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

[tphillips63]

Not that Canon cares about my opinion but I would prefer dual CFast. I don't mind getting a new format besides even though I have never bent a Compact Flash pin many people have and that is eliminated with CFast.

 

[davidmurray]

I would have preferred dual CFast slots personally. Nikon finally bit the bullet and did dual XQD cards on the D5; I would have expected Canon to do the same with 1D MKII with dual CFast slots. Even with only 1 CFast slot I will be upgrading to CFast because I am sure that one will be able to shoot a longer burst using the CFast slot instead of the CF slot.

XQD cards are starting to appear in lots of devices. For example, Some Sony 4K cameras use a video codec that has a max data rate of 600. Can Cfast match that?
I'm looking at buying a good Sony 4K video camera as well as a 5D mk4, and really would have preferred both to have XQD.

It would have made more long term sense for both slots to be the same card type unless Canon has a workaround for only shooting at the slowest card speed.

 

[tpatana]

sigh...... if you have a bunch of CF cards, they are not going to go instantly obsolete and get tossed in the garbage can.....

You can use the CF card out of your 1DX (or whatever) in the CF slot of a 1DXII and leave the CFast card slot empty until prices on the cards drop or your finances recover.....

and look at this from the other direction.... a heck of a lot more people would be complaining if there was no CFast slot at all.....

+1

I will never buy a 1DXII but if Canon put only CFast slots there would be a bunch of grumbling. This seems like a good Engineering option although a swappable card reader module with optional configurations would have been better.

There will be grumbling either way. No doubt Canon knows which grumblers are in the minority.

Consider that the 1D X shoots 12 fps RAW and 14 fps restricted to JPG, which suggests a bottleneck in card writing, and that's with 18 MP images. Consider the amount of grumbling with the 5DIII's SD slot throttling RAW frame rate with dual-card writing. If using the CF card from your 1D X in the 1D X II means you can't achieve the full output, e.g. 22 MP RAW at 14 fps, that forces a choice between full speed and instant backup, not both.

The engineering option to swap means a service center and would likely not be cheap.

However, buffer memory is much cheaper than 4 years ago when mark I came out. Most people don't shoot 1000 pics in row at 14fps. So with enough buffer even the CF is plenty for photographers. 4k video is different, so the CFast is same as confirming they have 4k at decent bit rate.

 

[AndreeOnline]

259 Euros vs 88 Euros for 64GB cards (3 to 1 price ratio) does not seem like non-issue...

I look at it from a video perspective. My only interest in the 1Dx mkII is if they maximise the potential of the new sensor on the video side too—and that pretty much demands CFast (might also allow for better high fps performance).

I picked up my 128GB CFast 2.0 before christmas for around 230 Euro. When I bought my 128GB CF card for my 1Dc (when it was just released) I paid around 319 Euro.

Looking at some listings now for a 128GB at around 420 Euro—that stings…to the point of being prohibitive. But the Transcend is still listed at basically half that and other brands are bound to follow sooner rather than later. At the time of release I wouldn't be surprised if the 128GB dips below 200 Euro.

Of course normal CF cards are cheap! I would however guess that most of us wouldn't need to buy more of those... we already have enough!

 

[wockawocka]

I would have preferred dual CFast slots personally. Nikon finally bit the bullet and did dual XQD cards on the D5; I would have expected Canon to do the same with 1D MKII with dual CFast slots. Even with only 1 CFast slot I will be upgrading to CFast because I am sure that one will be able to shoot a longer burst using the CFast slot instead of the CF slot.

XQD cards are starting to appear in lots of devices.

Yeah but Betamax, Minidisc and Pro Duo. Like we want to get screwed again.

 

[DavidA]

I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.

The one thing that might derail my 1dxII purchase is if Canon doesn't step up on sensor tech to match the D5. My focus at this time is wildlife and I want cleaner / useable high ISO with more DR (Shadows). I am honestly considering a move to Nikon if we get a rehash of the same old sensor with marginal improvement. The problem is that I HATE the Nikon interface and believe Canon has a better lens selection and ergonomics for my interest. I do like the Nikon D5/D500 combination for wildlife if tests and samples hold up. The win for me would be a leap in sensor tech for Canon and a new matched 1dx II and 7dIII. I have been a Canon user since the 10d/1ds and would hate to make the switch. I rent big white glass as needed, so my primary investment would be zooms in 16-400 range since I would sell current bodies whether D5 or1dxII.

I have a major trip in July and hope to have this sorted in time to buy the equipment and run through a couple of test cycles.

 

[GoldWing]

I thinks this is a mistake. My Ideal is to have two cards of the same type. So often, I'll shoot to two cards.. one for me one for the client. Both cards should be the same format. Why make me carry two types of cards? I like when one is filled the camera switches to the next and my workflow is working with one type of card all the time. I keep hearing about video... I'm a sports photographer, I shoot stills. If I want a video camera I use a dedicated video camera. I hope this is just a rumor.... as someone who shoots 5-10K shots each session, PLEASE keep my cards the same. My camera is a tool I need not some experiment for a product manger who can't relate to what sports photographers do every day!!!

We’re told that the upcoming Canon EOS-1D X Mark II will feature one CFast slot and one CompactFlash slot. We had been told Canon was going back and forth on whether they would offer dual CFast slots or not. This will be a nice tradeoff for photographers, and they can upgrade to CFast on their own time, instead of having to go out and buy a bunch of new cards when the camera launches.</p>
<p>I’m hoping there is a good safety device that prevents CFast cards from being jammed into the CF card slot, or we may have a rash of bent pins in people’s cameras. I’m sure Canon developers have already thought of this though.</p>
<p>I probably would have preferred dual CFast slots, but I may be in the minority.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[zim]

From a paying customer point of view I'd like to think that a pro using this camera would have a backup card in so buying cfast would be manditory

Yes but if there were two cfast slots buying two cfast cards would be mandatory.

Correct. But it seems like there won't be so Canon have considered the cost to the end user.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Was mentioned way earlier but didn't seem to register much attention. XQD would have to be licensed from Sony, right? - not something Canon would ever do I'm sure and that format is not an automatic winner or Nikon wouldn't offer both. From my reading XQD would be the worst choice.

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.

The one thing that might derail my 1dxII purchase is if Canon doesn't step up on sensor tech to match the D5. My focus at this time is wildlife and I want cleaner / useable high ISO with more DR (Shadows). I am honestly considering a move to Nikon if we get a rehash of the same old sensor with marginal improvement. The problem is that I HATE the Nikon interface and believe Canon has a better lens selection and ergonomics for my interest. I do like the Nikon D5/D500 combination for wildlife if tests and samples hold up. The win for me would be a leap in sensor tech for Canon and a new matched 1dx II and 7dIII. I have been a Canon user since the 10d/1ds and would hate to make the switch. I rent big white glass as needed, so my primary investment would be zooms in 16-400 range since I would sell current bodies whether D5 or1dxII.

I have a major trip in July and hope to have this sorted in time to buy the equipment and run through a couple of test cycles.

You need to do better research before succumbing to the hyperbole and bullS___.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Nikon-D4s-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___1062_945_753 go to the measurements link then the dynamic range tab, even DXO, who are extremely anti Canon biased, can't find a measurable difference.

At anything over 800iso there's zero difference in DR between a Nikon or Canon sensor, stop buying into the bullS___ and actually look at stuff.

 

[expatinasia]

Frankly I would be shocked if Canon does this.

If they put one CFast in the camera then there has to be some technology which will make use of the higher read/write speeds so I want that capability in both slots.

As photographers and videographers, we already have enough to think about without having to worry about which slot we are shooting to, and what happens when the CFast is full but we still want to keep shooting at the higher speeds, do we have to take the CFast card out and put a new one in?! What happens if we are mid-shoot? Or in the middle of an interview or whatever?!

That means the argument of not having to buy new cards is moot, as I would still need to buy two Cfast cards, one as a back up to the first one in case it fills etc.

If Canon does something like this, I might just keep using the 1DX Mark I as it works very well.

 

[mclaren777]

Umm are you sure about that?

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

Quite.

http://www.cnet.com/news/sandisk-on-new-xqd-memory-card-format-meh/

You can't have a successful media format without Sandisk on board.

 

[rdalrt]

I thinks this is a mistake. My Ideal is to have two cards of the same type. So often, I'll shoot to two cards.. one for me one for the client. Both cards should be the same format. Why make me carry two types of cards? I like when one is filled the camera switches to the next and my workflow is working with one type of card all the time. I keep hearing about video... I'm a sports photographer, I shoot stills. If I want a video camera I use a dedicated video camera. I hope this is just a rumor.... as someone who shoots 5-10K shots each session, PLEASE keep my cards the same. My camera is a tool I need not some experiment for a product manger who can't relate to what sports photographers do every day!!!

+1

 

[Zv]

Umm are you sure about that?

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

Quite.

http://www.cnet.com/news/sandisk-on-new-xqd-memory-card-format-meh/

You can't have a successful media format without Sandisk on board.

Seems successful enough so far. So Sandisk said they aren't interested right now but they could change their mind in the future and cash in, especially now with the D5 coming out.

This article is old. It mentions Lexar but I already showed a link to Lexar XQD cards so they changed their minds. Sandisk could too.

 

[tron]

259 Euros vs 88 Euros for 64GB cards (3 to 1 price ratio) does not seem like non-issue...

I look at it from a video perspective. My only interest in the 1Dx mkII is if they maximise the potential of the new sensor on the video side too—and that pretty much demands CFast (might also allow for better high fps performance).

I picked up my 128GB CFast 2.0 before christmas for around 230 Euro. When I bought my 128GB CF card for my 1Dc (when it was just released) I paid around 319 Euro.

Looking at some listings now for a 128GB at around 420 Euro—that stings…to the point of being prohibitive. But the Transcend is still listed at basically half that and other brands are bound to follow sooner rather than later. At the time of release I wouldn't be surprised if the 128GB dips below 200 Euro.

Of course normal CF cards are cheap! I would however guess that most of us wouldn't need to buy more of those... we already have enough!

OK my thoughts about it.

160MB/sec Extreme Pro are very reasonably priced. And they can be used in many cameras (1Dx, 5D3, 7D2, etc) too.

For the moment I have 2 5D3s and a 7D2. Previously I had a 5D2 and before that a 40D. Even then I used Sandisk Extreme. I wouldn't trust a Transcend. I am not saying it is a bad vendor but since my Sandisk cards have never failed I will continue using only these.

1DxII seems more sport and low light stills camera to me rather than a video one. There are video oriented Canon cameras. Video on 1Dx does does not seem a primary function otherwise there wouldn't be the Cinema version of 1 series... I would like to stress that I do not oppose to the use of video I am just saying that video is not 1DxII's primary purpose.

When I upgraded to 5D3 (from 5D2) I got SD cards to ensure I will have redundancy (by writing to both cards) for the most important photos. Now, by putting a CFast and a CF slot they will similarly make (at least some users) to buy a CFAST card for redundancy purposes. By getting a 128GB Sandisk Extreme Pro CFAST card (or 2 64GB cards) you just spend almost the mentioned 500$ advantage (mentioned price 6000 instead of 6500).

I agree however that if bent pins were a problem for some people (I do not have a bad experience) and CFAST cards have not this issue that is a clear advantage.

Some other thoughts. If they followed Nikon's example and we could change between 2 CF and 2 CFast cards that could probably be (among others) a cheap method to correct for a bent pin!

EDIT: I just saw that the speed of 64GB CFAST SANDISK EXTREME PRO is 240MB/sec and only the 128GB version has speed 440MB/sec.

 

[Loswr]

If they followed Nikon's example and we could change between 2 CF and 2 CFast cards that could probably be (among others) a cheap method to correct for a bent bin!

I doubt that sending the camera to the service center to swap out the card module will be cheap.

 

[douglaurent]

I think this is a mistake. Reminds me a bit of my old Porsche which had both cassette and CD players. If we can afford Canon's flagship camera, I would assume we can also afford CFast media.

-- peer

98% of people will use this for pictures, so 98% of people don't see absolutely any benefit from CFast.

Fast CF is more than enough for pictures.

So now we're catering to picture shooters, while making small compromise to the small minority who'll buy this for 4k.

Wrong. People will buy this because of video as well. If only for photos, the old 1DX would do it. Many photographers do need video nowadays (4K and not the 2008 style 1080p), and many Canon filmmakers do need 4K video that doesn't cost the ridiculous price of the C300II or has the limitations of the XC10.

 

[DavidA]

I plan to order the 1dxII when announced unless disappointed by the specs and lack of a truly new sensor (on chip ADC, etc). My personal preference is dual CFast. That said, I can work with either dual CFast or CFast + CF. The only thing I request with CFast + CF is a highly reliable feature to copy CFast to CF. That would give me more confidence to copy the CFast to CF + USB drive then reuse the CFast. I always leave my CF cards intact in the field until I can validate the backups, but this would let me have a little more confidence if I had to reuse the CFast in the field.

The one thing that might derail my 1dxII purchase is if Canon doesn't step up on sensor tech to match the D5. My focus at this time is wildlife and I want cleaner / useable high ISO with more DR (Shadows). I am honestly considering a move to Nikon if we get a rehash of the same old sensor with marginal improvement. The problem is that I HATE the Nikon interface and believe Canon has a better lens selection and ergonomics for my interest. I do like the Nikon D5/D500 combination for wildlife if tests and samples hold up. The win for me would be a leap in sensor tech for Canon and a new matched 1dx II and 7dIII. I have been a Canon user since the 10d/1ds and would hate to make the switch. I rent big white glass as needed, so my primary investment would be zooms in 16-400 range since I would sell current bodies whether D5 or1dxII.

I have a major trip in July and hope to have this sorted in time to buy the equipment and run through a couple of test cycles.

You need to do better research before succumbing to the hyperbole and bullS___.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Nikon-D4s-versus-Canon-EOS-1Dx___1062_945_753 go to the measurements link then the dynamic range tab, even DXO, who are extremely anti Canon biased, can't find a measurable difference.

At anything over 800iso there's zero difference in DR between a Nikon or Canon sensor, stop buying into the bullS___ and actually look at stuff.

I have done the research AND shot both Canon and Nikon in the field. I agree that there is very little difference in image quality at ISO 800 when you have good quality of light. In heavy twilight or overcast, I believe the Nikon sensors provides more details in shadows, I have never seen this type of measurement in lab results and it can make a big difference when shooting animals in predawn or twilight conditions. I would also not make additional investments in Canon or make a move without looking at the current offerings from both vendors. The reality is that even though I am a Canon user of 17 years, I am open minded. I have been a loyal Canon customer upgrading through their cycle of incremental and substantial upgrades. I have been provided oversight to companies that are maximizing their investment and so have no problem with companies delaying investments in infrastructure and technology to maximize profits. For me, I have reached the point that I plan to evaluate the alternatives before I invest another $18k-$20k (1dxII plus 200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4 TC) in their product. I believe Canon has the technology and ability to release a product superior to the completion and significant step up in capability for the customer. This will involve the commitment of marketing and investment in fabrication (or relationship with foundry) and taking some technology off the shelf. They have done incredible things improving there product on dated fabrication facilities and architecture. Can you imagine what they can accomplish if they are allowed to move to new fabrication process and include technology like on chip ADC. I am not bashing Canon, just want them to win my business with innovative product. The reality is that I want a killer 1dxII which will push me to buy the 200-400 to add to my kit. My concern is that they are too driven by conservatism (CFast _ CF decision), marketing and pushing the limits of investment return.

I should know better than to get into one of these discussion on a Canon forum. Open your mind folks, questioning your faith doesn't' mean you are an atheist or that that the other guy is an idiot and doesn't know what they are saying.

David

 

[tpatana]

I think this is a mistake. Reminds me a bit of my old Porsche which had both cassette and CD players. If we can afford Canon's flagship camera, I would assume we can also afford CFast media.

-- peer

98% of people will use this for pictures, so 98% of people don't see absolutely any benefit from CFast.

Fast CF is more than enough for pictures.

So now we're catering to picture shooters, while making small compromise to the small minority who'll buy this for 4k.

Wrong. People will buy this because of video as well.

At this point we can only guess, but I doubt not too many will buy this for video. There's tons of better options, especially non-Canon options.

 

[GoldWing]

I think this is a mistake. Reminds me a bit of my old Porsche which had both cassette and CD players. If we can afford Canon's flagship camera, I would assume we can also afford CFast media.

-- peer

98% of people will use this for pictures, so 98% of people don't see absolutely any benefit from CFast.

Fast CF is more than enough for pictures.

So now we're catering to picture shooters, while making small compromise to the small minority who'll buy this for 4k.

Wrong. People will buy this because of video as well.

At this point we can only guess, but I doubt not too many will buy this for video. There's tons of better options, especially non-Canon options.

I AGREE 6000%