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

[Loswr]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

 

[tron]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

I do not have 1Dx. I do have 2 5D3s. So 1DxII will be probably almost 2 stops better for me. This is quite tempting. I'll wait to see what improvements 5D4 will bring but I will be tempted since I use up to ISO 10000 for landscape astrophotography.

 

[Neutral]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

I also wish 2 stops real ISO improvement but afraid that maximum that we could expect is about 1 stop.
So far let's hope for the better.
Hope that 1DX II would be better in this respect than Sony long awaited a9 which might be announced some time later after 1DX II.

 

[heptagon]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

2 stops of ISO improvement? Not going to happen. Physically not possible.

 

[ahsanford]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

Does anyone ever buy a rig based on a manufacturer's published ISO limits?

Does Canon or Nikon even publish how they set those limits, like 'highest ISO values determined by acheiving X SNR with shots taken in Y conditions'? I'm not aware of that happening, so I generally completely disregard ISO claims / max allowable levels and just wait for proper test shots compared against what I currently shoot.

- A

 

[PhotographyFirst]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

2 stops of ISO improvement? Not going to happen. Physically not possible.

For sport shooters shooting in JPEG it might be beneficial to have better in-camera noise reduction. Otherwise for RAW shooting, I agree. The most that we could expect is maybe 1 stop with a sensor with perfect quantum efficiency. Very unlikely with the current tech.

I must be the only person alive today who still is impressed that digital sensors are so good at higher ISO levels as it is. I never shot over ISO 800 when I used film, so being able to shoot at ISO 6400 and 12800 reliably is still impressive to me.

 

[tpatana]

I've always said I love the 1DX size. Earlier few times I shot video with my 5D3 with a cage-thingy. I recently sold the 5D in anticipation of price drop for used after 1DX2 and 5D4 are announced. Yesterday for the first time I was planning to use 1DX with the cage, but it didn't fit. The body is too tall for the cage.

#FWP

 

[Reality Merely Illusion]

It's bound to be another great camera, I wonder about the AF system, If anything will change

A nice unexpected surprise would be launching a 1mkiv successor along side the 1dxII.

An 18-20mp 1.3crop sensor with the ISO performance of the 1dx

 

[Jack Douglas]

Limited BIF experience and only with a 1D4 - found that my shots at ISO 640 were generally very good but when I bumped up to 800 the increase in noise was obvious, given generally some cropping. I needed higher ISO to get to higher shutter speeds but was reluctant to give up the IQ. My point is that I was shooting consistently at a point where a little better ISO and a few more MP would have been very helpful (assuming less than ideal lighting).

Not having the 1DX, I can't judge but from comments on CR it seems some folk feel that they are also at a tipping point where a little more could be seriously helpful. True or not?

Jack

 

[john1970]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

2 stops of ISO improvement? Not going to happen. Physically not possible.

For sport shooters shooting in JPEG it might be beneficial to have better in-camera noise reduction. Otherwise for RAW shooting, I agree. The most that we could expect is maybe 1 stop with a sensor with perfect quantum efficiency. Very unlikely with the current tech.

I must be the only person alive today who still is impressed that digital sensors are so good at higher ISO levels as it is. I never shot over ISO 800 when I used film, so being able to shoot at ISO 6400 and 12800 reliably is still impressive to me.

There is at least one more person that is impressed by today's digital sensor technology. I remember very fondly when using 400 ISO film was considered fast and as you pointed out today I readily shoot ISO 6400 (4 fold higher) without any reservations.

Cheers,

John

 

[Don Haines]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

2 stops of ISO improvement? Not going to happen. Physically not possible.

For sport shooters shooting in JPEG it might be beneficial to have better in-camera noise reduction. Otherwise for RAW shooting, I agree. The most that we could expect is maybe 1 stop with a sensor with perfect quantum efficiency. Very unlikely with the current tech.

I must be the only person alive today who still is impressed that digital sensors are so good at higher ISO levels as it is. I never shot over ISO 800 when I used film, so being able to shoot at ISO 6400 and 12800 reliably is still impressive to me.

There is at least one more person that is impressed by today's digital sensor technology. I remember very fondly when using 400 ISO film was considered fast and as you pointed out today I readily shoot ISO 6400 (4 fold higher) without any reservations.

Cheers,

John

Add another one to the list.....

 

[Loswr]

Count me in, although I often pushed Tri-X 400 a stop during development and I occasionally shot T-MAX P3200.

 

[Don Haines]

Count me in, although I often pushed Tri-X 400 a stop during development and I occasionally shot T-MAX P3200.

Yup.... T-MAX-3200 and Kodachrome25.....

 

[Ryananthony]

...the current 1DX suits me just perfectly for my uses and I don't need a faster shutter or higher ISO's considering the price the 1DXII will be released at.

Probably the same for me. One stop of ISO improvement, 1-2 fps and 4 MP aren't enough of an improvement for me. A two stop ISO improvement would get me considering – a real two stops based on noise comparisons, not changes in the specs for native range or extra expansion (the latter is useless to me anyway).

Does anyone ever buy a rig based on a manufacturer's published ISO limits?

Does Canon or Nikon even publish how they set those limits, like 'highest ISO values determined by acheiving X SNR with shots taken in Y conditions'? I'm not aware of that happening, so I generally completely disregard ISO claims / max allowable levels and just wait for proper test shots compared against what I currently shoot.

- A

I didn't think so, but that was until I read the comments from the nikon guys when the d5 was announced. Im not exactly sure what they were expecting from anything near that 3.2 million iso. unfortunately with the way they were talking, they are going be really down.

 

[PureClassA]

I didn't think so, but that was until I read the comments from the nikon guys when the d5 was announced. Im not exactly sure what they were expecting from anything near that 3.2 million iso. unfortunately with the way they were talking, they are going be really down.

I used to sell and install a lot of upper end audio and video gear back in college. I remember laughing over some spec sheets and trying to explain to customers that a 100w amplifier isn't always really 100w. Usually it would begin with people listening to some expensive piece of gear and then eyes glazing over when I say "Well this is a 50w so-and-so amp" when they realize it cranks out more power to the speakers than their 100w cheaper system at home. Wattage is almost subjective as to their measurements because different manufacturers rate it differently, particularly in terms of how much THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) is allowed to reach their measurement. Getting 100 watts if your tolerance for THD is 1% is vastly easier and cheaper as opposed to say 0.1% THD. I suppose the same holds true for visual noise as it is audible distortions. "Yeah the D5 can do ISO 3.2M, but it looks like sh!t." And that doesn't necessarily translate to any notably better performance as lower ISOs, just it wouldn't on amplifier at lower powers.

 

[Jack Douglas]

PureClassA, I guess I'm getting pretty dense in my old age. It just registered - class A - like my old 100W X 2 Bryston amp that sits there pumping out the bass and keeping the house warm at the same time. Now if I could just understand all the photo concepts as well!

Jack

 

[PureClassA]

YES!! Bingo!! I still own a wonderful set of Krell. a KBL PreAmp. MD10 & 64X CD Transport and DAC and the KSA-250 Pure Class A operation amplifier. You have deciphered my secret ;D PS - Don't ever sell that Bryston stuff. They made fantastic Amps.

PureClassA, I guess I'm getting pretty dense in my old age. It just registered - class A - like my old 100W X 2 Bryston amp that sits there pumping out the bass and keeping the house warm at the same time. Now if I could just understand all the photo concepts as well!

Jack

 

[Ozarker]

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

Doesn't that assume that Canon makes more profit on the 1Dx line than the 6D line?

I'd like to know the margins on both and the number of bodies sold from each. There probably isn't a way to know that.

Maybe a prospectus from a shareholder could tell us. Are there any shareholders here?

I'd bet that there are far, far more 6D cameras sold than 1Dx cameras. The price of each has nothing to do with the profit margin, especially when volume of sales is taken into account.

The 6D buyers can and do buy high end glass like the 1Dx owners. How many jump up to the 1Dx? Not many, I would think.

 

[PureClassA]

Doesn't that assume that Canon makes more profit on the 1Dx line than the 6D line?

I'd like to know the margins on both and the number of bodies sold from each. There probably isn't a way to know that.

Maybe a prospectus from a shareholder could tell us. Are there any shareholders here?

I'd bet that there are far, far more 6D cameras sold than 1Dx cameras. The price of each has nothing to do with the profit margin, especially when volume of sales is taken into account.

The 6D buyers can and do buy high end glass like the 1Dx owners. How many jump up to the 1Dx? Not many, I would think.

I don't think we need a full profit and loss from Canon to determine that the 6D sells many more copies than a 1DX. Besides, a P&L isn't going breakdown revenues by specific product, only by product line:

http://www.canon.com/ir/results/

ANd while there may be a greater dollar margin of profit in a 1DX, the volume of sales of a 5D3 by comparison is much higher and yields more dollar profit than the 1DX. I'm not sure about 6D, but I'd imagine they also generate more dollar profit in total volume than a 1DX there too.

 

[Ozarker]

Doesn't that assume that Canon makes more profit on the 1Dx line than the 6D line?

I'd like to know the margins on both and the number of bodies sold from each. There probably isn't a way to know that.

Maybe a prospectus from a shareholder could tell us. Are there any shareholders here?

I'd bet that there are far, far more 6D cameras sold than 1Dx cameras. The price of each has nothing to do with the profit margin, especially when volume of sales is taken into account.

The 6D buyers can and do buy high end glass like the 1Dx owners. How many jump up to the 1Dx? Not many, I would think.

I don't think we need a full profit and loss from Canon to determine that the 6D sells many more copies than a 1DX. Besides, a P&L isn't going breakdown revenues by specific product, only by product line:

http://www.canon.com/ir/results/

ANd while there may be a greater dollar margin of profit in a 1DX, the volume of sales of a 5D3 by comparison is much higher and yields more dollar profit than the 1DX. I'm not sure about 6D, but I'd imagine they also generate more dollar profit in total volume than a 1DX there too.

Yup.