EOS-1D X Canon USA Press Release

thepancakeman

If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
Aug 18, 2011
476
0
Minnesota
DarkKnightNine said:
No problem, The Leica S2 is a borderline Medium Format camera that has a huge 37MP sensor in lightweight camera no bigger than a Pro body DSLR. Not to mention that sensor is about 60% larger than a FF 35mm camera. It's great for fashion or studio photographers who need extreme detail in their shots and/or know their images will be blown up to billboard sized advertisements. You can read more about it here: http://s.leica-camera.com/

So basically it really is just the MP because you're blowing stuff up to such huge "print" dimensions? Makes sense.

Honestly I believe that Canon will also be releashing a high MP body as well, but wanted to kick off the new lines focusing on IQ. That's just my completely uninformed opinion, but for $50k I'd definitely hold out a little longer and see what they come up with. (Unless of course you're going to lose $50k of business in the next 3 months by not having the higher MP in which case it's a no brainer. ;) )
 
G

GeorgeMaciver

Guest
Billboard sized photographs were being produced when 3 and 5 megapixel cameras were considered huge. How come 18 megapixels isn't enough? I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely curious :D
 
G

Gothmoth

Guest
GeorgeMaciver said:
Billboard sized photographs were being produced when 3 and 5 megapixel cameras were considered huge. How come 18 megapixels isn't enough? I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely curious :D

maybe today people tend to press their nose against billboards? i don´t know.

but viewing distance seems not to matter.
in fact i have seen companys who offer 16 feet wide billboards printed with 600 DPI.

for the billboards i know that makes no sense.. i never come close enough.
but hey if you can.... maybe some think they have too...
 
Oct 12, 2011
457
2
www.carolineculler.com
GeorgeMaciver said:
Billboard sized photographs were being produced when 3 and 5 megapixel cameras were considered huge. How come 18 megapixels isn't enough? I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely curious :D

Because it is now cost-effective to print really high resolution billboards. But its still only noticeable at close distance.
 
E

eos650

Guest
GeorgeMaciver said:
Billboard sized photographs were being produced when 3 and 5 megapixel cameras were considered huge. How come 18 megapixels isn't enough? I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely curious :D

Back when 3 and 5 megapixel cameras were considered huge, people were most likely still using film for billboards.
 
S

senduran

Guest
thepancakeman said:
So basically it really is just the MP because you're blowing stuff up to such huge "print" dimensions?

I doubt that's the main reason fashion photographers need the MP. Mostly it is the need for crop flexibility.

If you're shooting a look book or catalogue and have to get X looks done per day, you might only have a few minutes or less to get the best possible shot of the clothes that also captures the "perfect" pose and expression from the model. You can try and get good coverage on it, but it's going to happen that the client thinks everything is perfect about a full-length you took - but they also want a close-up of the clothes from that same shot to show the detail in the dress. And they want to display that close-up at some large print size in their showroom.

Even when shooting a full-length that actually gets used as a full-length shot, given the limited time you can't risk part of the clothing or model moving out of frame. At the same time, you may need your model being dynamic, so her limbs/clothing may be moving unpredictably. Yet you need to capture that perfect, interesting pose, and you only get one chance. So you must shoot deliberately wide with plenty of space around the model, and crop for the best composition afterwards.

So, you need the MP. But the medium-format cameras suck compared to dSLRs from Canon/Nikon in everything except the MP count. So, you want a high MP Canon dSLR. So, you will be disappointed by the 1D X when Canon claims it is a replacement for the 1Ds, which itself didn't have enough MP; you were hoping for an upgrade, not a downgrade.

Still, you should wait for the 5dIII announcement before giving up on Canon entirely.
 
E

eos650

Guest
When shooting sports, there is always a trade off between getting a tight shot and possibly missing the action. Higher megapixels allow me to back off a bit, giving me a better chance of catching the action, while allowing me to crop a tighter shot, after the fact.

Just like senduran's modeling example above, you don't often get a second chance.
 
J

jeremymerriam

Guest
Mark D5 TEAM II said:
Also, bigger micron pixels means a more likely bigger AA filter.

That's the first time I read something like that. Not trying to start an argument with you, but this is inaccurate. The original 5D had comparatively huge 8.2µm photosites and it had one of the (relatively) lightest AA filters of any Canon DSLR, which contributed to its great IQ that still kicks the crap out of any cropper to-date. Also, the 1Ds3 & 5D2 shared the same 21MP sensor but the former had a lighter AA filter, so the size of a sensor's photosites doesn't determine the relative strength of its AA filter.

So are you saying that large pixel sizes don't affect moire? I am curious how larger microns do not translate into a greater likelihood of moire issues (without some in-camera software fix). Please explain.
 

candyman

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 27, 2011
2,214
59
www.flickr.com
First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on
 

K-amps

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 8, 2011
1,790
2
Indianapolis
candyman said:
First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on

In US, it is more like 4.5 cameras... (based on current prices /rebates)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,820
4,262
K-amps said:
candyman said:
First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on

In US, it is more like 4.5 cameras... (based on current prices /rebates)

Seems there's an assumption that the increase is linear, when it's not. Actually, it's more like 2 cameras. Plotting the prices of current cameras from the T3/1100D through the 5DII, the best curve fit is a 2nd order polynomial (R2 = 0.99344). Extrapolating that curve upwards, the next increment is $3600, then $5000, then the $6800 1D X. Replotting the data including the $6800 price of the 1D X, fitting a 4th order polynomial curve, and interpolating that curve by integer units also yields two intervening models, but with approximate prices of $4000 and $5300.
 

Meh

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2011
702
0
neuroanatomist said:
Plotting the prices of current cameras from the T3/1100D through the 5DII, the best curve fit is a 2nd order polynomial (R2 = 0.99344)...

Neuro is the best. Love it. +1
 

K-amps

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 8, 2011
1,790
2
Indianapolis
neuroanatomist said:
K-amps said:
candyman said:
First pricelisting in the Netherlands €6.799 (current 26/10 dollar rate: $9,461)

Between Canon 7D and Canon 1-D X there is a price gap of at least 3 camera's. Bring them on

In US, it is more like 4.5 cameras... (based on current prices /rebates)

Seems there's an assumption that the increase is linear, when it's not. Actually, it's more like 2 cameras. Plotting the prices of current cameras from the T3/1100D through the 5DII, the best curve fit is a 2nd order polynomial (R2 = 0.99344). Extrapolating that curve upwards, the next increment is $3600, then $5000, then the $6800 1D X. Replotting the data including the $6800 price of the 1D X, fitting a 4th order polynomial curve, and interpolating that curve by integer units also yields two intervening models, but with approximate prices of $4000 and $5300.

Made me smile :) Thanks John.

The next time Canon deviates from a 2nd order polynomial, i'll create a new thread and ping ya!
 

dr croubie

Too many photos, too little time.
Jun 1, 2011
1,382
0
senduran said:
So, you need the MP. But the medium-format cameras suck compared to dSLRs from Canon/Nikon in everything except the MP count.

Medium Format cameras suck now?
DXOmark scores (I don't think they've tested the Leica S2 yet):

Colour depth:
PhaseOne IQ180: 26.5bits, P65+: 26.0bits, P40+: 25.3bits
D3X: 24.7bits
Leaf Aptus 75S: 24.7, Hassy H3Dii 50: 24.7, Pentax 645D: 24.6, P45+: 24.2, H3Dii 39: 24.2
1Dsmk3: 24.0, Sony a77: 24.0
So 3x MF before the D3X, then 5 more before the 1Ds3 and Sony a77.

Dynamic Range:
D3X: 13.7EVs
IQ180: 13.6
a77: 13.2
P40+: 13.0, P65+: 13.0, P45+: 12.9, H3Dii 50: 12.7, Pentax 645D: 12.6, H3Dii 39: 12.5, Leaf 75s: 12.5
a900: 12.3, a850: 12.2
1Ds3: 12.0
So the D3X wins and Sony is 3rd. But still 8 more MF backs and 2 more Sonys before the 1Ds3.

ISO doesn't count because you're in the studio, and neither does FPS (you find me a flash that can recycle 12fps), and AF doesn't count either for sit-down portraits with narrow-ish aperture. Most MF cameras have leaf shutters, so have higher XSync speeds than 35mm. As for lenses, they may cost a lot more than the canikony types, but you get a lot of lens. And don't forget the AA filter on MF is a lot less intrusive, and the diffraction-rolloff aperture is a lot higher in number.

If MF backs/bodies suck, it's in the price tag, and the weight, although Nikon's D3X is giving them a run for their money (at not much cheaper than the Pentax 645D though). Canon's got a lot of catching up to do by the looks.
 
P

Picsfor

Guest
couldn't believe it when i saw this thread in its 16th page.

Expected to see the Nov 3rd thread getting a good work over.

I've had my play with it - it more suits my needs than a 5D2, and yes i can afford to lose those 3mp. But i'll wait to see the production model reviewed to see what aspects have been changed or tightened up...

See you on the 3rd...
 

pwp

EOS R6
Oct 25, 2010
2,530
24
HurtinMinorKey said:
GeorgeMaciver said:
Billboard sized photographs were being produced when 3 and 5 megapixel cameras were considered huge. How come 18 megapixels isn't enough? I'm not being sarky here, I'm genuinely curious :D

Because it is now cost-effective to print really high resolution billboards. But its still only noticeable at close distance.

I've had absolutely no problem producing billboards with the 1D4. Frankly the most recent project just knocks my socks off. And it's a slight crop of the original file.

This is well and good, but other posters on this thread are absolutely correct when they point out that one of the HUGE benefits of more megapixels is for cropping freedom. And there will be a lot more cropping going on when APS-H (x1.3 crop) shooters have little choice but to update to Mr X.

Has anyone done the math on pixel dimensions of an X file cropped by a factor of 1.3? Is it smaller than a 1D4 file?

Paul Wright
 
1

100

Guest
pwp said:
Has anyone done the math on pixel dimensions of an X file cropped by a factor of 1.3? Is it smaller than a 1D4 file?

18.1/1.3^2 = 10.71 mp
That's about a 1DIII file (10.1 mp)
 

pwp

EOS R6
Oct 25, 2010
2,530
24
100 said:
pwp said:
Has anyone done the math on pixel dimensions of an X file cropped by a factor of 1.3? Is it smaller than a 1D4 file?

18.1/1.3^2 = 10.71 mp
That's about a 1DIII file (10.1 mp)

Yikes! Better buy another 1D4! There will be a black market in them before you know it...

Paul Wright
 
J

Joseph

Guest
First off - I appolagize if anyone already mentioned this :

I was on the phone with Canon U.S today , and was asking questions about pre-ordering the 1DX , during this conversation the lady I was on the phone with said the release date would be April - instead of March , I really hope this is wrong since I am ready to buy this RIGHT NOW - but all the same, I tohught I should share what I heard .