From what I hear here, the IBIS crying crowds is not the 1D group. A few sure but not the actual working pro's from what I gathered.Just the latest thing to carry on about. First it was DR then card slots now stabilization. As if Canon hasn't had top tier lens IS all along.How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.
Re: 5.9k Raw Video
Canon will only offer 5.9k raw if they feel 'forced' to by Nikon and Sony, but would rather keep this capability at C500/C700 $$$.
Leaks like this and announcements about 'considering' offering XYZ are often signals to competitors - ie 'if you do we will too, but if you don't, we can all force the market to pay more.'
For example, Sony did with with their FX9 announcement, they 'may' offer more capability in the future (if competitors make the market hotter or anyone tires to trump them).
I suspect at least one CR informant is from inside Canon and occasionally sends strategic info with permission. If you can't stop the leaks, at least use them to your advantage from time to time.
I'd very much like illuminated buttons, not for when I am hand holding where muscle memory is plenty good enough, but for tripod mounted dawn, dusk, and night shots they would be much nicer than a night vision busting flashlight. A common scenario for me would be using a stupid high iso to get the exposure I want in a relatively speedy timeframe then changing iso, shutter speed and aperture to get much lower noise, this would be much faster with illuminated buttons. Dawn shoots are another example where I'd find them useful especially if Canon do the regular 1 series trick of moving one or two buttons, I cannot say how often I have missed the magnify button on the 1DX MkII because it changed place from my 1DS MkIII's and earlier.I've never understood what the big hoopla about illuminated buttons is. I rarely actually look at most of the buttons I push. I've already learned where they are before shooting in the dark with a new camera.
I run into AF limitations all the time and I know what I'm doing. Try shooting an elite gymnast in a highly sequined leo often against an extremely busy background, or a dancer in a head to toe black costume against a velour back drop...you'll find the limitations very quickly. A big Improvement in AF is about the only reason I'd quickly pickup a III. I don't need any more MP. Actually I could really use a vastly improved silent shutter mode for dance, but I'm pretty sure I have to wait for a pro mirrorless body to get that.
Let’s be real, the mark II is ok, as a owner of that and a 1dc there is a couple nice upgrades but nothing revolutionary, this mark iii has the potential to be what the mark ii should have been. I’ll take better pixels with better iso range and a camera that tracks as advertised over what we were sold on with the mark ii. I love the mark ii but it has a lot of short comings. This mark iii could be the ultimate DSLR but let’s hope canon doesn’t shit the bed like they oh so often do.
As a generalist I very rarely run into AF limitations, when I do it is invariably due to light limitations so my only real interest in AF improvements for DSLR's is in low light sensitivity.
Indeed I find the criticism of AF to be, in general, farcical when most people don't even know exactly what the three variables do and rarely if ever change them. I ignore anybodies comments about AF unless I know they know what they are talking about, people like Grant Atkinson, Ari Hazeghi, who not only shoot a lot but also intimately understand the specifics of the AF settings. I find AF so adjustable I will use different settings after I have been shooting for a half hour and gotten into the swing of things and then after a few hours I'll dial responsiveness down as I get tired.
Eye AF in a DSLR is a cute gimmick with very limited functionality outside video, at which point we go back to the video centricity of the majority of these improvements.
I think canon has kept the potential for “larger than 35mm“ up their sleeve with the RF mount. I think they have the ability to add at least 25% more area that fits under the design optimum image circle area, all the way up to roughly 42x28 (vs 36x24). Nikon has similar capabilities, if not a fraction larger. Sony doesn’t easily have that option with their much smaller diameter mount. However computational photography might open that up by using a sensor on rails. Making defocused areas focused by having detailed 3D models computed on the fly might be a thing in the future.How much for the lenses?
And I wonder if any newspaper or magazines even REALY print at 300dpi.Double page spread is 17MP.
I doubt if most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24, and probably wouldn’t want more that 24. That’s not the business for this camera.
PBD, the key poynt is: most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24No.
There are still 1DS MkIII holdouts that want, like or need the 1 series but also want and need more than the 20 odd MP they have had since 2007. I bought the 1DS MkIII when it was the only way to get that resolution, I refused to go backwards on resolution to the 1DX but really had to get new cameras after 10 years use so got the 1DX MkII's. I'd welcome any resolution increase in the 1 series and would pay very dearly for a high resolution 1 series with limited (comparatively) fps as the technological tradeoff for that higher resolution.
But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.