Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Spec List Surfaces [CR1]

[ahsanford]

I'm not the intended user but still. Thiss class should set some milestones. It can be good at high ISO speeds, it might work for various users, but 20Mpx after so many years. Really? C'mon canon, that producing for $$$$ is real 'drag'.

But what if it is 20Mpixels of 16 bit colour depth pixels? What if this is the Nikon DR killer? What if it's images at ISO6400 beat the 5D3 images at ISO1600? We have zero hard info to act on......

Personally, I am very reluctant to criticize any piece of gear sight unseen and based on a rumour....

Agree 100%, but all indications are that this is a high FPS rugged-ized camera for action in the field. FPS and AF system are a ton more important to this type of product than DR or color depth is.

So I do not at all expect the 1DX II to be the DR/color game-changer for Canon. Not at all.

However, tell me they are resurrecting the 1Ds style camera with the best-possible-sensor for studio/landscape work and then I'll get excited about DR and color.

- A

 

[mkabi]

Well.... I guess this is competing with the D5 specs.

 

[farhad]

;D hahaha come one some source lol admin come on you just wrote that...but it's ok if you did we all know canon is damn slow compared to sony with new stuf.

Canon will never ever put 240 fps on this camera if they do they will sell quite a lot of it, i am very very sure. I just hope Sony comes up with something even better in a few months and then canon will be forced to give the consumer something more than the bare minimum they think they can get away with until now.They should wake up and smell sony

 

[ahsanford]

;D hahaha come one some source lol admin come on you just wrote that...but it's ok if you did we all know canon is damn slow compared to sony with new stuf.

Canon will never ever put 240 fps on this camera if they do they will sell quite a lot of it, i am very very sure. I just hope Sony comes up with something even better in a few months and then canon will be forced to give the consumer something more than the bare minimum they think they can get away with until now.They should wake up and smell sony

I'm sorry! I was not aware Sony was offering a 14 FPS (with AF tracking) integrally gripped FF camera for action, sports and wildlife.

Could you please forward this group some information on such a camera? We'd love to read more about that.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I'm not the intended user but still. Thiss class should set some milestones. It can be good at high ISO speeds, it might work for various users, but 20Mpx after so many years. Really? C'mon canon, that producing for $$$$ is real 'drag'.

But what if it is 20Mpixels of 16 bit colour depth pixels? What if this is the Nikon DR killer? What if it's images at ISO6400 beat the 5D3 images at ISO1600? We have zero hard info to act on......

Personally, I am very reluctant to criticize any piece of gear sight unseen and based on a rumour....

Agree 100%, but all indications are that this is a high FPS rugged-ized camera for action in the field. FPS and AF system are a ton more important to this type of product than DR or color depth is.

So I do not at all expect the 1DX II to be the DR/color game-changer for Canon. Not at all.

However, tell me they are resurrecting the 1Ds style camera with the best-possible-sensor for studio/landscape work and then I'll get excited about DR and color.

- A

agreed, but the thing is, in order to make a high speed action camera in poor light, it needs big pixels and sensitive pixels.... Assuming higher quantum efficiency and a larger well size, this could give you enough photons that you need the extra bits to count them.... I think the increased DR would be a result of trying to achieve better high ISO performance and I really hope that the noise is reduced....

Of course all this is just wild speculation...... It will be interesting to see what actually happens....

 

[ahsanford]

Why would a sports photographer using a 1DX for a local newspaper need more MP?

Because the number of MP quantifies the awesomeness of the photographer, naturally.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Why would a sports photographer using a 1DX for a local newspaper need more MP?

Because the number of MP quantifies the awesomeness of the photographer, naturally.

- A

It's true!

I was a terrible photographer when I had my 320x240 pixel Apple Quicktake 100...... and this proves it! Now that I have a 7D2 my pictures are (5472x3648)/(320x240) or 259.92 times as good!

 

[Steve]

I'm not the intended user but still. Thiss class should set some milestones. It can be good at high ISO speeds, it might work for various users, but 20Mpx after so many years. Really? C'mon canon, that producing for $$$$ is real 'drag'.

The target audience of the 1DX series camera is expected to own or have access to the required lens(es) rather than use cropping to get an image of proper size. They're also expected to be better at correct framing so that images need less rotation, etc, to get the image presented correctly.

With all that taken into account, the expected target for these cameras is then print media (A4 size max). At 300dpi, 5184x3456 is 17" x 11.5" - more than enough (letter is 11x8.5 A4 is 11.69 x 8.27.)

The class of user using a 1DX is expected to be a professional and to execute their photography professionally.

Why would a sports photographer using a 1DX for a local newspaper need more MP?

Yeah, that's not really how it works. I've been shooting a lot of football lately, using a 300 2.8 + 1.4 tc on a 1DIV and I'm still cropping like crazy, as is everyone else out there with big glass and full frames. You're rarely in the perfect position for frame filling shots and even if you are you're almost always going to have to crop out distracting elements at the very least. More MP would definitely be welcome. Then there's the issues with high DR scenes during day games. A higher resolution camera would help retain details in a backlit player's face under a helmet while you're shooting -2/3 ev to preserve highlights on half the field's jerseys and then maxing out your shadows slider in post. Also, tons of "print" publications are majority web content, if not web only these days which means bigger, higher res images, at least compared to newsprint, are desireable.

I'm not going to be able to afford a 1DXII in the next year or two, but I definitely hope it's in the 22-26mp range (if not more) so that when I can throw down that kinda scratch it will be a somewhat significant upgrade. I have a feeling it's going to be more 1DIII->1DIV than 1DIV->1DX kind of upgrade, though. Slightly better AF, couple more fps, some bells, a few whistles, nothing crazy. A nigh-infinite well for a buffer would be nice and it would be cool to get a solid face tracking algorithm, I guess.

 

[ahsanford]

Additionally, a x1.2-1.3 crop factor setting would be gladly welcomed as an extra option to switch between full frame and crop during a sporting event. I see that the 5DS-R can do it (given that it has 50 Megapixels), but the D4s can do it even with 16 Megapixels, and naturally the D810 as well.

Along with anti-flicker technology from the 7D2 going to the 1DX II (which I think we all expect), should we not also expect crop mode similar to the 5DS with the 1DX II?

- A

 

[gsealy]

I can see myself buying a 1Dx II, if it has DPAF and it has 4K that can be recorded externally with clean HDMI (4:2:2). Even though it wouldn't have typical video bells and whistles, such a camera would be very useful. I can work around some of the limitations such as recording quality sound externally and then syncing in post.

I like the versatility of it, just as I do with the 5DIII. Yes, the main feature of the 1DX is action photography and to withstand adverse weather conditions. But its value is enhanced if I can use it as a legitimate part of a video shoot.

 

[PureClassA]

PhotoPlus is next weekend. Perhaps we will get some news then on this and/or 5D4?

 

[brianftpc]

If making this camera greater than 20MP...lets say a move from 20-24 takes away from its low light ability at all then just leave it at 20MP. If I need more MP I can buy a 5DsR. I wouldnt be able to buy better high ISO performance so just make it the best it can be within reason of MP count. If you need more MP im sure the 5D IV will be 28-36MP.

This camera is intended for
best low light/high ISO performance
fastest and most accurate autofocus perfomrance
highest quality body durability
high FPS while autofocuing

Anything else would just be something extra and nice to have however if anything extra compromises those things then it is not worth putting in this camera.

 

[gsealy]

If making this camera greater than 20MP...lets say a move from 20-24 takes away from its low light ability at all then just leave it at 20MP. If I need more MP I can buy a 5DsR. I wouldnt be able to buy better high ISO performance so just make it the best it can be within reason of MP count. If you need more MP im sure the 5D IV will be 28-36MP.

This camera is intended for
best low light/high ISO performance
fastest and most accurate autofocus perfomrance
highest quality body durability
high FPS while autofocuing

Anything else would just be something extra and nice to have however if anything extra compromises those things then it is not worth putting in this camera.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Steve]

Actually, web requires much lower resolution images. An image on the web rarely needs to be larger than 1920x1080 (~2MP) and even then, most are much smaller than that so a 1DX already provides you with plenty of crop ability on a 18MP camera.

Lower res than newsprint? Uhhh...

More MP means more cropping headroom with better details and better noise performance on downsampled images, like web images are likely to be. There's literally no downside for the end user to have more resolution except maybe storage requirements but then who cares when harddrives are huge and cheap?

 

[ahsanford]

Actually, web requires much lower resolution images. An image on the web rarely needs to be larger than 1920x1080 (~2MP) and even then, most are much smaller than that so a 1DX already provides you with plenty of crop ability on a 18MP camera.

Lower res than newsprint? Uhhh...

More MP means more cropping headroom with better details and better noise performance on downsampled images, like web images are likely to be. There's literally no downside for the end user to have more resolution except maybe storage requirements but then who cares when harddrives are huge and cheap?

I think there's more to it than that. More resolution means more data to handle onboard the camera = you consume your buffer more quickly than a same sized buffer taking lower resolution shots.

Put another way, even if the 1DX II came in a relatively modest 30 MP, many who shoot action would argue that they'd rather have less pixels + more frames captured.

I don't shoot high FPS action like others on this forum do, so please straighten me out if I have misspoken.

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

Actually, web requires much lower resolution images. An image on the web rarely needs to be larger than 1920x1080 (~2MP) and even then, most are much smaller than that so a 1DX already provides you with plenty of crop ability on a 18MP camera.

Lower res than newsprint? Uhhh...

More MP means more cropping headroom with better details and better noise performance on downsampled images, like web images are likely to be. There's literally no downside for the end user to have more resolution except maybe storage requirements but then who cares when harddrives are huge and cheap?

I think there's more to it than that. More resolution means more data to handle onboard the camera = you consume your buffer more quickly than a same sized buffer taking lower resolution shots.

Put another way, even if the 1DX II came in a relatively modest 30 MP, many who shoot action would argue that they'd rather have less pixels + more frames captured.

I don't shoot high FPS action like others on this forum do, so please straighten me out if I have misspoken.

- A

I think the point being made is different. As a sports shooter more resolution is always better, ALL ELSE EQUAL. Always better. If I can get a 1Dx Mark II with 24 MP's and still maintain buffer size, fps, and noise performance, it will be better no matter the end use of the photo.

 

[Steve]

I think there's more to it than that. More resolution means more data to handle onboard the camera = you consume your buffer more quickly than a same sized buffer taking lower resolution shots.

Put another way, even if the 1DX II came in a relatively modest 30 MP, many who shoot action would argue that they'd rather have less pixels + more frames captured.

I don't shoot high FPS action like others on this forum do, so please straighten me out if I have misspoken.

- A

Like bdunbar79 said, all else being equal more resolution is always better. Its not my job to design the throughput pipe or the buffer. If its possible to do 30MP at 12+fps with a deep buffer, awesome, Canon should definitely do that. If not, they probably won't. I don't think there's any inclination on Canon's part to nerf the framerate or buffer on their action shooter flagship to squeeze out a few more pixels.

 

[ahsanford]

I think there's more to it than that. More resolution means more data to handle onboard the camera = you consume your buffer more quickly than a same sized buffer taking lower resolution shots.

Put another way, even if the 1DX II came in a relatively modest 30 MP, many who shoot action would argue that they'd rather have less pixels + more frames captured.

I don't shoot high FPS action like others on this forum do, so please straighten me out if I have misspoken.

- A

Like bdunbar79 said, all else being equal more resolution is always better. Its not my job to design the throughput pipe or the buffer. If its possible to do 30MP at 12+fps with a deep buffer, awesome, Canon should definitely do that. If not, they probably won't. I don't think there's any inclination on Canon's part to nerf the framerate or buffer on their action shooter flagship to squeeze out a few more pixels.

Sure, so (loosely paraphrasing), Canon should give us the most pixels possible without reducing the speed/buffer of the 1DX II.

I'd agree with that, but that very well may be only 22-24 MP. I'm no throughput expert, but someone on this forum should be able to do some crude calcuations based on what we think a next-gen DIGIC could muster. we could use that figure to back out what the file size would need to be to maintain the current framerate, right?

- A

 

[bdunbar79]

I agree. I don't think they could keep everything as is at 30 MP. I would estimate more like 24 MP.

 

[saveyourmoment]

canon... and please USB-C (3.1)... think smart!