Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Known Specifications
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
sportskjutaren said:
Well, that's no secret
, CFast is SATA based. But it already runs at its maximum speed, so no future improvements will come? (at least in CFast 2.0 interface standard) I mean 1DX2 would be suck with this old tech, while the world moves on. Not really a cost-effective "feature", don't you think?
Upvote
0
ecka said:...
Well, that's no secret
Old!??
It´s for sure a whole lot newer than the current technology of CF cards that are based on the PATA standard.
And most important of all, CFast 2 is a whole lot faster.
To me this is a good change.
Though i would have preferred double CFast slots.
Upvote
0
sportskjutaren said:ecka said:...
Well, that's no secret
Old!??
It´s for sure a whole lot newer than the current technology of CF cards that are based on the PATA standard.
And most important of all, CFast 2 is a whole lot faster.
To me this is a good change.
Though i would have preferred double CFast slots.
Yes, it is.
SATA3 is OLD, PATA is even older.
SATA3.2 (2000MB/s, SATA Express) was introduced in 2013. So the world moved on already, while the 1DX2 is not even released yet.
I would prefer dual CFast instead of CF+CFast as well. But, dual CF might be the most welcome feature in a pro camera among professionals. I heard many D4 users saying that XQD is not worth it - "CF is almost as fast in camera". Some of them got a free XQD card with their cameras, so they used it almost exclusively as a built-in storage, because they didn't bother to buy a reader for it, which was like $50 or something.
Upvote
0
Interesting information. I am a hobbyist and I would also prefer 2 CF slots! So I guess there are all combinations of preferences! Let's all hope that the controllers of both cards in 1DxII will be really fast...ecka said:sportskjutaren said:ecka said:...
Well, that's no secret
Old!??
It´s for sure a whole lot newer than the current technology of CF cards that are based on the PATA standard.
And most important of all, CFast 2 is a whole lot faster.
To me this is a good change.
Though i would have preferred double CFast slots.
Yes, it is.
SATA3 is OLD, PATA is even older.
SATA3.2 (2000MB/s, SATA Express) was introduced in 2013. So the world moved on already, while the 1DX2 is not even released yet.
I would prefer dual CFast instead of CF+CFast as well. But, dual CF might be the most welcome feature in a pro camera among professionals. I heard many D4 users saying that XQD is not worth it - "CF is almost as fast in camera". Some of them got a free XQD card with their cameras, so they used it almost exclusively as a built-in storage, because they didn't bother to buy a reader for it, which was like $50 or something.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
Well, for what is worth.
I'm a professional sports photographer.
(If you want to build your own opinion about my expericene, you can check this link: http://jkpg-sports.photo/about-english/ ).
Meeting other pro sport photogs on my assignments, every week.
So I'm not guessing.
I know several Nikon photographers that loves the speed from the QXD cards. And i know by my own experience that that difference in speed will make a serious difference in real world usage to me.
(The QXD cards that was shipped together with the first D4:s was far away from as fast as the newest ones).
I guess that you are not familiar with how a sports photographer, working for a major wired agency works.
But we do always download images between the periods.
Select the best images, caption them. Edit them.
And then transmit them, directly to the agency. And i my case also directly to the four biggest newspapers in Sweden.
Try to imagine yourself shooting a soccer game, in conditions where you cant have your computer at the sidelines. Which means that in the halftime break. You will end up with less then 10 minutes to do the above work.
That´s for sure a situation where both i and others will appreciate the increased speed from the CFast cards.
When it comes to "newer" technologies.
It´s a lot about existing products, that have been tested a whole lot.
To ensure that it actually will be stable in real life usage.
I don't know about any technologies that are newer than QXD or CFast that´s actually been on the market long enough with real existing products.
Stability is extremely important for people like me.
We cant afford troubles due to products that are not tested well enough, ending up creating problems.
This means that, as for now CFast 2.0 and QXD are the best solutions.
With that said. I don´t think i have so much more to contribute with to this forum for a while.
Maybe i will be back in the future, with some real world experience of upcoming cameras. Whenever that will be possible.
Upvote
0
expatinasia said:
I was wondering this, but assumed as nobody mentioned it there must be some reason why DSLRs don't have it. Would be a useful backup!
(Edit: having caught up with the thread, I see there are a lot of technical details. I don't understand them. I still think a bit of internal storage would be good. I don't see how it would be bigger than e.g. an SD card, and why not even smaller, as it'd not need the casing. But I know nothing about memory components).
Upvote
0
Why no internal SSD in a camera?
When that bully with a gun thinks your photos insult his political masters, he would confiscate your camera instead of your card.
When the drive fails, because it is a matter of when, not if, the camera goes in for service rather than you go to the spare in your bag.
What about a removable, hot swappable, clip fed, whatever SSD?
Semantics, but more importantly, this must be an existing and standardized product. Despite their imperfections SD, CF, CFast, DQX (SP!!!!) all exist in a reliable delivery infrastructure. Whichever card slots Canon makes will anger some, but a choice that wouldn't be available until months after the camera arrives would anger all.
Why not a removable 1 TB device?
I can imagine a terribly remote time lapse application where that could make sense. But the vaste majority of users should be downloading their pictures more often than that.
When that bully with a gun thinks your photos insult his political masters, he would confiscate your camera instead of your card.
When the drive fails, because it is a matter of when, not if, the camera goes in for service rather than you go to the spare in your bag.
What about a removable, hot swappable, clip fed, whatever SSD?
Semantics, but more importantly, this must be an existing and standardized product. Despite their imperfections SD, CF, CFast, DQX (SP!!!!) all exist in a reliable delivery infrastructure. Whichever card slots Canon makes will anger some, but a choice that wouldn't be available until months after the camera arrives would anger all.
Why not a removable 1 TB device?
I can imagine a terribly remote time lapse application where that could make sense. But the vaste majority of users should be downloading their pictures more often than that.
Upvote
0
sportskjutaren said:
Well, good luck to you.
No, I'm not into sports. I was talking about event photographers mostly. I can only imagine that in the field you still need a CF reader to download your images. 250GB may take up to 10 minutes to download from CFast (if there's at least an eSATA port on your laptop). While SATA Express cable (directly from camera) connection would do that 3-4 or even 5 times faster.
Upvote
0
retroreflection said:
Nobody says that internal storage must be the only storage in your camera. Internal + dual CF is fine
.There are much more things in your camera that can fail and ask for service. In fact, most memory cards fail because of the constant swapping, pushing around, faulty readers and incompetent users.
Upvote
0
good god, there's alot of assumptions flying around. such as that DiGiC even has the ability to run 4 lane PCI bus to support the PCIe SSD's and that there's enough thermal cooling inside of a camera to even handle that.
and then on top of that, that DiGiC itself is fast enough to sustain those speeds of transfer.
and then on top of that, that DiGiC itself is fast enough to sustain those speeds of transfer.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
One more thing i can contribute with
Probably the last for a while
I, and all pros, i know of.
Use card readers.
Shooting soccer usually means using two bodies. Sometimes three.
And one of them you usually use a 400/2,8 or a 600/4.
Imagine yourself connecting a 1D-series body with a big and heavy lens attaches to it. To your computer with a cable.
Most times it´s impossible to have the camera close enough any way.
Fast card readers and fast cards are a much better way to work.
I really can't see a good reason from stopping to use card readers.
It will in practical use be superior to attaching the camera to the computer. For everything else than shooting tethered.
Upvote
0
sportskjutaren said:ecka said:
One more thing i can contribute with
Probably the last for a while
I, and all pros, i know of.
Use card readers.
Shooting soccer usually means using two bodies. Sometimes three.
And one of them you usually use a 400/2,8 or a 600/4.
Imagine yourself connecting a 1D-series body with a big and heavy lens attaches to it. To your computer with a cable.
Most times it´s impossible to have the camera close enough any way.
Fast card readers and fast cards are a much better way to work.
I really can't see a good reason from stopping to use card readers.
It will in practical use be superior to attaching the camera to the computer. For everything else than shooting tethered.
I understand, that's your workflow, which you are used to. However, I don't think it is the only right way of doing it. Maybe some kind of next gen WiFi will bring a better solution (soon, I hope).
Upvote
0
I imagine a few places will be offering deals on CFast cards if bought with a 1DX2.
Question is, for those of us who are thinking of getting one, do you get one the month they are available or wait a bit to see if there are any, cough, cough, issues?
Question is, for those of us who are thinking of getting one, do you get one the month they are available or wait a bit to see if there are any, cough, cough, issues?
Upvote
0
GuyF said:
I am in the market and have the money, but I will wait one to six months until the early adopters shake it down for me, I can't spend that kind of money to be a Beta tester. Also I want the ability to work a few of the RAW files that will inevitably be posted to see if I am happy with the IQ for my needs, if I'm not then I get a 5DSR.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I'm curious as to what the intended use is. Two very different cameras you're considering.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
GuyF said:
Having pre-ordered the 1D X within a couple of hours from the time it was possible from B&H, I was an 'early adopter'. The only 'issue' was the lubrication recall, and that notice went out about 11 months after the cameras started shipping. So, you may have to wait quite a bit...perhaps long enough to begin to wonder about waiting for the 1D X III.
IMO, the only real downside to getting it immediately at launch is that you're initially stuck with Canon's DPP for RAW conversions, it's usually a few weeks for Adobe support and bit longer for DxO since they have modules for each body+lens combo.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
I am a generalist, I shoot everything from yacht racing in St Tropez to homeless people in Haiti, my most common work is real estate/architecture for developers in Florida and the Caribbean.
I have used 1 series cameras for many years, indeed since before the were called 1 series cameras, I am currently still using 1DS MkIII's and whilst the 1DX never really seemed like a 1DS MkIII replacement for my uses, I don't need high iso nor huge AF demands, or the fps, most of the time, I am used to the 1 series niceties and refinements, build quality and reliability. But my 1Ds MkIII's are old and there are many capabilities available in all the newer cameras I'd like, things like iso capabilities, full RT flash functionality, improved AF, better menus and controls, auto iso in M for dynamic situations etc etc. The 5DSR supplies all these but is not a 1 series and misses on a few things I am very used to.
If they put a 5DSR sensor in a 1DX body with the menu of the 1DX and reduced fps I would of found a true 1Ds MkIII replacement, but I don't need 50MP much of the time and when I do I can usually stitch to get them. For my personal shooting a 28MP 1DX MkII with zero video would hit the mark, I know I am not going to get it but I need to see where the compromises I will have to make are.
Upvote
0
