[Caspita]

I have to admit I am not all that impressed by it, considering I have been waiting for years for the 1dSmarkIV. I was hoping for something with at least the equivalent megapixels of the 5dmarkII if not more. What i have always appreciated is that the photographers who wanted the perks of full frame and high megapixel never cared for frame rates. Seems like a body where some might be forced to compromise on what is important to them. Hope this doesn't mean it's time to start considering a medium format setup

[dcstep]

Casp, I'm hoping that the 5D MkIII will fill the void you're talking about and also gain a few fps and improved AF. If so, then I'll buy that and consider a 1D MkIV for my wildlife, or stick with the excellent 7D.

Dave

[Chewy734]

I have a feeling the 5D3 will become more of a studio camera... high MP monster, low fps, and better AF.

Who really knows though, because the video capabilities is what made the 5D2 do so well compared to its competitors... so, obviously there is room for video improvement as well.

[dcstep]

Yes, surely Canon will improve the video on the 5D3 with a better interface and some help on the focusing front. This camera really put them to the front of the dslr video pack and they wouldn't dare let it slip back.

[rodi]

people who actually need that many megapixels are actually printing very large, and they've got big pocket budgets. and they're shooting Medium Format. The bulk of the high-end purchasing these flagships from Canon and Nikon are the sports arenas - they need the high-speed, and clean high-iso, not the megapixels.

it's always been that way, if you needed to print large, you shot with a bigger film format.

[dcstep]

Yeah, but the new pixel and processor technologies are narrowing the gap fast, particularly with the new FF dslrs. I haven't stretched my 5D2 beyond 12x18, but those results were so good that I'm thinking of ordering some larger prints for mounting.

Still, if I were paid to shoot for billboards, I'd probably go MF; however, the next generation or two of FF may do the trick for just about anything you'd hang on your wall.

Dave

[Caspita]

Originally Posted by rodi

people who actually need that many megapixels are actually printing very large, and they've got big pocket budgets. and they're shooting Medium Format. The bulk of the high-end purchasing these flagships from Canon and Nikon are the sports arenas - they need the high-speed, and clean high-iso, not the megapixels.

it's always been that way, if you needed to print large, you shot with a bigger film format.

Yuuup....that's me. I constantly print large. I was hoping to have something close to 30mp. The jump to medium format is just such a large one considering I would still need to keep my canon gear.

And the people who own the flagship camera like the 1ds don't shoot sports nor need the high speed, and on average don't care about the clean high iso considering the controlled conditions they always shoot in.

[M_Six]

Wow, nice work, Casp. I like your site.

[kamek]

Don't forget that the 1D X has supposedly addressed the moire issue for us video shooters.

[Chewy734]

I'm curious to hear what current 1D/1Dx owners think of the new 1D X. After all, it is tailored for those pros who have the money and are not afraid to spend it (e.g., current owners of a 1D).

The reason I say this is because people who can never afford (or don't want to) will always find a reason to bitch about a new camera... it's like the folks at Top Gear talking about how the Aventador doesn't make them crap their pants when they drive it, and therefore isn't a great Lambo. I guess they just don't like to have clean pants (those damn Brits!)

[dcstep]

I don't own any 1D, but I've been seriously considering the MkIV and can afford it. I'm attracted to the faster AF speed, ability to AF with lens as slow as f/8 (think 500mm with a 2x TC). Like the 7D, the MkIV has high pixel density, resulting in superior detail resolution at some sacrifice of high-ISO performance.

To me, the X is going in the wrong direction for a nature photographer. It's aimed more at a sports photographer. I aggrevates me that they're dropping the MkIV as an option, making the 7D their top wildlife body. Perhaps they'll find a way to load the IV's AF performance into the 7D and improve the 7D's high-ISO performance slightly.

Not being able to AF my 500mm with a 2x TC is a huge problem for the X vs. the IV. Being FF, I'll want my 2x TC even more. I hand hold most of my 500mm shots, so MF is really problematic. For perching birds, when I'm using my tripod, MF is no problem, but shooting moving subjects without AF is a huge pain.

OTOH, I love the high-ISO performance of the X, but I'd rather have half that performance and denser pixels. I've got a FF body with my 5D2 and will likely move up to the 5D3 a few months after it comes out. If they speed up the 5D's AF even a little and increase the pixel-density, then that'll be preferable for my nature photography.

The X seems to be the ulitmate sports photography body. Shooting hockey, basketball and other indoor sports should be a breeze with all of that high-ISO performance and the AF system.

The other issue is lenses for the nature photographer. I was thinking about moving up to the 500mm Series II next year (1-lb lighter than mine and two f-stops better IS) but for a full frame camera that will only take a 1.4x TC I need to seriously consider the 600mm, which costs $2,000 more. Ugh.

Prefering denser pixels to coarser pixels may seem odd to those of you accustomed to the "big pixels are better" mantra. Most nature shooting is "focal length limited" meaning that almost every image is cropped. If you want superior feather and whisker details, then you want low pixel-pitches (denser pixels). Of course, there's a trade off between noise and detail, but new processors continue to make the noise more and more manageable.

Dave

[The1]

I'm willing to bet there will be 2 versions... just different releases. Just like how we currently have the 1DS and the 1DmkXX 2 completely different cameras, similar designation.

I would just recommend keeping your eyes and ears open, Canon wouldn't take a step backward in Megapixel without a good reason. I'm thinking there will be a 1DSmkIV that has the same sensor as the upcoming 5DmkIII

[Chewy734]

Thanks for your comments Dave. I agree with you... Canon dropped the ball with the AF scheme. How can you not keep the f/8 points? I think websites and blogs are hammering them on the lack of that feature, especially since they just released some newer super telephotos and none of them are work with the 2.0x TCs and AF.

Maybe the wildlife photographers will have to hold out for the 7D2. Honestly, I can't see the 1.3x crop factor coming back in their pro line. I think there is room for a 3D (no pun intended) which has the specs of the 1D X (in terms of sensor technology) but focused for customers who need higher MP for cropping, printing for billboards, etc.

That being said, maybe that'll be the new 5D3 in the future? It'll sacrifice fps and bursting for higher MPs. I wonder how they can cripple the remaining specs of the 1D X though. No gigabit ethernet? Worse AF? Single CF card slot?

[dcstep]

I saw a quote yesterday from a Canon rep (Chuck Westfall?) saying that the 1.3x crop sensor is NOT dead, implying something aimed more at the wildlife photog is in the pipeline. The 1D MkIV is indeed dead, but, like you say, a 3D or something may be in the works.

Dave

[Chewy734]

Dave, I saw that same quote too... but in the press release they say they are getting rid of the previous 1D and 1Ds and combining them to make the 1D X. So, who knows...

I feel bad for Nikon. They were all ready to release an FX camera and were suddenly taken out by nature (literally).

[dcstep]

I'm seriously evaluating the X for my uses. I was planning to move up to the Series II 500mm in 2012, but this would make the 600mm worth more serious consideration in order to get more pixels on the subject. That's another 2-grand on top of the 4-grand differential I was planning on (diff between my series I 500mm and a II).

The 7D MkII is probably a 2013 event, but a new 1.3x sensor could show in 2012. I'll probably need to sit tight. All the money is adding up to something that I could only cover with a nice year-end bonus, so I need to get to work on 2012 income...

[Chewy734]

if you have too much money to know what to do with it, send some my way Dave.

[rodi]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Dave, I saw that same quote too... but in the press release they say they are getting rid of the previous 1D and 1Ds and combining them to make the 1D X. So, who knows...

I feel bad for Nikon. They were all ready to release an FX camera and were suddenly taken out by nature (literally).

you're referring to Japan right? Not the flooding in Thailand, where they only produce the prosumer cameras.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by rodi

you're referring to Japan right? Not the flooding in Thailand, where they only produce the prosumer cameras.

If you call the rumored D800 to be a prosumer camera... then yes

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/10/25/th...ns-fault.aspx/

[rodi]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

If you call the rumored D800 to be a prosumer camera... then yes

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/10/25/th...ns-fault.aspx/

oh, i see now: "But wait, the D800 should be produced in Japan, right? Yes, but some parts are probably made in Thailand."

[The1]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'm seriously evaluating the X for my uses. I was planning to move up to the Series II 500mm in 2012, but this would make the 600mm worth more serious consideration in order to get more pixels on the subject. That's another 2-grand on top of the 4-grand differential I was planning on (diff between my series I 500mm and a II).

The 7D MkII is probably a 2013 event, but a new 1.3x sensor could show in 2012. I'll probably need to sit tight. All the money is adding up to something that I could only cover with a nice year-end bonus, so I need to get to work on 2012 income...

I'm curious to see how fine this thing can shoot. Going from a 21 megapixel to an 18, i'm thinking that things must be a lot sharper (or one would hope) resulting in a full 100% crop that people wouldn't know was a crop. The 5DmkII at 100%, although good, isn't super fine in the detail. So maybe things would even out in the long run.

besides, going from 18-21 megapixels is like 2" of extra printing. It won't be that big of a difference, unless you're trying to print an 8 foot by 10 foot...

people were making huge prints on the original 5D, and it was only 12.8 megapixels.... mind you, they didn't have much room to crop.

besides, there's lots of people using Nikons for wildlife stuff. Lower mexapixels never stopped them (with the exception of the 24mp sensor)

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by The1

I'm curious to see how fine this thing can shoot. Going from a 21 megapixel to an 18, i'm thinking that things must be a lot sharper (or one would hope) resulting in a full 100% crop that people wouldn't know was a crop. The 5DmkII at 100%, although good, isn't super fine in the detail. So maybe things would even out in the long run.

besides, going from 18-21 megapixels is like 2" of extra printing. It won't be that big of a difference, unless you're trying to print an 8 foot by 10 foot...

people were making huge prints on the original 5D, and it was only 12.8 megapixels.... mind you, they didn't have much room to crop.

besides, there's lots of people using Nikons for wildlife stuff. Lower mexapixels never stopped them (with the exception of the 24mp sensor)

To me "sharper" means more detailed. You'll clearly lose detail vs. either the 5D2 or the 7D. The only thing you gain by using less dense pixels is high-ISO performance, which seems to be a primary aim of this camera. That way sports photographers can pump up the ISO for indoor shooting and still have enough SS to stop action.

By definition I will lose detail, but, as you say, I only see that when I look at 100% or print large, which I seldom do. However, Getty Images' price schedule varies upward with file size. The difference between 18-mps and 21-mps is worth a little more than 100-bucks, assuming someone is buying to print in a large size. It's ancillary to me, but that's always in the back of my head, such that I want to maximize my chance for a large file, which means more focal length (expensive) and more pixels (still expensive, but not very if you consider the 7D).

This particular camera is very expensive and takes away pixels. There's a lot to like about it, but that's a hang up for me at the moment. (Along with the dollars in the bank).

Dave