The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Specifications?

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Wow, hats off to Nikon marketing for upping their game and sporting some serious, crApple-style RDF BS like "153 awesome AF points" and "3Million+ righteous ISO" with the requisite DPR praise release articles basically parroting the Nikon marketing department's e-mailed talking points.

- If Canon said the 5D & 5D MkII had "15 AF points (9 selectable)" instead of 9 pts. only you can bet the usual DPR Nikon fanb0is would be all over Canon, frothing at the mouth. But when Nikon announced the D5 having "153 AF points (55 selectable)", suddenly the fanbois are orgasmic in proclaiming it superior to the 1Dx MkII because it would "only have 61 points (ALL selectable)".

- If Canon also included H5: ISO 3280000 on the 1DX MkII these same fanbois would be angry because everybody knows those boosted ISOs are watercolor painting generators.

 

[whothafunk]

I'm super stoked about 1Dx2 (if rumors are true) just for the 14FPS, even better AF capabilities and even more clean high ISO. What's not to like. I won't be able to afford it for another 5 years, but 1Dx is getting there.

 

[pedro]

I'm super stoked about 1Dx2 (if rumors are true) just for the 14FPS, even better AF capabilities and even more clean high ISO. What's not to like. I won't be able to afford it for another 5 years, but 1Dx is getting there.

I hope for the 1DXII adopters, that their new gear will do flawless ISO 12800 and 25kish, very decent ISO 51200. One doesn't need a zillion of ISOs with fast Canon glass I guess...

 

[3kramd5]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

 

[Orangutan]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

Good question. Maybe the non-selectable points are inferior in some other way, e.g. less precise or not visible through the viewfinder for composition. If they're just to "assist" tracking then maybe they should be touted with that feature rather than simply counted.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I really didn't like Nikon ergonomics. My Nikon camera is gone and never coming back so what do I care about what Nikon has. Virtually everyone has praised the 1DX so I will undoubtedly be thrilled with the 1DX II.

This childish Nikon-Canon comparison stuff is pointless. OTOH evaluating what Canon has/hasn't done that they should/shouldn't have, makes some sense on a Canon forum. As others have said; don't like Canon in a big way - go to whomever, and let Canon die the economic death that's forecast. At that point you are welcome to ridicule me.

Jack

 

[tr573]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

It doesn't make them useless, but I think the point is that all these cameras had tracking "points" in between the selectable points before now. Just no company called them af points in their marketing - by this standard, the 7D2 has like 173 af "points" , because every single AF "point" in the 3 large zones is interconnected in a latticework fashion. The only place there isn't coverage is between the 3 zones. Same with the 1DX/5D3/5DS/R af sensor - with the exception of no horizontal coverage where the non cross type columns are.

Now, it's possible Nikon actually did something different here than what it sounds like on the surface, but until we see the AF sensor or more information about it, it seems like a marketing gimmick on the surface.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

Only weird if you didn't get the point. By this standard the 5D1 & 5D2 had 15 AF points instead of 9 in the marketing brochures, and the 70D & 7D2 would have ~16 Million AF points (80% of the pixels) in LV & Video. Get it now grasshopper?

 

[Loswr]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

Only weird if you didn't get the point. By this standard the 5D1 & 5D2 had 15 AF points instead of 9 in the marketing brochures, and the 70D & 7D2 would have ~16 Million AF points (80% of the pixels) in LV & Video. Get it now grasshopper?

1DIII spec lists 19 AF points plus 26 assist points. It was billed as a 19-pt AF system, not a 45-pt AF system. But hey, if deception helps sell cameras...

 

[3kramd5]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

Only weird if you didn't get the point. By this standard the 5D1 & 5D2 had 15 AF points instead of 9 in the marketing brochures, and the 70D & 7D2 would have ~16 Million AF points (80% of the pixels) in LV & Video. Get it now grasshopper?

It was weird not because I didn't get the point but because it was out of place.

The D5 is an action camera, and it's fair to assume that Nikon will tout its tracking ability. AF point count is clearly part of that touting. Whether they should follow canon's convention of listing those on a datasheet which the user can select or either they should follow their own is entirely up to them. At this price point, I don't think many buyers will say "well that one has 3 times the points so I'll buy it instead."

I suspect the D5 will be a good camera, and I suspect the 1Dx2 will be a good camera (for my uses, probably a "better" one given the totality of the canon infrastructure).

 

[tr573]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

Only weird if you didn't get the point. By this standard the 5D1 & 5D2 had 15 AF points instead of 9 in the marketing brochures, and the 70D & 7D2 would have ~16 Million AF points (80% of the pixels) in LV & Video. Get it now grasshopper?

It was weird not because I didn't get the point but because it was out of place.

The D5 is an action camera, and it's fair to assume that Nikon will tout its tracking ability. AF point count is clearly part of that touting. Whether they should follow canon's convention of listing those on a datasheet which the user can select or either they should follow their own is entirely up to them. At this price point, I don't think many buyers will say "well that one has 3 times the points so I'll buy it instead."

I suspect the D5 will be a good camera, and I suspect the 1Dx2 will be a good camera (for my uses, probably a "better" one given the totality of the canon infrastructure).

It's not that they are not following Canons convention - they have made up an entirely new one for this release different from their own past releases as well as everyone else's. So it smells like a marketing trick

 

[privatebydesign]

weird tirade about the Nikon D5

Does the fact that a user can not select all the AF points make them useless? One must presume that they still function. I don't think many people would want 150 selectable points, I turn off the non-cross type points on my 5D3, for example. But if they are still there doing something useful, eg tracking, the it's fair game to trunpet them.

Only weird if you didn't get the point. By this standard the 5D1 & 5D2 had 15 AF points instead of 9 in the marketing brochures, and the 70D & 7D2 would have ~16 Million AF points (80% of the pixels) in LV & Video. Get it now grasshopper?

1DIII spec lists 19 AF points plus 26 assist points. It was billed as a 19-pt AF system, not a 45-pt AF system. But hey, if deception helps sell cameras...

In a geek way this is kind of interesting, although I actually have too much work to do.....

The 1V was the camera that introduced the AF system to the 1 series (it originated in the EOS3) that worked through to the 1D MkIV, the 1DX/1DC is the only released 1 series DSLR that isn't based on that original 1V AF system. The 1V was sold as a 45 point system and all 45 points were selectable, it took forever to get the one you want too as it was pre joystick. Anyway, the 1D, 1Ds, 1D MkII, 1Ds MkII and 1D MkIIn were all sold as 45 point systems.

The 1D MkIII and 1Ds MkIII, were both sold as having 19 cross type and 26 assist points, even though it was essentially the same 45 point AF system. The 19 cross type points were the only ones selectable.


The 1D MkIV had essentially the same core AF system as all those previous cameras, that 45 point one, but they reverted to being able to select all 45 of them and called it a 45 point system.

Clearly Canon marketing only lead with, or classify, the AF by the number of points actually selectable. Even if the AF has 45 points if you can only select 19 fo them Canon call it a 19 point system, seems surprising given the hyperbole and over reach so common in marketing nowadays.

 

[rrcphoto]

Q mo

The D5 is an action camera, and it's fair to assume that Nikon will tout its tracking ability. AF point count is clearly part of that touting. Whether they should follow canon's convention of listing those on a datasheet which the user can select or either they should follow their own is entirely up to them. At this price point, I don't think many buyers will say "well that one has 3 times the points so I'll buy it instead."

it's the point. they "invented" some marketing that no-one outside of sony has ever done. such as touting D5's 4K ability. well sort of.

the last time Nikon did such a sneaky thing was with fps with the D3x. you had to actually buy the damned camera to figure out if you used it in it's highest IQ Mode - it slowed down to around 1fps

Considering that Nikon hasn't done much to enable trust with it's customer base, it's some odd maneuvering.

however, they probably got wind of the 1DX Mark II and felt they had to make a splash.

 

[PureClassA]

Re: Q mo

The D5 is an action camera, and it's fair to assume that Nikon will tout its tracking ability. AF point count is clearly part of that touting. Whether they should follow canon's convention of listing those on a datasheet which the user can select or either they should follow their own is entirely up to them. At this price point, I don't think many buyers will say "well that one has 3 times the points so I'll buy it instead."

It doesn't matter if it's an action camera, a studio camera, or camera built for shooting the world championships of tiddlywinks on ESPN 17. The market has an established practice of citing AF points. It counts those which are actual user selectable points. Not assist points meant for tracking. There is a difference. It's not a lie for Nikon to make the claim they have of the D5, but it's certainly misleading on the surface.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Q mo

Has Nikon ever had a camera with non-selectable points? The D4 and D4s don't appear to from the spec sheets.

 

[tr573]

Re: Q mo

Has Nikon ever had a camera with non-selectable points? The D4 and D4s don't appear to from the spec sheets.

Nikon doesn't publish the kind of close up photos of the af sensor that canon does so it's hard to say (or I'm bad at finding them) - one would assume that the d4 sensor is laid out as strips like canons are , and not 51 discrete af sensors , which means that they had the same assist 'point' areas between the selectable points, just like canon does. They just didn't market those non selectable areas of the af sensor strips as points before.

 

[tr573]

Re: Q mo

Has Nikon ever had a camera with non-selectable points? The D4 and D4s don't appear to from the spec sheets.

Additionally , if they didn't have coverage in between the user selectable points before , it would be a big surprise that 3D tracking works as well as it does. You need that coverage for good handoff from one point to another

 

[tr573]

Here's a brief explanation of what I mean

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/Z-7d2-65ptAF.jpg

That's the 7d mark 2 AF system. Each pair of lines you see on there opposite each other is a PDAF sensor - there's 30 of them total. Those sensors can be working on their own (in the case of single line direction sensors) or in concert with ones going the opposite direction (in the case of cross sensors). In this system, the UI breaks down the 30 PDAF sensors into 65 user selectable "points" , all of which are cross type, and the center is a double cross (that's the diagonal sensors on there)

The distance between the two pieces of each PDAF sensor pair is how sensitive they are - the horizontal and vertical sensors are all f/5.6 sensitive, and the high precision diagonal ones are f/2.8 sensitive (hence why they are spaced so much farther apart)

But looking at the layout, you can see that the AF 'points' you select in the UI actually have contiguous coverage between them, both horizontally and vertically, inside the 3 large zones (left, right and center) because it's not actually 65 discrete sensors on there, it's 30 large ones, which the UI breaks up into points to let you use just a portion of any one of them instead of the whole thing. (or an even smaller portion of them if you use the spot focus mode)

So all that contiguous area between the selectable points, is essentially "assist" points - when you are handing off point to point during tracking, the subject is still covered by the AF sensor and it can still see where it is and how it's moving before it reaches another user selectable point. Which is why I said if Canon counted the same way , they could tout that as a 173 point AF system, because there is over a hundred areas between the user selectable points that are still covered by af sensor. 102 actually, so I guess 167 rather than 173.

This is what the actual AF coverage area looks like
http://www.gauravmittal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Mittal_141217_27-Edit-2.jpg

So that's why a lot of us are suspect of what Nikon is claiming here - it's a very different way of counting AF points.

 

[Jack Douglas]

tr573, that was enlightening, thanks.

Jack

 

[rrcphoto]

17 pages.. 240+ comments.. and 80% of them about the GPS bump