Canon EOS-1D X Mark II To Be 22mp [CR3]

[PureClassA]

Well that system is now 4 years old and is being replaced with whatever the 1DX2 brings. The 5D4 will also see some variety of it too, which means so will a new 5DS revision. At that point, the 61AF system now in the 5D3 becomes "old hat" (relatively speaking, of course), and could find itself (or some slightly watered down version) in a 6D2 with 5FPS. Remember, that system a dedicated processor on the 1DX. You wouldn't have that on the 6D2 either.

Honestly, with a 6D2, I think a LOT of folks would be very happy if they just KEEP the same sensor and significantly upgrade the AF capability to what the 5D3 is now. I think the 6D sensor currently is a real gem for an "entry level" FF DSLR. Get 1-2 more FPS out of it. Basically, make it what a 5D3 is now (minus the bigger, tougher body) but with the 6D sensor and bingo. They will have a real winner there for $1499.

Yes, folks would be very happy with it, but Canon's going to put the best-in-class 1DX AF system on every sports sideline into the stripped-down entry-level FF model? I honestly can't see that happening.

The AF system -- alongside video features, MP count, build toughness and burst rate -- are the simple categories that Canon will deliberately hold back performance/functionality in order to entice you to walk up the ladder to a pricier rig.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

Yeah, but how many of those can they expect to sell with a 5DS/R? It was a different era with the 1DS3. Obviously Canon is trying to specialize models, and I don't see how the money guys could find justification for another 50MP body that's double the price. I dont think there's enough market out there to split the 1D line.

That being said, Canon may opt to add a few key 1 series features to the 5DS like AF point linked metering etc... I dont think a 5DS will in any way ever eat into 1DX sales, so sharing features there is moot.

I still don't get why Canon doesn't throw a 50 MP sensor -- hell, even the existing 5DS sensor -- into a 1D body. People don't just buy 1D rigs for the best sensors. There's a ton of exclusive 1-series functionality you cannot get in a 5DS, and the old 1Ds camp misses it pretty badly, I'd imagine.

- A

Better yet, put that price tag to use and give us a 50MP BSI sensor in a 1D body. (or better yet 100MP? Canon has been hinting at the possibility of higher resolution products if sales shows it's a good idea). It may not be much competition for the A7RII but Portrait and event photograpers would probably jump on that like a herd of mice on cheese.

I'm not asking for an unreasonable thing, though. :

I just think Canon shot itself in the foot by fusing the 1Ds and 1D line into the 1DX. 4 years ago, the highest res sensor Canon had was around 21-22 MP, so telling the 1Ds camp to live with an 18 MP rig was not a huge setback.

But now, very well funded studio/landscape shooters have a choice of a 50 MP rig OR the 1-series goodness. If you are used to a 1-series rig, that's an impossible call to make.

In the era of offering 2 of everything in cameras:

• Astro and non-astro
• AA filter vs. no AA filter
• Nikon's memory card A version and memory card B version

I'm shocked Canon can't justify a high MP count 1-series rig. Other than the sensor, use all the same hardware of the 1DX II and simply slow down the framerate to not choke the buffer. How hard is that to do?

(Also, same question for why we can't have a rigid LCD option vs. a tilt-screen option, but that's OT.)

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Well that system is now 4 years old and is being replaced with whatever the 1DX2 brings. The 5D4 will also see some variety of it too, which means so will a new 5DS revision. At that point, the 61AF system now in the 5D3 becomes "old hat" (relatively speaking, of course), and could find itself (or some slightly watered down version) in a 6D2 with 5FPS. Remember, that system a dedicated processor on the 1DX. You wouldn't have that on the 6D2 either.

You are correct, the spread/point count for the 1DX and 5D3 is the same but the 1DX has more 'AF-horsepower' in use. But my 5D3 AF system is far more capable of anything I need it to do -- I don't shoot sports/wildlife, rarely shoot in servo, etc. It's a stellar AF system.

My point is this: nothing about the 6D2 line should be "far more capable of anything I need it to do" -- as a 'gateway' FF rig, users should take wonderful shots with it but often run up to its limits and want something more. Canon does not want the entire prosumer / well-funded enthusiast camp delighted with a 6D2 so much as content.

The 6D line exists for two reasons: selling more EF glass, and building up the stable of future higher-end FF rig purchasers. Enthralling/delighting (not sure of the figure for entry level FF) some 25-30% of the FF market with a rig that does everything they'll ever need is absolutely not in Canon's best interests.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I dont think a 5DS will in any way ever eat into 1DX sales, so sharing features there is moot.

Agree it's not a huge number of shooters.

But disagree on the 5DS not stealing 1DX business.

The old studio/landscape 1Ds camp could be loosely broken into two buckets from what I've read:

• "I use the highest quality rig with the best feature set": 1-series goodness > MP Count
  
  
• "I want the highest resolution rig I can get and still use EF lenses": MP Count > 1-series goodness

That second group already left the 1DX for a 5DS as it was their only option other than waiting.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

Duly noted. So take the watered down approach. The current 6D has 11AF (which is just far too few. I think this was really too stingy). Give us 45AF or 24AF all cross type. Hell, the T6 and 70D have 19AF all cross type. I think the 6D should be at least a step up from that apart from just a FF sensor.

Well that system is now 4 years old and is being replaced with whatever the 1DX2 brings. The 5D4 will also see some variety of it too, which means so will a new 5DS revision. At that point, the 61AF system now in the 5D3 becomes "old hat" (relatively speaking, of course), and could find itself (or some slightly watered down version) in a 6D2 with 5FPS. Remember, that system a dedicated processor on the 1DX. You wouldn't have that on the 6D2 either.

You are correct, the spread/point count for the 1DX and 5D3 is the same but the 1DX has more 'AF-horsepower' in use. But my 5D3 AF system is far more capable of anything I need it to do -- I don't shoot sports/wildlife, rarely shoot in servo, etc. It's a stellar AF system.

My point is this: nothing about the 6D2 line should be "far more capable of anything I need it to do" -- as a 'gateway' FF rig, users should take wonderful shots with it but often run up to its limits and want something more. Canon does not want the entire prosumer / well-funded enthusiast camp delighted with a 6D2 so much as content.

The 6D line exists for two reasons: selling more EF glass, and building up the stable of future higher-end FF rig purchasers. Enthralling/delighting (not sure of the figure for entry level FF) some 25-30% of the FF market with a rig that does everything they'll ever need is absolutely not in Canon's best interests.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

That second group already left the 1DX for a 5DS as it was their only option other than waiting.
- A

And now that the ship has clearly already sailed, how do get to the poop back in the horse? I don't think you do. I just don't see how Canon's market has space for 2 High MP cameras priced at $3000 and $6000. Now maybe if Canon develops a 100MP BSI sensor exclusive to a 1DXS4 or whatever.... but now we're REALLY reaching here anytime in the forseeable future. :

 

[Loswr]

I still don't get why Canon doesn't throw a 50 MP sensor -- hell, even the existing 5DS sensor -- into a 1D body. People don't just buy 1D rigs for the best sensors. There's a ton of exclusive 1-series functionality you cannot get in a 5DS, and the old 1Ds camp misses it pretty badly, I'd imagine.

That sounds like a 1D X / 1D Xs scenario, which was the 1D / 1Ds...and Canon made what seemed to be a definitive decision to merge the lines.

 

[YuengLinger]

22MP seems the sweet spot for a true pro body. IQ, rapid fire, manageable file sizes.

Photographers who actually take advantage of machines this good know how to frame and do not need to crop down to 10% of the frame. Huge prints possible with 22MP, excellent detail for prints and big screens...

Go, Canon, go!

 

[tpatana]

I approve this resolution. I'll allow Canon to use "Tero Approved(R)" stamp on the 1DX2 box.

Now just hoping the high-ISO is even better than 1DX.

 

[ahsanford]

That sounds like a 1D X / 1D Xs scenario, which was the 1D / 1Ds...and Canon made what seemed to be a definitive decision to merge the lines.

That's exactly what it is. But Canon would have more equitably merged the lines at a higher MP count.

With the 1DX...
1D users lost their 1.3x crop (a big deal!)
1Ds users lost detail

Looks good at face value in 2012 terms, but now, the 1DX brand is synonymous with action/wildlife/sports far far far more than it is with studio/landscape use. So I'd argue the 1DX user base has hung on to the 1D camp far better than the 1Ds camp, and Canon might be wise to split the lines again -- they are leaving a healthy upcharge on the table for every prior 1Ds person that bounces to the 5DS.

PureClassA makes a fair point that those that have left may not snap up a same-sensored 1-series variant of a 5DS, however. Perhaps it does need to be a yet higher MP sensor (or better 50 MP sensor) to draw them back.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

I'll admit, I'd rather 24 than 22, but 22 would be fine. 24 would just get me a bit extra cropping ability with that great 1D high ISO performance I need when I shoot dance recitals.

22MP seems the sweet spot for a true pro body. IQ, rapid fire, manageable file sizes.

Photographers who actually take advantage of machines this good know how to frame and do not need to crop down to 10% of the frame. Huge prints possible with 22MP, excellent detail for prints and big screens...

Go, Canon, go!

 

[pedro]

Regarding the 5D IV, I'd be perfectly happy with the same 22 MP sensor as the 1Dx (who in their right mind wouldn't be?) But, I suspect for product differentiation purposes, it will be slightly denser, but I hope not over 24-26 MP.

It would really make more sense for Canon to switch the sensor relationship between the 6D and 5D, putting a 28 MP sensor in the 6D and holding the 5D to 24. The 6D is really better suited for a higher megapixel sensor and the 5D for higher ISO performance. (The 6D is well suited for nature and landscape, while the 5D is more likely to be used for event, wedding and action).

I do wonder how Canon and Nikon can continue to differentiate between their flagship DSLR and their next-in-line body. It seems like the differences are getting less and less and consumers are demanding more and more from each new iteration.

So would I

 

[bdunbar79]

That sounds like a 1D X / 1D Xs scenario, which was the 1D / 1Ds...and Canon made what seemed to be a definitive decision to merge the lines.

That's exactly what it is. But Canon would have more equitably merged the lines at a higher MP count.

With the 1DX...
1D users lost their 1.3x crop (a big deal!)
1Ds users lost detail

Looks good at face value in 2012 terms, but now, the 1DX brand is synonymous with action/wildlife/sports far far far more than it is with studio/landscape use. So I'd argue the 1DX user base has hung on to the 1D camp far better than the 1Ds camp, and Canon might be wise to split the lines again -- they are leaving a healthy upcharge on the table for every prior 1Ds person that bounces to the 5DS.

PureClassA makes a fair point that those that have left may not snap up a same-sensored 1-series variant of a 5DS, however. Perhaps it does need to be a yet higher MP sensor (or better 50 MP sensor) to draw them back.

- A

I'll take it a step farther and say that I actually am considering using a 1Dx/5Ds combo for sports. And it has to do with cropping, as I am unable to crop some photos that I would like to keep with 18 MP's, even with a 400mm lens. If I had the 5Ds for that shot and was in pretty good light, I could crop it and use it. It doesn't happen too often, but I guess for me it's just something for more convenience.

 

[sanj]

I am thinking of possibly trading in my 1DX for the II. Is the increase of 4MP along with ISO warrant a possible trade?

Well. No.

 

[helpful]

I think the 22 MP choice Canon made is perfect.

Every bit of the extra resolution provided will be extremely useful in better accomplishing our photographic objectives.

And within the constraints of current technology, the amount of possible added benefit from resolution beyond 22 MP would be far overwhelmed by the damage it would do to the DR and ISO performance.

I love it.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think the 22 MP choice Canon made is perfect.

Every bit of the extra resolution provided will be extremely useful in better accomplishing our photographic objectives.

And within the constraints of current technology, the amount of possible added benefit from resolution beyond 22 MP would be far overwhelmed by the damage it would do to the DR and ISO performance.

I love it.

I agree, except where I would use a 5Ds is in situations where ISO is 100-400 and I cannot move locations. I CAN get shots in that situation where with the 1Dx I can't. It's minimally useful I agree, but I am also using the 5Ds in other situations anyways (not sports).

 

[Diltiazem]

If Canon is going to use an all new sensor with on chip ADC and other goodness in 1DX II, it would make sense for them to use the same sensor in 5DIII and 6D successors to keep the production cost down as opposed to using same sensor technology with different MP counts. No?

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon is going to use an all new sensor with on chip ADC and other goodness in 1DX II, it would make sense for them to use the same sensor in 5DIII and 6D successors to keep the production cost down as opposed to using same sensor technology with different MP counts. No?

You are talking rationally about doling out 1-series goodness to cheaper brand levels. Sometimes, Canon actually does this -- the 5D3/7D2 AF systems are a great example.

But then there are other things to deliberately protect the brand identity / exclusive appeal of the 1-series to keep the price up. Spot metering at any AF point, for instance. Sensors as well. Metering for sure.

It's a game. Give the 5D line too little and people freak out and leave the fold. Give the 5D line too much and you won't sell as many 1D cameras. No greater example of this being a very very very tough call is 4K -- it's 100% common sense to put it on the 5D4 if it's possible to do so (heat/hardware-wise), but it's also 100% business sense to withhold it from the 5D4 to tent up 1D sales.

- A

 

[Diltiazem]

If Canon is going to use an all new sensor with on chip ADC and other goodness in 1DX II, it would make sense for them to use the same sensor in 5DIII and 6D successors to keep the production cost down as opposed to using same sensor technology with different MP counts. No?

You are talking rationally about doling out 1-series goodness to cheaper brand levels. Sometimes, Canon actually does this -- the 5D3/7D2 AF systems are a great example.

But then there are other things to deliberately protect the brand identity / exclusive appeal of the 1-series to keep the price up. Spot metering at any AF point, for instance. Sensors as well. Metering for sure.

It's a game. Give the 5D line too little and people freak out and leave the fold. Give the 5D line too much and you won't sell as many 1D cameras. No greater example of this being a very very very tough call is 4K -- it's 100% common sense to put it on the 5D4 if it's possible to do so (heat/hardware-wise), but it's also 100% business sense to withhold it from the 5D4 to tent up 1D sales.

- A

I understand that they need to differentiate the product lines. But they still can do it by using the same sensor in their 3 upcoming FF cameras. I was wondering if this strategy will keep the production cost down, especially because the new sensor will be more costly to produce than the older ones.

 

[pedro]

If Canon is going to use an all new sensor with on chip ADC and other goodness in 1DX II, it would make sense for them to use the same sensor in 5DIII and 6D successors to keep the production cost down as opposed to using same sensor technology with different MP counts. No?

You are talking rationally about doling out 1-series goodness to cheaper brand levels. Sometimes, Canon actually does this -- the 5D3/7D2 AF systems are a great example.

But then there are other things to deliberately protect the brand identity / exclusive appeal of the 1-series to keep the price up. Spot metering at any AF point, for instance. Sensors as well. Metering for sure.

It's a game. Give the 5D line too little and people freak out and leave the fold. Give the 5D line too much and you won't sell as many 1D cameras. No greater example of this being a very very very tough call is 4K -- it's 100% common sense to put it on the 5D4 if it's possible to do so (heat/hardware-wise), but it's also 100% business sense to withhold it from the 5D4 to tent up 1D sales.
- A

I understand well your argumentation, but it's exactly just this that makes me think back on the film days...there was one and the same sensor for everyone...built, bells and whistles as mentioned earlier on, were different though...I still think, Canon should provide the same sensor at least, or go for a 4.5k USD body by manufactering a stripped down version of it...3D or 4D to prevent from confusion...? less fps and stuff, less rigid built, same IQ
On the other hand, Nikon is offering 4K in a crop body, so...
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4531466610/top-5-hands-on-with-nikon-d500?slide=9