What is it with this rage to compare Canon to Sony or Nikon? I compare Canon cameras to my requirements, technical and ergonomic, and they pass every test. I've nothing against Sony or Nikon, certainly they are fine cameras, but they simply aren't relevant to me, even if a certain specification may look better on paper. Out in the world, neither brand can make better photos than a Canon. As good, almost certainly. But not better. Nor is the race to higher and higher pixel counts, which is driven by marketing departments and Kool-Aid drinkers, and not by engineers or serious photographers who are too busy for such nonsense.Mmmhhh....
Sony is rumored to bring the A9II with 32-36 MP at the same fps the A9I has.
Canon will be a lot behind, if the sensor will not be in the same league (28-....MP).
What is it with this rage to compare Canon to Sony or Nikon? I compare Canon cameras to my requirements, technical and ergonomic, and they pass every test. I've nothing against Sony or Nikon, certainly they are fine cameras, but they simply aren't relevant to me, even if a certain specification may look better on paper. Out in the world, neither brand can make better photos than a Canon. As good, almost certainly. But not better. Nor is the race to higher and higher pixel counts, which is driven by marketing departments and Kool-Aid drinkers, and not by engineers or serious photographers who are too busy for such nonsense.
I was under the impression that people by the 1DX for stills, it is not a video camera. It does shoot video but the main purpose is stills, so I wonder why 4K,6K,8K, zillion K is the factor that matters that much? What does matter is FPS (should be over 14), ISO range (which is already very high), senosr dinamic range (using Dual focus as a means to increase dynamic range), noise reduction (in high ISO), sensor size, burst shooting. I would not really care for the video 4K, 6K, 8K or whatever. If I want video (and can afford the 1Dx) I would buy a video camera dedicated for that purpose.If he can't shoot 6k, I think this is my last year with a Canon...
That's risible. Blind tests show that viewers can't tell 720p from 6k unless they're about 2 feet from the screen.If he can't shoot 6k, I think this is my last year with a Canon...
Considering it is almost certainly the last of the 1series and users already have them and the card speed is easily up to the task I agree sticking with CFast makes more sense to me, which means they won't do it! Though I would much prefer two slots the same than mixed.Why dual CFexpress cards when DxII users already invested in the CFAST which is incredibly powerful cards still.
One Cfast and Cfexpress would have been perfect for legacy users. Damnit Canon -- why not protect the users who have bought your halo products instead of making them shell out more every 4 years?
Considering it is almost certainly the last of the 1series and users already have them and the card speed is easily up to the task I agree sticking with CFast makes more sense to me, which means they won't do it! Though I would much prefer two slots the same than mixed.
Ideally, were Canon to ask me (which they won't), I'd like two CFast slots.
From my regular viewing position of 15' from a 65" screen I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 1080, I don't know how that fits in with your 'fact,' which seems dubious anyway, because you don't even include a screen size. Do you mean 2' from a 20" screen or an 85" screen?That's risible. Blind tests show that viewers can't tell 720p from 6k unless they're about 2 feet from the screen.
Look I get it. CFexpress is faster and likely to be used as the standard going forward. But why force users to shift when it's easier to give them a choice. The ones who want to pay for top of the line cards can go the CFExpress route. I image that for 6k video CFexpress will be a minimum -- but leave the customer an option to keep using legacy storage...and CFAST isn't even that legacy! It was until a few years ago one of the fastest protocols out there. I just don't get it with Canon sometimes. It's like someone in a black suit is twirling his razer thin moustache and saying "yes...do that...that will annoy them."
Nikon did that with the D5 and XQD and CF cards. I dot think it worked out too well for them but who actually knows. For sure I never saw a D5 with CF cards....Look I get it. CFexpress is faster and likely to be used as the standard going forward. But why force users to shift when it's easier to give them a choice. The ones who want to pay for top of the line cards can go the CFExpress route. I image that for 6k video CFexpress will be a minimum -- but leave the customer an option to keep using legacy storage...and CFAST isn't even that legacy! It was until a few years ago one of the fastest protocols out there. I just don't get it with Canon sometimes. It's like someone in a black suit is twirling his razer thin moustache and saying "yes...do that...that will annoy them."
They could do a Nikon and launch a legacy dual CFast version and a dual CFExpress version. Franky, they should not have implemented CFast at all. SATA was already on its way out so they must have caught on that It was a dead end.
The problem with mixed cards is that the camera can only run at the slowest one. I basically never used the SD slot in my 1DS MkIII's because it slowed the camera down to the slower card, same with the 1DX MkII and CF ad CFast. Only the 1DX got dual CF cards and that can be used effectively with no speed penalty for genuine real time backup.
Wow! Bionic eyes!From my regular viewing position of 15' from a 65" screen I can easily tell the difference between 4k and 1080, I don't know how that fits in with your 'fact,' which seems dubious anyway, because you don't even include a screen size. Do you mean 2' from a 20" screen or an 85" screen?
No I have relatively poor acuity but I am 56. My wife, who is younger, can tell the differences even easier than I can. That doesn't mean I am particularly enamored with the 4k overly crisp look but as I have spent a lifetime looking at a smoother aesthetic to me 4k often jars my brain too much. I do like the look of overly fast shutter speeds to frame rate though so maybe I am unusual.Wow! Bionic eyes!
If he can't shoot 6k, I think this is my last year with a Canon...
If that is the conclusion you want to draw from the several real world examples I gave then feel comfortable with your opinion, clearly there is no point to anything I say...OK, so you can tell oversharpened pictures from those that are not.
That's risible. Blind tests show that viewers can't tell 720p from 6k unless they're about 2 feet from the screen.