EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release

[fred_jb]

I wish people would read the material Canon have put out more carefully and not jump to premature conclusions. I've seen quite a few people inferring all sorts of things about AA filter strength, etc, and the effect on stills quality for the 1D X, which all seem to be traced back to a comment about reduced moire.

However, if you look at this carefully you will see that it is in fact part of a paragraph whch is talking about the video features of the camera, where the faster sensor readout and lower pixel count presumably allows video to be generated with less artifacts, including moire. Admittedly this paragraph could have been phrased better but I think it is pretty clear that they are talking about video output quality here.

Quote: "Unlike previous CMOS sensors found in other EOS DSLRs, the sensor in the EOS-1D X has been developed to excel not only at stills shooting but also when capturing Full 1080p HD Movie footage. Compared to the sensor found in the EOS 5D Mark II both the sensor in the EOS-1D X and the associated image processing have been developed to show reduced moiré patterning and false colour; offering greater detail and improved image quality. "

Fred

BTW - not referring to previous post which popped up while I was writing this one!

 

[traveller]

There are a lot of reasons for solid use of a 30+MP camera... As everyone I'm sure has read from me before, I'm a huge proponent for more MP, but with that being said, I also understand there's a place for every camera and every use... As i've mentioned before, in film days, a 35mm camera rarely was printed at anything bigger than 8x10... even at 8x10, with good old tri-x film (ISO 400), you could see some grain. Sometimes you would be daring and ask your lab (or push it in the darkroom) and pump out 11x14's, but you knew you were going to lose quality... Professional photographers knew and had in their back pocket MF cameras or even large format cameras for bigger prints...

Now adays with cameras we can pump out 16x20 practically without any interpolation with the 5d/7d printing at 300dpi. I have shot murals with my 7D that were put on tradeshow booths (20 feet wide) however they were still lifes and I was able to shoot the large scene in sections and stitch together to build a native file without any interpolation. Larger MP's would mean that I could do that with less stitching and make things essentially quicker, better, higher profit margin, however I hope that we keep in mind the limitations of the 35mm format and if you have the rare need for super large images, not to expect a 35mm to pull that off but instead look at MF with digital backs or LF with digital/scanning backs instead.

Maybe thats whats guiding Canons tactics? with the 645D around MF is now not that much more(in price and size) than a top end 35mm body like the IDs so is there going to be much of a market? Focusing on a 5D sized body seems like a maximses the advanatges of 35mm, cheaper(even a higher spec body) and smaller than MF.

I think that these comments hit the nail on the head. The 5D Mk2 killed off a lot of the amateur interest in the 1Ds line and affordable MF systems were putting increasing pressure on it from the professional point of view; Canon has reverted to the film era 1-series target audience with the 1 DX. I think that more MP will come with a 5D Mk2 replacement (which I would no longer bank on being called the 5D Mk3), targeted at the high end amateur market and those professionals that need a light-weight, high resolution solution.

 

[traveller]

On a different note:

1) No one spotted Frits van Eldik shooting the advertorial in Monaco then?

2) What the heck are the dual Digic 5s in the 1DX doing for their money? Pull me up for flawed logic if you know better:

1D Mk3 - 10fps x 10MP = 50MP/second for each Digic 3
1D Mk4 - 10fps x 16MP = 80MP/second for each Digic 4 (increase of 60%)
1DX - 12fps x 18MP = 108MP/second for each Digic 5 (increase of 35%)

And the 1DX has a dedicated Digic 4 for AF and metering. Pretty poor show for Digic 5 considering Canon have had three years to develop it (Moores Law anyone?). I am missing something?

 

[nikkito]

Maybe the next camera is a 5D X who knows?

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Why on earth would you need 30+ MP for a studio shoot? So you can print stuff on the sides of buildings?

As a matter of fact yes. Go to Macfly's website and you'll see that he does shoot images (movie promos, mainly) that do indeed go on the sides of buildings.

Seriously folks, it's bad enough to flame people, but flaming people without having a clue what their history and needs are is just ignorant.

Good, so go get a hasselblad if you want to do the job right, me and the 99.99% who don't need to print on the sides of buildings will be just fine. Of course their will always be special needs for special people, but for most of their market it's impractical.

Sandro, 1080- 4:2:2 @ 60fps means approx 120Mbs, that's probably pushing it.

 

[logaandm]

Regarding resolution:

I did a recent test of GH2, M9, 5DII and 645D. Tripod, good lenses, optimal aperture 200ISO. Pixel peeping you can see the differences but printed at 24x17 no differences in resolution are visible without a magnifying glass except that caused by the lens variation. Dynamic range differences were also difficult to see opn paper. Yes the 645D was better. I suspect the effect of the AA filter has more effect than any doubling of pixels.

To see these minor differences required setup and controlled conditions. If you are on the street shooting without time to set up the shot then AF speed and accuracy as well as lens attributes wide open will have more effect than MP.

Practical lens manufacture, diffraction and practical plane of focus and DOF probably give a useful upper limit of around 30MP for a 35mm full-frame sensor. Ultimately 18MP is more than adequate for 99.999% of the photography I do. Still, the nerd in me would have liked to see around 30MP - the same pixel pitch as the 7D and I am a bit disappointed.

OTOH ISO 200,000! Freezing motion in a dark night club - assuming you can focus!

Seriously, I think Canon made the correct choice. Much of photography and certainly the market for the 1DX, is not done on a tripod at 200 ISO. Image blurr due to motion or poor IQ at high ISO is usually the problem - not the number of megapixels.

 

[gmrza]

Why on earth would you need 30+ MP for a studio shoot? So you can print stuff on the sides of buildings?

As a matter of fact yes. Go to Macfly's website and you'll see that he does shoot images (movie promos, mainly) that do indeed go on the sides of buildings.

Seriously folks, it's bad enough to flame people, but flaming people without having a clue what their history and needs are is just ignorant.

There are a lot of reasons for solid use of a 30+MP camera... As everyone I'm sure has read from me before, I'm a huge proponent for more MP, but with that being said, I also understand there's a place for every camera and every use... As i've mentioned before, in film days, a 35mm camera rarely was printed at anything bigger than 8x10... even at 8x10, with good old tri-x film (ISO 400), you could see some grain. Sometimes you would be daring and ask your lab (or push it in the darkroom) and pump out 11x14's, but you knew you were going to lose quality... Professional photographers knew and had in their back pocket MF cameras or even large format cameras for bigger prints...

Now adays with cameras we can pump out 16x20 practically without any interpolation with the 5d/7d printing at 300dpi. I have shot murals with my 7D that were put on tradeshow booths (20 feet wide) however they were still lifes and I was able to shoot the large scene in sections and stitch together to build a native file without any interpolation. Larger MP's would mean that I could do that with less stitching and make things essentially quicker, better, higher profit margin, however I hope that we keep in mind the limitations of the 35mm format and if you have the rare need for super large images, not to expect a 35mm to pull that off but instead look at MF with digital backs or LF with digital/scanning backs instead.

It would be a clever marketing ploy on Canon's part to put out a 5DII successor with 30+MP. That would see a lot of professionals needing a 1D X and 5DIII - OK a lot have one or more 1DsIIIs or 1DIVs plus a 5DII already anyhow.
That way, Canon could put a very clear line between the intended purpose of the 1D X and the 5D line, and create more of a reason for people to have both!

Writing out 30+MP at 10fps is probably more than current storage and bus architectures can do, which may be one reason for sticking at 18MP for the 1D X. A large section of the market will be happy with a 30+MP camera that can do 3-5fps. - Of course that will not make everyone happy, but it will probably make Canon a lot of money!

 

[sanyasi]

Here is interesting commentary on the new Canon D1 X from a Leica user:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/page152/files/archive-16-october-2011.html

 

[justsomedude]

Looks like the 1DX is already in the history books. According to the ISO Film Speed listing on Wikipedia...

16 204800 First commercial SLR camera with this ISO equivalent: Canon EOS-1D X (2011)

 

[c.d.embrey]

I think this EOS-1D X seems like a great all-around camera, what most people really need. Good for hand-holding and low-light.

A high megapixel camera is a niche camera for low ISO tripod-mounted still life. Professional users that do still life probably rather use medium format anyway.

I use a Canon 1DsII/ 90mm TS-E for table top advertising shots. No-one has ever complained about the quality. For magazine use 16Mp is more than enough.

 

[nikkito]

I think 18 megapixels is ok. I kind of expected more megapixels than my current 5d mk II but from 21 to 18 is not like the super difference. I am a photojournalist and having the chance to crop my pictures when needed is important. But For me it's even more important being able to use high ISO values and still getting printable images. I very oft have to take photos in extreme low light and with high shutter speeds. So yes, I expected more megapixels but this camera seems very promising to me.
Conclusion: I'm gonna order one and then eat bread and butter everyday ;D

 

[c.d.embrey]

Bye bye Canon, hello Nikon.

You won't be seeing me here anymore, good luck with new Prosumer 18mp camera kids, and keep an eye on EBay, all my lenses etc will be there soon.

LOL you are jumping ship at the wrong time, but its ok. Go shoot nikon with and process the files on an AMD computer just to show the world you will not conform

You sound like a true fanboy. Cameras are just tools! If Nikon make a better tool for his use, why not switch???

 

[Gothmoth]

You sound like a true fanboy. Cameras are just tools1 If Nikon make a better tool for his use, why not switch???

yeah he should switch and bother nikon forums with his nonsense!!
i don´t care if he make pictures for billboards. he sounds like a troll.

"bah... im switching to nikon. i tell my mommy."

and who cares what camera he uses anyway?

i don´t care.. that´s for sure.. i sell them both nikon and canon (and medium format too). ;D

 

[c.d.embrey]

Something also tells me that the 'pro cinema' event is going to turn up some kind of movie hybrid of the X, but who knows.

Most likely it won't be a DSLR. I expect a REAL digital cinema camera, like a Sony F3. We will know very soon.

 

[c.d.embrey]

I do still-life work and portraits. I plan to invest in the next generation digitalbacks that go for around 8-9k. I was hoping to see better color profiles and DR in this camera, but for 7k for something that doesn't give me what I need, I am done buying Canon equipment. My 5D 6 years later still does the jobs it needs to do for smaller budget jobs.

I still use a 40D for some of my advertising work. If I need a Digital Medium Format, I just rent one. For me a 1D X doesn't solve any problems that I face, but I can see why others may like it.

 

[pj1974]

I believe the Canon EOS-1D X represents an exciting twist in Canon's line up of cameras. With the amount of photographers in the world today, and the hobby of digital photography still growing rapidly, the digital SLR market is huge, with identifiable market fragments and niches. The release of a 1 Series camera is both 'big news' for professionals looking for a new 1 Series, as well as for those not (or 'not yet') interested in 1 Series camera bodies. Like Formula 1 racing car technology, which affects every day cars on the road (after some time), a lot about what the 1D X is will eventually impact other cameras. I'll put it out there and say, the 'news', changes and technology of the 1D X is more exciting for me than the actual camera body itself that was announced 18 Oct 2011.

Currently I do not own a 1 series camera body, nor a full frame (FF) - though I have used full frame in the past. The Canon 7D is my current camera. When the 7D camera was announced about 2 years ago and its specifications were detailed, I knew that it was the most suitable camera for my needs (mainly accurate, fast AF, generally customisable body, drive speed, flexible ISO).

As an 18 MP FF camera, the 1D X is obviously quite different to the 7D which is an 18 MP 1.6x crop (APS-C) camera. I expect the 1D X will be an awesome low light and 'action' camera - with very low noise at relative ISO settings, very strong AF capabilities and the 12fps/14fps drive speed seems awesome. I expect some of the sensor R&D as well as camera body development will trickle down to benefit future cameras like the 7D mk II. I don't particularly want more than 18MP (for my personal needs). I've found the 7D's 18MP very handy for cropping. Dynamic range and ISO noise are important trade offs when more pixels are in a sensor.

Needless to say camera bodies can be used flexibly (eg I used my 7D very successfully for landscapes). However, just like many other commodities, there is a 'better tool for a certain job'. I think that the 1D X will indeed be a very suitable camera for professionals (or 'very enthusiastic hobbyists') at this stage... particularly with the 2012 Summer Olympics coming up in 10 months time. If the AF is very good - the 1D X is bound to be a winner (ie good seller and great tool for such sports), particularly when matched with some of the recently released tele lenses.

Over the years I've bought 8 lenses. 3 are EF-S type (ie suitable only for APS-C cameras), while the other 5 are Canon EF (ie suitable for both APS-C and FF camera bodies). I love taking photos that bring others joy, whether that's sharing something of the beauty in nature, or capturing a precious memory or 'event'. I take a wide range of photos - from landscape to macro to children camps to wildlife to family & church events. The areas of photography that I rarely indulge in are portrait, sports & architecture (though I do a bit of each of these occasionally, and very casually). My Canon 7D is a flexible tool for my needs, and I'm very happy with it.

I have little doubt that the new Canon EOS-1D X will do any type of photography better than my 7D, except perhaps for some wildlife situations (eg small birds) where the higher pixel density of the 7D might present one advantage. However I doubt that I'll ever buy a Canon EOS-1D X or other 1 Series Canon camera - mainly because of 2 factors: A) price (even though I can actually 'afford' it - I prefer to spend, invest or donate such money to other causes and B) weight (although I am reasonably fit and can carry a 1D, I prefer the comfort of a lighter combination).

Having written that, yesterday's announcement of the Canon 1D X still leaves me very excited. I can see Canon have thought long and hard about photographic needs, and answered with a powerful and I trust very effective tool. I expect there will other camera bodies announced in time which will cater to the studio, portrait, landscape segments (these probably having more than 18 megapixels) as well as the non-pro segment (cheaper / lighter).

The R&D and research that Canon have presented in the 1D X give me an indication that we can expect more good things to come. That's where I've got my eye on. Not that I expect my 7D will need replacing any time soon (unless I inadvertently damage it somehow). If there is a product to be announced that might convince me to buy it, that would be a Canon 50mm f/1.8 with ring USM, great bokeh, good contrast and sharp corner to corner wide open, and a close 'minimal focus distance'. Now that's what I'm really waiting for!

Thanks Canon for the new camera and innovations. Thanks to this website for the information and the positive posters for thoughts and being an online community. 8)

 

[neuroanatomist]

2) What the heck are the dual Digic 5s in the 1DX doing for their money? Pull me up for flawed logic if you know better:

1D Mk3 - 10fps x 10MP = 50MP/second for each Digic 3
1D Mk4 - 10fps x 16MP = 80MP/second for each Digic 4 (increase of 60%)
1DX - 12fps x 18MP = 108MP/second for each Digic 5 (increase of 35%)

And the 1DX has a dedicated Digic 4 for AF and metering. Pretty poor show for Digic 5 considering Canon have had three years to develop it (Moores Law anyone?). I am missing something?

If the reduction of moiré during video shooting is partly/mostly in processing as opposed to optics, onboard live video processing of that type is likely to place heavy demands on the processors.

 

[Gothmoth]

I do still-life work and portraits. I plan to invest in the next generation digitalbacks that go for around 8-9k. I was hoping to see better color profiles and DR in this camera, but for 7k for something that doesn't give me what I need

so you are the guy who has inside infos about the dynamic range of the new camera?
that´s great... because all the world is waiting for that info.
please share! 8)

 

[Ryusui]

Watch the sample movie , stop at 1 min 54 seconds - look at the noise....51200 ISO -
how does Nikon D3s look at this level?

Alot less noisy. How do you know it's iso 51200?

Really?

Nikon D700/D3 vs D3s High ISO Noise Comparison
That scene has to have at least twice the lighting in it, too.
I took a screenshot from the movie into Photoshop, cropped, enlarged to 300% before pasting the D3s shot into it.

 

[Gothmoth]

Watch the sample movie , stop at 1 min 54 seconds - look at the noise....51200 ISO -
how does Nikon D3s look at this level?

Alot less noisy. How do you know it's iso 51200?

Really?

Nikon D700/D3 vs D3s High ISO Noise Comparison
That scene has to have at least twice the lighting in it, too.
I took a screenshot from the movie into Photoshop, cropped, enlarged to 300% before pasting the D3s shot into it.

i say... better compare apple to oranges... makes more sense.
wait for test under identical and repeatable conditions.....

that said ... i do not doubt canon that noise is much reduced.
but comparing different scenes makes not much sense imo.