vid perhaps isn't a good idea). But yeah...it's a fair point. It's basically options vs speed. I like options. ;)
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,236
265
Davidson, NC
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?
Wow! Bionic eyes!
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,793
884
119
Wow! Bionic eyes!
No I have relatively poor acuity but I am 56. My wife, who is younger, can tell the differences even easier than I can. That doesn't mean I am particularly enamored with the 4k overly crisp look but as I have spent a lifetime looking at a smoother aesthetic to me 4k often jars my brain too much. I do like the look of overly fast shutter speeds to frame rate though so maybe I am unusual.

Just go look in a decent TV shop at their various models, it isn't difficult to see differences in the screens, sure in a 'blind test' saying this is one thing and that is another is difficult, when you make comparisons the differences become much more apparent.

I can tell if my internet is throttling 4k streams from Netflix to lower resolution, I don't think I am special in any way. Its like when you look at a super-resolution print, the maths says you can't tell the difference between 300ppi and 700ppi, but print it and compare the two and you can. How valuable that difference is is the moot point.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,793
884
119
OK, so you can tell oversharpened pictures from those that are not.
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...
 

richperson

EOS M50
Sep 6, 2019
31
38
That's risible. Blind tests show that viewers can't tell 720p from 6k unless they're about 2 feet from the screen.
This is completely true. But, if you shoot in 6k, you can crop down in post, which gives you a lot of flexibility. You could essentially fix your zoom on a full theater set and the do all the zooming in post and still come out with nice 1080 if you want.

I do use my 1DXii as a second video camera (after the R), but the video specs were not a factor in my buying it and I don't really care what the video specs on the iii are as long as the camera is even better for shooting sports and low light situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee