Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Coming in April 2016 [CR3]

[clicstudio]

I see a lot of talk on this forum about sports photographers using the 1DX.
I don't shoot sports with my 1DX. But, why would anyone want to use a $5000 Full Frame 1DX instead of, say, a $1500 1.6X crop 7D II?". It shoots 10fps and has 2 more MP. And it will get u a lot closer to the action than a FF camera...
I have a Paparazzo friend who just got a 7D II a few months ago. He hasn't used his 1DX since.
The difference in quality is marginal, really. But u can get 3 7D's with the money of just one 1DX...
Beats me.

 

[bdunbar79]

I see a lot of talk on this forum about sports photographers using the 1DX.
I don't shoot sports with my 1DX. But, why would anyone want to use a $5000 Full Frame 1DX instead of, say, a $1500 1.6X crop 7D II?". It shoots 10fps and has 2 more MP. And it will get u a lot closer to the action than a FF camera...
I have a Paparazzo friend who just got a 7D II a few months ago. He hasn't used his 1DX since.
The difference in quality is marginal, really. But u can get 3 7D's with the money of just one 1DX...
Beats me.

Because the ISO performance on a 1Dx blasts the crap out of the 7D2. I routinely shoot in situations in low light where my ISO needs to be around 3200. The 7D2 is not marginally worse at 3200; it's a lot worse. That's pretty much why.

 

[Don Haines]

I see a lot of talk on this forum about sports photographers using the 1DX.
I don't shoot sports with my 1DX. But, why would anyone want to use a $5000 Full Frame 1DX instead of, say, a $1500 1.6X crop 7D II?". It shoots 10fps and has 2 more MP. And it will get u a lot closer to the action than a FF camera...
I have a Paparazzo friend who just got a 7D II a few months ago. He hasn't used his 1DX since.
The difference in quality is marginal, really. But u can get 3 7D's with the money of just one 1DX...
Beats me.

Both are tough, fast, and have an AF system to die for.......

Stick the same lens on both cameras and:
A 7D2 gets you higher density sampling of the central 40 percent of the image.
A 1DX give you higher quality sampling of the entire image.

In great light, the quality of the sampling is not all that different. In average light, the 1DX is better, in poor light the 1DX is a lot better. If your sport is indoors or under artificial light, you have poor light.

 

[PureClassA]

I've tried shooting a 7D in low light, fast action situations at 3200-6400 ISO. Any lower ISO and I can't get the shutter speeds needed to stop movement. 1/320th is my bare minimum. The 1DX is considerably better. I know the 7D2 is better than the 7D, but it's still not 1DX better. There's still a couple stops of difference in ISO and noise performance. It's just a matter of physics Full Frame to Crop. This to say, "It's not ALL about the reach."

Why do you own a 1DX yourself then?

I see a lot of talk on this forum about sports photographers using the 1DX.
I don't shoot sports with my 1DX. But, why would anyone want to use a $5000 Full Frame 1DX instead of, say, a $1500 1.6X crop 7D II?". It shoots 10fps and has 2 more MP. And it will get u a lot closer to the action than a FF camera...
I have a Paparazzo friend who just got a 7D II a few months ago. He hasn't used his 1DX since.
The difference in quality is marginal, really. But u can get 3 7D's with the money of just one 1DX...
Beats me.

Both are tough, fast, and have an AF system to die for.......

Stick the same lens on both cameras and:
A 7D2 gets you higher density sampling of the central 40 percent of the image.
A 1DX give you higher quality sampling of the entire image.

In great light, the quality of the sampling is not all that different. In average light, the 1DX is better, in poor light the 1DX is a lot better. If your sport is indoors or under artificial light, you have poor light.

 

[tpatana]

...
The D5 has 4 stops more ISO than the 1DX..... Can't wait to see some real world images and comparisons to see if this really is true.....

D5 top ISO is 3280000: Native ISO 100-102400
1DX top ISO is 204800: Native ISO 100-51200

Shooting at ISO 3280000 is the same as shooting at -5 EV/ISO102400 and doing a post-shoot +5 EV pull in software.

But back to the important part, the D5 has a 1 stop advantage in native ISO over the 1DX.

That's not necessarily true. If they allow more noise, they can go as high as they want.

So correct way would be saying D5 offers one stop higher native ISO, but we can't tell if it's advantage or not until we see some real life noise measurements at those ISO levels.

 

[Don Haines]

I've tried shooting a 7D in low light, fast action situations at 3200-6400 ISO. Any lower ISO and I can't get the shutter speeds needed to stop movement. 1/320th is my bare minimum. The 1DX is considerably better. I know the 7D2 is better than the 7D, but it's still not 1DX better. There's still a couple stops of difference in ISO and noise performance. It's just a matter of physics Full Frame to Crop. This to say, "It's not ALL about the reach."

Why do you own a 1DX yourself then?

I see a lot of talk on this forum about sports photographers using the 1DX.
I don't shoot sports with my 1DX. But, why would anyone want to use a $5000 Full Frame 1DX instead of, say, a $1500 1.6X crop 7D II?". It shoots 10fps and has 2 more MP. And it will get u a lot closer to the action than a FF camera...
I have a Paparazzo friend who just got a 7D II a few months ago. He hasn't used his 1DX since.
The difference in quality is marginal, really. But u can get 3 7D's with the money of just one 1DX...
Beats me.

Both are tough, fast, and have an AF system to die for.......

Stick the same lens on both cameras and:
A 7D2 gets you higher density sampling of the central 40 percent of the image.
A 1DX give you higher quality sampling of the entire image.

In great light, the quality of the sampling is not all that different. In average light, the 1DX is better, in poor light the 1DX is a lot better. If your sport is indoors or under artificial light, you have poor light.

I don't have a 1DX (can't afford it) but there is the 5D2......

Most people realize that with the greater area the FF pixels gather more light, and consequently have 1 1/3 stops better ISO performance (assuming same level of technology between the two), but they forget about motion blur.

For ease of math, use a FF camera and a micro 4/3 camera.

The FF camera has 4 times the sensor surface area and should therefore be 2 stops better.....

but what about motion blur? With the smaller pixels, you get twice the motion blur on the crop camera. To compensate, I need to half the exposure time, so that means doubling the ISO in order to get that speed..... If it's really bright out and I am shooting at a faster shutter speed than I need, this isn't a problem, but in low light, it just cost me another stop of ISO performance....

 

[clicstudio]

I have been using 1 bodies since 2003. I like the size and grip. I shoot mostly vertical so the crappy plastic grips for the 5D's and such are just not right.
Also I like to have the best and the others don't come close. I only own one camera so it has to be perfect.
I like the AF And the overall quality.
I can't wait for the new one! Mine has 350K actuations.

I've tried shooting a 7D in low light, fast action situations at 3200-6400 ISO. Any lower ISO and I can't get the shutter speeds needed to stop movement. 1/320th is my bare minimum. The 1DX is considerably better. I know the 7D2 is better than the 7D, but it's still not 1DX better. There's still a couple stops of difference in ISO and noise performance. It's just a matter of physics Full Frame to Crop. This to say, "It's not ALL about the reach."

Why do you own a 1DX yourself then?

I see a lot of talk on this forum about sports photographers using the 1DX.
I don't shoot sports with my 1DX. But, why would anyone want to use a $5000 Full Frame 1DX instead of, say, a $1500 1.6X crop 7D II?". It shoots 10fps and has 2 more MP. And it will get u a lot closer to the action than a FF camera...
I have a Paparazzo friend who just got a 7D II a few months ago. He hasn't used his 1DX since.
The difference in quality is marginal, really. But u can get 3 7D's with the money of just one 1DX...
Beats me.

Both are tough, fast, and have an AF system to die for.......

Stick the same lens on both cameras and:
A 7D2 gets you higher density sampling of the central 40 percent of the image.
A 1DX give you higher quality sampling of the entire image.

In great light, the quality of the sampling is not all that different. In average light, the 1DX is better, in poor light the 1DX is a lot better. If your sport is indoors or under artificial light, you have poor light.

 

[PureClassA]

I have been using 1 bodies since 2003. I like the size and grip. I shoot mostly vertical so the crappy plastic grips for the 5D's and such are just not right.
Also I like to have the best and the others don't come close. I only own one camera so it has to be perfect.
I like the AF And the overall quality.
I can't wait for the new one! Mine has 350K actuations.

Ok so there ya go. That's why you don't buy a 7D2 over a 1DX in addition to all the scientific rationale (Low Light, High ISO, noise, etc...) And that's also why many pros choose it as well, but particularly those in Sports and journalism. It's not uncommon for a sports guy to have a 7D or 7D2 as well on-the-ready should they really need a back-up with extra reach without having to sacrifice a stop of light using a 1-2X converter when higher shutter speeds are a must.

 

[privatebydesign]

Most people realize that with the greater area the FF pixels gather more light, and consequently have 1 1/3 stops better ISO performance (assuming same level of technology between the two), but they forget about motion blur.

For ease of math, use a FF camera and a micro 4/3 camera.

The FF camera has 4 times the sensor surface area and should therefore be 2 stops better.....

but what about motion blur? With the smaller pixels, you get twice the motion blur on the crop camera. To compensate, I need to half the exposure time, so that means doubling the ISO in order to get that speed..... If it's really bright out and I am shooting at a faster shutter speed than I need, this isn't a problem, but in low light, it just cost me another stop of ISO performance....

The motion blur is not twice as bad because the pixels are smaller, it is twice as bad because you have to enlagre the smaller sensors capture four times as much to get the same sized output. Pixel size and number don't come into same sized output comparisons, only 100% view comparisons (and then sensor size becomes irrelevant), view on the same screen or print to the same size and the M4/3 camera image has been enlarged to four times the area so any blurring, diffraction etc is more obvious.

 

[George D.]

Is it confirmed D5 comes with a touch screen? Prepare for 1Dx II...
That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Is it confirmed D5 comes with a touch screen? Prepare for 1Dx II...
That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

The new Nikon LCDs have a much higher resolution than any of the current Canon ones. I doubt Canon would simply implement a touch screen from a lower end body in the 1D-X II. If they went the touch route, I would think that it would have to be a new higher-resolution touch screen.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

The dual cross AF point was first used on the 40D. Several of the Digic chips used in 1-series bodies debuted in lesser models, from xxD down to a PowerShot.

 

[George D.]

Is it confirmed D5 comes with a touch screen? Prepare for 1Dx II...
That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

The new Nikon LCDs have a much higher resolution than any of the current Canon ones. I doubt Canon would simply implement a touch screen from a lower end body in the 1D-X II. If they went the touch route, I would think that it would have to be a new higher-resolution touch screen.

Obviously. Recent rumor is for a larger LCD, the two likely go along.

 

[George D.]

That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

The dual cross AF point was first used on the 40D. Several of the Digic chips used in 1-series bodies debuted in lesser models, from xxD down to a PowerShot.

Next time I get a Powershot I will have my eyes on 1Dx III

 

[expatinasia]

Is it confirmed D5 comes with a touch screen? Prepare for 1Dx II...
That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

Perhaps every single question about what is and what is not included in the D500 and D5, and even what the differences are can be found in this thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28799.msg

It links to two amazing internal documents from Nikon. Plenty of reading and plenty of info.

 

[tpatana]

Is it confirmed D5 comes with a touch screen? Prepare for 1Dx II...
That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

The new Nikon LCDs have a much higher resolution than any of the current Canon ones. I doubt Canon would simply implement a touch screen from a lower end body in the 1D-X II. If they went the touch route, I would think that it would have to be a new higher-resolution touch screen.

Obviously. Recent rumor is for a larger LCD, the two likely go along.

Like I said on one of the other threads, I'm hoping they remove the small screen from bottom, to make room for more buttons and bigger main LCD.

Higher resolution screen + touch is just matter how much money they want on their component costs. I'm quite sure for that size you can get about 4k resolutions if you really want, but it might not be practical.

 

[john1970]

The predicted lists price of $5999 has just caused me to return the 1D X body that I recently purchased three weeks ago. Originally when I thought the 1D X MK II was going to cost $7000, $4600 for the old one appeared a good value, but at a difference of only $1400 I will purchased the MK II version instead.

 

[expatinasia]

The predicted lists price of $5999 has just caused me to return the 1D X body that I recently purchased three weeks ago. Originally when I thought the 1D X MK II was going to cost $7000, $4600 for the old one appeared a good value, but at a difference of only $1400 I will purchased the MK II version instead.

You returned the best DSLR on the market because of a rumour on a camera that we do not even know the specs of, nor when it will actually be released?

Are you sure you even need a 1 series camera?

 

[ahsanford]

Is it confirmed D5 comes with a touch screen? Prepare for 1Dx II...
That could be the first time a flagship model gets a feature from the lesser models.

D500 = touchscreen and tilting screen

D5 = touchscreen but no tilting screen

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The predicted lists price of $5999 has just caused me to return the 1D X body that I recently purchased three weeks ago. Originally when I thought the 1D X MK II was going to cost $7000, $4600 for the old one appeared a good value, but at a difference of only $1400 I will purchased the MK II version instead.

You returned the best DSLR on the market because of a rumour on a camera that we do not even know the specs of, nor when it will actually be released?

Are you sure you even need a 1 series camera?

I wouldn't make capital spend decisions like this myself, except for right now.

Much like how Mac Rumors uses past history / product lifecycles / upcoming Apple events to give very clear guidance on when to buy / wait (not based on value but on the likelihood of getting your heart broken with a major upgrade being released in the near term), I see the 1DX as a certainty to be updated in the next few months.

This is not a random rumor like a non-L 50mm f/1.4 refresh, which shows up every 3-4 months and then disappears. The 1DX II is coming this year unless a 9.0 temblor hits Canon's principal manufacturing facility. 1DX II is a CR3, going to happen, take it to the bank.

So I'll presume john1970 knows if he needs a 1-series or not, and if he feels that a 1DX II being released shortly after a 1DX would crush him (or make him question the 1DX investment he just made), I personally think he's being wise to wait -- unless he's leaving large money / jobs on the table in the interim.

- A