New 1Dx announced by Canon

bigrob

bigrob

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,225
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Replaces 1D Mk IV and 1Ds Mk III.

Oh baby I WANT one AND it looks like a 1D so er indoors will never know :D

Now where is the nearest bank & has anyone got a shot-gun I can borrow?

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/eos-1d-x-canon-usa-press-release/

Now as it's Full Frame I need to ditch my 300/2.8 and get a 400/2.8

Anyone know the lottery numbers for this coming Saturday.

Seriously if this delivers then WOW.

Any comments from a Sports Shooter perspective?
 
And just for Gary here is the news on the 215 billion AF settings. So take your laptop with you to configure...


Quote

"A new AF Configuration Tool allows for customized setting of tracking sensitivity, the acceleration and deceleration of tracking subjects, and AF point auto switching, all of which are easily accessed and adjusted via the new AF menu tab. A built-in Feature Guide advises photographers on which settings to use according to subject matter."
 
Just noticed - ditch all those SD Cards as it's now Dual CF cards.
 
Looks good but why on earth do Canon and Nikon force video upon us i will never know, they should have 2 seperate models, if you want video then buy that model, if you dont then buy the other.

Only downside as far as sports shooters and due to the junmp to full frame will be the need for all those guys with 300mm lens to upgrade to 400mm lenses unless the High ISO is so good you can put an extender on, if you already use an extender then its hard lines, you will need to buy the 400mm.

14fps is overkill as well, 9/10 is plenty and i certainally wouldnt want to be sifting through another 40% worth of files after a shoot

However it does look nice and the high ISO could almost bring it level with a Nikon D2H
 
Gary Coyle said:
Looks good but why on earth do Canon and Nikon force video upon us i will never know, they should have 2 seperate models, if you want video then buy that model, if you dont then buy the other.

Only downside as far as sports shooters and due to the junmp to full frame will be the need for all those guys with 300mm lens to upgrade to 400mm lenses unless the High ISO is so good you can put an extender on, if you already use an extender then its hard lines, you will need to buy the 400mm.

14fps is overkill as well, 9/10 is plenty and i certainally wouldnt want to be sifting through another 40% worth of files after a shoot

However it does look nice and the high ISO could almost bring it level with a Nikon D2H
Click to expand...

Seeing is believing here, Quote from CPN

The increased processing power, combined with the improvements in sensor design, has permitted an increase in high ISO performance with a gain of two stops over the EOS-1D Mark IV in the normal range (to ISO 51,200) before ISO expansion is set.

I think if this is true,It will bring the 1DX up to the levels of the Nikon D3s

Anyone seen a price yet ?
 
About $6800 body only I think it's been mentioned
 
Tugster said:
Seeing is believing here, Quote from CPN

The increased processing power, combined with the improvements in sensor design, has permitted an increase in high ISO performance with a gain of two stops over the EOS-1D Mark IV in the normal range (to ISO 51,200) before ISO expansion is set.

I think if this is true,It will bring the 1DX up to the levels of the Nikon D3s
Click to expand...
Itll take it beyond the DS3 Tug by about 1 stop plus the extra cropability of 18 megapixels.
 
"shoots at up to 14 frames per second and at up to ISO 204,800, and offers a high-precision 61-point AF system."
 
Gary Coyle said:
Thats just plain silly given you will be paying for some things you either dont want or even need.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Do pros ever use the video?
I wouldnt of thought so.

Anybody buying this certainly isnt buying it for its video ability, it would make far more sense to offer the pro dslr's without video. But then they wouldnt be able to charge £6k for it
 
paully said:
Exactly.
Do pros ever use the video?
I wouldnt of thought so.

Anybody buying this certainly isnt buying it for its video ability, it would make far more sense to offer the pro dslr's without video. But then they wouldnt be able to charge £6k for it
Click to expand...

Many of the press on the nationals use video/stills & it's almost a must have if you want to freelance for them!. Not for sport of course but general shooting. Even the YP guys (my regional paper) where given Panasonic Lumix's for the video before they invested in D3s's.
 
Bluesman graham said:
Many of the press on the nationals use video/stills & it's almost a must have if you want to freelance for them!. Not for sport of course but general shooting. Even the YP guys (my regional paper) where given Panasonic Lumix's for the video before they invested in D3s's.
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^ what he said. Having the capability to shoot video for a news website is pretty much mandatory now.
 
But as this is the sports forum and we all know were not allowed to shoot video in sports stadiums so whats the point in it, bleeding camera manufacturers just trying to scam us a bit more.

Personally while i think Canon have unveiled a potentially great camera they have shot themselves in the foot here by losing the 1.3x crop which was a major plus in their favour for sports photographers.
 
Gary Coyle said:
But as this is the sports forum and we all know were not allowed to shoot video in sports stadiums so whats the point in it, bleeding camera manufacturers just trying to scam us a bit more.

Personally while i think Canon have unveiled a potentially great camera they have shot themselves in the foot here by losing the 1.3x crop which was a major plus in their favour for sports photographers.
Click to expand...
this might see people moving to nikon even more so if nikons new offering are as predicted.
As you say gary most sports togs use the 1d for the 1.3 crop.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Personally while i think Canon have unveiled a potentially great camera they have shot themselves in the foot here by losing the 1.3x crop which was a major plus in their favour for sports photographers.
Click to expand...

Or maybe a wise move to force sports photographers to buy the 400mm at a considerably higher price.

I still have a 1D III. I think I'll rather save up for a second hand 400/2.8 IS & a a second hand 1D MK IV. That's probably in the region of £7200 and a better buy for me.

I'm sure I read they'd be making 7000 of these a month. Now no-one has said if they have started making these in any number yet. I guess that they will need to stop production of the MK IV before they can build at that rate.

Hence I predict shortages for at least 6 months after they release it in March.
 
Gary Coyle said:
But as this is the sports forum and we all know were not allowed to shoot video in sports stadiums so whats the point in it, bleeding camera manufacturers just trying to scam us a bit more.

Personally while i think Canon have unveiled a potentially great camera they have shot themselves in the foot here by losing the 1.3x crop which was a major plus in their favour for sports photographers.
Click to expand...

I typed a nice eloquent reply just as Matty shagged the hamster and broke the forum! :lol:

Yup I completely agree. Dropping APS-H, or at least the ability to switch it on in camera, is a mistake in my opinion and has basically created a ******* child of the 1D & 1Ds series which is neither one nor the other.

Somehow they are going to have to pull a robust, large MP count, 'pro' level (and I hate that expression) camera out of the bag if they intend to keep editorial and commercial photographers onboard, or at least those using 35mm, because 18 Mp just isn't going to cut it in the modern market.
 
DemiLion said:
Somehow they are going to have to pull a robust, large MP count, 'pro' level (and I hate that expression) camera out of the bag if they intend to keep editorial and commercial photographers onboard, or at least those using 35mm, because 18 Mp just isn't going to cut it in the modern market.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are going for high number of sales instead - which I see as a good move personally.
 
Frankly Rob, that would be daft and partly suicidal.

Canon are already the massed market leaders when it comes to volume sales in comparison with Nikon, and they don't need to boost their rating in that field (apart from greed of course). Where they are continually challenged is in the high end professional sector, in which Nikon are probably edging the lead at the moment, and in the sports and news arenas.

The reason that Canon needs to figure highly in these areas (as does Nikon) is profile; think white lenses at No 10 and Wimbledon etc etc. This is exactly why Nikon was offering such generous 'buy 'em and scrap 'em' trade in terms to the leading agencies and news organisations to switch to them from Canon.
 
Mark

I see this as perfect for sports and news. Maybe not for commercial bill board work and OK magazine type work but I bet it sells like hot cakes & brings in good profit & I would say the magazine photographers are in short supply compared to the sports/news guys.

I read somewhere that they are planning output at 7K a month. How many would they be making if it was £8K and 36Mp?

Not only profit but it'll be the testing ground for the "stuff" that filters down to the consumer models.

And I bet we'll see plenty of these at Wimbledon, Olympics, F1, Boxing, Horsey stuff (as you do as best I remember) and everywhere else.

I am not saying that they wont bring out a MF competitor though.
 
Personally i think its a mistake and really doesnt offer to sports togs any significant improvement over the MKIV, its still 18mp, its still got useless video, 12-14fps is overkill and at 14fps it wont track, it goes into "one shot mode" which is useless for sports togs and who on earth wants to shoot 12fps in Raw, and the MKIV produces the goods at decent high ISO's already, you will also need to upgrade to very, very expensive lenses to maintain the "reach" the 1.3x crop of the MKIV gave you, oh and it's 2k more expensive plus the extra cost of lenses.

Of course the agencies will buy them eventually but will the individual, i seriously doubt it and as for the nature guys, theyll be gutted at losing the extra focal length of the 1.3x crop.
 
Last edited:
That's why I plan to buy a MK IV second hand.

I do wonder if they might stick the APH-C sensor in a 7 series type camera though. I appreciate that, that wouldn't be any good for pro sports photographers but could be a big market there.
 
I really don't understand the complaining about video. If you can hammer out 18MP RAW at 14FPS or whatever, all the electronic infrastructure is there to support video, so why not?
 
Yep I'm there with you Chris. Makes no commercial sense not to put it in.

I for one am really for it. Although I have a £2.5K camcorder which I use for my kids rugby/football matches etc, I'd love to be able to do quick and dirty stuff :) with the camera.
 
DemiLion said:
Somehow they are going to have to pull a robust, large MP count, 'pro' level (and I hate that expression) camera out of the bag if they intend to keep editorial and commercial photographers onboard, or at least those using 35mm, because 18 Mp just isn't going to cut it in the modern market.
Click to expand...

Just a thought from me and maybe I am totally wrong but the modern market is moving away from printed matter and moving towards online/electronic media so why is there a need to have such big files. If these files are good enough to go to print with a D3s at 13mpx (approx) why the need for a 30+ model for the media we are craving/being pushed towards? Maybe the new technology will let files be interpolated better?

Just some thoughts.
 
mid_gen said:
I really don't understand the complaining about video. If you can hammer out 18MP RAW at 14FPS or whatever, all the electronic infrastructure is there to support video, so why not?
Click to expand...
But you cant at 14ps, yes you can shoot 14fps but only in one shot mode which is of no use to a sportsphotographer as things tend to move and need to be tracked so whats the bleeding point in it, i mean surely we all love to shoot static subjects at 14fps dont we.!!!!!!
 
Gary I think he meant, that if the camera handle that amount of data through put then why not add video.

These are not and never ever will be digital stills cameras any more. It would be counter productive for Canon to have two models, one with and one without video with the video less one being a hundred quid cheaper.

You could have exactly the same argument with the mobile manufacturers. Why put video in my iPhone/Desire/Captivate etc as I never use it.

The argument that this is a professional tool and should be used for only one purpose (stills) will never ever win out.
 
Gary Coyle said:
But you cant at 14ps, yes you can shoot 14fps but only in one shot mode which is of no use to a sportsphotographer as things tend to move and need to be tracked so whats the bleeding point in it, i mean surely we all love to shoot static subjects at 14fps dont we.!!!!!!
Click to expand...
the only thing i can see it being used for is macro work like insects coming out of there cocombe and things like that maybe, but no good for sport.
 
scottthehat said:
the only thing i can see it being used for is macro work like insects coming out of there cocombe and things like that maybe, but no good for sport.
Click to expand...

What about golf...the player usually stands still (not me I hasten to add :lol:)
 
tiler65 said:
What about golf...the player usually stands still (not me I hasten to add :lol:)
Click to expand...
But now the golfer will in effect be 30% further away due to the loss of crop factor, or the tog will have to get 30% closer and risk a severe *******ing from the clerk of the course. :lol:

Anyway, like i said, potentially a great camera but now with a more limited market.
 
Do you think it will be a success at the Olympics then Gary?

Doesn't the extra mpx help when cropping the final edit - what are the ratios from say a D3s to the new 1dX.....just curious if you will be able to tell the difference once 'cropped' to the same size. (I understand more editing required to crop afterwards is not always what a pitchside man wants to do)
 
I think the argument about video is a non starter, it's a software issue which does not improve or detract from the hardware element of the camera, there is no real cost to implement video so no reason not to have it. Once video was put in the firmware it's was here to stay, all the manufacturers are going to have it in every camera, now the cat is out the bag they will never put it back.


As for the 14fps I totally agree with Gary, I can not see any use for it at all, only for Canon to say our FF camera does 14, which is more than anyone else.

I too think they will have to come out with an S version at some point, 18mp is rather small these days on a full frame, the 5D and Sony are already higher than Canons top model.


I can't see them having APS-H again, it just makes it simpler for them to have two size FF & APS-C
 
tiler65 said:
Do you think it will be a success at the Olympics then Gary?

Doesn't the extra mpx help when cropping the final edit - what are the ratios from say a D3s to the new 1dX.....just curious if you will be able to tell the difference once 'cropped' to the same size. (I understand more editing required to crop afterwards is not always what a pitchside man wants to do)
Click to expand...

What extra mp, a whole 2mp, wow, do you really think that will offset losing 30% extra reach

Double the pixel count and you dont increase the print size by a factor of 2, its about 25% so a measly 13% increase in pixel sixe will gain you about 3-4%
 
Last edited:
Gary Coyle said:
What extra mp, a whole 2mp, wow, do you really think that will offset losing 30% extra reach

Double the pixel count and you dont increase the print size by a factor of 2, its about 25% so a measly 13% increase in pixel sixe will gain you about 3-4%
Click to expand...


Not against a 1dMkIV mp count against a D3s mp count...I thought I wrote that, ah well.
 
Do you mean £4999 at the point it is actually available for purchase Gary?

It's at £5299 now which is just a get your orders in and we'll see what the demand is like price.

So it wouldn't take much to drop it to the £4999 price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top