Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Autofocus Talk

[tpatana]

I'm sort of torn actually. I have Mk1, but I also want studio body. So I'm almost half-hoping the Mk2 is only incremental improvement, and I'll keep Mk1 for sports, and I'll buy some another one for studio.

Then again, Mk2 might be so awesome in everything that it'll do both crazy good for sports, AND awesome studio body.

 

[Diltiazem]

There is going to be a blurry picture of the 1dxii from infodigicame any day now.

It's Digicame-info, btw.

 

[GoldWing]

If you read this topic you'll see another poster was complaining about shutter noise as in "sound". It seems you're the one confused.

I'm a sports photographer, I don't care about noise.
...
I'm a sports photographer, I shoot in the worst lighting - More DR for blacks & Shadows - Please
...

It sounds like you're confused about your equipment.

 

[GoldWing]

I travel with 3 1DX bodies and wear (2) two on the field or location. One with a f/2.8 70-200, the other to a f/4 200-400 1.4 TC on a monopod and switch that with a f/2.8 400mm IS USM II at times. The third body is a back up. Tha't why I travel with 3 1DX's. I di try and rotate to keep the shutter use the same. On all 3 I have about 250,000 each. These are the 6th 1DX's Ive owned.

I shoot 10,000 shots a sitting
I travel with 3 1DX bodies

he probably needs 3 because his 1DX lasts about a week when he takes 10,000 shots / day

 

[GoldWing]

The 1DX is the best sports camera in the world. Sports professionals like me who make a living shooting sports use it as a tool to make a living. There are much better choices for studio work, landscapes and taking pictures of the family dog. They have 100's of choices. I have ONE. Most people buy the wrong equipment based on their needs.

I'M A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER

And nowhere near do all 1DX owners and future 1DX MkII purchasers share your criteria, or profession.

 

[tpatana]

I travel with 3 1DX bodies and wear (2) two on the field or location. One with a f/2.8 70-200, the other to a f/4 200-400 1.4 TC on a monopod and switch that with a f/2.8 400mm IS USM II at times. The third body is a back up. Tha't why I travel with 3 1DX's. I di try and rotate to keep the shutter use the same. On all 3 I have about 250,000 each. These are the 6th 1DX's Ive owned.

I shoot 10,000 shots a sitting
I travel with 3 1DX bodies

he probably needs 3 because his 1DX lasts about a week when he takes 10,000 shots / day

Which sport(s) you shoot? And I think I shouldn't complain about the days I carried 1DX + 70-200/2.8 and 5D3 w/grip + 24-70 for full day. Your gear is 'bit' heavier.

 

[Quasimodo]

The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:

[quote author=Zorro2016 on FM]
The new 1DX Mk2 will indeed have two CF card slots. Slot 2 is for CFast card while slot 1 is for normal CF card.

If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...
[/quote]

I think you are right that one ought to be cautious.. However, all the rumors I have seen so far leaves me underwhelmed. The all seem so incrimental

 

[Loswr]

The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:

[quote author=Zorro2016 on FM]
The new 1DX Mk2 will indeed have two CF card slots. Slot 2 is for CFast card while slot 1 is for normal CF card.

If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...

I think you are right that one ought to be cautious.. However, all the rumors I have seen so far leaves me underwhelmed. The all seem so incrimental
[/quote]

Most updates are incremental. A few more MP, a bit better AF and/or metering, a small bump in fps. The only time you usually see a big change is with a new line – the 5Ds, the 7D, and to some extent the 1D X which merged two lines.

 

[Memdroid]

Correct me if I am wrong. But based on the rumors, these incremental changes are exactly what people were rooting for the next 1D body.

More DR - check
More Resolution - check
More fps - check
More AF options - check
4K video - check
CF Fast - check

Until it is officially announced, it seems to me Canon is going to deliver on these points, so why the complaints?

 

[Mikehit]

Not only is the AF faster, when using a 2X TC on a 500/600mm f4 lens

Sounds like wild speculation. A 2X TC on a 500/600mm is always going to have issues with AF, phase, but especially contrast detection needs ample light to not only focus fast, but also accurately. Nothing short of bending the laws of physics will change that. It just reads like he is making stuff up.

I would agree it is probably speculation, but why do you need to 'bend the laws of physics' to improve AF ability?
As I understand it the latest incarnations of lenses and bodies do have a greater synergy than when mixing generations of gear.

 

[AE-1Burnham]

@Incremental or not: Other than the pro sports photog with the latest gear, it has always seemed to be very reasonable advice to "update your digital bodies not one new generation, but two generations from your own" (in the Canon cycle). I am a very excited boy holding both a 1DsIII and a 5DII, ready to move to the next 1-series and the next 5-series! Both the 1DX and the 5DIII were incremental from my perspective (although certainly arguable that the 5DIII's AF was HUGE, but still they were not enough of a change to make a compelling argument).

What do you guys and gals expect: Should the 1DXII make the 1DX obsolete overnight? ...Did Nikon manage that with the D5?

 

[rrcphoto]

Why doesn't Canon just announce the camera rather than keep orchestrating leaks?

Because the orchestrated leaks (whether they turn out to be true or not) generates hype that buys more awareness than a standard marketing campaign can.

a 1DXII doesn't require that .. and most leaks are effectively plugged up by Canon. thus the decreasing amount of product leaks until literally 48 hours before release.

Don't be so sure.

There have been leaks in the past where it looks like someone has leaked the actual marketing brief more than 48 hours in advance

the 1DX does nto need "marketting leaks" and nor is there any "proof" that canon is leaking the information. a leak can come from any source in the chain. 100's of people at times touch / see the marketting information, especially when for a global company.

what nikon does or did with the D5 is immaterial. it's obvious that canon is NOT saying much about the 1DxII.

canon has effectively plugged all the leaks over the last 5+ years. I'd bet you the reason canon is announcing on Feb 1 is that the Superbowl is in a week and canon wants the 1DX II's there.

 

[bdunbar79]

@GoldWing,

I can see your point of view. I no longer earn entire living from photography, but I make a significant income shooting Division I college sports as a part-time deal. However, I have two 1Dx's (used to use 2 x 1Dx and a 5D3 but dropped the 3rd body) and this is what I really was hoping for:

1. 24 MP sensor. You know how it is cropping in post with 18 MP. Sometimes not so easy.
2. I'm okay with the current fps. It would be nice to get the full 12 fps in RAW stopped down, however, and not have the buffer fill up so I'm okay with CFast I guess in that regard, but see point 3:
3. However, I too want the SAME two cards. I do not want to mix CFast and CF. I just don't like that at all. Any sports shooter would understand how that could severely hinder workflow when photos are demanded so quickly and cards must be switched so quickly.
4. I would like a little more DR at higher ISO's, maybe over 10 stops and that would be good enough. In high-sun situations it could be nice to use more DR at low ISO, such as golf tournaments where everyone is wearing a hat and you need to lift shadows on the faces. That's really difficult to do sometimes, but not critical.

All that said, I'm not likely going to upgrade if the specs come to be 100% true. I know that camera upgrades are always going to be incremental, so I'll probably just wait until 2020 for the next iteration. If I were a full-time sports photographer I would want to upgrade but be slightly disappointed in my 4 points listed above, but the camera still looks very good and I would not complain too much. I just wanted to mention that I totally get your POV.

 

[sportskjutaren]

...
2. I'm okay with the current fps. It would be nice to get the full 12 fps in RAW stopped down, however, and not have the buffer fill up so I'm okay with CFast I guess in that regard, but see point 3:
...

As i pro sports photographer.
I have a serious advice for both you and Goldwing.
If you get a buffer full shooting RAW only with the 1Dx. Or shoot 10.000 images a day. You should work on your timing,
II do love the fact that the 1Dx has 12 FPS.
Still, it cant never, never, never, ewer replace that the photographer having the right timing.
I use to remind myself, and others. That not so many years ago.
Sports photographers worked with manual focus and film cameras without motor drives. They still got great action images.
In August 2014 i challenged myself. With shooting soccer in "single shoot mode". And ended up with more "keepers" than i use to do otherwise. You can read abut it. And see the images here:
http://blogg.photo-it.net/2014/08/challenging-myself-soccer-in-single.html
With that said, i love the 12 FPS on the 1Dx, and i also hope that my link will help you and Goldwing to become better sports photographers.

 

[bdunbar79]

I don't fill the buffer ever. But do you seriously think Canon is going to introduce higher fps with a smaller theoretical buffer? That would be a marketing nightmare.

Higher fps mathematically ALWAYS increases your chances of getting the right shot. I try to time it and use high fps and I rarely miss. It's also about probability. Maybe you have different techniques but mine is working quite fine.

Lastly, I never said I shoot 10,000 shots at an event. I shoot an average of 400-450 per event, including football and basketball, which in my opinion is quite low compared to other sports photogs I know.

But thanks anyways.

 

[sportskjutaren]

I don't fill the buffer ever.
...
Higher fps mathematically ALWAYS increases your chances of getting the right shot.
...
Lastly, I never said I shoot 10,000 shots at an event. I shoot an average of 400-450 per event, including football and basketball, which in my opinion is quite low compared to other sports photogs I know.

But thanks anyways.

Ok!
I misunderstood you. Sorry for that.

When it comes to soccer, and "head to head" duels.
If i try to get a image with the ball in it. Only relying on the 12 FPS.
I usually miss it. If i do care about timing. I almost never miss to get the ball in the image.

This thing about 10.000 images was for Goldwing.
Who wrote about 10.000 images a sitting earlier in this thread.

...
I'm a sports photographer, I need less oil and debris in my mirror box I shoot 5,000 10,000 shots a sitting
...

For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.

 

[tpatana]

For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.

I'm not a pro, but when I do sport competitions (competing myself I mean), I typically take ~3500-4500 pics on my friends. Last summer shooting bigger event, I took ~14k-15k in 3 days.

 

[privatebydesign]

Since I mentioned tennis before in another thread and it is Australian Open season...

Lets say an average tennis set is 10 games (6-4) and each game is 6 points. Some are longer, some are shorter.

If you only shoot the serve of every point and you shoot for (say) 2 seconds then at 12fps that's 24 frames per point, 144 per game or 1440 shots per set.

A woman's match is 2-3 sets long (2880-4320) and a mens is 3-5 (4320-7200). Of course there are outliers.

Halve the numbers if you only shoot one end. Increase the numbers if you shoot in-point.

A grand slam tournament runs for 14 days (Jan 18 - Jan 31.)

Then on center court there is typically at least two mens and three womens matches per day ....

Numbers are now 8640-12960 + 8640-14400 or 17280-27360.

... for the first 8 days: 138,240 - 218,880

... from day 9 on, the numbers of singles matches (which most people care about) starts to drop, maybe 14 matches (7 of each men and women) across 5 days... 20,160 - 30,240 and 30,240 - 50,400.

Total: 158,400 - 269,280

If you only squeeze the shutter for 1 second instead of two then that brings it down. If you don't cover every match, that also brings it down.

And that's just from one camera. Some have multiple cameras (mounted courtside and connected to your laptop via ethernet or WiFi plus the camera in your hand.)

Or to put it differently, one shutter per camera per tennis grand slam tournament.

Now on to buffer...

If you're shooting both ends then you're moving your camera between ends in less than a second (at men's serve speed (140mph+ - 205+fps, tennis court 78 feet long), the ball gets to the other end in under half a second.) I don't know if you can swing a 1DX + 300/2.8 back and forward that quickly.

If you're only shooting one end then the ball is back at "your end" in about a second, so you're doing 10fps per second. The only choice here is to shoot JPEG - a buffer depth of 180 gives you 18 round trips for the ball (something which almost never happens.)

All of this assumes 'blind shooting' where you don't know what is going to happen each time the ball is at your chosen end of the court but the cost of taking the shot ($0) and the inconvenience of dealing with so many pics is far outweighed by the cost of missing the "money shot" for that moment when the player slips, etc, so you're already shooting before the "money shot" happens.

That has to be the most ridiculous analysis of something you have clearly never done, ever. But you have much more time and inclination to run with this nonsense than me so have at it.

 

[PureClassA]

My craziest weekend (and I'm not a full time pro-photographer) is every year in May when I rent a 1DX from LensRentals. I have a huge dance school I do all the work for, and that is their recital weekend. From Friday to Sunday is four recitals. Each recital is about 3+ hours. Each 3+ hours is about an average of 45 dance routines. That's a 14,000 frame weekend for me. It's only THAT many because we're talking 400+ dancers on stage in various numbers and costumes. I can't speak for true pro shooters doing major sporting events but I have to assume just one NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc... games could yield at least 1000 frames if not way, way more. I can see easily how you can blast through a shutter life of a 1DX if you did this full time.

That being said, how much is it to have a shutter replaced? I'd doubt it's more than $1000. In that case, assuming the rest of the camera is still in good shape, simply hitting 400k frames (the rated shutter life on a 1DX) doesn't mean you need a new camera. Plus, hitting 400k frames over the course of year is different than hitting that over the course of several. The wear and tear isn't the same. It's like putting milage on a car in stop-and-go traffic vs. all highway.

For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.

I'm not a pro, but when I do sport competitions (competing myself I mean), I typically take ~3500-4500 pics on my friends. Last summer shooting bigger event, I took ~14k-15k in 3 days.

 

[GoldWing]

500 shots a game??

My day starts at the stadium before game covering press announcements, team announcements. Then we get assignments to cover locker room and color for pre-game. Then we get on field for warm-up and also sponsor and phianthropic. Next we get assignments for celebrity coverage at the games to tie in with sponsors. We then have charts of the top players and staff to cover during the game we need multiple great shots of each. Then we have to cover the game and make sure we're getting shots of each player and every play while grabbing cheerleader and fan shots. The we go to half time and have to cover everything. Then we cover the 2nd half get a lot more of staff on the sidelines. After the gamer were back to lockers and press anouncements. FOR anyone to think 5000 to 10000 shots is not the norm to cover game day has never worked for for a major media sports organization as a chief photographer. 500 shots could be just multiple long downs when the action is good. I need 20 frames at times at 12fps to get the progression of movement to have multiple options for an editor. 500 shots for complete profile game coverage is a ridiculously low number. Good way to get fired.

[



quote author=sportskjutaren link=topic=28903.msg573007#msg573007 date=1453754991]

I don't fill the buffer ever.
...
Higher fps mathematically ALWAYS increases your chances of getting the right shot.
...
Lastly, I never said I shoot 10,000 shots at an event. I shoot an average of 400-450 per event, including football and basketball, which in my opinion is quite low compared to other sports photogs I know.

But thanks anyways.

Ok!
I misunderstood you. Sorry for that.

When it comes to soccer, and "head to head" duels.
If i try to get a image with the ball in it. Only relying on the 12 FPS.
I usually miss it. If i do care about timing. I almost never miss to get the ball in the image.

This thing about 10.000 images was for Goldwing.
Who wrote about 10.000 images a sitting earlier in this thread.

...
I'm a sports photographer, I need less oil and debris in my mirror box I shoot 5,000 10,000 shots a sitting
...

For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.
[/quote]