The follow-up to the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II may come in 2019 [CR2]

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,351
328
119
Hmm, I know three other 1DX MkII users and all three of them capture RAW, two do a mix of processed RAW and jpegs for 'on the spot' uploads, one shoots RAW exclusively.

Yes that is still a very small, insignificant, sample size but I don't think we are that unusual. All these shooters know that sometimes their best shot will need work and the on chip ADC gives a lot more latitude to do that, the 1DX MkII's most noticeable upgrade from the 1DX was that post processing latitude which is only usable when you shoot RAW.
 
Reactions: ethanz

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
True!
Still, i crop most of my work. In a way so it can be even more cropped ;)
But don't even think about cropping your best shots really tight the way you want to see them published, or the editor will just skip them for another shot that they can crop to fit their space!
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
Traveling from Hawaii, to Bora Bora, to Aruba and the U.S. to shoot kitesurfing I can assure you it's not lame. The athletes, sports magazines, fans and equipment manufacturers would disagree. Kitesurfing will now be an Olympic Sport. There are 5 top kitesurfing photographers in the world 3 of them also shoot fashion. And two are just as well known in Paris, London or New York for Vogue, Fashion Week as well as Sports Illustrated and Extreme Sports. Having worked with CPS very closely anyone will say I'm not a fanboy. Mirrorless is not ready and the 1DXMKII will out shoot the D5 in equally capable hands. Start looking at the Aruba Kitesurfing community then move to Hawaii. I hope you'll see some amazing work by talented photographers who are dedicated to capturing shots that evoke emotion. Good luck to you!
How well the 1D X Mark III compares to the Nikon D5 is totally irrelevant. How well it compares to the Nikon D6, also due out soon, will be slightly more relevant.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
If I am still shooting sports when the 1DxIII comes out, the deciding factor for me will be autofocus. That's the one area where significant improvements remain possible. I dream of a reliable face/eye detection system that actually locks on the subject and follows it around the frame while the shutter button is engaged.

For me, everything else is quibbling.

If I'm not shooting sports any longer, the 5D IV meets my needs. The quieter shutter, higher resolution and lighter weight make it my preferred camera for everything except sports. I even prefer the 5D for birds in flight, finding the extra resolution more important than the high frame rate.

Based on the current state of affairs, I do think it will be a long time before a mirrorless camera can compete with the 1Dx for sports shooting.
On the other hand, how many professional sports shooters are left who actually make a living from it? Frames that would earn $250-500 a decade and a half ago now pay $2.50-5.00.

The true professional sports shooter has been replaced in many markets by the wealthy photo enthusiast "fan" who can afford to buy top level gear in exchange for access far better than similarly priced season tickets can provide. Ironically, the better the gear gets, the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The state of journalism in general means that even most editors at fairly high profile publications can't see the difference between 'usable' shots and 'masterful' images. The bean counters certainly can't.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
I would be surprised if that rumor would turn out to be true! With cycles constantly increasing between generations of high-end DSLRs in Canon in recent years, now with the market (and their focus) shifting towards MILC, it would be somewhat unexpected to see a flagship 1D successor in 3 years, when it took almost 5 years to replace the 1D-X. Not that I would mind it, I just don't think it is likely to happen.

The 1D X was introduced in Q2 of 2012. The first copies were available in time for the 2012 Summer Olympics, which ran from July 27-August 12.

The 1D X Mark II was introduced in Q1 of 2016, in time for the 2016 Summer Games, which ran from August 5-21.

That's just less than four years, not almost five.
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,724
1,285
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.
You are correct, but why do you use such a huge font in bold?
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
5,859
432
Alberta, Canada
Michael, you make many good points.

Certainly I can not dispute the accuracy of the comments about Journalists and news shooters.

I have no idea how many clueless people like me shoot with a 1DX2 but I can tell you as I've advanced in photography in recent years since going digital it didn't take very long until it hit me like a 2X4 that I absolutely would never shoot only jpeg. I can recall oh so clearly going back to adjust a cool shot only to find it wasn't RAW - WHAT! - how could I have been so dumb.

Jack
 
Reactions: jprusa and ethanz

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
I know a pro sports shooter who tried out the R (normally he has the 1dx2) and I asked him about the AF on the R for sports. He said it was fantastic.
I know more than a few "pro" sports shooters who use the 1D X II and have no idea what AFMA is. They just gripe all of the time about how their camera misses focus too much.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
5,859
432
Alberta, Canada
I know more than a few "pro" sports shooters who use the 1D X II and have no idea what AFMA is. They just gripe all of the time about how their camera misses focus too much.
Ouch. Wouldn't "pro" have to include knowing at least the basics of operating a camera! Who would hire a "pro" like that? Surely we are talking a small sample size here. ;)

Jack
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,351
328
119
Ouch. Wouldn't "pro" have to include knowing at least the basics of operating a camera! Who would hire a "pro" like that? Surely we are talking a small sample size here. ;)

Jack
Unfortunately in my experience Jack the answer to that is 'No'! Staggering I know but these cameras have become so complex that many users never get deep into the options they just work around what they perceive as 'issues'. A large portion of photographers are simply not gear heads, they are sports fans or lighting geeks, they just haven't kept up with camera menu options.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
Michael, you make many good points.

Certainly I can not dispute the accuracy of the comments about Journalists and news shooters.

I have no idea how many clueless people like me shoot with a 1DX2 but I can tell you as I've advanced in photography in recent years since going digital it didn't take very long until it hit me like a 2X4 that I absolutely would never shoot only jpeg. I can recall oh so clearly going back to adjust a cool shot only to find it wasn't RAW - WHAT! - how could I have been so dumb.

Jack
The difference between what PJs and sports specialists do and what you do is that the first image, not the best image, usually wins in spot news and especially with major pro sports.

It's gotten to the point with major college football and the NFL that in some cases, if you're freelancing, you better move an image before the next snap of the football or someone else has already beaten you to it. Nobody wants to buy a 'better' version of something that hits the wires five minutes after they've already published someone else's shot.

If the event is high profile enough, there might be a small team or two from the heavy rollers on site for their shooter to feed raw images via wired FTP from camera to their servers in the media room or a production truck. But if the editing team is off-site, raw files aren't as practical as jpegs due to file sizes. Even though most major sports facilities provide private wifi to credentialed media, it can still be a struggle when everyone there is trying to use it at the same time.

When shooting in major sports venues the lighting is generally fairly consistent in each of them from one event to the next and those who care to can set custom profiles or dial in known color temperature/white balance corrections in their camera ahead of time.

I even do that with high school and mid-level college stadiums in which I shoot. I keep a "cheat sheet" of color temperature/WB correction that I use in each facility that I frequent often. In such instances, though, I'm not competing with anyone on a hot time frame and I still shoot raw. Having the CT/WB dialed in in-camera just puts me that much further ahead of the game when I start my workflow.
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
Unfortunately in my experience Jack the answer to that is 'No'! Staggering I know but these cameras have become so complex that many users never get deep into the options they just work around what they perceive as 'issues'. A large portion of photographers are simply not gear heads, they are sports fans or lighting geeks, they just haven't kept up with camera menu options.
Or they've been doing it so long AFMA did not exist the last time they read a camera manual. Even the 1-series did not get AFMA until 2007 when the 1Ds Mark III and the 1D Mark III introduced it.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
Ouch. Wouldn't "pro" have to include knowing at least the basics of operating a camera! Who would hire a "pro" like that? Surely we are talking a small sample size here. ;)

Jack
I probably should have said photo journalists who shoot sports as a significant portion of their work. There are still newspapers with staff photographers and those are the guys I'm talking about. Most of the ones left have been shooting for newspapers since the 1980s or 1990s.
 

Nelu

5D Mark IV, 1Dx
Hmm, I know three other 1DX MkII users and all three of them capture RAW, two do a mix of processed RAW and jpegs for 'on the spot' uploads, one shoots RAW exclusively.

Yes that is still a very small, insignificant, sample size but I don't think we are that unusual. All these shooters know that sometimes their best shot will need work and the on chip ADC gives a lot more latitude to do that, the 1DX MkII's most noticeable upgrade from the 1DX was that post processing latitude which is only usable when you shoot RAW.
Make it four because I also shoot a 1DX and I never took a jpeg with it in my life:)
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
On the other hand, how many professional sports shooters are left who actually make a living from it? Frames that would earn $250-500 a decade and a half ago now pay $2.50-5.00.

The true professional sports shooter has been replaced in many markets by the wealthy photo enthusiast "fan" who can afford to buy top level gear in exchange for access far better than similarly priced season tickets can provide. Ironically, the better the gear gets, the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The state of journalism in general means that even most editors at fairly high profile publications can't see the difference between 'usable' shots and 'masterful' images. The bean counters certainly can't.
Not sure I agree. Don't confuse professional shooters who shoot sports with shooters who shoot professional sports. As an employee of a small college I shoot sports professionally, but I don't shoot professional sports. It's dangerous to predict that something will "always" exist, but I don't see anything on the horizon that would indicate that the need for high quality sports shooters for specific markets (such as education) are going away anytime soon. In fact, given how competitive the college market has become, a college or university would be foolish to use second-rate photos in their marketing materials. (Although many certainly do).

Not sure I agree either with the statement that the better the gear gets the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The expectations go up as the gear improves, so it becomes harder and harder to get the shots that stand out from crowd. Plus, from my personal perspective, it's still hard as hell to get a decent shot (player's face visible and in focus, action stopped, ball in the scene), especially when you are talking about gym lighting that puts ISO 6400, f2.8 and 1/800th of a second at the very edge of what you can use).

One thing I do agree with, though, is that the market way undervalues the worth and cost of getting quality images, but honestly, that's been the case in most markets for 50 years or more.
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
445
152
Not sure I agree. Don't confuse professional shooters who shoot sports with shooters who shoot professional sports. As an employee of a small college I shoot sports professionally, but I don't shoot professional sports. It's dangerous to predict that something will "always" exist, but I don't see anything on the horizon that would indicate that the need for high quality sports shooters for specific markets (such as education) are going away anytime soon. In fact, given how competitive the college market has become, a college or university would be foolish to use second-rate photos in their marketing materials. (Although many certainly do).

Not sure I agree either with the statement that the better the gear gets the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The expectations go up as the gear improves, so it becomes harder and harder to get the shots that stand out from crowd. Plus, from my personal perspective, it's still hard as hell to get a decent shot (player's face visible and in focus, action stopped, ball in the scene), especially when you are talking about gym lighting that puts ISO 6400, f2.8 and 1/800th of a second at the very edge of what you can use).

One thing I do agree with, though, is that the market way undervalues the worth and cost of getting quality images, but honestly, that's been the case in most markets for 50 years or more.
I think that is what you just did when reading my previous comment. I'm talking specifically about those who shoot professional sports, not professionals who shoot non-professional league sports.
 

tpatana

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 1, 2012
1,223
14
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.
Yup, exactly like you say.
 

tpatana

EOS 6D MK II
Nov 1, 2012
1,223
14
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.
I shoot kendo (sports) with 1DX (Mk1). I shoot only RAW. I think shutter count around 250k at this point. For me the raw quality improvement, as slight it might be, is more important than the process speed and disk space. I understand that many sports when they want the picture out literally in minutes, they prefer jpeg.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
I shoot kendo (sports) with 1DX (Mk1). I shoot only RAW. I think shutter count around 250k at this point. For me the raw quality improvement, as slight it might be, is more important than the process speed and disk space. I understand that many sports when they want the picture out literally in minutes, they prefer jpeg.
I shoot a lot of sports and I always shoot raw. Frankly, I've been processing raw for so long, it's faster for me to edit a raw file than it is a jpg file. I'm a one-man band. I shoot raw, go through the frames after a play (time allowing), during halftime and right after the game, rating the images and then download them back in the office. I can usually get 20-30 shots processed and posted to the school's website and uploaded to Dropbox for sharing with local media in a couple of hours.

One key advantage for me is color balance. Canon's auto white balance is pretty good, but there are always a fair number of shots that need adjustment. Raw also affords me the opportunity to double-process the layers so that I can easily process one layer to optimize the face and another layer to bring down highlights in white uniforms and make other exposure adjustments. I can't imagine trying to work with a jpeg file when you are dealing with a broad range of skin tones and less than ideal lighting.