One issue about resolution that is overlooked, how quick can you get the files transferred. Can the the wireless transmitter handle the higher resolution pictures, is the current transmitter limited in performance?
Upvote
0
I'm guessing so I could be wrong, but I imagine that most photographers who use the wireless transmitter are transferring jpgs for the sake of speed and file size. I doubt that higher resolution jpgs would be beyond the capability of the wireless transmitter and it it were, I would expect that Canon would either produce a new transmitter or upgrade the current transmitter through firmware if possible.One issue about resolution that is overlooked, how quick can you get the files transferred. Can the the wireless transmitter handle the higher resolution pictures, is the current transmitter limited in performance?
Nikon D6? Do you know someone who is testing it? And if so you compare a future camera with an old one?I have owned Canon gear for many years but have had opportunities to used the Nikon D6 and the Sony A92 for BIF. Canon has ground to make up in regards to AF tracking and stability. Hopefully, Canon will make advances with the 1DX3.
I would welcome 24mp, but I would welcome better low light performance more--for my shooting...
The completely silent Shutter is a big plus for wedding photographers or general event photographers.Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!
It depends on the improvement. If it is less than a full stop, I'll take more resolution. And, based on what people who understand these things better than I do have written on this forum and elsewhere, I doubt that a full stop of improvement is likely even at 20 mp. Of course, Canon may amaze us all with some massive leapfrog over all competitors in sensor performance, but based on what exists today I'm not holding my breath.
Compare the 1DII and the 5DIV and there is no significant difference in low light performance at 30 mp. As I've said before, I'd happily take a 1DX II with a 5DIV sensor and improved autofocus.
I used to shoot sports for CBS a a long time ago. Most of that goes to newspapers or magazines, or now, online mags who don’t print more than a lowered rez, small image. It’s rarely over 2,000 x 1500 pixels, and usually a lot smaller.This one does. Shooting sports means cropping, sometimes radical cropping. The more pixels available to throw away and still have a usable image the better.
Believe it or not, most mags use jpeg. It’s often speed to press that matters most. Nobody is sitting there fixing RAW images in the press room. It’s shoot, and transmit. Back at the mag, it’s select and print.I'm guessing so I could be wrong, but I imagine that most photographers who use the wireless transmitter are transferring jpgs for the sake of speed and file size. I doubt that higher resolution jpgs would be beyond the capability of the wireless transmitter and it it were, I would expect that Canon would either produce a new transmitter or upgrade the current transmitter through firmware if possible.
And those same pictures that I post at 1140 px wide on the website have to be available for publication at 300 dpi, sometimes in a double page spread in the college catalog, or put on display outside the gym or used on a banner or billboard. So please, don't tell me how you used to shoot on Tri-X and printed using a hot type letterpress at 72 dpi, so that should be good enough for everybody else.I used to shoot sports for CBS a a long time ago. Most of that goes to newspapers or magazines, or now, online mags who don’t print more than a lowered rez, small image. It’s rarely over 2,000 x 1500 pixels, and usually a lot smaller.
The completely silent Shutter is a big plus for wedding photographers or general event photographers...
True, but obviously a DSLR can never have a silent shutter AND a viewfinder with a mirror. So thats a compromise I am fine with.Just to clarify, the silent shutter is in live view mode only. I don't shoot weddings. But I do shoot events and a silent shutter in live view doesn't really interest me. I'll keep my R for silent shutter work.
Jeah on the photography side I totaly agree.
The video front is REALY exciting though. 4k RAW with 60fps on a canon fullframe... this is truely exciting! The 1DX II even competes with c200 and got a truely beautifull image (though the dynamic range and shadow details are quite bad compared to a blackmagic pocket cinema camera 6k for example or compared to the Panasonic S1H, which we both have in my studio).
The Mark III could get closer to a c500 (at least when it comes to resolution and pure image quality). Its truely promising =)
Remind me what the Sony A9II sensor resolution is? Was it 24MP? So you are technically saying Canon is a incompetent company if they released a specialist camera with sensor resolution 14% less measured along the longest side of the sensor?If, after they've strung out this release for an extra year, the iii has a 20.X sensor I'm going to Sony. I can't wait to complain about whatever they complain about in the AlphaRumors forums.
Seriously though, if they need to go with their little 20MP micro-sensor to match what Sony/Nikon/The rest of the world can do as far as IQ, ISO performance, etc. on larger sensors, then they're tacitly admitting their R&D/technology sucks.
If I saw a dramatic change of elite gymnastics photographers dropping Canon for any other single brand I'd think you had a point, but I don't so I don't.
But you will get the silent sguttewre in the MkIII.
View attachment 187817
Thank you. I regained my sanity.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.
Double page spread is 17MP.I do wonder if Canon may have distributed some test bodies wi
And those same pictures that I post at 1140 px wide on the website have to be available for publication at 300 dpi, sometimes in a double page spread in the college catalog, or put on display outside the gym or used on a banner or billboard. So please, don't tell me how you used to shoot on Tri-X and printed using a hot type letterpress at 72 dpi, so that should be good enough for everybody else.
Half a stop can make a big difference in low light settings. That’s a difference between say shooting at iso6400 and iso10000. That’s tangible.thank you.I disagree with this statement in my practice. I don't have a variable-controlled studio comparison, but when shooting football in low light, my 1DXii is significantly better than my R, which has essentially then same sensor as the 5DIV.
And yes, a full stop would likely not be reasonable, but a half stop would make a big enough difference for me to get excited.
No, I’m not going to tell you that, because it wouldn’t be true. But I did work in fashion and product photography before opening a commercial film lab in NYC with some people where we developed a professional Kodachrome line in conjunction with Kodak, and were one of the first labs to go digital in 1988 with “The Crossfield System” before Adobe asked us, in 1990, to become one of the first Adobe shops.I do wonder if Canon may have distributed some test bodies wi
And those same pictures that I post at 1140 px wide on the website have to be available for publication at 300 dpi, sometimes in a double page spread in the college catalog, or put on display outside the gym or used on a banner or billboard. So please, don't tell me how you used to shoot on Tri-X and printed using a hot type letterpress at 72 dpi, so that should be good enough for everybody else.