arbitrage wrote:
Canon Rumors has reported they heard that those two lenses won't come in EF mounts. They will come in RF instead. But of course that is just a rumor so anything could happen. I would have thought Canon would have released 500III and 300III by now if they were going to. The Mk 2 series were released closer together and at that time it was the f/2.8 pair and then the f/4 pair.
Another consideration is that we know the only real difference between the Mk 2 and Mk 3 400 and 600 is the weight. Maybe the weight savings wasn't great enough in the 500 and 300 by using smaller elements and therefore there was no point in making those two? The 300I to 300II hardly shaved any weight and the 500I to 500II was much less than the 400 and 600 lost back then....Show more →
The 500mm f4 is supposed to be the first RF big white lens. Canon also stopped development on the 600mm f4 DO apparently. They may have been planning ahead with the new mount in mind for years. One thing is certain: it is the new RF mount that is responsible for a large foggy cloud that now hangs over all of Canon's future products. It may well be a relief for Canon shooters to be 3 years forward in time, simply to know what on earth to expect. I am in that boat: what body for my 400DOII and extenders after the 7DII? A Canon 7DIII? A Canon R body? A Sony A7RIV? A Sony A7000? No idea at the moment really, all I can do is wait, and enjoy the 7DII, which has grown on me and is not as bad as I had anticipated by far. But it does not have the DR of the Sony sensors that I have been used to for 7 years, so I am still looking to get a better body.
equetefue wrote:
At least for wildlife photography, the A9 is looking to be a better tool due to a vastly better AF system, buffer and higher MP allowing cropping.
Canon currently has the ergonomics, menu interface, and tank build quality, and used lens market. It is rumored that the A9 II is coming out soon and that might really hard to justify a Canon mirrored pro body.
I would be interested in Arbitrage view of vastly better AF, buffer and higher MPX. He has tried them both.
From what I understand - a9 is better for auto focus. But I suspect not that much.
But buffer I thought was comparable
And mpx 24mpx vs 20mpx is not significant (10% bigger print)
similar dynamic range with edge to canon at 14fps
At 14fps, the canon has better dynamic range because its 14 bit. All the dynamic range comparisons are at 14bit.And a9 can't do 14 bit continuous focus raw at 14fps - it falls short at 12 bits at 20fps.
So canon better than a9 on every thing else but focus. ? Focus is critical but is the gap large enough to say its better? I would call it a tie. And I prefer the ergonomics of canon over sony. I think a tougher comparison would be Nikon.
I am very curious in the new actual specs. It has been a few years now and we will see what is brought to the table. I will most likely go with the next version, as I love the 400mm f2.8 MK III and the 200-400mm. I agree with Scott, I do not think Sony is better by leaps and bounds. I will be the first one as a canon user to admit that Sony is knocking it out of the park with the lens line up and the possible upcoming A9 II. They all have pro and cons for sure. Right now with Nikon, Sony and Canon, they all have great systems with lenses to match. From what I have seen from post not actual use I think Nikon pulls ahead in AF areas. Good times ahead for all.
Chimping wrote:
I doubt we will see 300 & 500 version III’s. Hasn’t it been said that most high end lens development for the EF system has now stopped?
Canon has stated that they have suspended it for 2019 (and probably into 2020), but in the future they will be considering replacing the expensive long and/or fast lenses with updated versions, along with a new tilt shift EF. However beyond these periodic lens refreshes, the new camera lenses will likely be all RF or M. I am very positive there will be no more EFS lenses.
Scott Stoness wrote:
I would be interested in Arbitrage view of vastly better AF, buffer and higher MPX. He has tried them both.
From what I understand - a9 is better for auto focus. But I suspect not that much.
But buffer I thought was comparable
And mpx 24mpx vs 20mpx is not significant (10% bigger print)
similar dynamic range with edge to canon at 14fps
At 14fps, the canon has better dynamic range because its 14 bit. All the dynamic range comparisons are at 14bit.And a9 can't do 14 bit continuous focus raw at 14fps - it falls short at 12 bits at 20fps.
So canon better than a9 on every thing else but focus. ? Focus is critical but is the gap large enough to say its better? I would call it a tie. And I prefer the ergonomics of canon over sony. I think a tougher comparison would be Nikon.
I certainly won't use the word "vastly" to describe the difference in AF performance between the A9 and 1DX2. The A9 AF is more consistent but that is a feature you will get out of most modern mirrorless like EOS R and Z and other Sonys for more static subjects. The A9 takes that consistency into the realm of faster moving subjects and it's more automated tracking modes work so well that it makes it easier to get challenging BIF. But I also was able to nail challenging BIF like songbirds in flight with my 1DX2...just took more attempts.
Technically the A9 buffer is 240 shots or so but if you actually were to shoot that or even half that the write speed to the card takes forever and some functions of the camera are locked when you do that. But I never take that many shots at once...maybe I've taken 50 in some rare peak action. Both cameras handle that well and the C-Fast card will have no wait at the end of that burst where the SD card will. So in reality I'd say the 1DX2 is better for buffer unless you actually will go over the limit often (can't remember what the 1DX2 limit is).
Of course for MPs, 24 vs 20 is really nothing. We shall see what A9II vs 1DX3 ends up being. If Sony makes a big jump in MP and Canon doesn't then it could become a spec to consider.
I have a feeling the Sony A9II will put some distance on the 1DXIII but not enough to warrant a whole system change. I'm hoping for a 7D3, 5DV, and 1DXIII to hold onto for many years until they get this mirrorless stuff figured out.
artsupreme wrote:
I have a feeling the Sony A9II will put some distance on the 1DXIII but not enough to warrant a whole system change. I'm hoping for a 7D3, 5DV, and 1DXIII to hold onto for many years until they get this mirrorless stuff figured out.
I am hoping so. I need either the 1.6x of APS-C or the MP count in a full frame body to allow cropping.
Already have a 1DX2. I don't believe the 1DX3 upgrade will be anything more then small increments at best that will not make a difference in my shooting. Much more interested in a 1RX. Silent shooting would be a really nice upgrade for me. Hopefully with Sony A9 (new FW) like eye AF tracking. Those two are way more important to me then 1-2 more FPS and a couple more MP's.
I'm in a good position right now as I will buy new lenses for whichever ML mount I go to so I'm no longer locked into Canon. I can see who comes out ahead. None of the big three right now have anything that appeals to me. Late Spring/early Summer of 2020 might be a whole different story.
I had hopes that the A9II would be the body that finally appeals to me but I think it will just be an A7RIV body with updated A9 tech inside. Same ole toy body with bad ergos and build.
There is an opportunity for Canikon to step in but they don't seem to have the tech.
Silly me. I read the thread title "Canon 1DX Mark III - specs?" and thought the topic / discussion was about the Canon 1DXIII, but I see it's mostly just another Sony thread.
lighthound wrote:
Silly me. I read the thread title "Canon 1DX Mark III - specs?" and thought the topic / discussion was about the Canon 1DXIII, but I see it's mostly just another Sony thread.
Timkr wrote:
It does, that’s why it’s so appealing to me.
It does not have A9 focusing. All it has is RealTimeTracking...but the A6400 has that also. That does not make it A9 AF.
The A9 AF advantage comes from the same thing that gives the A9 all its other advantages and that is the stacked BSI sensor. The A9 can read its sensor many times faster than any other current camera. The A9 does 60 AF calculations per second. The other top Sony cameras do 20 calculations. The A7RIV does not have a fast sensor read time. Therefore it won't do fast AF calculations and it won't touch the A9 for AF. Basically every review out so far for the A7R4 by respected reviewers says as much.
arbitrage wrote:
It does not have A9 focusing. All it has is RealTimeTracking...but the A6400 has that also. That does not make it A9 AF.
The A9 AF advantage comes from the same thing that gives the A9 all its other advantages and that is the stacked BSI sensor. The A9 can read its sensor many times faster than any other current camera. The A9 does 60 AF calculations per second. The other top Sony cameras do 20 calculations. The A7RIV does not have a fast sensor read time. Therefore it won't do fast AF calculations and it won't touch the A9 for AF. Basically every review out so far for the A7R4 by respected reviewers says as much....Show more →
Thanks for sharing that.
And the A7R4 was never intended to compete in the same space as the A9 I/II or the 1DX II/III.
It's more of a landscape/portrait/general purpose FF body. Whereas the A9 and 1DX bodies are much more action-oriented.
lighthound wrote:
Silly me. I read the thread title "Canon 1DX Mark III - specs?" and thought the topic / discussion was about the Canon 1DXIII, but I see it's mostly just another Sony thread.
I'm shocked I tell ya!
Shall we go to Sony board and discuss Canon cameras there?
