Canon EOS-1D X Mark III rumoured specifications [CR1]

[Michael Clark]

My guess that even if there were spare parts, for the cost of fixing any nontrivial problem with 1D Mark II you could buy two of those at KEH.

Not everyone lives in the U.S. or in a locale that has a resource as well stocked and ethical as KEH.

 

[Michael Clark]

How would people feel if the 1DXiii was a mirrorless R body, that had no blackout and Canon had solved all issues important to sports/bird photographers? I would actually like this as it would unify my kit, but I wonder if hard core DSLR 1DXii owners would welcome the new mirrorless arrival or would some be upset?

I would think the biggest complaint by pros would be the need for an adapter to all those big white lenses until the R versions came out.

The kind of pros we're talking about here use 1.4X and 2X extenders all of the time. "Adapter" is only a dirty word when it affects the usability/speed of the camera, such as when adapting lenses across brands.

 

[Mikehit]

First, my post addresses the AF of the 1DX2 for BIF. For that application, the 1DX2 AF struggles to hold focus in certain circumstances. The AF of the Nikon is measurably more stable. The schizophrenic behavior of the Canon AF is a problem which I hope will be improved in the 1DX3. It is a design issue which is not resolved with camera settings or shooter technique. Here is a link to a thoughtful comparison of the D5 and 1DX2 by one of the most knowledgeable BIF photographers. He succinctly describes the problem of the 1DX2 AF. Worth the read: http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/nikon-d5-review/

And he says up front

Cross comparing results for such subject as BIF is very difficult since the skill and the experience of the photographer is the most important factor in the output.

No-one doubts the Nikon is better, but everything Arash says refers to extreme situations and he has been quite open about that, and specific to BIF ( he even describes the differences in how they work and how that impacts BIF). And he has repeatedly says that for a vast majority of shooters (even a vast majority of BIF), the difference in the systems is not the important factor.
Yes, the Nikon is superior, but that is massive difference to saying Canon has 'a problem'. I can almost guarantee that if you managed to use both systems side by side to you would not notice any difference in keeper rate.

But hye, you continue on your path of confirmation bias....

 

[djack41]

And he says up front



No-one doubts the Nikon is better, but everything Arash says refers to extreme situations and he has been quite open about that, and specific to BIF ( he even describes the differences in how they work and how that impacts BIF). And he has repeatedly says that for a vast majority of shooters (even a vast majority of BIF), the difference in the systems is not the important factor.
Yes, the Nikon is superior, but that is massive difference to saying Canon has 'a problem'. I can almost guarantee that if you managed to use both systems side by side to you would not notice any difference in keeper rate.

But hye, you continue on your path of confirmation bias....

Confirmation bias??? lol. I own and shoot a 1DX2 with the EF 600mm F4 lll. I like my equipment but I am not brand blind. I have used both the D5 and the 1Dx2. Side by side. I shoot with buddies who own the D5. Today, we shot waterfowl on a nearby refuge. Fast flying birds against busy backgrounds. The AF of the D5 holds focus and produces far more keepers. Don't take my word for it, or Ari. Get off the couch and give both a try. BTW It is interesting and encouraging that Canon has recently stated the 1DX3 will feature increased density of AF points (like the D5) and improved AF tracking stability. Hopefully, Canon will fix the nervous AF problem for us BIF shooters.

 

[Mikehit]

I am not doubting that the D5 is better for bird in flight. Not at all - please show me where I have said otherwise.
If you bothered to read what I wrote, I was questioning your view that the 1Dx2 had 'a problem'. Fast flying BIF is a very specific issue where the differences between the cameras is discovered by a very small proportion of photographers in a very specific and high-stress (camera-wise!) situation where even Ari and Artie talk about increased keeper rate rather than doing something the Canon is unable to do. Yes, there is always room for improvement but the camera as it is has not stopped a gazillion high quality images from all branches of action photography and I feel you have misrepresented Ari's article to justify your undeserved comments. I am sure even Nikon can improve their AF - does that mean it has 'a problem'?

 

[tron]

Ari is a fantastic bird photographer.

His reviews

Nikon D5 Review – Ari Hazeghi Photography

vs

Canon 1D X Mark II field review – Ari Hazeghi Photography

however prove just that and the fact that both Nikon and Canon cameras are fantastic too.

And actually Canon's review contained more interesting (and possibly more difficult to take) BIF pictures.

 

[stevelee]

Nice photos, except that I can't tell which birds if any are actually flying and which birds are just soaring on air currents. They are all so sharp that they all look like the latter. Nothing to me suggests flight. Maybe "birds up in the air" would be a more accurate description.

 

[tron]

All photos taken with Nikon cameras are of birds that fly straight keeping the distance to the photographer more or less the same. So NO Big deal. All cameras would manage to take these pictures successffully especially if used by a competent photographer like Ari.

 

[tron]

In contrast, photographs taken with 1DxII show movement towards photographer (like "Juvenile falcon changing direction at high speed" and "Juvenile peregrine falcon screaming") and many show bird interactions on air.

Coincidence of course but all these prove that statements like Canon's AF is worse than Nikon's is tottally BS so the switch to Nikon seems to be made for totally different reasons.