Canon EOS-1D X Mark II to Shoot 4K Video [CR2]

[Etienne]

This past weekend I shot a promo video for a local Crossfit, and guess what? I edited in a 720p timeline to punch in a little since we only had a 1 camera interview setup. Guess what? No one noticed. No one complained. I pitched it to a few of my video film buddies and they said they couldn't tell the difference.

They couldn't tell the difference between your 720p video and what? The 4K video you didn't show them?

I can't tell the difference between my a7r2 frames and the same frames taken with the prototype 120MP canon. Just saying.

720p and any other 1080p video I've showed them beforehand. The point being that 1080p is more than sufficient for just about anything, especially when 720p is still fine.

Being sufficient and being unable to tell a difference are not the same. I have DVD and BluRay copies of many movies. I'm happy watching DVD - it's sufficient. I can certainly tell the difference watching BluRay.

Go ahead and look at the 4k video that is coming from your A7r2. Ask almost any videographer and guess what? They prefer the look of the 1080p from the A7s. More resolution does not make a better image.

I don't even have compatible memory cards to record 4k on it; I don't shoot video.

Obviously more resolution doesn't necessarily* make a better image (and note I never used the word better). My point is: you can not tell the difference between two things when only one thing is presented.


*depending on the final medium, it may.

Why is it that every time a new technology is produced, there's a small army of "experts" asserting that it has no value, and we don't need it?

This has been played out a thousand times. Some blind users can't see the value in being able to crop a 4K image to 1080p, achieving zoom or pan effects in post? Just to mention a couple of glaringly obvious advantages.

I guess we have to ignore those who have absolutely no imagination and no inclination to improve their game ... again ... with the 4K revolution.

 

[ahsanford]

Sometimes I wonder whether the leaking of rumors is part of Canon's marketing strategy, both in terms of preparing people for products but also to see how people will react to certain feature sets.

Agree. Online forums with large Canon userbases are certainly mined for input, though how much weight (say) a Canon Rumors or Digicame or DPReview forum has may be quite limited compared to their retail partners -- B&H, Adorama, DigitalRev, etc. employ very knowledgeable people that likely are advising Canon what their customers want the most. Any solid corporation's marketing department listens to all channels and has a means to aggregate that information, tie specific wants to specific demographics, etc.

But keep in mind that Canon isn't on the bleeding edge of consumer tech. They don't have a massive counter-leak department spreading intentionally/specifically false specs to nail the employees or subcontractors who leak things. So I'd imagine that legitimate leaks likely happen from Canon at a much higher rate than from the companies with mic-dropping CEOs at annual meetings.

And of course, it's entirely possible that Canon doesn't need to author any leaks because the rumor mongers could already probably guess with 80% accuracy what we're getting next. Canon may just log in and listen.

- A

 

[romanr74]

A7RII and adapter ordered. Eagerly awaiting to see D820 specs late next year.

Bye then.

Lol

 

[romanr74]

I guess we have to ignore those who have absolutely no imagination and no inclination to improve their game ... again ... with the 4K revolution.

Feel free, but I have the strong feeling that Canon does not ignore the ignorant but significant portion of potential buyers that do not crop a 4k image to 180p, achieving zoom or pan effects in post...

 

[tvexecutive]

I'm a sports photographer. I use the 1DX to shoot sports. If we need or use a video camera to shoot sports it is NOTHING like a 1DX.

Even a cheap consumer Sony PXW-Z100 is better suited for video. If you shoot pro-sports and need serious equipment then a Sony PMW-F55 CineAlta is a beautiful piece of equipment as it shoot over 200fps for stunning slow-mo

We've know for years that the 1DX could be hacked to shoot video but that's not what "I" need as a sports shooter. I have to believe at 4K Canon's 1DX MKII would be for a VERY small user group. Why??? Why??? When there are so many better video options

Canon is on the cusp of real product reliability issues with my fellow sports shooters who use 1DX bodies. We ALL travel with 3 bodies now because of oil and debris issues with 1DX's we have to get the shot. Shooting stills for the Olympics in 2016 we want and improved 1DX not a video camera. We need a 1DX THAT DOES NOT SPEW OIL, freeze, stop focusing or blow a PCB.

Canon better get back to serving pro-users so we're 2-3 steps in front and not playing catch up. I don't need a video TOY. We pay $10,000 to $12,000 for our lenses to take amazing stills. A NEW 1DX that will NOT spew oil will be fine. Please not a another BOMB with service recalls, service advisories and units that BRICK. How about a camera without "issues" that allows pros to work without FEAR so we don't have to lug all these back-up bodies around.

Get back to BASICS CANON. You're going to lose a market that you'll NEVER get back

I also shoot sports, a lot of international events, and for stills the 1D X is the best there is.

But I also shoot a lot of video, and for the type of video I do the 1D X is terrific.

I can shoot sports and do the type of video I need to do all on one machine. How great is that! Especially because international travel is concerned so weight is an issue I need to watch.

If you are also a sport shooter then I doubt you will leave Canon because the 1D X II also does 4K. Same as you did not leave Canon as the 1D X can shoot video too. That's just too funny.

I'm more concerned with quality. I'm not shooting video for a major sports production that requires exceptional features "devoted" to video and slow-mo with a Canon 1DX. We're using a camera that starts at $22K before you even put on a lens or an advanced ENG pack to the truck to the dish. The REASON I use this example is the 1DX is at the TOP of it's game "for now" for shooting sports stills. That is WHY I use it. I'm not shooting in field remote fast action sports for the Olympics with a 1DX. THAT WOULD BE A JOKE. The 1DX is "THE" sports still camera. This is INSANE... The 1DX is not for equivalent Hi-END VIDEO for professional SPORTS where you need a DEVOTED PLATFORM for VIDEO optimized for SPORTS.

 

[scyrene]

Why is it that every time a new technology is produced, there's a small army of "experts" asserting that it has no value, and we don't need it?

This has been played out a thousand times. Some blind users can't see the value in being able to crop a 4K image to 1080p, achieving zoom or pan effects in post? Just to mention a couple of glaringly obvious advantages.

I guess we have to ignore those who have absolutely no imagination and no inclination to improve their game ... again ... with the 4K revolution.

It works both ways. Every time a new technology is introduced, there's a small army of "experts" who say any new product without it is dead on arrival, awful, useless, etc.

 

[ahsanford]

Why is it that every time a new technology is produced, there's a small army of "experts" asserting that it has no value, and we don't need it?

This has been played out a thousand times. Some blind users can't see the value in being able to crop a 4K image to 1080p, achieving zoom or pan effects in post? Just to mention a couple of glaringly obvious advantages.

I guess we have to ignore those who have absolutely no imagination and no inclination to improve their game ... again ... with the 4K revolution.

It works both ways. Every time a new technology is introduced, there's a small army of "experts" who say any new product without it is dead on arrival, awful, useless, etc.

I think it all depends on your needs. Some folks absolutely have a technical need or business necessity to have 50 MP stills, 4K video, etc. Others do not. Then we consider all of this through two painful 'discussion adulterators':

• Capital purchase anxiety -- folks always triple clutch before pulling the trigger on a bigger ticket item (camera, car, major appliance, TV, etc.) for fear of not having as-future-proofed-as-possible an item as they could.
  
  
• The internet has a spectacular ability to get people to club other people with their sensibilities/priorities/etc. like they are the only possible viewpoint anyone could have.
  
  

So it should be no surprise that a dream spec-list for one person is so wretched to another that they'll go nuclear and leave their current brand.

- A

 

[Tugela]

I have been a Canon shooter for 20 years +. I always felt Canon produced the best lenses and cameras on the market. Since the 5D Mark II, they have been falling behind the pack.

I once owned the 1DX but preferred the 5D Mark III due to the weight of the camera and lack of silent shooting (at least at multiple frames per second).

However, I now also own a Panasonic GH4 that I use almost exclusively for 4k video.

I have a hard time seeing myself plunk down at least 5k on a 1DX II for 4k video...and then we don't know what kind of features it will have. Things like focus peaking are a must.

If the 5D Mark IV doesn't have 4k, I guarantee you my next camera will not be Canon since nowadays I do just as much filming as photography.

For the past few years I have really grown to be disappointed in Canon's product line.

Their market share will continue to erode unless they come out with cameras that beat the competition.

AJ

Here we go again... Is their market share eroding? Hint: your personal experience is an anecdote, not data. Where's Neuro when you need him?

Erosion is one grain at a time. Grains that go downstream rarely go back upstream again, so a grain lost is a grain lost for good. Every time someone buys a GH4 or an NX1 or a A7RM2 instead of a Canon, that is a customer gone and a customer that isn't coming back until Canon produces a camera like those. In other words, every year they fail to produce a competitive hybrid is another year they are losing more market share to the competition who is.

These things don't happen overnight, you won't see Canon suddenly swept away, but be absolutely sure, the erosion is there. ILC sales are down, but mirrorless are constant and even increasing in some cases. That means the loss is primarily from DSLRs, and who makes DSLRs? Canon and Nikon, that's who. Those are the companies losing market share and they are losing it because they are not moving with the times. Dinosaurs might be the biggest badest critters around, but eventually they go extinct if they don't evolve with everyone else.

 

[3kramd5]

ILC sales are down, but mirrorless are constant and even increasing in some cases. That means the loss is primarily from DSLRs...

Only if the people buying mirrorless would otherwise have bought DSLRs. Maybe the DSLR market has reached saturation. Compare a visit to your local zoo today to the same zoo 10 years ago. Vastly more people have SLRs.

The sale of a mirrorless camera does not necessarily equate to the loss of a sale of a DSLR camera.

 

[canonic]

as much as I hate it since I love the Canon UI compared to Nikon and love the Canon lenses, maybe it's time even to just forget Canon and not even bother with the half-way solution of adding Sony to Canon and just go Nikon all the way, if the D820 is the A7R II but with DSLR AF, 6fps FF, 7fps APS-C crop mode, yeah bye Canon.

They jsut don't care, all they care is to deliver as little as they as slowly as they can and get away with it. Maybe that works for them, but it sure don't work for me. I can't shoot video or take shots with a short term stock report (and eventually, at some point, it's gotta eventually hurt them long term, even if it may still be some time out). But their whole attitude is nothing like the old Canon I used to know.

I have serious doubts the 5D4 will even get better DR and the on chip ADC. Maybe the 5D5. But who wants to wait? Many here in this particular rather rah-rah whatever they do forum maybe, but not me.

God do you always have to be so shrill! It actually gives me a headache! No products have been released yet and I, as I suspect most people too, couldn't give 2 figs with what you decide to spend your money on!

I am interested. I am glad that so many people are leaving canon. If a customer is gone, it is not only a camera less but a whole system (lens, flashes, etc. ...). Sure, canon is gettind the idea (see interview with Maeda), but canon dont really understand.
The Canon (5D4 or 6D2 or ...) position dont have to be relative to Canon (1DX or 1DC or ...), but rather to Nikon and Sony!

 

[canonic]

A7RII and adapter ordered. Eagerly awaiting to see D820 specs late next year.

Bye then.

sorry? ... happy? ... or just "S***, another one with more courage than i"?

 

[scyrene]

A7RII and adapter ordered. Eagerly awaiting to see D820 specs late next year.

Bye then.

sorry? ... happy? ... or just "S***, another one with more courage than i"?

Courage? To buy the product that best meets your needs? Everyone should do that - it's not courage, just sense. Actually, I was hoping that those who flood this forum with negativity do what's best for them and leave.

 

[scyrene]

I have been a Canon shooter for 20 years +. I always felt Canon produced the best lenses and cameras on the market. Since the 5D Mark II, they have been falling behind the pack.

I once owned the 1DX but preferred the 5D Mark III due to the weight of the camera and lack of silent shooting (at least at multiple frames per second).

However, I now also own a Panasonic GH4 that I use almost exclusively for 4k video.

I have a hard time seeing myself plunk down at least 5k on a 1DX II for 4k video...and then we don't know what kind of features it will have. Things like focus peaking are a must.

If the 5D Mark IV doesn't have 4k, I guarantee you my next camera will not be Canon since nowadays I do just as much filming as photography.

For the past few years I have really grown to be disappointed in Canon's product line.

Their market share will continue to erode unless they come out with cameras that beat the competition.

AJ

Here we go again... Is their market share eroding? Hint: your personal experience is an anecdote, not data. Where's Neuro when you need him?

Erosion is one grain at a time. Grains that go downstream rarely go back upstream again, so a grain lost is a grain lost for good. Every time someone buys a GH4 or an NX1 or a A7RM2 instead of a Canon, that is a customer gone and a customer that isn't coming back until Canon produces a camera like those. In other words, every year they fail to produce a competitive hybrid is another year they are losing more market share to the competition who is.

These things don't happen overnight, you won't see Canon suddenly swept away, but be absolutely sure, the erosion is there. ILC sales are down, but mirrorless are constant and even increasing in some cases. That means the loss is primarily from DSLRs, and who makes DSLRs? Canon and Nikon, that's who. Those are the companies losing market share and they are losing it because they are not moving with the times. Dinosaurs might be the biggest badest critters around, but eventually they go extinct if they don't evolve with everyone else.

Well sure. Although are you assuming that every Canon customer who jumps ship will never return? Your gravity analogy suggests it (even ignoring that fact that eventually those grains will be thrust back up as mountains during future orogenies). Why should they not jump back if and when a product takes their fancy?

The figures - that's the point though. ARE the figures saying Canon's customer base is eroding due to people leaving for other brands? I'd love to see the evidence, instead of biased anecdotes. I don't deny it could be happening, but I need evidence to believe in things.

 

[scyrene]

Why is it that every time a new technology is produced, there's a small army of "experts" asserting that it has no value, and we don't need it?

It works both ways. Every time a new technology is introduced, there's a small army of "experts" who say any new product without it is dead on arrival, awful, useless, etc.

The primary reason is simple: fear of the new and unknown.

There is also another reason: new features in a new camera make my camera older (in terms of features) and therefore worth less if I sell it.

Why would anyone *fear* new features in a consumer tech product? And camera bodies lose value pretty fast regardless, unlike lenses.

Here's an idea: maybe it's not just negative. Maybe some people focus on other things. Incremental improvements to existing features, say.

 

[canonic]

A7RII and adapter ordered. Eagerly awaiting to see D820 specs late next year.

Bye then.

sorry? ... happy? ... or just "S***, another one with more courage than i"?

Actually, I was hoping that those who flood this forum with negativity do what's best for them and leave.

Yeah, and the world will be a better place if "i" hope so ... dont hope too much; its better for your healthiness.

 

[3kramd5]

But are there more or less people with them than 1 year ago and how many now have other cameras with long focal lengths?

There are probably fewer because people use phones and compact cameras. Again, that doesn't necessarily equate to the loss of a DSLR sale, as the person may already have a DSLR and want something fundamentally different. "I bought this, but not in place of a DSLR, because it was buy this or buy nothing at all."

Is there a way to quantify people buying mirrorless instead of DSLR? That's market loss, but I don't know if the data is out there in any accessible way.

 

[emko]

I have been a Canon shooter for 20 years +. I always felt Canon produced the best lenses and cameras on the market. Since the 5D Mark II, they have been falling behind the pack.

I once owned the 1DX but preferred the 5D Mark III due to the weight of the camera and lack of silent shooting (at least at multiple frames per second).

However, I now also own a Panasonic GH4 that I use almost exclusively for 4k video.

I have a hard time seeing myself plunk down at least 5k on a 1DX II for 4k video...and then we don't know what kind of features it will have. Things like focus peaking are a must.

If the 5D Mark IV doesn't have 4k, I guarantee you my next camera will not be Canon since nowadays I do just as much filming as photography.

For the past few years I have really grown to be disappointed in Canon's product line.

Their market share will continue to erode unless they come out with cameras that beat the competition.

AJ

Here we go again... Is their market share eroding? Hint: your personal experience is an anecdote, not data. Where's Neuro when you need him?

Erosion is one grain at a time. Grains that go downstream rarely go back upstream again, so a grain lost is a grain lost for good. Every time someone buys a GH4 or an NX1 or a A7RM2 instead of a Canon, that is a customer gone and a customer that isn't coming back until Canon produces a camera like those. In other words, every year they fail to produce a competitive hybrid is another year they are losing more market share to the competition who is.

These things don't happen overnight, you won't see Canon suddenly swept away, but be absolutely sure, the erosion is there. ILC sales are down, but mirrorless are constant and even increasing in some cases. That means the loss is primarily from DSLRs, and who makes DSLRs? Canon and Nikon, that's who. Those are the companies losing market share and they are losing it because they are not moving with the times. Dinosaurs might be the biggest badest critters around, but eventually they go extinct if they don't evolve with everyone else.

Well sure. Although are you assuming that every Canon customer who jumps ship will never return? Your gravity analogy suggests it (even ignoring that fact that eventually those grains will be thrust back up as mountains during future orogenies). Why should they not jump back if and when a product takes their fancy?

The figures - that's the point though. ARE the figures saying Canon's customer base is eroding due to people leaving for other brands? I'd love to see the evidence, instead of biased anecdotes. I don't deny it could be happening, but I need evidence to believe in things.

Look even the official White House photographer is now using a A7RII instead of his 5D3, how can you not see the constant flow of pros switching from Canon to Sony?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/21511378622/

 

[expatinasia]

I'm a sports photographer. I use the 1DX to shoot sports. If we need or use a video camera to shoot sports it is NOTHING like a 1DX.

Even a cheap consumer Sony PXW-Z100 is better suited for video. If you shoot pro-sports and need serious equipment then a Sony PMW-F55 CineAlta is a beautiful piece of equipment as it shoot over 200fps for stunning slow-mo

We've know for years that the 1DX could be hacked to shoot video but that's not what "I" need as a sports shooter. I have to believe at 4K Canon's 1DX MKII would be for a VERY small user group. Why??? Why??? When there are so many better video options

Canon is on the cusp of real product reliability issues with my fellow sports shooters who use 1DX bodies. We ALL travel with 3 bodies now because of oil and debris issues with 1DX's we have to get the shot. Shooting stills for the Olympics in 2016 we want and improved 1DX not a video camera. We need a 1DX THAT DOES NOT SPEW OIL, freeze, stop focusing or blow a PCB.

Canon better get back to serving pro-users so we're 2-3 steps in front and not playing catch up. I don't need a video TOY. We pay $10,000 to $12,000 for our lenses to take amazing stills. A NEW 1DX that will NOT spew oil will be fine. Please not a another BOMB with service recalls, service advisories and units that BRICK. How about a camera without "issues" that allows pros to work without FEAR so we don't have to lug all these back-up bodies around.

Get back to BASICS CANON. You're going to lose a market that you'll NEVER get back

I also shoot sports, a lot of international events, and for stills the 1D X is the best there is.

But I also shoot a lot of video, and for the type of video I do the 1D X is terrific.

I can shoot sports and do the type of video I need to do all on one machine. How great is that! Especially because international travel is concerned so weight is an issue I need to watch.

If you are also a sport shooter then I doubt you will leave Canon because the 1D X II also does 4K. Same as you did not leave Canon as the 1D X can shoot video too. That's just too funny.

I'm more concerned with quality. I'm not shooting video for a major sports production that requires exceptional features "devoted" to video and slow-mo with a Canon 1DX. We're using a camera that starts at $22K before you even put on a lens or an advanced ENG pack to the truck to the dish. The REASON I use this example is the 1DX is at the TOP of it's game "for now" for shooting sports stills. That is WHY I use it. I'm not shooting in field remote fast action sports for the Olympics with a 1DX. THAT WOULD BE A JOKE. The 1DX is "THE" sports still camera. This is INSANE... The 1DX is not for equivalent Hi-END VIDEO for professional SPORTS where you need a DEVOTED PLATFORM for VIDEO optimized for SPORTS.

I do not understand at all, what you are getting at.

The 1D X is the best sports camera for stills currently available. You seem to agree on that.

The 1D X II will be an even better sports camera, retaining the title of best sports camera for stills available.

The fact that Mark I shoots HD video does not seemed to have affected your shooting of stills, in just the same way that if the Mark II can shoot 4K video it won't affect your shooting of stills either.

So where is the problem?!

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is suggesting that the 1D X II is going to compete with the C300 or any other dedicated video/broadcast camera. That frankly is crazy.

If your primary concern is video, then get a video camera. If your primary concern is stills then get a stills camera. But don't get upset when the manufacturer tells you that they have built in a few other useful features for you. From memory the C-line can even take stills!

BTW your caps lock seems to be broken. :

 

[scyrene]

I have been a Canon shooter for 20 years +. I always felt Canon produced the best lenses and cameras on the market. Since the 5D Mark II, they have been falling behind the pack.

I once owned the 1DX but preferred the 5D Mark III due to the weight of the camera and lack of silent shooting (at least at multiple frames per second).

However, I now also own a Panasonic GH4 that I use almost exclusively for 4k video.

I have a hard time seeing myself plunk down at least 5k on a 1DX II for 4k video...and then we don't know what kind of features it will have. Things like focus peaking are a must.

If the 5D Mark IV doesn't have 4k, I guarantee you my next camera will not be Canon since nowadays I do just as much filming as photography.

For the past few years I have really grown to be disappointed in Canon's product line.

Their market share will continue to erode unless they come out with cameras that beat the competition.

AJ

Here we go again... Is their market share eroding? Hint: your personal experience is an anecdote, not data. Where's Neuro when you need him?

Erosion is one grain at a time. Grains that go downstream rarely go back upstream again, so a grain lost is a grain lost for good. Every time someone buys a GH4 or an NX1 or a A7RM2 instead of a Canon, that is a customer gone and a customer that isn't coming back until Canon produces a camera like those. In other words, every year they fail to produce a competitive hybrid is another year they are losing more market share to the competition who is.

These things don't happen overnight, you won't see Canon suddenly swept away, but be absolutely sure, the erosion is there. ILC sales are down, but mirrorless are constant and even increasing in some cases. That means the loss is primarily from DSLRs, and who makes DSLRs? Canon and Nikon, that's who. Those are the companies losing market share and they are losing it because they are not moving with the times. Dinosaurs might be the biggest badest critters around, but eventually they go extinct if they don't evolve with everyone else.

Well sure. Although are you assuming that every Canon customer who jumps ship will never return? Your gravity analogy suggests it (even ignoring that fact that eventually those grains will be thrust back up as mountains during future orogenies). Why should they not jump back if and when a product takes their fancy?

The figures - that's the point though. ARE the figures saying Canon's customer base is eroding due to people leaving for other brands? I'd love to see the evidence, instead of biased anecdotes. I don't deny it could be happening, but I need evidence to believe in things.

Look even the official White House photographer is now using a A7RII instead of his 5D3, how can you not see the constant flow of pros switching from Canon to Sony?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/21511378622/

Darling, that's another ANECDOTE.

I just wish people would either present their opinions as such, or give empirical evidence to back up generalisations. "This guy I know" is not the latter, no matter how high up he is.

Maybe people are fleeing Canon. I just wish people making that assertion would use evidence to support it. EMPIRICAL evidence. Is that too much to ask?

 

[tvexecutive]

Thanks for making MY point. I want a camera devoted to stills. It's what I do for a living in the sports industry. The 4K video means NOTHING to me. As a matter of fact it's just ANOTHER thing to go wrong.

If I want to fry an egg... I'll use a frying pan not a FF sensor in a 1DX shooting 4K video.

I've got 3 working copies of 1DX's now that took forever to get right with repairs. Sure they SPEW oil, but with 3 copies I'm safe shooting 10,000 frames per day and only once have I had to dig into the 3rd because the first two were so BAD you could not shoot. This happened on a tropical shoot in very warm weather and the viscosity of the oil in the mirror box of the 1DX was just a mess. Bricked the first 1DX.. no focus at all... The second got so dirty and the lag showed me it was about to freeze next.... The third body got me through the day. The issue was the tropical heat and humidity.

I'd rather Canon FIX my issues, forget the VIDEO and allow me to buy (2) two 1DX MKII's vs. having to lug 3 around with my 2.8 70-200; 2.8 300mm and f/4 200-400. In the studio we use $200,000 lenses. In the field for sports video it's a $22,000 body & also expensive lenses. MY POINT is that a 1DX serves NO purpose at ALL to "me" with video. I will NEVER use it. I wish Canon would devote their efforts for the 1DX to stills and forget the video. Let the people shoot with the C300's it's not a 240 or 260 fps SONY but it's a platform devoted to "good quality" video. FIX the 1DX... Redesign the mirror box.... Improve the color... Add across the frame cross focus points... Add radio control for flashes and strobes with on camera IR for low light focus... Add "multipoint" AUTO AWB .... Add bracketing of light metering modes.... Add more DR... My batteries last ALL day please don't screw with them... Refine the 6 focus cases... Allow me to wirelessly dump to a 2-3TB portable HD... Adopt a Canon Workflow Solutions Team to work on Production through Post centered on the 1DX platform to include adoption of ADOBE tools that correctly work with the Camera Standard with all of Canon's "A" lenses..... I could go on but won't.... So I'll leave my post saying I don't want or need 4K video on MY 1DX. I just wan the BEST sports camera in the WORLD and I'll pay whatever the price is to have (2) working bodies at all times.

I'm a sports photographer. I use the 1DX to shoot sports. If we need or use a video camera to shoot sports it is NOTHING like a 1DX.

Even a cheap consumer Sony PXW-Z100 is better suited for video. If you shoot pro-sports and need serious equipment then a Sony PMW-F55 CineAlta is a beautiful piece of equipment as it shoot over 200fps for stunning slow-mo

We've know for years that the 1DX could be hacked to shoot video but that's not what "I" need as a sports shooter. I have to believe at 4K Canon's 1DX MKII would be for a VERY small user group. Why??? Why??? When there are so many better video options

Canon is on the cusp of real product reliability issues with my fellow sports shooters who use 1DX bodies. We ALL travel with 3 bodies now because of oil and debris issues with 1DX's we have to get the shot. Shooting stills for the Olympics in 2016 we want and improved 1DX not a video camera. We need a 1DX THAT DOES NOT SPEW OIL, freeze, stop focusing or blow a PCB.

Canon better get back to serving pro-users so we're 2-3 steps in front and not playing catch up. I don't need a video TOY. We pay $10,000 to $12,000 for our lenses to take amazing stills. A NEW 1DX that will NOT spew oil will be fine. Please not a another BOMB with service recalls, service advisories and units that BRICK. How about a camera without "issues" that allows pros to work without FEAR so we don't have to lug all these back-up bodies around.

Get back to BASICS CANON. You're going to lose a market that you'll NEVER get back

I also shoot sports, a lot of international events, and for stills the 1D X is the best there is.

But I also shoot a lot of video, and for the type of video I do the 1D X is terrific.

I can shoot sports and do the type of video I need to do all on one machine. How great is that! Especially because international travel is concerned so weight is an issue I need to watch.

If you are also a sport shooter then I doubt you will leave Canon because the 1D X II also does 4K. Same as you did not leave Canon as the 1D X can shoot video too. That's just too funny.

I'm more concerned with quality. I'm not shooting video for a major sports production that requires exceptional features "devoted" to video and slow-mo with a Canon 1DX. We're using a camera that starts at $22K before you even put on a lens or an advanced ENG pack to the truck to the dish. The REASON I use this example is the 1DX is at the TOP of it's game "for now" for shooting sports stills. That is WHY I use it. I'm not shooting in field remote fast action sports for the Olympics with a 1DX. THAT WOULD BE A JOKE. The 1DX is "THE" sports still camera. This is INSANE... The 1DX is not for equivalent Hi-END VIDEO for professional SPORTS where you need a DEVOTED PLATFORM for VIDEO optimized for SPORTS.

I do not understand at all, what you are getting at.

The 1D X is the best sports camera for stills currently available. You seem to agree on that.

The 1D X II will be an even better sports camera, retaining the title of best sports camera for stills available.

The fact that Mark I shoots HD video does not seemed to have affected your shooting of stills, in just the same way that if the Mark II can shoot 4K video it won't affect your shooting of stills either.

So where is the problem?!

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is suggesting that the 1D X II is going to compete with the C300 or any other dedicated video/broadcast camera. That frankly is crazy.

If your primary concern is video, then get a video camera. If your primary concern is stills then get a stills camera. But don't get upset when the manufacturer tells you that they have built in a few other useful features for you. From memory the C-line can even take stills!

BTW your caps lock seems to be broken. :