According to spec the Sony outperforms the 1DX2 for FPS but does it really? Anyone shooting both of these who can give an honest evaluation??
Jack
Jack
The follow-up to the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II may come in 2019 [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Oh, Jack. Jack, Jack, Jack. Nobody cares about stuff like that. Only specs matter.
No first hand experience but the couple that I have mentioned that swapped from 1DX MkII's to the A9 say they are getting more shots in both golf and tennis. Who knows how well that would translate to other users and disciplines, I certainly don't...
I might be seeing them next month (to buy their 5DSr if they still have it) and might get to play with the A9 then.
Hit up Ryan McCormac on instagram (@cormacgp) or Alex Farinelli (falex79) - both switched to Sony last year and shoot MotoGP racing professionally. Their photos look tack sharp to me.
I will, although it would be highly unlikely I'd switch, for the typical reasons, preferring to stay with Canon. Thanks. Can you post the actual links since I'm not getting what I think I should. Edit: https://www.instagram.com/falex79/
Jack
Last edited:
Thanks Alan, I'm sure I would I'm just torn. The 5DSr is such incredible value now on the used market but the idea of a high resolution RF body that would enable me to cheaply filter the EF 11-24 and TS-E17 via the filter adapter makes more sense, not from the DSLR vs MILC point of view, just the filter utility aspect. But I know the new body will be at a premium though with the rumor the 5DSr II development was stopped it makes the probability of that high resolution RF body more likely and imminent.
Decisions decisions
As I have written elsewhere, when the hi-res R comes out, I will get one, keep the 5DSR and sell the 5DIV. The 5DSR is Bryan Carnathan's of TDP go-to camera.Thanks Alan, I'm sure I would I'm just torn. The 5DSr is such incredible value now on the used market but the idea of a high resolution RF body that would enable me to cheaply filter the EF 11-24 and TS-E17 via the filter adapter makes more sense, not from the DSLR vs MILC point of view, just the filter utility aspect. But I know the new body will be at a premium though with the rumor the 5DSr II development was stopped it makes the probability of that high resolution RF body more likely and imminent.
Decisions decisions
Oh, I absolutely understand you about not switching. But if you wanted to get information from real people who've used both systems in anger, then those guys would be worth following/contacting.
You found Alex yourself - Ryan McCormac is https://www.instagram.com/cormacgp/ (hence my "@cormacgp" reference)
Thanks. As a motorcyclist of nearly 20 years in the long ago, I find both to be very interesting. Of course being a Sony Ambassador means being positive about the gear but photos speak for themselves. One has to admire the determination of Sony and the advances they have made.
Jack
Nice pics but I'm wondering which of them could not have been taken with a Canon?
Here's a set of shots from Lake Louise World Cup a few weeks ago; I took them all with my 1DX (the original, not the newest one):
2018_11_25-Lake Louise Men's World Cup
I've never been dissappointed in this camera and I'm still amazed how good the autofocus can be; I heard 1DX Mark II is even better so what's the problem actually? They still have a mirror so now they just stopped working because of that?
Last edited:
I don’t believe kaihp’s lost was intended to show photos which can not be taken with a canon camera, but rather to show photos which can be taken with a Sony a9 camera. Those are not mutually exclusive.
The initial question was about whether the spec sheet frame rate of the a9 is legitimate. A single photo can not substantiate that.
I shoot with an A9, and although I haven't done my own tests regarding its performance, imaging resource has done comprehensive tests with both cameras.
The A9 can hit 20fps. But there are caveats as certain older Sony lenses are limited to 15fps and uncompressed RAW drops to 12fps or so. The mechanical shutter is limited to 5fps so that would include any flash related work. The buffer is deep, but buffer clearing is slow for JPEGS.
The 1DX2 OTOH can reach 14fps consistently in all modes. Canon advertises 16fps in LV with af/ae locked, but it seems they were only able to reach 14.3fps. Flash sync is available at the 14fps. The buffer also clears faster and is deeper than the Sony.
Yet this is only 1 comparison metric, and there are a ton of other differences between the two including a fairly large price differential between these two cameras ($2400 difference CAD in my local area). You have to weigh those differences in its entirety and decide its relevance to your work. I don't think the A9 can entirely replace a 1DX2, especially if you consider Canon's lens ecosystem, but Canon has been in the sports flagship game for a VERY long time, and I wouldn't be surprised to see remaining gaps to narrow substantially given how much was progress was made with the A9.
I’m sure it must be tough! I don’t have a lot of expensive lenses yet but I’d avoid having to sell them anyway
The good thing is the EF-R adapter works perfectly, so I think you won’t have a huge problem with it!
Those who have never used the 1D X Mark II don't understand this:
The straight out of camera JPEG image quality and color is superior to any other stills camera Canon has on the market. The same is true of video compared to other "stills" cameras.
Those who use the 1D X Mark II are the type of shooters who need to shoot JPEGs in order to move them fast almost as soon as the image was taken.
Those who used the 1-series cameras years ago in studios, or as landscape cameras, etc. have moved on a long time ago, either to something like the 5D Mark III or IV, 5Ds R, or to another brand.
Where do you consider the radical differences between the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV to be? It seems to me that the really radical jump in the 5-series was between the 5D Mark II to the 5D Mark III. To my eyes the 5D3 → 5D4 was about as much of an incremental upgrade as the 1D X → 1D X II was.
Not too sure I agree with the generalization. I shoot exclusively with 1DX MkIIs and very rarely shoot jpegs, I am all about the RAW files.
Then you are one of the few exceptions to the rule. Working photojournalists and sports shooters are the primary users of the 1D X Mark II.
The 7D Mark II, released in Q4 of 2014, also has iTR. Of course the AF system is limited by the narrower baseline of an APS-C sized mirror and (as it relates to the RGB+IR light meter that assists iFR) focusing screen.
But the original camera with iTR was the 1D X back in 2012.