deepbluejh wrote:
Its still amazing to me that after reading that entire, jaw dropping, spec list people are still gabbing on about megapixels. What year is it? Are we in 2019 or 2004?
It is 2019 and 20 MP is the minimum requirement. I am curious about what other specs you consider to be to be jaw dropping for a 2020 camera.
There it is. This is the 20/20 camera. Comes in 2020, with 20 frames of 20 megapixels per second. And it has 20/20 vision.
deepbluejh wrote:
Its still amazing to me that after reading that entire, jaw dropping, spec list people are still gabbing on about megapixels. What year is it? Are we in 2019 or 2004?
Without an improvement in resolution we are stuck with 2007 pixel counts. I don't even bother shooting with less than 30 MP since 2016.
For those guessing at the MP count for the 1dx III, a quick refresher:
Canon 1d mk I 4 MP
Canon 1d mk II 8 MP
Canon 1d mk III 10 MP
Canon 1d mk IV 16 MP
Canon 1dx I 18MP
Canon 1dx II 20.2 MP
I genuinely interested in the mk III's mirrorless abilities. But, I think anything less than 24 would be a let down. I think it will be a stretch to get there based on their history. I hope Canon proves me wrong.
timgangloff wrote:
For those guessing at the MP count for the 1dx III, a quick refresher:
Canon 1d mk I 4 MP
Canon 1d mk II 8 MP
Canon 1d mk III 10 MP
Canon 1d mk IV 16 MP
Canon 1dx I 18MP
Canon 1dx II 20.2 MP
I genuinely interested in the mk III's mirrorless abilities. But, I think anything less than 24 would be a let down. I think it will be a stretch to get there based on their history. I hope Canon proves me wrong.
The 1DIII->1DIV 6MP jump was huge since it was APS-H so that's like 10MP FF. I fully expect Nikon D6 to be 24MP so it'd be sad if Canon were 22MP. Sure it's a not much but at these pixel challenged densities even a few MP helps. 24MP would be ok, 28MP would be very nice.
Buffer full limit estimate based on assumed 20 MP resolution and same write speed as 1DXII on CFast cards:
The buffer size itself on the 1DX II is 59 raw files. The 1DX III is said to have 5x the buffer, or 295 raw files. If the camera can write 8 raw files to the card per second (as the mk II does), 20-8 = 12 files per second need to be buffered at 20 fps. The buffer will then be filled in 295 / 12 seconds or roughly 25 seconds. Shooting continuously for 25 seconds at 20 fps equals 500 files before the buffer runs full.
For 16 fps, we get 8 files per seconds that need to be buffered, and the buffer will last for 37 seconds, or around 600 files.
CFexpress cards can get to at least twice the write speed at CFast cards, so if the camera can write at close to the card's limit, around 16 files per second, it will be pointless of Canon to increase the buffer 5x unless the files are significantly larger and hence the megapixel count.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The 1DIII->1DIV 6MP jump was huge since it was APS-H so that's like 10MP FF. I fully expect Nikon D6 to be 24MP so it'd be sad if Canon were 22MP. Sure it's a not much but at these pixel challenged densities even a few MP helps. 24MP would be ok, 28MP would be very nice.
I'd love to see 28 to 32. Extra cropping reach and to push Sony.
alundeb wrote:
Buffer full limit estimate based on assumed 20 MP resolution and same write speed as 1DXII on CFast cards:
The buffer size itself on the 1DX II is 59 raw files. The 1DX III is said to have 5x the buffer, or 295 raw files. If the camera can write 8 raw files to the card per second (as the mk II does), 20-8 = 12 files per second need to be buffered at 20 fps. The buffer will then be filled in 295 / 12 seconds or roughly 25 seconds. Shooting continuously for 25 seconds at 20 fps equals 500 files before the buffer runs full.
For 16 fps, we get 8 files per seconds that need to be buffered, and the buffer will last for 37 seconds, or around 600 files.
CFexpress cards can get to at least twice the write speed at CFast cards, so if the camera can write at close to the card's limit, around 16 files per second, it will be pointless of Canon to increase the buffer 5x unless the files are significantly larger and hence the megapixel count.
I don't really understand all the math and am too lazy to figure it out, but could one have made the same argument going from the 1dx and compact flash to the 1dx2 and cfast? And yet, Canon only gave a few more pixels in the 1dx2.
It sounds like most think it will be anywhere from 20-24 megapixels. Let's hope worst case it's 24, and anything more than that is a gift. 28 MP would be sweet
timgangloff wrote:
I don't really understand all the math and am too lazy to figure it out, but could one have made the same argument going from the 1dx and compact flash to the 1dx2 and cfast? And yet, Canon only gave a few more pixels in the 1dx2.
The difference is that the write speed to CFExpress cards is actually faster than what is needed for 16 fps at 20 MP. We could theoretically get away with a very small buffer. A 5x larger buffer is really not needed before we get to 28 MP or more.
I would think part of the sensor size choice will come from the video side.
As in how large a sensor can canon grab full frame 4K and pass the data through continuously.
Canon like huge codac....
then there is heat and electrical requirements.
But seeing how the battery is being stated as the same(that I remember).... maybe next generation components lead to better electrical performance.
You never hear about node size with camera sensors.
The difference is that the write speed to CFExpress cards is actually faster than what is needed for 16 fps at 20 MP. We could theoretically get away with a very small buffer. A 5x larger buffer is really not needed before we get to 28 MP or more.
alundeb wrote:
Buffer full limit estimate based on assumed 20 MP resolution and same write speed as 1DXII on CFast cards:
The buffer size itself on the 1DX II is 59 raw files. The 1DX III is said to have 5x the buffer, or 295 raw files. If the camera can write 8 raw files to the card per second (as the mk II does), 20-8 = 12 files per second need to be buffered at 20 fps. The buffer will then be filled in 295 / 12 seconds or roughly 25 seconds. Shooting continuously for 25 seconds at 20 fps equals 500 files before the buffer runs full.
For 16 fps, we get 8 files per seconds that need to be buffered, and the buffer will last for 37 seconds, or around 600 files.
CFexpress cards can get to at least twice the write speed at CFast cards, so if the camera can write at close to the card's limit, around 16 files per second, it will be pointless of Canon to increase the buffer 5x unless the files are significantly larger and hence the megapixel count.
Then there's 4K 60fps 10bit RAW video... any thoughts on how much data throughput that generates and whether the deeper buffer is required more for video or stills?
What the camera manufacturers mean when talking about "buffer" is not the size of the physical memory buffer but the maximum burst depth, i.e., how many shots you can get before the camera slows down. The "5x buffer" is likely mainly due to the faster write speeds of CFexpress cards, not due to increasing the physical buffer size.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
What the camera manufacturers mean when talking about "buffer" is not the size of the physical memory buffer but the maximum burst depth, i.e., how many shots you can get before the camera slows down. The "5x buffer" is likely mainly due to the faster write speeds of CFexpress cards, not due to increasing the physical buffer size.
It usually hasn't been that way. The camera has a buffer indicator showing the initial buffer size before you start a burst. That doesn't change with the card speed, and is normally what is referred to as "buffer size". When you start a burst, the remaining buffer decreases more quickly with a slow card.
rscheffler wrote:
Then there's 4K 60fps 10bit RAW video... any thoughts on how much data throughput that generates and whether the deeper buffer is required more for video or stills?
The data rate of 4K 60fps raw video is approximately equal to that of 20 fps 28 MP raw files at IS800.
Not sure if there's any truth to this but I read on here somewhere that someone was having a conversation with a Canon rep about possibly making the switch to Sony.....and supposedly the Canon rep said something along the lines of "Just wait a bit for the 1DXIII, it's going to knock your socks off". If this is true, would a Canon rep really say this if the 1DXIII was a couple more MP and fps? I hope whomever typed this was telling a true story because the message I take away is it must be a significantly higher MP body for it to really "knock the socks off".
Canon increased MP quite a bit from the 5D to 5DII, so let's hope they do the same with the 1DXIII. Based on all the math discussed above, it sounds like the electronics could handle 28MP.
But then again it's Canon, and the last time my socks were anywhere close to being knocked off was the 5D>5DII upgrade.
artsupreme wrote:
Not sure if there's any truth to this but I read on here somewhere that someone was having a conversation with a Canon rep about possibly making the switch to Sony.....and supposedly the Canon rep said something along the lines of "Just wait a bit for the 1DXIII, it's going to knock your socks off". If this is true, would a Canon rep really say this if the 1DXIII was a couple more MP and fps? I hope whomever typed this was telling a true story because the message I take away is it must be a significantly higher MP body for it to really "knock the socks off".
Canon increased MP quite a bit from the 5D to 5DII, so let's hope they do the same with the 1DXIII. Based on all the math discussed above, it sounds like the electronics could handle 28MP.
But then again it's Canon, and the last time my socks were anywhere close to being knocked off was the 5D>5DII upgrade....Show more →
That was me. I think he said “don’t jump ship yet, you will be VERY happy with what is coming,” he didn’t say it would knock your socks off, I think that might have been a different post. I have no idea if that means a big increase in MP, but my impression of chatting with him is that they are putting in much more of an effort with this release than they have in the past.
Ischgl99 wrote:
That was me. I think he said “don’t jump ship yet, you will be VERY happy with what is coming,” he didn’t say it would knock your socks off, I think that might have been a different post. I have no idea if that means a big increase in MP, but my impression of chatting with him is that they are putting in much more of an effort with this release than they have in the past.
Okay, well "VERY" happy and "much more effort" hopefully means it will be something more than the usual incremental upgrade of a couple fps and a couple MP. Fingers crossed.
