If ever there was a man up his own backside it's him! Met him once shooting in to the sky with his EV - 2/3rds. Good job he had a Canon technician with him to do the testing.
Papathanassiou wrote:
If ever there was a man up his own backside it's him! Met him once shooting in to the sky with his EV - 2/3rds. Good job he had a Canon technician with him to do the testing.
Papathanassiou wrote:
If ever there was a man up his own backside it's him! Met him once shooting in to the sky with his EV - 2/3rds. Good job he had a Canon technician with him to do the testing.
Papa.
... and how many awards for outstanding photography have you won? just asking...
I met Andy last year and more recently at FOI this year and he's a really nice guy. Maybe a little over confident It wont come as a surprise that a friend of mine who knows Andy described him as you did
I can't say I have any real opinion on him personally, however his body of work and experience speaks for itself. I get the impression he would have been more than happy to proclaim to the world any issues he felt the 1Dx had but he didn't find anything to give out about.......
Thanks for the link. Considering the guy would likely have a bias for Nikon, I thought that was a very positive review for the 1Dx. I do wish they would make a crop (either 1.3 or 1.6) version of this camera.
Schlotkins wrote:
Thanks for the link. Considering the guy would likely have a bias for Nikon, I thought that was a very positive review for the 1Dx. I do wish they would make a crop (either 1.3 or 1.6) version of this camera.
Chris
I'd be happier than a pig in shit if they released cropper version.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'd be happier than a pig in shit if they released cropper version.
Likewise. There is much about the 1DX that appeals to me. But, of all the camera upgrades that I've made in the past 10 years, the two that have made the most positive impact for the type of shooting I do most have been the upgrades to the 1D Mark IV and 7D that I'm now using. As someone who is often shooting in focal length-limited situations, the increases in pixel density over the cameras that they each replaced have allowed me the cropping flexibility that I've always wanted. Further, they often allow me to use a bare lens instead of having to use a 1.4x, which gives me the opportunity to use faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISOs and which results in better image quality. And that pixel density allows me to use my 400 DO in situations where I would otherwise have to use a much larger, heavier, and less mobile lens.
Had Canon either decided to make the 1DX with a 1.3 crop sensor or had they decided to make it with a full frame sensor and 25 megapixels, even if doing so resulted in marginally lower high ISO performance or a slightly slower frame rate, I'm confident that I would have been drooling for the opportunity to get my hands on one of them as soon as I could have. As it is, I won't take a step back with regard to the pixel density that I value for the type of shooting I do, and I don't want to have to compensate for that lower pixel density by having to use bigger and longer lenses. Thus, the 1DX will be the first 1D action-oriented camera in a decade that I won't be buying. Instead, I'll look forward to the time 5 or 6 years down the road when I'll be buying a 25 megapixel 1DX Mark III (or 1DXII or whatever it will be called) that will give me improvements over the 1D Mark IV in some areas without requiring me to take a step backward in others.
uz2work wrote:
Likewise. There is much about the 1DX that appeals to me. But, of all the camera upgrades that I've made in the past 10 years, the two that have made the most positive impact for the type of shooting I do most have been the upgrades to the 1D Mark IV and 7D that I'm now using. As someone who is often shooting in focal length-limited situations, the increases in pixel density over the cameras that they each replaced have allowed me the cropping flexibility that I've always wanted. Further, they often allow me to use a bare lens instead of having to use a 1.4x, which gives me the opportunity to use faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISOs and which results in better image quality. And that pixel density allows me to use my 400 DO in situations where I would otherwise have to use a much larger, heavier, and less mobile lens.
Had Canon either decided to make the 1DX with a 1.3 crop sensor or had they decided to make it with a full frame sensor and 25 megapixels, even if doing so resulted in marginally lower high ISO performance or a slightly slower frame rate, I'm confident that I would have been drooling for the opportunity to get my hands on one of them as soon as I could have. As it is, I won't take a step back with regard to the pixel density that I value for the type of shooting I do, and I don't want to have to compensate for that lower pixel density by having to use bigger and longer lenses. Thus, the 1DX will be the first 1D action-oriented camera in a decade that I won't be buying. Instead, I'll look forward to the time 5 or 6 years down the road when I'll be buying a 25 megapixel 1DX Mark III (or 1DXII or whatever it will be called) that will give me improvements over the 1D Mark IV in some areas without requiring me to take a step backward in others.
Given that Nikon already has fullframe bodies at 25 and 36 Megapixels (albeit fewer frames per second), it's hard to imagine what technical reasons Canon would have for not producing a 25 Megapixel version much sooner than 5-6 years. And it would be marketing suicide to wait that long. Maybe there is hope yet for wildlife photogs.
I was not sure about going FF with the 1dx after using the 1d2 and 1d4 and loving the 1.3 crop body. What convinced me to bite the bullet was reviews like this one about improvements in AF and AE.
While I am still playing around and learning I have to say even with a FF sensor the 1dx is a real beast. Bottom line for me is I will get more keepers even if I have to crop a little. Count me as a happy camper with my 1dx.
Generally seemed like quite a good review, although I don't know what on Earth he meant when he said that Canon shooters couldn't wait to swap to Nikon in the early days to get much better noise performance. He did he ever compare a 5D IQ to a D2x,D200,D70,etc.? Even the 20D had at least as good SNR as any of that and much better high ISO DR than Nikon which had awful DR at high ISO in the early days.
.
He did he ever compare a 5D IQ to a D2x,D200,D70,etc.? Even the 20D had at least as good SNR as any of that and much better high ISO DR than Nikon which had awful DR at high ISO in the early days.