Sp12 wrote:
Especially when he has to talk about face detection on a 500/4 as if it were a significant advantage. Maybe it can take the picture for me when my heron starts smiling. Maybe even before it flys away and I'm not able to track it with a 2xTC because this camera has such low pixel density that I need additional optics to compensate compared to last gen cameras.
Herons smile?
dasrocket wrote:
No articulated screen...hmm.
I wonder if this was a decision as misplaced as "...a pro body does not need onboard flash".
Especially for video and studio work on a tripod!
probably all those who are afraid that they won't look pro if their body dared to have a useful but supposedly toy feature such as articulated screen or on-board flash (i suppose some migh tbe afraid of artic screen breakage though)
hatch1921 wrote:
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...
May I know where you read that from? It's definitely a big step forward for AF microadjustment.
Hrow wrote:
The lack of f8 is a serious issue and Chuck's response is really pretty lame. As a company rep or salesperson, anytime you have to say "yes, but..." or "On the plus side...." you have a problem.
"Houston, we have a problem here..."
I believe this to be a serious, perhaps done by design in order to photographers to buy much more expensive faster glass?
Coult there any technical reason why this was left out?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Chuck Westfall is adamant this is a result of the new AF system. Can it be changed in six months?
Need to let them know it's a huge step backward.
Right. And as you observed it before, we must not forget those people who use 1.4xTC on their 100-400 and 400 f/5.6 lenses. 1DX would then put them into MF/Live view teritory too.
Either way, the camera has many exciting/excellent features (although it is priced silly), and I am really looking forward to having someone like Rob Galbraith give it a good whirl.
Hrow wrote:
The lack of f8 is a serious issue and Chuck's response is really pretty lame. As a company rep or salesperson, anytime you have to say "yes, but..." or "On the plus side...." you have a problem.
After having used a 1D Mark IV for almost 2 years, I can say with certainty that the biggest step up for me with the 1D Mark IV over the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark III bodies that I previously shot with was that the 16 mp and resultant pixel density from the 1.3 crop allowed me to shoot without converters with the 1D Mark IV in situations where I would have had to shoot tighter and use converters with the earlier cameras. And those same factors have also allowed me to shoot with my 400 DO in situations where, with the earlier cameras, I had to shoot with the 500/4 at about twice the weight of the 400 DO.
Now, if I were to switch to a 1D X, I would need to go back to using converters more often, which would not only incur a (minor) image quality loss, but which would also take away a stop of light. My guess is that the loss of that stop would likely wipe out any real world gains in ISO with the 1D X. Then, to add insult to injury, Canon is further limiting the capabilities of the 1D X and its ability to use converters by limiting AF to f5.6.
Except for people who aren't thinking things through and who have to have a new camera just because it is new, I can't imagine that there will be too many whose primary reason for having a 1D Mark IV is to use it with long lenses and who will be selling off their 1D Mark IV bodies and adding several thousand dollars to replace them with a 1D X bodies. As I said in another post, it would appear as if, with the 1D X, Canon has successfully designed a "Jack of all trades and master of none" body. Further, when there have been discussions over the years in which people have urged Canon to develop a unified 1-series body, I think that the complaints from both 1D Mark IV and from 1Ds Mark III users about the 1D X are the reasons why many of us have not wanted to see Canon merge the 1-series bodies into a single camera. It would seem that the trade offs required to have such a merged body result in significant compromises for both the high resolution and the fast action camera users.
cameron12x wrote:
"Houston, we have a problem here..."
I believe this to be a serious, perhaps done by design in order to photographers to buy much more expensive faster glass?
Coult there any technical reason why this was left out?
Traditionally the minimum aperture depends on the geometry of the AF system (lenses and AF sensor line pairs). Some AF sensor modules have multiple lines next to each other for sensitivity and both wide and mid apertures. Perhaps the line pair density is too high or something.
uz2work wrote:
Further, when there have been discussions over the years in which people have urged Canon to develop a unified 1-series body, I think that the complaints from both 1D Mark IV and from 1Ds Mark III users about the 1D X are the reasons why many of us have not wanted to see Canon merge the 1-series bodies into a single camera. It would seem that the trade offs required to have such a merged body result in significant compromises for both the high resolution and the fast action camera users.
Les
Well put as usual. It may be three years before the market forces correct this blunder. Meanwhile, there may be a stopgap somewhere in between the 5D and 1D series, but that will be too, little too late for many.
I'm not sure how many people have the concern that with Canon capitulating in the high-res performance camera competition, Nikon will not be pushed to make the D4x. Lack of competition is not good for us consumers.
uz2work wrote:
After having used a 1D Mark IV for almost 2 years, I can say with certainty that the biggest step up for me with the 1D Mark IV over the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark III bodies that I previously shot with was that the 16 mp and resultant pixel density from the 1.3 crop allowed me to shoot without converters with the 1D Mark IV in situations where I would have had to shoot tighter and use converters with the earlier cameras. And those same factors have also allowed me to shoot with my 400 DO in situations where, with the earlier cameras, I had to shoot with the 500/4 at about twice the weight of the 400 DO.
Now, if I were to switch to a 1D X, I would need to go back to using converters more often, which would not only incur a (minor) image quality loss, but which would also take away a stop of light. My guess is that the loss of that stop would likely wipe out any real world gains in ISO with the 1D X. Then, to add insult to injury, Canon is further limiting the capabilities of the 1D X and its ability to use converters by limiting AF to f5.6.
Except for people who aren't thinking things through and who have to have a new camera just because it is new, I can't imagine that there will be too many whose primary reason for having a 1D Mark IV is to use it with long lenses and who will be selling off their 1D Mark IV bodies and adding several thousand dollars to replace them with a 1D X bodies. As I said in another post, it would appear as if, with the 1D X, Canon has successfully designed a "Jack of all trades and master of none" body. Further, when there have been discussions over the years in which people have urged Canon to develop a unified 1-series body, I think that the complaints from both 1D Mark IV and from 1Ds Mark III users about the 1D X are the reasons why many of us have not wanted to see Canon merge the 1-series bodies into a single camera. It would seem that the trade offs required to have such a merged body result in significant compromises for both the high resolution and the fast action camera users.
Clearly they still don't get that wildlife base of users is actually very high. This camera was all about an answer to the D3s and for sports and wedding shooters only.
Well they have to give a high quality alternative and for me I want the 1.3x crop sensor to live on, but a massively upgraded 7D II would be acceptable. It'll need huge improvements in low ISO noise, more consistent AF, better DR at a minimum.
EB-1 wrote:
Well put as usual. It may be three years before the market forces correct this blunder. Meanwhile, there may be a stopgap somewhere in between the 5D and 1D series, but that will be too, little too late for many.
WAY to soon to make such a statement…there may yet be more announcements to come between now and the next PMA show (in Feb. I think)
EB-1 wrote:
I'm not sure how many people have the concern that with Canon capitulating in the high-res performance camera competition, Nikon will not be pushed to make the D4x. Lack of competition is not good for us consumers.
EBH
Again, WAY to soon to say that Canon is "capitulating" anything…I'll eat one of my cameras if Canon does not announce (by PMA) an ultra high MP body that is still 'pro' quality but just not 1-Series level;…maybe the mythical 3D will appear
No AF @ f8 is a fail to me, I hope it's just a marketing/research tactic to find out just how important it is to photographers, that it's FW limited and will at or soon after release get an updated FW that adds f8 AF capability.
If not, it's one more reason to stay with my 1DIII.
LightShow wrote:
No AF @ f8 is a fail to me, I hope it's just a marketing/research tactic to find out just how important it is to photographers, that it's FW limited and will at or soon after release get an updated FW that adds f8 AF capability.
If not, it's one more reason to stay with my 1DIII.
The things that's annoying is that apart from no AF @ f/8 they rest of the system sounds perfect. spot AF, zone AF, easy customization of settings, 2 stop improvement in working range.
I'd more likely upgrade the 1D III to 1D IV though, unless the 1D X so good it's impossible to ignore.
omarlyn wrote:
WAY to soon to make such a statement…there may yet be more announcements to come between now and the next PMA show (in Feb. I think)
Again, WAY to soon to say that Canon is "capitulating" anything…I'll eat one of my cameras if Canon does not announce (by PMA) an ultra high MP body that is still 'pro' quality but just not 1-Series level;…maybe the mythical 3D will appear
Omar
The key factor surely will be the AF system. One hopes that Canon has been listening to that complaint.
This was never going to be the camera for me, especially at $6800. My interest will be how much of the tech trickles down to the next level bodies, like the 5DII replacement and possibility another full frame body (3D or 6D).
Mike Mohrmann wrote:
This was never going to be the camera for me, especially at $6800. My interest will be how much of the tech trickles down to the next level bodies, like the 5DII replacement and possibility another full frame body (3D or 6D).
Unfortunately the desirable AF tech never trickles down.
- It is the first time that gapless microlenses have been employed on a Canon full-frame sensor and they are one key piece of the puzzle that opens up the high ISO capabilities of the camera. (Explains why the 1Ds3 is merely 0.5 stop better than 7D at high ISO)
- The newly designed CMOS circuits have also been designed to capture a wider dynamic range, meaning more detail is retained in both shadows and highlights in comparison to previous cameras. Wooohooo!
- at ISO 32,000 or higher the frame rate will be reduced to 10fps
- This EOS iSA System is also used to improve the accuracy of white balance settings.... They are also evident when shooting under low colour temperature light sources like tungsten lighting. In the past, these scenes could produce very yellow or orange images. However, with the EOS-1D X this is much reduced, resulting in more natural looking images.
- The AF Microadjustment in the EOS-1D X has been made easier to use and more comprehensive. It is now able to detect a lens' serial number so you can make an adjustment by each specific lens.
- 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.
In my experience, it's not really practical to follow-focus at f/8, so you are really left with center-point only One-Shot AF.
Since all recent cameras can employ contract-detect AF in Live View at f/8, I would assume the 1D-X can too. So, you still have a form of autofocus at f/8 that will be effective enough for static subjects.
