Announcing The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

[rrcphoto]

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disapointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera. No auto AF lens micro adjustment as in Nikon D5

now there's someone that just looks at a spec sheet to decide something!

for starters. we don't know how good the D5 AF is, or this one is.

secondly.. you forgot, that they have increased the spread of the AF points in the frame as well.
thirdly .. it's quicker with more MP's than the 1DX and and faster* fps than the D5.
fourthly - it's touchscreen works in video mode. the D5's doesn't. the D5 touchscreen is just for playback functions (what were they thinking?)
fifth.. no ILC today does 4K 60fps. notta one. heck the D5/D500 still use old FAT format instead of exFAT.. and the D5 stops after 3 minutes. whoop.
sixth .. since you are just wringing over specs .. did you see the 1080p bit rate? the 4k bit rates?
and finally...

it's the only professional workhorse DSLR to have both quick focusing PDAF and also liveview.

but spec sheet hump some more.. I'm sure that will make a difference

PS .. I do agree that the PDAF and DPAF lack of auto tune is discouraging..Considernig they had it *right there* however the 1DXII also has a *(&ton more high precision dual cross AF points. which are insanely accurate.

the D5 auto-tune from what I understand will not allow multiple samples at different focus depth, nor focal range - so perhaps instead of writing the worst formatted paragraph in possibly the entire CR forums.. step back off the ledge, realize specs aren't everything and wait?

 

[Loswr]

Re: 3 pin remote release plug is gone?

what is the reason why it doesn't have a 3 pin remote plug no more?! probably needs a $50 adapter and more clutter....

Been there, discussed that. The N3 remote port is on the other side of the camera.

where at on the other side? I don't see it on the images you sure?

Quite sure. On the magnified image of the flap (in spite of the low contrast), you can see the 'inverted U' icon of the remote port. There is no port there on the current 1D X, it's clear they moved it to the other side.

 

[Pompo]

Re: 3 pin remote release plug is gone?

what is the reason why it doesn't have a 3 pin remote plug no more?! probably needs a $50 adapter and more clutter....

Been there, discussed that. The N3 remote port is on the other side of the camera.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

where at on the other side? I don't see it on the images you sure?

Quite sure. On the magnified image of the flap (in spite of the low contrast), you can see the 'inverted U' icon of the remote port.

 

[vscd]

Amazing cam... I guess it's a bit ahead of the D5 in all aspects, except of some DR and the usual Nikonadvantages (and disadvantages). Wonder how the ISO 51200 will compare to the ISO 51200 of the Nikon, anything else pushed above the native ISO will be useless, anyway.

If anyone is planning to buy the 1DX II, make me a good deal for the old 1DX. It's sufficient for me anytime

 

[jebrady03]

A question on the press release...

It features a new 61-point High Density Reticular AF II system with 41 cross-type points that expands the AF area approximately 8.6% in the top and bottom of the central AF area, and approximately 24% at the top and bottom of the peripheral frame.

For one, they say "NEW 61-point" AF system. I actually believe this as opposed to Canon's repeated claims of a "new 18mp APSC sensor" for the Rebels for so many iterations. So, anyone saying it's the same AF system hasn't paid attention. Why do I believe it? Because of the spacing of the AF points... Plus the improvement in AF point usefulness at various apertures.

Now... onto my question... Given the fact that the AF points on the 1DX Mark II are now covering a larger area, could this potentially impact subject tracking from one AF point to the next vs the 1DX? I mean... I can't imagine Canon NOT testing for this sort of thing so the obvious answer would seem to be "no", but logically, it SHOULD. Right?

or...

Since it doesn't appear that the AF points have extended any further to the left and right (only on the top and bottom according to the press release), that subject tracking shouldn't be too much of an issue as very few subjects move from the top of the frame to the bottom. Especially in the center group as it's only extended 8% in both the top and bottom (which, when spread over 3 AF points in each direction, is only 2.66% further apart each). Compare that to the peripheral sections where there's only a total of 5 AF points vertically and one of them isn't moving (the middle) and that means the top 2 AF points and bottom 2 AF points will be 12% further apart from each other. THAT seems fairly significant, at least for tracking. This would seem an opportune time to introduce what Nikon did which is non-selectable AF assist points to aid in tracking.

But again, I imagine Canon has tested this to death and haven't found it to be limiting... ???

Thoughts?

 

[Loswr]

While the 4K in the 1DXII is better, every DSLR that shoots video will chop the video into <= 4GB files on FAT format cards. For Canon this means if you are using anything less than 128GB you get 4GB segements of video that are 1 minute long when shooting 4k@60fps. The Nikon D5 behaves exactly the same as the 1DX & 1DXII. Expect Nikon to be working on exFAT support as we write (or at least if I were Nikon this would be my #1 bug that I'd be getting fixed by the end of the week/month.)

Yes, dilbert, we know the 1D X II that will be released in dilbertland is all broken and flawed and can only write 4 GB files because of the FAT format limitation. Fortunately for those who care about video out here in the real world, there's this thing called exFAT. The 1D X II has it. No need for cards of 128 GB or larger.

You might try actually reading the post on Northlight to which you provided a link. Nevermind, you clearly lack the ability to comprehend what you read.

 

[[email protected]]

Re: Diffraction Correction - huh?

The thing I'm surprised more people haven't been curious ever since it appeared on a rumor a couple weeks ago is "diffraction correction."

[...]

I'm a bit at a loss as to how this can even physically be done, but obviously it's not science fiction if other companies have been toying with it already. Perhaps the microlenses are employed to calculate the wave patterns that light create in the small apertures and the processor uses math to adjust light values where it senses where the waves would build on top of each other, etc.

Well, "perfect" correction is probably marketing speak but "very good" may be quite attainable.

A perfect lens maps points in object space to points in image space. Real-world lenses map points in object space to more-or-less fuzzy blobs due to diffraction and various aberrations. If you have a good understanding of the optical characteristics of your lens you can model the way light gets distributed using an optical transfer function (OTF). What's nice about having an accurate OTF is that you can apply it backwards - for every pixel in the image figure out how how much light has "bled" a) from this pixel to neighboring pixels and b) from the neighboring pixels to this pixel. Then you can compensate for it by doing some math in software. No special hardware required.

That is - as the kids would say here - freaking awesome. It also may mean that the correction could be present in RAW files potentially. If their claim of solving this issue is true, then Canon could have - in the course of a single year - vanquished most of color aberration with its Blue Goo technology seen in the 35L II and diffraction with its new diffraction correction. Thanks, Sharlin for the explanation, and for the reasoning to keep clinging to the hope that this is true.

 

[Loswr]

PS .. I do agree that the PDAF and DPAF lack of auto tune is discouraging..Considernig they had it *right there* however the 1DXII also has a *(&ton more high precision dual cross AF points. which are insanely accurate.

The 1DXII has *5* dual-cross AF points for f-stop <= 5.6.

*5* is a *(&ton more than zero. :

 

[OdysseasP]

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disapointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera. No auto AF lens micro adjustment as in Nikon D5 (very important especially with the advent of Full Frame Mirrorless cameras such as the Sony a7S Mk II & Sony a7R MkII), 20 linear AF sensors out of 61 in total meaning that the Canon EOS 7D Mark II with its all selectable 65 cross type AF sensors remains the best as far as the total number of selectable cross type AF sensors is concerned while Nikon D5 with its 99 cross type AF sensors is much better at tracking fast erratically moving subjects, at least in theory since neither of these two AF systems have been tested in practise. Thus, since both the Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II are specifically targeted towards sports photographers, I believe that the Nikon D5 has a superior AF system for tracking moving subjects as far as still photography is concerned, unless the use of teleconverters brings the maximum lens aperture up to f/8 and/or when even 12 fps aren't enough in order to capture the perfect moment and one is willing to drop resolution to 9MP in order to have 60 fps while has the luxury of spending plenty of time post capture in front of a computer in order to select the perfect moment, in which case the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II with the addition of a much better 4K video recording implementation (duration, AF) becomes the better buy. All in all though, I believe that Canon was way too conservative in its last EOS 1 series body, probably trying to avoid AF issues such as in the recent past by copying Nikon in this instance by keeping essentially the same AF module for another generation, as Nikon did for the last 8 years (D3, D3S, D4, D4S). Canon was just unfortunate that at the time they chose to do so, Nikon brought to the market a radical new AF system which on paper at least looks very impressive while for the last 8 years during which Nikon kept essentially the same AF system, Canon didn't have an equivalent breakthrough. Finally, I would like to say, that both cameras embody the best technology their manufacturers have commercially available at the moment, with each camera strengthening even further the strong points of its manufacturer, either that is the AF algorithm for calculating the future position of a moving subject, low light AF performance, high ISO image quality and battery life in the case of Nikon or AF responsiveness both in lens and in camera body and 4K video implementation in the case of Canon.

Yes, obviously the limitations of the EOS-1D X Mark II will prevent you from taking good pictures...

I have never said that the limitations of either camera, or of any DSLR, will prevent me or anyone for that matter, from taking good photos. An experienced photographer can take good photos with almost any camera under any conditions. But when you have the right tool for the right job your life becomes much easier. Especially, when you get paid to photograph events such as MotoGP, Formula 1, Ice Hokey etc. in which you need a camera with an OVF preferably, with lighting fast AF with excellent tracking capabilities and as many fps as possible. Obviously, even in this case an experienced photographer could use a mirrorless camera with an EVF (lag), slow AF (active AF or on sensor PDAF) and an average number of fps and still get a couple of good photos. It just wouldn't be as many as they would be in the first case while in addition he would have worked much harder in order to capture even these few photos. In fact, some photography journalists (I think dpreview) and some professional photographers tried something similar a few months ago, with the Sony a7R Mark II, but the results were disappointing. On a personal note, I have still to surpass the capabilities of my camera, which definitely can't be compared to a professional DSLR, so if I had either of these cameras I would be extremely happy. But photography is my hobby and I am only taking photos for my pleasure. If, on the other hand, I was a professional photographer who would live out of photography, I would try to have the best equipment I could afford in order to be able to satisfy in the best way possible the people who would hire me.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Diffraction Correction - huh?

The thing I'm surprised more people haven't been curious ever since it appeared on a rumor a couple weeks ago is "diffraction correction."

[...]

I'm a bit at a loss as to how this can even physically be done, but obviously it's not science fiction if other companies have been toying with it already. Perhaps the microlenses are employed to calculate the wave patterns that light create in the small apertures and the processor uses math to adjust light values where it senses where the waves would build on top of each other, etc.

Well, "perfect" correction is probably marketing speak but "very good" may be quite attainable.

A perfect lens maps points in object space to points in image space. Real-world lenses map points in object space to more-or-less fuzzy blobs due to diffraction and various aberrations. If you have a good understanding of the optical characteristics of your lens you can model the way light gets distributed using an optical transfer function (OTF). What's nice about having an accurate OTF is that you can apply it backwards - for every pixel in the image figure out how how much light has "bled" a) from this pixel to neighboring pixels and b) from the neighboring pixels to this pixel. Then you can compensate for it by doing some math in software. No special hardware required.

That is - as the kids would say here - freaking awesome. It also may mean that the correction could be present in RAW files potentially. If their claim of solving this issue is true, then Canon could have - in the course of a single year - vanquished most of color aberration with its Blue Goo technology seen in the 35L II and diffraction with its new diffraction correction. Thanks, Sharlin for the explanation, and for the reasoning to keep clinging to the hope that this is true.

Presumably, the corrections for DLO are available in RAW on the camera. They are saved in RAW files on the computer currently. But probably only Canon's DPP could read them.

Worth noting that Canon is likely using their optical models of the lenses, as they use to generate the MTF curves they publish. Since real lenses used to take pictures are not perfect theoretical lenses, but rather actual glass fabricated and assembled, those theoretically-based optical corrections will likely over- or under-correct, depending on how much your specific lenses vary from those theoretical models.

Also worth noting that DxO takes an analagous approach, empirically measuring lens aberrations and also correcting for 'lens softness' aka diffraction. But, just like real lenses differ from the theoretical, real lenses also differ from each other, so corrections based on DxO's testing will also over- or under-correct depending on how much your specific lenses vary from DxO's tested lenses.

 

[OdysseasP]

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disapointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera. No auto AF lens micro adjustment as in Nikon D5 (very important especially with the advent of Full Frame Mirrorless cameras such as the Sony a7S Mk II & Sony a7R MkII), 20 linear AF sensors out of 61 in total meaning that the Canon EOS 7D Mark II with its all selectable 65 cross type AF sensors remains the best as far as the total number of selectable cross type AF sensors is concerned while Nikon D5 with its 99 cross type AF sensors is much better at tracking fast erratically moving subjects, at least in theory since neither of these two AF systems have been tested in practise. Thus, since both the Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II are specifically targeted towards sports photographers, I believe that the Nikon D5 has a superior AF system for tracking moving subjects as far as still photography is concerned, unless the use of teleconverters brings the maximum lens aperture up to f/8 and/or when even 12 fps aren't enough in order to capture the perfect moment and one is willing to drop resolution to 9MP in order to have 60 fps while has the luxury of spending plenty of time post capture in front of a computer in order to select the perfect moment, in which case the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II with the addition of a much better 4K video recording implementation (duration, AF) becomes the better buy. All in all though, I believe that Canon was way too conservative in its last EOS 1 series body, probably trying to avoid AF issues such as in the recent past by copying Nikon in this instance by keeping essentially the same AF module for another generation, as Nikon did for the last 8 years (D3, D3S, D4, D4S). Canon was just unfortunate that at the time they chose to do so, Nikon brought to the market a radical new AF system which on paper at least looks very impressive while for the last 8 years during which Nikon kept essentially the same AF system, Canon didn't have an equivalent breakthrough. Finally, I would like to say, that both cameras embody the best technology their manufacturers have commercially available at the moment, with each camera strengthening even further the strong points of its manufacturer, either that is the AF algorithm for calculating the future position of a moving subject, low light AF performance, high ISO image quality and battery life in the case of Nikon or AF responsiveness both in lens and in camera body and 4K video implementation in the case of Canon.

Run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs are a really bad combination.

Any comments concerning the essence of my post? Next time I will try to write better.

 

[OdysseasP]

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disappointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera. No auto AF lens micro adjustment as in Nikon D5 (very important especially with the advent of Full Frame Mirrorless cameras such as the Sony a7S Mk II & Sony a7R MkII), 20 linear AF sensors out of 61 in total meaning that the Canon EOS 7D Mark II with its all selectable 65 cross type AF sensors remains the best as far as the total number of selectable cross type AF sensors is concerned while Nikon D5 with its 99 cross type AF sensors is much better at tracking fast erratically moving subjects, at least in theory since neither of these two AF systems have been tested in practice. Thus, since both the Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II are specifically targeted towards sports photographers, I believe that the Nikon D5 has a superior AF system for tracking moving subjects as far as still photography is concerned, unless the use of teleconverters brings the maximum lens aperture up to f/8 and/or when even 12 fps aren't enough in order to capture the perfect moment and one is willing to drop resolution to 9MP in order to have 60 fps while has the luxury of spending plenty of time post capture in front of a computer in order to select the perfect moment, in which case the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II with the addition of a much better 4K video recording implementation (duration, AF) becomes the better buy. All in all though, I believe that Canon was way too conservative in its last EOS 1 series body, probably trying to avoid AF issues such as in the recent past by copying Nikon in this instance by keeping essentially the same AF module for another generation, as Nikon did for the last 8 years (D3, D3S, D4, D4S). Canon was just unfortunate that at the time they chose to do so, Nikon brought to the market a radical new AF system which on paper at least looks very impressive while for the last 8 years during which Nikon kept essentially the same AF system, Canon didn't have an equivalent breakthrough. Finally, I would like to say, that both cameras embody the best technology their manufacturers have commercially available at the moment, with each camera strengthening even further the strong points of its manufacturer, either that is the AF algorithm for calculating the future position of a moving subject, low light AF performance, high ISO image quality and battery life in the case of Nikon or AF responsiveness both in lens and in camera body and 4K video implementation in the case of Canon.

Run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs are a really bad combination.

Oh come on now. He's blind with rage! The 1dx II is the biggest atrocity in human history. Luckily the D5 is there to save the free world from utter collapse.

I have never said that the Nikon D5 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II. i just said that each camera has some very specific strong points which pass from generation to generation and thus each manufacturer retains the competitive advantage it has in that field.

 

[frankchn]

I have never said that the Nikon D5 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II. i just said that each camera has some very specific strong points which pass from generation to generation and thus each manufacturer retains the competitive advantage it has in that field.

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disappointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera.

That sounds like you are saying that the D5 is a better camera overall -- if the 1DX2 is a disappointment compared to the D5, then it is implied that the D5 is a better camera. Not that there is anything wrong with thinking that -- I am sure in some use cases the D5 is a better camera than the 1DX2.

 

[jiphoto]

I have never said that the Nikon D5 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II. i just said that each camera has some very specific strong points which pass from generation to generation and thus each manufacturer retains the competitive advantage it has in that field.

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disappointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera.

That sounds like you are saying that the D5 is a better camera overall -- if the 1DX2 is a disappointment compared to the D5, then it is implied that the D5 is a better camera.

Geez guys, can we not keep rehashing this argument another 80,000 times? I like how the 1DX II sounds, the D5 also seems like a good camera. I'd buy Canon because Canon is better for me, heck, that's why I'm on this forum. If you want to talk about how much better the D5 is than the 1DX II, NikonRumors would love to have you.

 

[OdysseasP]

I have never said that the Nikon D5 is a better camera than the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II. i just said that each camera has some very specific strong points which pass from generation to generation and thus each manufacturer retains the competitive advantage it has in that field.

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4K video recording up to 60 fps with AF and 9MP still frame grab, Canon EOS 1D X Mark II is a disappointment, both in comparison to the Nikon D5 and as a standalone professional DSLR camera.

That sounds like you are saying that the D5 is a better camera overall -- if the 1DX2 is a disappointment compared to the D5, then it is implied that the D5 is a better camera.

Thus, since both the Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II are specifically targeted towards sports photographers, I believe that the Nikon D5 has a superior AF system for tracking moving subjects as far as still photography is concerned, unless the use of teleconverters brings the maximum lens aperture up to f/8 and/or when even 12 fps aren't enough in order to capture the perfect moment and one is willing to drop resolution to 9MP in order to have 60 fps while has the luxury of spending plenty of time post capture in front of a computer in order to select the perfect moment, in which case the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II with the addition of a much better 4K video recording implementation (duration, AF) becomes the better buy. Finally, I would like to say, that both cameras embody the best technology their manufacturers have commercially available at the moment, with each camera strengthening even further the strong points of its manufacturer, either that is the AF algorithm for calculating the future position of a moving subject, low light AF performance, high ISO image quality and battery life in the case of Nikon or AF responsiveness both in lens and in camera body and 4K video implementation in the case of Canon.

 

[frankchn]

Thus, since both the Nikon D5 and the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II are specifically targeted towards sports photographers, I believe that the Nikon D5 has a superior AF system for tracking moving subjects as far as still photography is concerned, unless the use of teleconverters brings the maximum lens aperture up to f/8 and/or when even 12 fps aren't enough in order to capture the perfect moment and one is willing to drop resolution to 9MP in order to have 60 fps while has the luxury of spending plenty of time post capture in front of a computer in order to select the perfect moment, in which case the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II with the addition of a much better 4K video recording implementation (duration, AF) becomes the better buy. Finally, I would like to say, that both cameras embody the best technology their manufacturers have commercially available at the moment, with each camera strengthening even further the strong points of its manufacturer, either that is the AF algorithm for calculating the future position of a moving subject, low light AF performance, high ISO image quality and battery life in the case of Nikon or AF responsiveness both in lens and in camera body and 4K video implementation in the case of Canon.

How would you know unless you have tested both cameras' AF system? The number of AF points are not the be-all and end-all of the AF system's abilities, or else we will all be using the Sony a7R II with its 399 point on-sensor DPAF system (every point selectable, unlike Nikon's system and no AFMA to worry about to boot!).

Especially with Canon's iTR AF and Nikon's 3D Focus Tracking where the metering sensor plays a huge part in letting the AF system know where to focus. Both the D5 and the 1DX2 should be very good at AF (barring another 1D3 fiasco) but you cannot definitely say that one camera is better than the other in AF just by looking at the spec sheets.

 

[tpatana]

The new features in 1Dx II don't apply to my shooting(***, video etc...)

Keeping my 1dx until mrk II drops to $5k 8)

Exactly my thoughts, unless:

-added DR
-Awesomeness at ISO100
-1 stop or more noise improvement at high ISO (6400/12800)

Give me those 3 and I'll probably need that. Not sure when we get to see actual photos, so can't decide yet.

 

[The Flasher]

Good upgrade, but not a revolution gearheads are always pining for. I'll be upgrading my 1DX only because one of my big clients is a medical association, and every now and then, while shooting their portrait, a camera buff doctor will say, hey I have that same camera.

Hey, I have that same stethoscope.

J

 

[Reality Merely Illusion]

Run-on sentences and lack of paragraphs are a really bad combination.

How about now?

With the exception of all 61 autofocus sensors which work up to f/8 and 4k video recording up to 60 fps with af and 9mp still frame grab canon eos 1d x mark ii is a disapointment both in comparison to the nikon d5 and as a standalone professional dslr camera no auto af lens micro adjustment as in nikon d5 very important especially with the advent of full frame mirrorless cameras such as the sony a7s mk ii & sony a7r mkii 20 linear af sensors out of 61 in total meaning that the canon eos 7d mark ii with its all selectable 65 cross type af sensors remains the best as far as the total number of selectable cross type af sensors is concerned while nikon d5 with its 99 cross type af sensors is much better at tracking fast erratically moving subjects at least in theory since neither of these two af systems have been tested in practise thus since both the nikon d5 and the canon eos 1d x mark ii are specifically targeted towards sports photographers i believe that the nikon d5 has a superior af system for tracking moving subjects as far as still photography is concerned unless the use of teleconverters brings the maximum lens aperture up to f/8 and/or when even 12 fps aren't enough in order to capture the perfect moment and one is willing to drop resolution to 9mp in order to have 60 fps while has the luxury of spending plenty of time post capture in front of a computer in order to select the perfect moment in which case the canon eos 1d x mark ii with the addition of a much better 4k video recording implementation duration af becomes the better buy all in all though i believe that canon was way too conservative in its last eos 1 series body probably trying to avoid af issues such as in the recent past by copying nikon in this instance by keeping essentially the same af module for another generation as nikon did for the last 8 years d3 d3s d4 d4s canon was just unfortunate that at the time they chose to do so nikon brought to the market a radical new af system which on paper at least looks very impressive while for the last 8 years during which nikon kept essentially the same af system canon didn't have an equivalent breakthrough finally i would like to say that both cameras embody the best technology their manufacturers have commercially available at the moment with each camera strengthening even further the strong points of its manufacturer either that is the af algorithm for calculating the future position of a moving subject low light af performance high iso image quality and battery life in the case of nikon or af responsiveness both in lens and in camera body and 4k video implementation in the case of canon.

It's a hard read...., Writing definitely is not my thing, but for readability an enter every now and then really helps!

I am not sure how you could say one af system is superior to another?, even with 'available' cameras it's extremely hard to make real comparisons. Others will say the dual cross types on canon means the d5 doesn't come close.
Blablablabab

The 1dx auto focus has been reliable and accurate for most/all users?, Why is there a need for a radical change, instead it looks like a refinement of an already capable system?

hmmm Another way of putting it is that after 8 years , Nikon finally tried to catch up to(match) canon continuous AF performance? (which is great for all the nikon users, plus they get an affordable option which shares the top of the line af in the d500).

 

[tpatana]

So for frame rates, we can basically choose:

-14fps Full RAW w/ PDAF
-16fps Full RAW (w/ DPAF?)
-60fps 8Mpix JPEG w/ DPAF