Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Known Specifications

[JMZawodny]

...
You ever shoot in rain?

Can't use something like USB stick on pro bodies.

None of Canon's equipment is water proof. If you leave your camera or lens out in the rain and it stops working, Canon will not repair it under warranty.

If you're shooting in the rain or in otherwise misty/wet conditions, get a plastic cover for your camera.

You obviously haven't touched any of the pro bodies, if you're mixing that bad terms "weather sealing" and "water proof". None of the bodies are water proof (save D10 and those), but the 1D bodies can take quite plenty rain and still keep going.

It's good to know that you agree that none of the bodies are water proof.

Since we've got that agreed to, why don't you find the place in Canon's documentation where they define what "weather sealing" means.

hehe - how could anything with a hole in one side the size of an EF mount be water proof? The system, body and lens, might approach the standard of being water proof, but a body itself never could be. Semantics, perhaps, but I'm sure it is implicit in the warranty.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
You ever shoot in rain?

Can't use something like USB stick on pro bodies.

None of Canon's equipment is water proof. If you leave your camera or lens out in the rain and it stops working, Canon will not repair it under warranty.

If you're shooting in the rain or in otherwise misty/wet conditions, get a plastic cover for your camera.

You obviously haven't touched any of the pro bodies, if you're mixing that bad terms "weather sealing" and "water proof". None of the bodies are water proof (save D10 and those), but the 1D bodies can take quite plenty rain and still keep going.

It's good to know that you agree that none of the bodies are water proof.

Since we've got that agreed to, why don't you find the place in Canon's documentation where they define what "weather sealing" means.

hehe - how could anything with a hole in one side the size of an EF mount be water proof? The system, body and lens, might approach the standard of being water proof, but a body itself never could be. Semantics, perhaps, but I'm sure it is implicit in the warranty.

Well Nikon have done it a multitude of times, currently the AW1 is an interchangeable lens fully waterproof camera, as was the Nikonos series from the '60's to the '90's, but the real icing was the RS, a 'full frame' auto focus underwater interchangeable lens SLR.

 

[JMZawodny]

...
You ever shoot in rain?

Can't use something like USB stick on pro bodies.

None of Canon's equipment is water proof. If you leave your camera or lens out in the rain and it stops working, Canon will not repair it under warranty.

If you're shooting in the rain or in otherwise misty/wet conditions, get a plastic cover for your camera.

You obviously haven't touched any of the pro bodies, if you're mixing that bad terms "weather sealing" and "water proof". None of the bodies are water proof (save D10 and those), but the 1D bodies can take quite plenty rain and still keep going.

It's good to know that you agree that none of the bodies are water proof.

Since we've got that agreed to, why don't you find the place in Canon's documentation where they define what "weather sealing" means.

hehe - how could anything with a hole in one side the size of an EF mount be water proof? The system, body and lens, might approach the standard of being water proof, but a body itself never could be. Semantics, perhaps, but I'm sure it is implicit in the warranty.

Well Nikon have done it a multitude of times, currently the AW1 is an interchangeable lens fully waterproof camera, as was the Nikonos series from the '60's to the '90's, but the real icing was the RS, a 'full frame' auto focus underwater interchangeable lens SLR.

So, I can drop that body in the river without a lens and Nikon warranty will repair/replace it? Amazing!

 

[Ozarker]

Until this very thread, I haven't seen any clamor for internal SSD in a stills cam. I dont see this happening with a 1DX type body. Using removable media is the preferred method. Offloading pictures from an internal drive means you have to stop shooting. That cant happen. I can unload and reload 128GB in about 5 seconds or less with removable media. These things already have internal buffers, which are short term memory devices meant to immediately dump onto another drive like a CF card

There is absolutely no reason why an SSD can't be hot swappable.

 

[Ozarker]

...
You ever shoot in rain?

Can't use something like USB stick on pro bodies.

None of Canon's equipment is water proof. If you leave your camera or lens out in the rain and it stops working, Canon will not repair it under warranty.

If you're shooting in the rain or in otherwise misty/wet conditions, get a plastic cover for your camera.

So Canon should design their equipment to be less waterproof? I'm sure that would lead to more happy users.

Jack

Wow Jack. Wow.

 

[JMZawodny]

Until this very thread, I haven't seen any clamor for internal SSD in a stills cam. I dont see this happening with a 1DX type body. Using removable media is the preferred method. Offloading pictures from an internal drive means you have to stop shooting. That cant happen. I can unload and reload 128GB in about 5 seconds or less with removable media. These things already have internal buffers, which are short term memory devices meant to immediately dump onto another drive like a CF card

There is absolutely no reason why an SSD can't be hot swappable.

I must agree with PureClassA in this instance. I can swap a card quickly. With CFast, my expectation is that I can shoot at 12 - 14 - whatever fps continuously until the card fills up. Limiting me to 128 - 256 - 4096 GB via an internal SSD is not acceptable. How does the SSD outperform the CFast option?

 

[Ozarker]

...
Exactly my thoughts. Why they can't have some internal storage? It's cheap.

But it isn't small.

Yes it is. Here's a 1TB SSD from Sandisk. This is small, but not the smallest. Sandisk makes a 64gb ssd card the size of an SD card. I'd gladly have one of these in a battery grip configuration (new product idea for sports photographers.). They will get smaller and smaller as time moves on. Just read the specs. http://www.adorama.com/IDSEPD960GB.html?hotlink=t&svfor=5m&utm_source=cj_1796839
10 year guarantee too.

 

[sportskjutaren]

...
Yes it is. Here's a 1TB SSD from Sandisk. This is small, but not the smallest. Sandisk makes a 64gb ssd card the size of an SD card.
...

I wrote a answer where i quoted you earlier in this thread.
i don´t know if you didn´t read it. Or you didn´t understand it.
Still SSD and CFast, is the same technology. With the same possible read/write speeds. Only real difference is the form factor. This includes SD/SD(HC)/SD(UC).

There are already CFast cards on the market with 256 GB capacity and the same read/write speeds as a SSD drive that you use in a computer.
That´s about 500 MB/s.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1062369-REG/lexar_lc256crbna3400_256_gb_pro_cfast.html

This pretty much sums up to the fact that Canon pretty much gives you just what you want to have. But in a more usable way for most of us photographers.
A link that hopefully can sort out some of your misunderstandings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

 

[Ozarker]

...
Yes it is. Here's a 1TB SSD from Sandisk. This is small, but not the smallest. Sandisk makes a 64gb ssd card the size of an SD card.
...

I wrote a answer where i quoted you earlier in this thread.
i don´t know if you didn´t read it. Or you didn´t understand it.
Still SSD and CFast, is the same technology. With the same possible read/write speeds. Only real difference is the form factor. This includes SD/SD(HC)/SD(UC).

There are already CFast cards on the market with 256 GB capacity and the same read/write speeds as a SSD drive that you use in a computer.
That´s about 500 MB/s.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1062369-REG/lexar_lc256crbna3400_256_gb_pro_cfast.html

This pretty much sums up to the fact that Canon pretty much gives you just what you want to have. But in a more usable way for most of us photographers.
A link that hopefully can sort out some of your misunderstandings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

I don't think I am misunderstanding. People talk on this thread about having 10-20 cards at a cost of up to $4000 for cfast.

A 1TB ssd rev III is $369.

What is the cost of 1Tb of cfast rev III?

I think the difference is very clear. SSD is much more affordable.

Small? Here's 1 example of how small SSD is getting. This is from 2010. Probably much higher capacity by now and faster speeds.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/18/sandisk-presents-the-smallest-64gb-ssd-in-the-whole-world/

Also, ssd can interface directly through the cfast slot on the camera.

Someone said he'd never heard people clamoring for this until this thread. I have no idea what that has to do with anything. People like to use extreme words when describing the thoughts of others they may not like I guess. Mention something and they turn it into clamoring.

In a few years both techs will get smaller and capacities higher. Well, cfast will stay the same size dimensionally. It will run into size constraints long before SSD.

 

[PureClassA]

Until this very thread, I haven't seen any clamor for internal SSD in a stills cam. I dont see this happening with a 1DX type body. Using removable media is the preferred method. Offloading pictures from an internal drive means you have to stop shooting. That cant happen. I can unload and reload 128GB in about 5 seconds or less with removable media. These things already have internal buffers, which are short term memory devices meant to immediately dump onto another drive like a CF card

There is absolutely no reason why an SSD can't be hot swappable.

I must agree with PureClassA in this instance. I can swap a card quickly. With CFast, my expectation is that I can shoot at 12 - 14 - whatever fps continuously until the card fills up. Limiting me to 128 - 256 - 4096 GB via an internal SSD is not acceptable. How does the SSD outperform the CFast option?

We have hot swappable Solid State Drives right now in all Canon DSLRs. They're called Compact Flash cards. I thought we were talking about internal, dedicated SSDs like PCI-E hard drives.

 

[Ozarker]

Until this very thread, I haven't seen any clamor for internal SSD in a stills cam. I dont see this happening with a 1DX type body. Using removable media is the preferred method. Offloading pictures from an internal drive means you have to stop shooting. That cant happen. I can unload and reload 128GB in about 5 seconds or less with removable media. These things already have internal buffers, which are short term memory devices meant to immediately dump onto another drive like a CF card

There is absolutely no reason why an SSD can't be hot swappable.

I must agree with PureClassA in this instance. I can swap a card quickly. With CFast, my expectation is that I can shoot at 12 - 14 - whatever fps continuously until the card fills up. Limiting me to 128 - 256 - 4096 GB via an internal SSD is not acceptable. How does the SSD outperform the CFast option?

We have hot swappable Solid State Drives right now in all Canon DSLRs. They're called Compact Flash cards. I thought we were talking about internal, dedicated SSDs like PCI-E hard drives.

PCIe interface would be great instead of SATA.

CF cards are not hot swappable on cameras. The camera turns off as soon as you open the door. But you are right. I regularly just plug them in and out on my home computer. But, none of it needs to be hot swappable on a camera.

 

[davidmurray]

...
YES! I've wondered why nobody puts a SSD in these things.

Actually memory cards of all kinds and SSD use the same technology.
The only "big" difference are read and write speed.

Major reason is which interface you use.
When it comes to CF-cards.
The newest cards has reached the physical limit of which speed you can archive.

With CFast 2 there are already cards that practically have the same transfer speed as SSD.
Combined with the right kind of card reader this means that "download" time to the computer will be a lot faster then what's possible with CF-cards.
Something I'm looking forward to.

The technology used for SSD/memory cards also have limited lifetime.
It can only take a certain numbers of writings before it breaks down.
(Newer memory cards uses a technology that spreads the data all over the card to increase life time).
This means that the traditional kind off buffer memory is a lot more reliable.

The fastest Cfast cards that are available today has speeds around 500 MB/s.
Which is just the same as most SSD:s.

Therefore, newer technology as CFast 2 is basically SSD with another form factor. And some advantages from a usability point of view.

(For me as a sports photographer, needing to download cards to my computer in between periods of a game. Editing images and transmit them directly to several news papers. Speed is a crucial thing. Why i would actually preferred two CFast slots).

The XQD card is used on cameras with codecs producing data streams at speeds of 600mb/s.

This is one such camera:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1004182-REG/sony_pxw_z100_4k_handheld_xdcam_camcorder.html

Does Cfast match or better that speed?

 

[Ozarker]

Until this very thread, I haven't seen any clamor for internal SSD in a stills cam. I dont see this happening with a 1DX type body. Using removable media is the preferred method. Offloading pictures from an internal drive means you have to stop shooting. That cant happen. I can unload and reload 128GB in about 5 seconds or less with removable media. These things already have internal buffers, which are short term memory devices meant to immediately dump onto another drive like a CF card

There is absolutely no reason why an SSD can't be hot swappable.

In computers SSDs are hot swappable - if they're supported by the right components.

In a camera it is not realistic. Even the mini SSD - there's way too much exposed wiring on that thing. People will zap them with static electricity all the time. Those mini SSDs aren't made for being plugged and unplugged while the host device is still on.

If you take a normal hard drive and turn that into a hot-swappable item then adding a carrying case is necessary.

Once you make the small SSD thing hot-swap friendly it is going to be bigger than any SD/CF card.

The best you could expect would be to have something like the battery packs for regular DSLR bodies that screws on to the bottom, plugs into the CF/SD port and accepts something much different inside for storage.

I'd go for that.

 

[Ozarker]

Until this very thread, I haven't seen any clamor for internal SSD in a stills cam. I dont see this happening with a 1DX type body. Using removable media is the preferred method. Offloading pictures from an internal drive means you have to stop shooting. That cant happen. I can unload and reload 128GB in about 5 seconds or less with removable media. These things already have internal buffers, which are short term memory devices meant to immediately dump onto another drive like a CF card

There is absolutely no reason why an SSD can't be hot swappable.

In computers SSDs are hot swappable - if they're supported by the right components.

In a camera it is not realistic. Even the mini SSD - there's way too much exposed wiring on that thing. People will zap them with static electricity all the time. Those mini SSDs aren't made for being plugged and unplugged while the host device is still on.

Any SATA SSD drive can be made hot swappable.
There would be absolutely no exposed wiring.
Would not be as thick as a battery grip.
Would not get zapped.
An SSD drive on a camera is very realistic.
But again... it does not have to be hot swappable.
An SSD drive is far less expensive than a Cfast card and has far more storage.

One thing we can be sure of is that the 1DX Mark II will not have a SSD.

 

[Loswr]

hehe - how could anything with a hole in one side the size of an EF mount be water proof?

Submarines manage it.

 

[Eldar]

hehe - how could anything with a hole in one side the size of an EF mount be water proof?

Submarines manage it.

But there is no suitable RRS L-bracket for a submarine and I would hate to carry the tripod for it ... :

 

[Loswr]

hehe - how could anything with a hole in one side the size of an EF mount be water proof?

Submarines manage it.

But there is no suitable RRS L-bracket for a submarine and I would hate to carry the tripod for it ... :

Fair point.

I could have brought up the fact that waterproof dSLR housings have interchangeable lens ports that mate to form a waterproof seal, but that's a bit boring...

 

[ecka]

Guys, 500MB/s is "yesterday's news". Today we have consumer level storage speeds over 2000MB/s. Tomorrow we'll see it going over 3000MB/s. Where will that leave the "new expensive" CFast?
CFast 3.0 to the rescue? Catching up at 3x the price?



EDIT: Oops, I was wrong, it's already 3x the price.

 

[sportskjutaren]

I don't think I am misunderstanding. People talk on this thread about having 10-20 cards at a cost of up to $4000 for cfast.
...
Also, ssd can interface directly through the cfast slot on the camera.
...

The reason that a SSD can interface to CFast is that both technologies uses the SATA standard.
Both SSD and Cfast also uses the same kind off technology in the memory circuits.
So the ony difference, is still just the form factor.
If the difference was more than the form factor, you would not be able to interface a SSD to a CFast.
When it comes to price. It´s just a matter of time before CFast will get a lot cheaper.

When it comes to speed, CFast 2.0 uses the SATA III standard.
Which allows speeds up to 600 MB/s.

 

[ecka]

I don't think I am misunderstanding. People talk on this thread about having 10-20 cards at a cost of up to $4000 for cfast.
...
Also, ssd can interface directly through the cfast slot on the camera.
...

The reason that a SSD can interface to CFast is that both technologies uses the SATA standard.
Both SSD and Cfast also uses the same kind off technology in the memory circuits.
So the ony difference, is still just the form factor.
If the difference was more than the form factor, you would not be able to interface a SSD to a CFast.
When it comes to price. It´s just a matter of time before CFast will get a lot cheaper.

When it comes to speed, CFast 2.0 uses the SATA II standard.
Which allows speeds up to 600 MB/s.

You mean SATA-III 600MB/s, which is actually 500-550MB/s?
SATA-II is 300MB/s (and SATA-I was 150MB/s).