Canon 1D X High ISO shot preview

[Viggo]

You know what, I think has to do with politics and crap. Aka, let's make the camera only so much better so that people might want to upgrade,

For the consumer lines, I would buy this. But for the flagship, they hurt the brand (which has implications for the lower end products) if the product fails to impress.

I read the whitepaper for the mk4 and 1d X, and although they usually brag in everywhich way possible about their new flagship, they use their old as example of why it wasn't any good at this and that. And it doesn't take the customers to tell them this, they already knew when they released the product. So with the 1d X it's all brag brag brag now, but when the 1dx mkII comes out, read the whitepaper and see what the mkII does so much better than the X. This is what I mean, and I don't think that they are lacking the tech NOW to make the 1d x mkII, they just don't need to, and it's a way of getting people to buy it when they release it. So when I get the X and find something wrong with it, I can't but help that it shouldn't have been like that, but then Canon gave me the reason I needed to get the mkII in two years... And for a rebel, well, fine, you don't need to sell your mother to pay for it, but when it comes to the 1-series, most of us think that is quite a bit of cash, and we don't want to buy the latest, we want to buy a camera that works. If it works, we don't need new ones....

 

[Ryusui]

Yes, I agree with that, but I'm still allowed to think it's BS from a customer p.o.v. I hate spending $6800 on a camera every two years, only to know that they COULD have done it better, and that I pay that kind of money from a small upgrade.

Then why spend $6800 on a new camera? Why not just buy the previous model for a cheaper price when the new one comes out?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Yes, I agree with that, but I'm still allowed to think it's BS from a customer p.o.v. I hate spending $6800 on a camera every two years, only to know that they COULD have done it better, and that I pay that kind of money from a small upgrade.

Then why spend $6800 on a new camera? Why not just buy the previous model for a cheaper price when the new one comes out?

That scenario likely fits a lot of people. However, for some photographers, the ability to get a shot that they could not get before might mean a big payday that makes the cost of the camera body look like chump change.

I'm not going to judge what someone else buys based on my needs for a camera body. I was, however, ready to buy a 1D MK IV when the actual RAW images were made available, and the high ISO, which is what I need, was inferior to my 5D MK II.

I'll wait and see on this one as well. If its two stops better than a 5D MK II, that is amazing (I'm in doubt). It would upgrade all of my lenses by two stops. For me, thats not even possible, but if it were, it would cost 10X the cost of a 1Dx.

Certainly, the image on the rear LCD is not useful in judging the high ISO capability. Its a jpeg image and might have a ton of NR that washes away any fine details. That was the case with the 1D MK IV, and the RAW images told the real story.

 

[JR]

Certainly, the image on the rear LCD is not useful in judging the high ISO capability. Its a jpeg image and might have a ton of NR that washes away any fine details. That was the case with the 1D MK IV, and the RAW images told the real story.

+1 on that! We need to see real RAW image to judge. When I shoot high ISO with my 5D mkII (ISO 1600 and above) the image always looks fine on the rear LCD, it is when I look at it on my computer that reality often strikes unfortunately ???

 

[handsomerob]

Certainly, the image on the rear LCD is not useful in judging the high ISO capability. Its a jpeg image and might have a ton of NR that washes away any fine details. That was the case with the 1D MK IV, and the RAW images told the real story.

Well said!