Canon EOS-1D X Mark II To Feature CFast & CF Slots [CR3]

[Zv]

It makes sense to have the best of both rather than making the potential buyer choose one and stick to it. Maybe some people could get by with CF just fine but might want to dabble in a little 4K so they could borrow a CFast or something without having to rent a completely different camera. With the Nikon D5 you have to commit to one.

What they could do is have two versions, one with dual CFast and one mixed CF and CFast. Or is that a stupid idea? Can't see that happening.

Looking at what's available now, the Sandisk CFast 2.0 cards look pretty decent, about the same as the Sony XQD G series, maybe a tad faster? I have to admit though the XQDs look like the smarter choice in the long run, especially when you consider the product life cycle of ~ 5 years.

 

[Zv]

In any case, Canon are stupid for going with CFast. It's wasteful and legacy. Nikon are much smarter and more forward thinking by going with XQD. Canon should have done the same.

Change "Canon" to "Sandisk" and I agree with your post 100%.

I hate it that both Lexar and Sandisk didn't adopt XQD.

Umm are you sure about that?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082429-REG/lexar_lxqd64gcrbna1333_64gb_xqd_memory_card.html

 

[unfocused]

GIven that XQD is a Nikon-Sony technology, it makes sense that Canon would not want to rely on a competitor's technology for their flagship camera.

Since Canon uses CFast for video it makes sense they would want to keep the storage medium consistent across lines.

Whether or not it is best technology really is irrelevant. The shoulders of the technology highway are littered with "better" technology abandoned because other technologies were good enough.

 

[dolina]

I think Nikon's implementation makes more sense.

Those with a sizeable CF card investment opt for dual CF cards while those who want faster than 1067x memory card go dual CFast.

 

[Loswr]

I have to admit though the XQDs look like the smarter choice in the long run, especially when you consider the product life cycle of ~ 5 years.

Considering a product life cycle of 5 years, I'd think storage media format would become mostly irrelevant. After 5 years, I'd expect to need to update storage media along with camera. Even if the media format was the same, faster data rates and higher capacities would generally be needed.

I think Nikon's implementation makes more sense.

Agreed - Canon got this right with the 1D X, and Nikon got it right with the D5.

 

[Chaitanya]

Dual CFast would be welcome, they are a lot faster than CF and XQD.

CFast is faster than CF, but you're incorrect when it comes to XQD.

CFast is based on the legacy SATA 3.0 protocol. It is nominally 6Gbps but wastes 20% of it's bandwidth with the inefficient 8b/10b encoding scheme. Thus, the maximum transfer rate is only 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s).

XQD on the other hand is based on the newer PCI Express (PCIe) standard. PCIe 3.0 employs the very efficient 128b/130b encoding scheme (approx 1.54% overhead). A single PCIe 3.0 "lane" can transfer at 985 MB/s. That's already over 60% faster than SATA. Use 2x or 4x PCIe lanes, and you're leaving SATA in the dust (and before you ask - no - SATA cannot be bonded into multiple lanes like PCIe can).

Not only that but SATA employs the legacy AHCI (Advanced Host Controller Interface), which has a command set aimed at mechanical drives and not flash memory. A newer interface for flash media called "Non Volatile Memory Express" aka "NVMe" has been created which is fully optimized for flash with lower latencies with more command queues and greater command depths. PCIe supports it natively but SATA doesn't, and is unlikely to ever support it.

In the PC word, PCI Express (PCIe) is supplanting SATA slowly but surely. SATA 3.2 brings in "SATA Express" which kludges together two older SATA3.0 with 2x PCIe lanes. The PC world has largely ignored SATAe, in favour of smaller and more efficient PCIe-only buses that employ 4x PCIe lanes like the M.2 and U.2 formats. M.2 screws onto the motherboard, and U.2 is a plug for a stand-alone drive.

Over time you'll see CPUs with more PCIe lanes and less SATA ports, until SATA dies out completely, just like Parallel ports before it.

In any case, Canon are stupid for going with CFast. It's wasteful and legacy. Nikon are much smarter and more forward thinking by going with XQD. Canon should have done the same.

Here's some info on SATA and PCIe http://www.tested.com/tech/457440-theoretical-vs-actual-bandwidth-pci-express-and-thunderbolt/ and you can find info on CFast and XQD on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompactFlash#CFast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XQD_card

I do know the differences between the PCI-e and SATA along with advantages of NVME vs AHCI. I have a workstation with NVME drive installed which takes care of virtualization for my office. But the price is the biggest roadblock that will reduce the adoption rate of NVME drives. Sata drives are cheap and thats the reason why they will be kicking for quite sometime in future. I was referring to current generation XQD 2.0 and CFast 2.0 cards that you can actually purchase, CFast cards faster(recently I had to purchase one for the industrial system on which the software was deployed) compared to XQDs in terms of reads. Also compared to XQD adoption of CFast is much higher in the industry so I dont think its a wrong decision from Canon to adopt Cfast over XQD.

 

[PureClassA]

It makes sense to have the best of both rather than making the potential buyer choose one and stick to it. Maybe some people could get by with CF just fine but might want to dabble in a little 4K so they could borrow a CFast or something without having to rent a completely different camera. With the Nikon D5 you have to commit to one

The 1DC does 4k and uses dual CF cards. I dont forsee the 1DX2 having a substantially more robust codec for 4k (if at all) than the 1DC. This isnt a video camera. And CF should still more than adequte to snag 14fps at 22mb.

Again, I dont see why a CFast slot is needed. I think an upgrade to CFast later is an option they could out on the table like Nikon, but Dual CF slots, please, Canon

 

[9VIII]

The only thing I can say for sure is the memory card market is a bigger mess now than ever before.

Heck, they should just have a gaping hole and a USB-C plug, that would support write speeds about as fast as you can imagine (and USB memory is always universally adopted as a consumer level product).

 

[AndreeOnline]

Disappointing.

The price of CFast is already a non-issue, and it'll only get better.

The people how would have voted against CFast is exactly the ones you shouldn't ask beforehand.

 

[PureClassA]

Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.

 

[AndreeOnline]

The 1DC does 4k and uses dual CF cards. I dont forsee the 1DX2 having a substantially more robust codec for 4k (if at all) than the 1DC. This isnt a video camera.

As a 1Dc owner, I'm certainly hoping that it will. The 1Dc is already great but I'm hoping for video capabilities (codec wise) roughly the same as the XC10. Of course, the XC10 uses Digic DV5 (same as C300 mkII), but maybe Canon has been able to beef up Digic 7+. Or they might even have a DV chip in there some how—not that I'm counting on it.

I'd also really like the XC10 time-lapse function that don't use shutter actuations.

The times where you could dismiss a top tier DSLR as "only a still camera" are long gone. There's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.

CFast 2.0 for sure.

Transcend's 128GB card is about $235. As a 1Dx mkII customer, surely you're not breaking a sweat over that?

 

[Orangutan]

There's going to be a minor inconvenience to having two card types, but I think the inconvenience of making anyone that buys this camera dump all their CompactFlash cards would be greater.

I think this is a nod to the amateur segment of the market. Pros would buy whatever tools they need when they need them.

 

[PureClassA]

The 1DC does 4k and uses dual CF cards. I dont forsee the 1DX2 having a substantially more robust codec for 4k (if at all) than the 1DC. This isnt a video camera.

As a 1Dc owner, I'm certainly hoping that it will. The 1Dc is already great but I'm hoping for video capabilities (codec wise) roughly the same as the XC10. Of course, the XC10 uses Digic DV5 (same as C300 mkII), but maybe Canon has been able to beef up Digic 7+. Or they might even have a DV chip in there some how—not that I'm counting on it.

I'd also really like the XC10 time-lapse function that don't use shutter actuations.

The times where you could dismiss a top tier DSLR as "only a still camera" are long gone. There's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

DX2 is a stills camera. Pro ohoto journalists and high volume pro shooters. Canon is most likely not going to cram a lot if video in here, but it will be more than the D5. There's no chance of a DV chip but the Digic 7 may be built as a potent hybrid of sorts than can bang out stills like a champ and still have enough to spare for very good video.

 

[Orangutan]

Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.

CFast 2.0 for sure.

Transcend's 128GB card is about $235. As a 1Dx mkII customer, surely you're not breaking a sweat over that?

1 card? No. 10 cards? Maybe. BTW, I won't be a customer for the 1DXII for quite some time, if ever.

 

[clicstudio]

This is really dumb. Why have the fastest camera and use old technology?

It's like having a BMW M4 and using it in Eco mode to save gas.

Whoever gets this camera, needs to experience the full power and speed. Why would u get it anyway?
If u can afford $6K u can afford to get new cards.
Besides the difference in speed between CFast and CF is HUUUUUGEEEE.
I can already see the haters saying the camera sucks because they were too cheap to get CFast.

As soon as I get the new 1DX2 I will sell my 1DX and all the CF cards I have for it.

 

[PureClassA]

Apologies, can we clarify? Are we talking CFast or CFast 2.0?? CFast cards are cheap enough, but 2.0 are still obscene.

CFast 2.0 for sure.

Transcend's 128GB card is about $235. As a 1Dx mkII customer, surely you're not breaking a sweat over that?

It is if it's unnecessary to have media with that sort of write speed, yes. I mean, if they make the DX2 that can write ProRes or full 24fps RAW (which there was a rumor about for stills a few days ago...) then we have a valid reason. Otherwise 14fps of 22mb and 1DC 4k does NOT CFast 2.0 require...

By the way, that's nearly $500 for TWO cards. Yes, that's a lot of money even for a $6000 camera to spend on something that isnt likely necessary (specs still to come, so this is academic of course).

 

[wockawocka]

If true this is a good thing.

The only limiting factor I can think of other than the price of the cards would be the buffer clear time in camera, I'd prefer dual Cfast and Cfast + UHSii in the 5D4. Which with some irony would make the buffer clear time of the 5D4 faster than the 1DX2.

One of the things that you want to do quickly at the end of a shoot is empty the cards and go to bed. If I can hit the sack 20 minutes earlier at the end of a wedding I'd be very happy.

 

[AndreeOnline]

It is if it's unnecessary to have media with that sort of write speed, yes. I mean, if they make the DX2 that can write ProRes or full 24fps RAW (which there was a rumor about for stills a few days ago...) then we have a valid reason. Otherwise 14fps of 22mb and 1DC 4k does NOT CFast 2.0 require...

I going to go out on a limb and assume that those of us wanting CFast 2.0 want the added functionality that could come a long with it.

Are you seriously considering Canon putting in CFast without using them? It would have been cheaper for everyone, Canon included, to use CF.

It's a given that one confirmed CFast now means that at least one function of the camera requires that kind of speed.

 

[Don Haines]

It is if it's unnecessary to have media with that sort of write speed, yes. I mean, if they make the DX2 that can write ProRes or full 24fps RAW (which there was a rumor about for stills a few days ago...) then we have a valid reason. Otherwise 14fps of 22mb and 1DC 4k does NOT CFast 2.0 require...

I going to go out on a limb and assume that those of us wanting CFast 2.0 want the added functionality that could come a long with it.

Are you seriously considering Canon putting in CFast without using them? It would have been cheaper for everyone, Canon included, to use CF.

It's a given that one confirmed CFast now means that at least one function of the camera requires that kind of speed.

You can justify a need for CFast cards with the 1DX specs.....

25MByte RAW files times 12FPS equals 300MB/s transfer rate.... and for that you need CFast cards to keep up....

Unless the 1DXII is slower than the 1DX, it needs them.