This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
p.27 #1EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
snapsy wrote:
Based on DxOMark's data, the IV's ISO 12,800 is equal to the D3s's ISO 25,600. That means the X will have a one-stop improvement over the D3s if Chuck's metrics haven't changed and if we're talking about raw performance rather than Digic-processed performance (ie noise reduction).
1 stop at the pixel level or 2 stops if down ressed to 12MP.
thedigitalbean wrote
3. "By way of example, he says that an ISO 51,200 photo from the EOS-1D X shows roughly equivalent noise levels to an ISO 12,800 photo taken with the EOS-1D Mark IV." Where the 'he' is Chuck Westfall1 stop at the pixel level or 2 stops if down ressed to 12MP.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:26 PM
p.27 #2EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
omarlyn wrote:
I find it curious that Canon did not incorporate an articulated LCD screen with the 1DX. Sport shooters & journalist in particular could use such a screen for shooting from the over-head position and it's also good in videography to flip/tilt the screen as per your shooting needs.
Omar
I'll bet it doesn't fit in with their build requirements or sealing requirements. It could be a weak point and not liable to take the hammering these are built for.
I find it curious that Canon did not incorporate an articulated LCD screen with the 1DX. Sport shooters & journalist in particular could use such a screen for shooting from the over-head position and it's also good in videography to flip/tilt the screen as per your shooting needs.
Omar
I'll bet it doesn't fit in with their build requirements or sealing requirements. It could be a weak point and not liable to take the hammering these are built for.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:28 PM
p.27 #3EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
uz2work wrote:
One of the selling points of 1D bodies has always been f/8 AF. Useful for anyone who would like to use a long lens with TCs (e.g., 100-400/5.6 + 1.4x, or 500/4 + 2x). I see no mention of f/8 AF capability in the DPR description. Was the f/8 AF ability retained ?Not a stupid question, more of us wonder about the same thing, and it has been asked in one of the threads (don't remember which one). Since the specs are not complete I don't think we can say for sure yet what happened.According to Chuck Westfall, who should know more about Canon products than any Canon employee in the US, the AF cut off for the 1D X is, in fact, f5.6.
Below, I've pasted Westfall's reply to Arthur Morris, who was asking about the AF cut off.
"AF is unavailable on the EOS-1D X if the maximum aperture reported to the camera through the electronic lens mount is smaller than f/5.6. This is a lower specification than previous EOS-1 series DSLRs. On the plus side, consider the fact that with most f/4 lenses including the 400 DO, 500/4L IS and IS...Show more →
Shit! That sucks big time. Given this is pixel challenged, a 1.4x will often be needed. Guess I won't be using my 100-400L. Also means no AF with f/4 lenses and 2x TC.
alundeb wrote
Xavier Rival wrote
This may be a stupid question, but still I am wondering (and I did not see any post on this --sorry if I missed one):One of the selling points of 1D bodies has always been f/8 AF. Useful for anyone who would like to use a long lens with TCs (e.g., 100-400/5.6 + 1.4x, or 500/4 + 2x). I see no mention of f/8 AF capability in the DPR description. Was the f/8 AF ability retained ?
Below, I've pasted Westfall's reply to Arthur Morris, who was asking about the AF cut off.
"AF is unavailable on the EOS-1D X if the maximum aperture reported to the camera through the electronic lens mount is smaller than f/5.6. This is a lower specification than previous EOS-1 series DSLRs. On the plus side, consider the fact that with most f/4 lenses including the 400 DO, 500/4L IS and IS...Show more →
Shit! That sucks big time. Given this is pixel challenged, a 1.4x will often be needed. Guess I won't be using my 100-400L. Also means no AF with f/4 lenses and 2x TC.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:32 PM
p.27 #4EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
omarlyn wrote:
I find it curious that Canon did not incorporate an articulated LCD screen with the 1DX. Sport shooters & journalist in particular could use such a screen for shooting from the over-head position and it's also good in videography to flip/tilt the screen as per your shooting needs.
Omar
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'll bet it doesn't fit in with their build requirements or sealing requirements. It could be a weak point and not liable to take the hammering these are built for.
Ah, excellent point…besides the weather sealing, I can just imagine a sports photographer & photo journalist running down a field or hallway with cameras & lenses all jostling about and one of those screens (that got left angled out) just snaps right off!
Omar
I find it curious that Canon did not incorporate an articulated LCD screen with the 1DX. Sport shooters & journalist in particular could use such a screen for shooting from the over-head position and it's also good in videography to flip/tilt the screen as per your shooting needs.
Omar
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'll bet it doesn't fit in with their build requirements or sealing requirements. It could be a weak point and not liable to take the hammering these are built for.
Ah, excellent point…besides the weather sealing, I can just imagine a sports photographer & photo journalist running down a field or hallway with cameras & lenses all jostling about and one of those screens (that got left angled out) just snaps right off!
Omar
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:32 PM
p.27 #5EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
PetKal wrote:
* Same lens/TC combo , same geometry of light impingement:
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
It's not at all an oddity. When they're talking about aperture sensitivity they're talking about geometry sensitivity, not light sensitivity. So the design choices they made in making the sensor still cross type at f4 meant they're no longer at some threshold to be certified as of sufficient sensitivity at f/8. That said, they also claim to have improved the light sensitivity.
The second part is much more the issue, and my gut instinct says that it's certainly non zero though it won't be that common as a factor in a body purchase, given that the only situation this becomes a hard limit is when the combo in question is an 800/5.6 +TC or 600/4 + 2x TC (in the set of all 1D users likely to seriously consider this as a new body purchase). If you are one of those, it is a major issue - I just don't think there are enough people for whom it is an issue AND for whom this would tip a purchase decision from a yes to a no balanced against the other advantages the 1DX brings.
Of course, I could be horribly wrong.
Edit:
I don't see a reason why Canon could not have gone with f/8 centre and had the surrounding points as they are currently, except for the semantic incongruity of having the centre point not be the best with wide aperture lenses.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:37 PM · View previous versions
* Same lens/TC combo , same geometry of light impingement:
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
It's not at all an oddity. When they're talking about aperture sensitivity they're talking about geometry sensitivity, not light sensitivity. So the design choices they made in making the sensor still cross type at f4 meant they're no longer at some threshold to be certified as of sufficient sensitivity at f/8. That said, they also claim to have improved the light sensitivity.
The second part is much more the issue, and my gut instinct says that it's certainly non zero though it won't be that common as a factor in a body purchase, given that the only situation this becomes a hard limit is when the combo in question is an 800/5.6 +TC or 600/4 + 2x TC (in the set of all 1D users likely to seriously consider this as a new body purchase). If you are one of those, it is a major issue - I just don't think there are enough people for whom it is an issue AND for whom this would tip a purchase decision from a yes to a no balanced against the other advantages the 1DX brings.
Of course, I could be horribly wrong.
Edit:
I don't see a reason why Canon could not have gone with f/8 centre and had the surrounding points as they are currently, except for the semantic incongruity of having the centre point not be the best with wide aperture lenses.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:37 PM · View previous versions
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:33 PM
p.27 #6EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
reno.peterson wrote:
Does this camera have Microfocus Adjust feature...
well...
AF Microadjustment now gives the option to apply two different adjustment values for zooms, one for each end of the zoom range, and you can also apply different adjustment values to two units of the same lens model, differentiating between the two based on their serial number.
A nice new feature IMO...
Does this camera have Microfocus Adjust feature...
well...AF Microadjustment now gives the option to apply two different adjustment values for zooms, one for each end of the zoom range, and you can also apply different adjustment values to two units of the same lens model, differentiating between the two based on their serial number.
A nice new feature IMO...
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:33 PM
p.27 #7EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
PetKal wrote:
* Same lens/TC combo , same geometry of light impingement:
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
That really sounds strange yes, given that the X is the new flagship model, and the other possible flavors of high end cameras are not likely to get a better AF system.
Either there was a technical difficulty we don't understand, or we will be forced to use both FF and APS-C for birds an such in the future.
* Same lens/TC combo , same geometry of light impingement:
-1DMkIV allows center point AF at f/8.
-1DX with more sensitive AF points doesn't allow AF at f/8.
Using any additional AF points is less relevant to this. I could have also suggested that they might have lowered the single point AF to f/11 in 1DX.
That sure sounds like an oddity to me.
* Canon probably knows very well that TC use which pushes nominal aperture to f/8 is relatively common, not sporadic at all.
That really sounds strange yes, given that the X is the new flagship model, and the other possible flavors of high end cameras are not likely to get a better AF system.
Either there was a technical difficulty we don't understand, or we will be forced to use both FF and APS-C for birds an such in the future.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:36 PM
p.27 #8EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
100-400L with 2x, 400DO with 2x, 400/5.6 with 1.4x, 500/4 with 2x, 200-400L with 1.4x+1.4x.
F/8 is a very common aperture for those not running (for either cash or weight reasons) with the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 but still wanting to bird.
I believe lensrental has a great article on how phase AF works for those of you confused by how the new AF system inhibits F/8 performance.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:38 PM · View previous versions
F/8 is a very common aperture for those not running (for either cash or weight reasons) with the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 but still wanting to bird.
I believe lensrental has a great article on how phase AF works for those of you confused by how the new AF system inhibits F/8 performance.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 04:38 PM · View previous versions
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:37 PM
p.27 #9EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
ausemmao wrote:
Working in lower light levels is not quite the same thing as working with narrower aperture lenses. Lower light levels mess with the quantity of light the sensor has to work with. Narrower aperture size messes with the geometry of the incoming light as well as the light level.
When you have a smaller aperture the light rays are now effectively paraxial, so coming in almost parallel to the optical axis. I wouldn't call that "messing" with the geometry of the light. With f/2.8 you can get rays coming in at large angles to the optical axis. Many of these rays can be vignetted, can suffer more distortion etc than paraxial rays.
Working in lower light levels is not quite the same thing as working with narrower aperture lenses. Lower light levels mess with the quantity of light the sensor has to work with. Narrower aperture size messes with the geometry of the incoming light as well as the light level.
When you have a smaller aperture the light rays are now effectively paraxial, so coming in almost parallel to the optical axis. I wouldn't call that "messing" with the geometry of the light. With f/2.8 you can get rays coming in at large angles to the optical axis. Many of these rays can be vignetted, can suffer more distortion etc than paraxial rays.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:37 PM
p.27 #10EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Sp12 wrote:
100-400L with 2x
F/8 is a very common aperture for those not running (for either cash or weight reasons) with the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 but still wanting to bird.
100-400L with 1.4x is what you mean, it's already f/5.6.
100-400L with 2x
F/8 is a very common aperture for those not running (for either cash or weight reasons) with the 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 but still wanting to bird.
100-400L with 1.4x is what you mean, it's already f/5.6.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:38 PM
p.27 #11EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Pixel Perfect wrote:
When you have a smaller aperture the light rays are now effectively paraxial, so coming in almost parallel to the optical axis. I wouldn't call that "messing" with the geometry of the light. With f/2.8 you can get rays coming in at large angles to the optical axis. Many of these rays can be vignetted, can suffer more distortion etc than paraxial rays.
That's the point. For an AF sensor (unless I have grossly misunderstood the technique involved) you do not want the incident light to be parallel to the lens axis, as that hampers the ability to differentiate phase when the light hits the sensors. The vignetting and distortion don't have an insurmountable effect in the centre of the imaging area (indeed, chromatic aberration is one of the hurdles they mention overcoming in improving AF performance) though they do at the edges which is likely why there aren't AF sensors there as yet.
ausemmao wrote
Working in lower light levels is not quite the same thing as working with narrower aperture lenses. Lower light levels mess with the quantity of light the sensor has to work with. Narrower aperture size messes with the geometry of the incoming light as well as the light level.That's the point. For an AF sensor (unless I have grossly misunderstood the technique involved) you do not want the incident light to be parallel to the lens axis, as that hampers the ability to differentiate phase when the light hits the sensors. The vignetting and distortion don't have an insurmountable effect in the centre of the imaging area (indeed, chromatic aberration is one of the hurdles they mention overcoming in improving AF performance) though they do at the edges which is likely why there aren't AF sensors there as yet.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:46 PM
p.27 #12EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
If 1DX were to support AF with the smallest nominal aperture of f/5.6 only, that would turn out to be a problem. Yes, similar to what many of us have been experiencing for years with non 1D camera bodies.
I know of a bunch of people who have been using the following combos habitually: 500+2xTC, 600+2xTC and 800+ 1.4xTC.
(The only one that I might use on occasion is 800 + 1.4xTC MkIII because IQ is still good and the combo is plenty long.)
That's quite odd.
I know of a bunch of people who have been using the following combos habitually: 500+2xTC, 600+2xTC and 800+ 1.4xTC.
(The only one that I might use on occasion is 800 + 1.4xTC MkIII because IQ is still good and the combo is plenty long.)
That's quite odd.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:49 PM
p.27 #13EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
ausemmao wrote:
That's the point. For an AF sensor (unless I have grossly misunderstood the technique involved) you do not want the incident light to be parallel to the lens axis, as that hampers the ability to differentiate phase when the light hits the sensors. The vignetting and distortion don't have an insurmountable effect in the centre of the imaging area (indeed, chromatic aberration is one of the hurdles they mention overcoming in improving AF performance) though they do at the edges which is likely why there aren't AF sensors there as yet.
Ok, that makes sense bout the phase. But I knew this is why you can't have extreme AF point locations near corners or edges of sensor.
That's the point. For an AF sensor (unless I have grossly misunderstood the technique involved) you do not want the incident light to be parallel to the lens axis, as that hampers the ability to differentiate phase when the light hits the sensors. The vignetting and distortion don't have an insurmountable effect in the centre of the imaging area (indeed, chromatic aberration is one of the hurdles they mention overcoming in improving AF performance) though they do at the edges which is likely why there aren't AF sensors there as yet.
Ok, that makes sense bout the phase. But I knew this is why you can't have extreme AF point locations near corners or edges of sensor.
Oct 18, 2011 at 04:52 PM
p.27 #14EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
wickerprints wrote:
"Microadjustment with zoom lenses has also been made easier. In the past it was only possible to register one microadjustment setting for each lens. However, with the EOS-1D X it's now possible to make adjustments for both the wideangle and telephoto settings of a zoom lens. This will help to ensure that whatever focal length you use with a zoom, your images are accurately focused."
Does it allow you to select the specific focal length to adjust, or simply the long and short end?
The former would be awesome!
"Microadjustment with zoom lenses has also been made easier. In the past it was only possible to register one microadjustment setting for each lens. However, with the EOS-1D X it's now possible to make adjustments for both the wideangle and telephoto settings of a zoom lens. This will help to ensure that whatever focal length you use with a zoom, your images are accurately focused."
Does it allow you to select the specific focal length to adjust, or simply the long and short end?
The former would be awesome!
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:04 PM
p.27 #15EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
If I were a 1DIV owner I think I'd be a little POed. The 1DX seems aimed at replacing it, not so much the 1DsIII. Maybe they'll make the 1DsIII owners drool over the one to be announced next. From what little I know right now I wouldn't be the least bit tempted to replace my 1Ds MarkIII with a 1D X.
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:30 PM
p.27 #16EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Looks like this camera is born out of 7D. The AF modules(AF zone selection etc: except 61 AF points) and DIGIC 4 for metering and AF control (Looks like more expanded version 7D AF system) and they use Dual DIGIC 5+ image processors. And now no AF at F/8 and Flash Syc speed 1/250...I am keeping my mark IV.
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:44 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Oct 18, 2011 at 05:44 PM · View previous versions
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:36 PM
p.27 #17EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Tony Rogers wrote:
ISO runs from ISO 100 to ISO 51200 in "normal" + two levels of expansion: 102400 (limit of the 1D Mark IV) and 204800 (new and shiny!). That's 10 stops in normal and 12 stops including the expansions.
1Dx expands down to ISO 50 so thats 13 stops including expansion.
john_edwards wrote
Did I calculate 10 stops of ISO correctly?1Dx expands down to ISO 50 so thats 13 stops including expansion.
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:38 PM
p.27 #18EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
I would have liked for a center AF point to be responsive at F8. Sigmonster with a kenko 1.4. 
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:42 PM
p.27 #19EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
campyone wrote:
If I were a 1DIV owner I think I'd be a little POed. The 1DX seems aimed at replacing it, not so much the 1DsIII. Maybe they'll make the 1DsIII owners drool over the one to be announced next. From what little I know right now I wouldn't be the least bit tempted to replace my 1Ds MarkIII with a 1D X.
Why? I own a 1DIV and I am looking forward to this camera, the best of both worlds for me.
If I were a 1DIV owner I think I'd be a little POed. The 1DX seems aimed at replacing it, not so much the 1DsIII. Maybe they'll make the 1DsIII owners drool over the one to be announced next. From what little I know right now I wouldn't be the least bit tempted to replace my 1Ds MarkIII with a 1D X.
Why? I own a 1DIV and I am looking forward to this camera, the best of both worlds for me.
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:46 PM
p.27 #20EOS 1D-X! March 2012!
Do you guys really think that Canon is going to release a Flagship model that will not AF with apertures smaller than f/8. Come on, that is ridiculous. Or am I simply misunderstanding the issue.
Mike
Mike
Oct 18, 2011 at 05:47 PM