now i'm impressed with canon again. finally bringing it all together in one body. unfortunately i still have the taste of the 1D3 hanging around. hope it has the durability and promised performance. have at it boys and girls. you deserve it after all that incremental mediocrity
Pixel Perfect wrote:
And 1 stop more at the other end. Should be excellent in low light, addressing the one criticism of the 1D IV.
Well, Pixie, it is much more than that. One stop increase in AF point light sensitivity means a significant boost in AF response with all lenses, at most of practically encountered light levels.
With 1DX, your 500 f/4 should now AF very similarly to your 300 f/2.8 IS.
A lens with a huge defocus range such as 800L, should also become more AF agile on 1DX.
The incidence of focus search initiation will be reduced. That way the user should experience less "lens hunting" and faster lens AF move in initial acquisition.
All that ought to translate more readily into improved keeper rates.
Now, what remains is to see what out friend Rob Galbraith has to say about the "proof of the pudding".
Sp12 wrote:
Where's my increased megapixel density. This is much worse for sports and BiF.
If you think BIF photography effectiveness hinges on pixel density, then you can always stick to your 7D.
Beautifully detailed OoF images.
At first the pictures of the new cameras looked a lot like crude Photoshop collages that appear on rumor sites. Almost too many buttons. The Canon joystick blows, as well - I'm surprised it wasn't axed in favour of 60D-like control. I hated the joystick on my old 30D; so happy that my current 1D Mark II N doesn't have one.
The upside is that 1D Mark IV may become more affordable now.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Petal lucky you have the 800L already to go with this pixel challenged beast, although it's still a fair bit better than the 1D II for pixels per loon.
That's not bad at all. Any loss in pixel density relative to a camera such as 7D, should be offset (to an extent unknown yet) by improved focussing and cleaner files.
PetKal wrote:
That's not bad at all. Any loss in pixel density relative to a camera such as 7D, should be offset (to an extent unknown yet) by improved focussing and cleaner files.
The one thing that is not clear is whether AF is still available with f/8 combos. Another evil ploy to get us to buy 200-400L and sell the 100-400L.
PetKal wrote:
That's not bad at all. Any loss in pixel density relative to a camera such as 7D, should be offset (to an extent unknown yet) by improved focussing and cleaner files.
Peter, it sounds like you never were lucky enough to get everything out of the 7D pixels
The AF system of this new 1DX actually inherits some of its qualities from the 7D. From Canon Europe:
"To improve focus accuracy, all 61 AF points feature a dual-line zigzag arrangement, as seen on three AF points within the EOS 7D. This arrangement provides the best aspects of both increased pixel pitch for finer precision and increased AF tracking speed with extra data points, without any of the drawbacks of either solution alone, allowing for both fast and accurate AF.
Five of the central AF points, arranged vertically down the mid-line of the frame, function as Dual-Cross type AF points with lenses featuring an f/2.8 or faster maximum aperture (as seen on the central AF point of the EOS 7D). This means they are also arranged with a diagonally orientated AF point in an ‘X', plus a conventional horizontally and vertically arranged AF point, like a ‘+', offering increased focus precision."
So far, it has not been written that the 1DX will AF with f/8 lenses (or lens/tc combinations). It could be an omission, it could be obvious, and it could be a catch.
With this low pixel density, it is certainly desirable to be able to use f/8 lens/tc combos. I hope this is not lost along with the AF light sensitivity improvements.
Edit: I noticed Pixel Perfect is also worried about the f/8
I do find it a little odd that some people complain it's "only" 18MP, while others complain that the high ISO image quality on the 1D4/1Ds3/5D2 lags behind the Nikon D3 (12MP), yet when Canon release a camera that could match or exceed the Nikon for image quality it's still not good enough for some?
Of course, until we get some hands on experience from pros, users and review sites etc, we won't know if Canon have achieved parity or exceeded Nikons flagship image monster.
I personally think Canon have a winner here and I think I need to sell a kidney as I want one!
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The one thing that is not clear is whether AF is still available with f/8 combos. Another evil ploy to get us to buy 200-400L and sell the 100-400L.
A good question.Since they increased the AF point light sensitivity, perhaps 1DX might offer AF with all f/2.8 sensors, not just the center one.
The 18 MP on a full-frame chip is probably as high as we can go in resolution and still retain the high ISO performance of Nikon D3s, so I'm perfectly happy with that choice. Actually I'm excited about that part.
The suggest price at 6500 $, however, is tough to shallow unless you're a pro. If the price point was close to the 1D Mark IV, I would definitely consider buying it as it looks to encompass everything I ever wanted in a DSLR.
I dislike my 7D for the noise almost all levels of ISO, I loved the handling of the Mark IV I tried, but ultimately want to come back to the wonderful world of full-frame files that my old 5D still reminds me of.
alundeb wrote:
Peter, it sounds like you never were lucky enough to get everything out of the 7D pixels
Au contraire, Anders....I have been pleased with 7D given its price. In it I saw some clever design solutions. 7D carries some encouraging signs that Canon have put engineers and photographers in charge of camera development instead of gadget geeks and software specialists.
1DX appears to have moved along that path quite nicely.
Sir_Loin wrote:
I do find it a little odd that some people complain it's "only" 18MP, while others complain that the high ISO image quality on the 1D4/1Ds3/5D2 lags behind the Nikon D3 (12MP), yet when Canon release a camera that could match or exceed the Nikon for image quality it's still not good enough for some?
It is certainly good enough for what it is. And 18 MP vs 21 is not an issue. It is just that when what I want is a 36 - 54 MP camera, this is not the camera for me, no matter how clean the files are.
Yeouch, that's more than the 1Ds3 has been new for the past few years. With the olympics coming up you bet the 1DX will be in super short supply and then kept in short supply ala 5DII so as to keep the price steady at the RRP for a good long while.
Kudos to Canon though, merge the lines and release the new body at the price of the higher one it replaces forcing both 1 and 1Ds users to pay the 1Ds price which practically no one has paid for years due to the 5DII and 1D3/4.
alundeb wrote:
It is certainly good enough for what it is. And 18 MP vs 21 is not an issue. It is just that when what I want is a 36 - 54 MP camera, this is not the camera for me, no matter how clean the files are.
This question is purely out of interest and curiosity so may I ask why you need/want such a high pixel count?
Sir_Loin wrote:
I personally think Canon have a winner here
So do I, Glenn.
However, I still remember vividly the MkIII caper, from the beginning to the end.
The f...ed up with the design, and then they kept f...ing up in dealing with the problem thru denials, different band-aids, elaborate custom settings instructions etc.
Therefore, we better see first how that baby does in the hands of keen and independent photographers.
The Canon joystick blows, as well - I'm surprised it wasn't axed in favour of 60D-like control. I hated the joystick on my old 30D; so happy that my current 1D Mark II N doesn't have one.
