1DXR Speculation
- Thread starter Meatcurry
- Start date
I don't know where you got that rumor, but I do not expect 1DX high resolution body. Why would it need those dimensions? Why a high fps? The high resolution body is already there, it's the 5Ds(R).
Upvote
0
FEBS said:
Well that would be from here:- https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5301008561/cp-2015-canon-interview-every-day-im-saying-speed-up
were Mr Maeda states that a High MP 1D body is under consideration.
I'm just speculating on what the high MP sensor in a 1D body will be. I think you might be surprised how many people would be into a 1D that could shoot 50MP @ 8-10FPS
Upvote
0
Meatcurry said:
He says it is 'under consideration' which is a world away from seriously developing it.
For the iDx, the key is how to increase sensor detail without compromising accuracy of focus and shutter speed and Canon take great care to prioritise the different factors to meet what they see as the prime factors of the target market for a particular use. More detail means more data and if you look at the 1Dx2 and the 7D2 together, 12-14 fps with 20MP seems about the maximum they can have to achieve both of those aims.
IMO the 1DxII is such an awesome machine that there is no huge rush to release a high-res version by which time all the technologies (sensor, processor, battery) will have changed so much it is pointless speculating.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:Meatcurry said:
hahahaha!
I can't think of anything that 1DX owners would hate more than 62MP at 14 fps
Yeah, you don't seem to understand, this is not a replacement for the 1DX, it's a separate model aimed at high end studio/landscape and possibly sports/wildlife at 8-10 FPS
Upvote
0
There is absolutely no reason for Canon to create more competition for itself. I own the 1dx mk2 and the 5DsR. I need better low light high ISO...PERIOD!!!! The next high MP camera must have better low light. It can even stay 50MP as long as it has DPAF and a clean 1080P hdmi out.
Upvote
0
I found a need for such a body last year in blizzard followed by melting snow conditions while shooting wildlife. I found my 5DsR to be inadequate.
But the thought of downloading card after card of huge files shot at 10 fps isn't very appealing.
I doubt a 1DxR will happen any time soon.
But the thought of downloading card after card of huge files shot at 10 fps isn't very appealing.
I doubt a 1DxR will happen any time soon.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:Meatcurry said:dilbert said:Meatcurry said:
hahahaha!
I can't think of anything that 1DX owners would hate more than 62MP at 14 fps
Yeah, you don't seem to understand, this is not a replacement for the 1DX, it's a separate model aimed at high end studio/landscape and possibly sports/wildlife at 8-10 FPS
High end studio/landscape don't need/want 8-10 FPS, in fact many would be happy with less than 3 (just look at how many FPS things like PhaseOne MFDBs do.)
Yet another baseless generalisation.
I'd happily take 8-10 fps and high resolution, as a generalist I can use it all!
If you are going to bracket for landscape then high fps can help with subject movement a lot. If I can get and carry one camera instead of two I'm happy, even if the combined price is more than the two separate options.
I'd be very happy to have a 1DXs with 50MP and 8-10 fps, my printing is getting bigger and bigger, customers expectations are getting bigger too. Just watch a GoPro reel on a 65" 4k TV to see what people expect nowadays.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:Meatcurry said:
hahahaha!
I can't think of anything that 1DX owners would hate more than 62MP at 14 fps
It isn't as if they'd always be forced to mash on burst most. It would be there if needed.
That being said, if there is a true successor to the 1Ds lineup, I don't suspect it will be super high framerate.
Upvote
0
Meatcurry said:
What advantage would such a camera have over the 5D or 5DS/R for landscape/studio?
Which leaves us with sports/wildlife - the 5D gives 6fps and the 1DX2 gives 14 fps. Is 8FPS really much different? which means it would effectively be a replacement for the 1DX2.
I can understand the rationale of having two parallel 5D models (OK, 3) in that the 5D3 as I understand it was original intended as 1Dx-lite and replaced the APS-H models - it was for photographers with a wider range of subjects and so wildlife/sports is less high-priority which meant they did not need the supreme performance or the rugged build that the 1Dx gives you. In those terms a high-resolution sensor that compromises frame rate is less important than an all-action camera and there was a distinct market for it.
Given the target market for 1Dx I can see less rationale for a paralell model which is why they phased out the APS-H cameras. So a high-res 1Dx would be intended to replace the 1Dx2
Upvote
0
brianftpc said:
I think it is going to be a while before you see a 50MP+ camera with DPAF, in essence it would of course be a 100MP sensor, dual pixel and all.
dilbert said:
Every time I see 3FPS and then head off to my 7D and bracket 3 shots, I'm like, holly crap, 1 second of elapse time over the bracket. Wow, stuff can move a lot in that second.
I don't give a rats butt if the buffer is 5 images long, if I am shooting landscape I want to be able to bracket quickly.
Upvote
0
Seems to me that the op is actually describing a 1Ds mark V. A high resolution studio camera built to the specifications of a 1 series but with the capabilities of the 5Ds/r. Its one thing to take a 5d and its siblings out with you on a nice sunny day... but quite another when you're going somewhere that you know the sky might open up with a wall of water or ice at any moment. Something they won't be afraid to take with them on any random day without checking the forecast first. And the extra size to squeeze in a bit more processing power and battery so that they can get a few more FPS out of it. Target audience would be those who consider their studio to be the side of a mountain, the edge of the ocean on the rocks, or a 4 week trip through the Amazon. Where as the 1Dx is targeting those who like to get up close and personal with linebackers and strikers, snap off images in combat zones, and rapidly get that shot of some hostile superstar in those moments between licking cupcakes and their body guard hitting you with a fist the size of a holiday ham.
Upvote
0
I don't understand why everyone flips out when someone argues the 1D line could use a high MP sensor. Consider:
[list type=decimal]
[*]
People might want to get over the notion that high FPS is 'why you buy a 1D rig':
High fps does not define the 1D line, it's just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on. 1D bodies have a TON of exclusive stuff that has nothing to do with speed and landscape / studio folks would give their left nut for it.
And I personally find the 'backing out the bandwidth math' as missing the point. 20 MP X 16 fps = 50 MP X 6.5 fps is not the point. People want a top of the line rig (on a host of fronts other than fps) that gathers more detail than the 1DX2. I'd bet folks would be just fine with a 3 fps high detail monster if it did everything else at a 1D-level of performance -- I mean it.
[*]Recognize that some folks need high resolution and don't want to settle for a (wince as I say it) 2nd class rig to get it.
If you've been using a 1Ds rig for years and now have the choice to upgrade to a 1D feature set (1DX2) OR get high resolution (5DS), that's like a choice of having a dream car OR having a right hand to shift gears. Some folks need both, have the money for both, and are SOL right now (in the EF mount world).
[/list]
So the need is there. The question is how big is that need and would Canon make any money on such a rig? Perhaps enough of the landscapers and studio folks are (a) happy enough with the 5DS line or (b) gave up on EF in favor of medium format to discourage Canon from offering a 1Ds Mk IV sort of rig.
- A
[list type=decimal]
[*]
People might want to get over the notion that high FPS is 'why you buy a 1D rig':
High fps does not define the 1D line, it's just the eye-popping spec everyone dwells on. 1D bodies have a TON of exclusive stuff that has nothing to do with speed and landscape / studio folks would give their left nut for it.
And I personally find the 'backing out the bandwidth math' as missing the point. 20 MP X 16 fps = 50 MP X 6.5 fps is not the point. People want a top of the line rig (on a host of fronts other than fps) that gathers more detail than the 1DX2. I'd bet folks would be just fine with a 3 fps high detail monster if it did everything else at a 1D-level of performance -- I mean it.
[*]Recognize that some folks need high resolution and don't want to settle for a (wince as I say it) 2nd class rig to get it.
If you've been using a 1Ds rig for years and now have the choice to upgrade to a 1D feature set (1DX2) OR get high resolution (5DS), that's like a choice of having a dream car OR having a right hand to shift gears. Some folks need both, have the money for both, and are SOL right now (in the EF mount world).
[/list]
So the need is there. The question is how big is that need and would Canon make any money on such a rig? Perhaps enough of the landscapers and studio folks are (a) happy enough with the 5DS line or (b) gave up on EF in favor of medium format to discourage Canon from offering a 1Ds Mk IV sort of rig.
- A
Upvote
0
I'm not lucky enough to be able to afford, or need a 1dx let alone a 1dxii currently. But one thing I think about is the completely different layouts of the 1dx line vs the 5d line. If the option was there, given I was in the position to purchase either, I would like to have two of the same bodies one performing high fps and one with high Mp. Those who own a 1dx/1dx2 and a 5dsr/5d3 as a back up of some sorts, would you prefer the same button lay out, or does the smaller size trump that.
Upvote
0
Meatcurry said:
No, its not a upscaled sensor. You do not merely add more pixels and keep the design the same otherwise. Obviously, engineers do reuse as much as possible, but its very difficult to design a sensor, more readout channels are needed for large sensors and the onboard NR amplifiers are customized, it becomes something almost entirely new before it finally works. Having 50 MP worth of photosites, versus getting a sensor that actually produces a 50 mp image is a huge step. That's why we see sensors being recycled from model to model, development is extremely costly. The cost of the actual production can be fairly low, but you must recover years worth of R&D, testing, and tooling, so you want high production rates, or a high priced camera.
I could see a 1D model using the existing 50mp sensor with a few tweaks to overcome some of its current limitations, but any major changes and its going to be expensive. Canon has said that their dual pixel sensor is expensive to manufacture, which is why we haven't yet seen it in low cost cameras. Once the production costs drop as they learn how to churn them out in larger quantities, they will be in all the cameras.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
