garyvot wrote:
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.
Given the tech in this beast and the price point, it's a dam shame this didn't offer fast contrast detect AF mode for LV use. This has no limit on F stop and would give us a potentially better alternative to phase detect with slow apertures. Canon did not mention any improvements to contrast detect AF speed, and were already at the bottom of the pile in this regard. Either it's a deliberate act or they just can't do it.
I don't use f/8 combos for tracking, but I do use it a lot for one shot, and would miss it dearly. Can't always carry around a supertele, but you may need more reach than a 100-400L/400L can give you. That's now out with this camera.
uz2work wrote:
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 II, and 600/4L IS and IS II, you now have 41 cross-type AF points plus color and face detection, whereas you had no cross-type points and no color or face detection during AF with previous EOS-1 series DSLRs using the same lenses, not to mention a significantly wider AF coverage area from left to right."
My question is why would they be telling Art Morris this instead of consulting with him before the project and design was even started. You'd think that Canon Engineers and Project leads would go in the field to see how their explorers of light are shooting...
Probably the D4 will introduce F/8 AF next week. I wonder if people made enough noise now that they could fix the F8 focus issue...there is another 5 months before it's supposed to launch.
tonywong88 wrote:
Probably the D4 will introduce F/8 AF next week. I wonder if people made enough noise now that they could fix the F8 focus issue...there is another 5 months before it's supposed to launch.
tonywong88 wrote:
My question is why would they be telling Art Morris this instead of consulting with him before the project and design was even started. You'd think that Canon Engineers and Project leads would go in the field to see how their explorers of light are shooting...
Probably the D4 will introduce F/8 AF next week. I wonder if people made enough noise now that they could fix the F8 focus issue...there is another 5 months before it's supposed to launch.
One of three things has likely happened:
1. Canon marketing has blundered and they don't understand the full capabilities of the body and it can indeed focus at f/8.
2. Canon has done this by design so that photographers are forced to spend more money on faster (and/or longer) glass in order to have the ability to use autofocus with the reach that they need for given FL subjects.
3. There are technical reasons with this body which prevented focusing at f/8 to be easily implemented.
It's hard to know which of the three reasons are in play, or a combination of them. Regardless, I think that this is a fundamental shortcoming of the body which WILL cut into potential sales. Hopefully in can be "fixed" before the body goes into full production!
cameron12x wrote:
One of three things has likely happened:
1. Canon marketing has blundered and they don't understand the full capabilities of the body and it can indeed focus at f/8.
2. Canon has done this by design so that photographers are forced to spend more money on faster (and/or longer) glass in order to have the ability to use autofocus with the reach that they need for given FL subjects.
3. There are technical reasons with this body which prevented focusing at f/8 to be easily implemented.
It's hard to know which of the three reasons are in play, or a combination of them. Regardless, I think that this is a fundamental shortcoming of the body which WILL cut into potential sales. Hopefully in can be "fixed" before the body goes into full production!
Nobody knows what the future holds for 5D and 7D, so there could very well be a reason 4... Canon may be putting some space between their product lines, it seems like there's more opportunity for them to do this now. It's almost hard to believe that they simply overlooked lack of f8 af while simultaneously taking away the 1.3x reach. I wouldn't be shocked if it's a move to put wildlife photogs onto the 7D and/or 7D + 1D-X combo. Between the 5D, 7D and 1D-X suddenly there are more reasons to own multiple bodies, regardless of what you're shooting.
Looks like from the specs that Canon has spent time on better focus technology and of course faster
capture/processing times.
I feel the 5D Mark II was a bold move on Canon's part to release a hybrid camera out to the consumer market.
Look at all of the "know it alls" that have been created since the 5D Mark II came out!
Oct 6th on NL via 1k1 on Oct 5th: "Digicame-info rumorizes (computer-translated) that an October 18 Canon announcement will reveal an 18-megapixel Canon 1D Mark V that can fire away at 14fps. The rumor talks of a mid-March 2012 release. This is quite a gap (five months), perhaps Canon wants to freeze the market, to reduce the risk of people switching or committing to a different system? Please note this is a rumor, but a testable rumor since October 18 is just two weeks away [via Foto Actualidad]"
atcandela wrote:
Happy there is no video feature on the 1DX,
it not only has it, it's been improved at least a bit and maybe tons depending upon whether it is still doing some skipping or has completely eliminated skipping through faster read and on chip binning
Jacob D wrote:
Nobody knows what the future holds for 5D and 7D, so there could very well be a reason 4... Canon may be putting some space between their product lines, it seems like there's more opportunity for them to do this now. It's almost hard to believe that they simply overlooked lack of f8 af while simultaneously taking away the 1.3x reach. I wouldn't be shocked if it's a move to put wildlife photogs onto the 7D and/or 7D + 1D-X combo. Between the 5D, 7D and 1D-X suddenly there are more reasons to own multiple bodies, regardless of what you're shooting. ...Show more →
Good catch... I had originally put this in my reason #2 in another thread, but forgot to include it in this one.
The bottom line: Canon wants you to spend more money!
When I saw this thread I was wondering what people will whinge about... I guess it's the f8 lack of AF. If you can afford this camera, surely you can buy the 200-400L.
omarlyn wrote:
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
That could be just bad design; the screen could be articulated, yes, but also lockable with a lever to not allow an easy flip up otherwise the same can be said about the battery door, AV and card doors.
As for weather sealing, I am sure we have the technology to insulate a single pivoting joint. I believe the decision here by Canon was that it was not necessary.
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.
