A guy used 1DX yesterday in Germany!!

[AprilForever]

As a 1DsIII user, the 1Dx isn't the upgrade I was looking for. My next body will be a 5D3 or D800, so the specs of those two bodies are all that I care about. The 5D3 probably won't be released until after the 1Dx, so that's the only reason I care about when the latter hits the market.

To be sure, it wasn't the camera I was looking for either. I think combining the 1D line was a huge mistake. I mean, isn't one of the main reasons they kept the camera at 18MP was to be able to shoot so quickly? Wouldn't a lot of studio photographers been a lot happier if they could have shot at half the speed but with much bigger images?

I hate it when somebody tells me "you don't need anything more than 18MP." I have heard that a lot. How do they know what I need? When working with a model, I certainly need 27MP much more than double digit frames per second. I was kind of hoping the new 1D would rival medium format. When I'm shooting sports I don't want full frame. It's an impressive camera, but I really think they only people it's perfect for would be like National Geographic photographers and certain kinds of sports on smaller fields/courts. It's just the wrong camera for me and a lot of others, as well, even though it has a lot of really sexy features.

Are was allowed to admit this? Will Canon revoke my membership?
I agree completely. I want more MP than my 5DII for studio and general photography. And the crop factor on my 7D is much appreciated when I shoot sports, or nature.

Well-said! I love the 1.6 on the 7D. I couldn't imagine losing the reach.

 

[KeithR]

How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?

It's nothing to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

Just because you don't understand the benefit of high pixel density, don't assume the benefit doesn't exist.

 

[Astro]

How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?

It's nothing to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations.

why not using a bridge camera with a 35x zoom and 800mm on the long end when pixel size does not matter? you don´t have to crop that much. ;D

 

[Ivar]

The fight for the MP is by far over. It is just an intermediary stop, even for Canon. The next whatever upgrade to the 1Dx will have more MP. It is not even a war, but rather just using the optimum for the 35mm - which is around 30-35MP (upscale todays APC-C technology and see yourself). Assuming efficiency goes better over time, nobody is going to loose high ISOs for a given print.

How couldn't I agree more with you!! Once in a while that Canon stopped the horrible megapixel war there are people complaining!! The 1DX is such an awesome camera, and the awesome thing is that it is an all rounder that is not mediocre but great at everything from sports/nature to studio photography.
I can't wait to see the high ISO full res pictures taken by a 1DX, and if there are still people looking for more megapixels they should do only one thing: switch to medium format cameras.
How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?
Astonishingly I sent out some pictures for a contest and they were low res (something like 1600x1200)...well surprisingly they printed them out for an advertisment...it was something like 3x2 meters and they came out good....now imagine a full res 18 or 22 mpixel image...do you want to print on a 10 stories building?

 

[marinien]

How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?

It's nothing to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations.

why not using a bridge camera with a 35x zoom and 800mm on the long end when pixel size does not matter? you don´t have to crop that much. ;D

He's saying something like: "For wildlife, given the same sensor size, more pixels is better". Why do you counter him by taking another sensor size? It just doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size and print size.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

 

[STPhotos]

I totally agree with the medium format switch. If MP is of utmost concern, then make that switch. Even if that 36 MP Nikon is true, you'll still get way better IQ from the lenses. Plus that beautiful big sensor. Even the smallest H4D kit will still produce better images than a high MP Nikon. I know that the lens investment is rather sizable, it's more beneficial in the long run if more resolution is the biggest concern. The formats serve different purposes as well IMO.
I do a bit of surf photography here in Hawaii and I would definitely trade in the extra length with a crop for a full frame sensor. Although the 5D II lacks a high fps rate as well as the AF issue, the images are second to none. If the 5D III has 22 MP, higher fps rate and a better AF system, I think that we will see a large jump to that, given the f8 issue doesn't carry over. There's a large amount of sports photographers who need to utilize TC's and that f8 is critical. Sometimes you need the length and that would kind of make the 600 useless with an extender.
Just some thoughts.

 

[Viggo]

I am one of those who are the most excited about the 1d X around, but now that we are coming up on release I'm sick of it already. Yes it looks like a fantastic camera, but seeing that it's not a single image to have a proper look at, all the writing about delay, battery issues, f8 af issues, and seeing that the D4 (which I can't use, it's too clumsy) samples all over that looks great, and the D4 is also ridicolously much lighter than the 1d X, I'm talking hUGE difference.

Where's the weight number? Where are the samples? Where is the info?

Where is the proof THIS is the ultimate camera to get?

And the g0d d$$n availabillty?!?! It is REALLY annoying a lot of the journalists that have NO passion about photography get them first. It's only three weeks ago I spoke to a photo-journalist still using the 1d mkIII, and I asked him about the AF.issues and spoke genreally, he looked at me like I was speaking a different language and answererd :

"Huh? Af.what? I just use it in "P-mode" for the most, and it seems to do the job"

I smacked him and sat down with a tear in my eye, the week was ruined......

 

[smirkypants]

There are people who are enamored with megapixels... and then there are people who whenever you mention megapixels, they roll their eyes, as if they had no meaning at all. Each is a wrongheaded as the other. More megapixels, all other things being equal, are simply better. You can do a lot more with a bigger image. It has more information and more information in an image mean greater flexibility in post-processing.

Heck, a 36MP image on a full frame gets you to where many crop-sensors are today.

36/1.6^2 = 14.1MP in the same area of an APS-C ... plus you get everything outside of that.

That's pretty handy if you ask me. Now somebody check my math.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

I'm intrigued about the 3rd slide on the nikonuser.info forum. Can someone who can read German translate that slide for the rest of us? TIA. Is it something about the VF & AF pt. spread or sensor pixel size? ???

 

[Fleetie]

By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size and print size.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

Ok, I still need a bit of education on this one, so be gentle:

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX? If pixel count is irrelevant to noise for a given sensor size, then why not jump to 30+ MPix? That would sure have pleased more people....

I have some difficulty believing it was just to get the frame-rate up.

 

[Fleetie]

Where's the weight number? Where are the samples? Where is the info?

It's only three weeks ago I spoke to a photo-journalist still using the 1d mkIII, and I asked him about the AF.issues and spoke genreally, he looked at me like I was speaking a different language and answererd :

"Huh? Af.what? I just use it in "P-mode" for the most, and it seems to do the job"

I smacked him and sat down with a tear in my eye, the week was ruined......

HA HA HA!!! I actually laughed out loud at that. Nice one!

 

[RobertG.]

I'm intrigued about the 3rd slide on the nikonuser.info forum. Can someone who can read German translate that slide for the rest of us? TIA. Is it something about the VF & AF pt. spread or sensor pixel size? ???

Hi,
the third slide with the title "Bewegungsunschärfe" translates as the following:

Motion blur
- because of the larger pixel motion blur is reduced compared to the EOS-1Ds Mark III
- What is motion blur?
- Faster shutter times are needed to freeze moving objects, the size of the pixel influences this
- smaller pixels need a faster shutter speed for sharp pictures without motion blur

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Auto focus for F8 is actually quite importance especially for those who shoot birds. A lot of birds are quite small even using a 600mm and lots of birds won't let you go near. So many bird photographers who own a 500mm/600mm and 1D DSLR usually also owned a 2x extender, so they might not upgrade their DSLR. Also, if 1DX cannot AF at F8, the lens that can use the 2x extender will be limited to those f2.8 lenses. By looking at the 2x extender description in Canon website, it's obvious that the 2x extender is design to be used on super telephoto lenses which most of them are at F4... so I was quite surprise when I heard that 1DX cannot focus at F8.

By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size and print size.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

Ok, I still need a bit of education on this one, so be gentle:

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX? If pixel count is irrelevant to noise for a given sensor size, then why not jump to 30+ MPix? That would sure have pleased more people....

I have some difficulty believing it was just to get the frame-rate up.

Technically, 1DX is the replacement for 1D4, so the MP is actually increase, not decrease.

Anyway, I think the frame rate might be one of the major limitation that limit the MP in 1DX. How big is 1DX 18MP RAW file going to be?? My 60D (also a 18MP DSLR) usually had a RAW file of around 22MB. So if I assume that 1DX RAW file is going to be around that size, at 12FPS, you'll need to store 264MB of data in one second. If 1DX using 36MP, the RAW files size should double and you'll need to store 528MB of data in one second. So let assume that 1DX had unlimited internal memory and we use a 100MB/s write speed CF card to shoot 12FPS for 1s and how long we need to wait for all the pictures in the internal memory to write to the CF cards:
1) @18MP:
Total data = 12FPS x 1s x 22MB = 264MB.
Total time wait = (264MB / 100MB/s) = ~2.6s

2) @36MP:
Total data = 12FPS x 1s x 44MB = 528MB.
Total time wait = (528MB / 100MB/s) = ~5.2s

Just wonder how many people will wait for 5.2s in order to get the card out of the DSLR after shooting 1s(@12fps) of photo without curse and swear and how many people can afford the 100MB/s write speed CF card??

Just my $0.02.

Have a nice day.

 

[KeithR]

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX?

By Canon's own reckoning, 18 mps is the optimum sensor "size" to allow the throughput of HQ video - it is nothing to do with "less pixels = better IQ".

But it's obvious that - given the constant clamour out there about this - Canon's marketing boys have allowed the connection to be made between "better high ISO" and "(relatively) low pixel density": not because it's true, but because people still think it's true, and marketing being what it is...

Don't take my word for it though: just try and find any compelling example in the last ten years of a newer, more densely-packed sensor body that has worse noise than the camera it superseded.

And read this: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#8

 

[Viggo]

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX?

By Canon's own reckoning, 18 mps is the optimum sensor "size" to allow the throughput of HQ video - it is nothing to do with "less pixels = better IQ".

But it's obvious that - given the constant clamour out there about this - Canon's marketing boys have allowed the connection to be made between "better high ISO" and "(relatively) low pixel density": not because it's true, but because people still think it's true, and marketing being what it is...

Don't take my word for it though: just try and find any compelling example in the last ten years of a newer, more densely-packed sensor body that has worse noise than the camera it superseded.

And read this: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#8

40d vs 50d.... besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...

 

[smirkypants]

Technically, 1DX is the replacement for 1D4, so the MP is actually increase, not decrease.

If you're shooting something far away, you're only getting 10.6 megapixels in the same crop area as the 1D4. For people who do birding or sports it's a huge step down. This is one reason why the f8 issue is so important. To make up for the loss of the 1D4's crop, you could use a 1.4 adapter. Oh wait, maybe you can't depending on the lens.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?

Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.

Lenses + TCs or extension tubes.

 

[KeithR]

40d vs 50d...

It wasn't, at the image level. It had more of a tendency to high ISO banding than the 40D, but it wasn't noisier.

besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...

Easy to say. Where's the proof?

The simple fact is this: more pixels does not "guarantee" more noise, despite the insistence of some people that it does.

 

[Viggo]

40d vs 50d...

It wasn't, at the image level. It had more of a tendency to high ISO banding than the 40D, but it wasn't noisier.

besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...

Easy to say. Where's the proof?

The simple fact is this: more pixels does not "guarantee" more noise, despite the insistence of some people that it does.

If you use the the 1d3 side by side the 1d4 you have the same noise when shooting action , at least, because you need to double the shutterspeed of the mk4 to get no motion blur due to the smaller pixels. It's not just noise that becomes an issue when increasing the res.

And how much better do you think the noiselevels of a 5d3 would be compared to a 5d mk1 if it had the same sensor and a digic5+ processor? I say A LOT.