But why? At full frame they are still getting an amazing FPS, which was really the only reason for the crop modes in the Nikons, to improve the FPS by dumping less data from the sensor.. You can batch crop later if you need to.
Good point. My main thinking was the reach being good for sports/wildlife, but I guess that's the same as cropping in post. Although it would be nice if they could use that electronic shutter to get some crazy frame rate like 20fps in an APS-C mode. I guess that's what the 7D Mark II is for.
Exactly. If the 7D can resolve gorgous corners on the $700 Tokina 11-16 2.8, for example, then certainly Canon can come up with a $2,000 ultrawide that resolves 48 MP full-frame. OR, Canon users can just adapt to Nikon lenses like the 14-24.
Okay, in all seriousness- I'd expect to see a Canon 1Ds mk4 or 5D mk3 announcement within a year, at ~30-40 megapixels, at the same time as a 24-70 mk2 announcement.
=Matt=
Think corners on fullframe
Many lenses are superb in the center where the aps-c sweet spot is.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Good point. My main thinking was the reach being good for sports/wildlife, but I guess that's the same as cropping in post. Although it would be nice if they could use that electronic shutter to get some crazy frame rate like 20fps in an APS-C mode. I guess that's what the 7D Mark II is for.
Crop mode is better for sports and wildlife, I agree. But with that many pixels crop away in post!
No Canon body has ever interested me in any way. This... this is different. The merger of the 1D and 1Ds? Effing brilliant. The specs and rumored results seem amazing at this point. I hope Nikon follows their lead and brings a merger to the top of the line.
Looks like a great new cam, but wondering why, with 2x Digic V's, and only 18mp, why stay at 14-bit images? Almost everyone was expecting 16-bit RAW to help with dynamic range.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I'm with you. A (relatively) affordable FF camera with 7d (or similar) AF, flash commander and 5dII or better ISO and I'd be a very happy girl.
Frankly, the 1 series isn't ever likely to interest me (hardly surprising, since I'm not the market it's addressing!) - I don't like the colossal weight and built-in grip which is too big for my hands, and none of the shooting I do needs Antarctic Explorer weather-sealing
Agreed. Taking the same price reduction from 1DsIII to 1DX, the 5DIII or 3D should come in at $2295 MSRP at announcement.
I am really excited to see this sensor trickle down into a mid-line body. A generation (or two) newer than the 5DII AND fewer pixels? Hello DR and stratospheric ISO!! Even if it "only" has the 7D AF (mine is great) it will be my perfect camera, bar none.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Yes, FOUR FF camera bodies is a lot of options, and currently has never been done by either Nikon or Canon. But hasn't everyone been ranting about how FF is the future? I think four FF bodies, using "only" two different sensors, is highly likely.
=Matt=
Personally, I doubt it. I think very few people would find 18Mp to be not enough pixels, and those that don't probably shoot MF anyway, a very small market.
A 5D with this sensor would be awesome in my eyes, and I think the vast majority of potential buyers will think the same.
I would expect the 5D III to use the same sensor. So perhaps not 21+mp? Cleaner shots, higher ISO's, faster AF and better video control would far outweigh 30 something megapixels. That's the model I'm holding out for.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I would expect the 5D III to use the same sensor. So perhaps not 21+mp? Cleaner shots, higher ISO's, faster AF and better video control would far outweigh 30 something megapixels. That's the model I'm holding out for.
Right, in my mind that would be the 3D.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Looks like a great new cam, but wondering why, with 2x Digic V's, and only 18mp, why stay at 14-bit images? Almost everyone was expecting 16-bit RAW to help with dynamic range.
My guess is because computer systems aren't totally there yet... and it's not cost-friendly or practical for manufacturers to do it yet either considering where the computer market is with higher bit rendering. %95+ of displays and video cards right now are still 8 bits a channel and even though there are "full range wide gamut" monitors, some of those only simulate full AdobeRGB or sRGB gamut (like mine) by shifting bits around (dont ask me the exact way). You'd need a 10-bit per channel support on your OS, video card, and display to actually see the benefits to their fullest extent in a 16 bit image. It would still help with dynamic range in-camera though, and would still benefit down sampling to 8 bits/channel, but I couldn't say how much. Apparently it's not enough to Canon to warrant the budget to include it as a feature.
The Canon 1DX description says about making HD video:
"For legal reasons the maximum total clip length when shooting HD is now 29 minutes and 59 seconds."
Anybody know what these legal reasons are?
Because it would cost Canon more money and that would get passed down to the consumers... heres a quote from a forum that explains it much better than I could:
One of the main disadvantages with using a stills camera to shoot movies is the short recording times available for HD video; Nikons limit a single take to 5 minutes while Canons and European Panasonics stop after 29 minutes, 59 seconds. This limitation is due to the different (European) import duty rates for still and video cameras. However, although this may seem like a handicap, in reality you would never need to shoot a sequence for longer than a couple of minutes or so (The celebrated opening take of Orson Welles' 'Touch of Evil' calls it a day after just three and a half). Look at any program or documentary on TV and notice that most shots are only held for a few seconds. Furthermore, a 4Gb card will store just 12 minutes of 1080p video from a Canon 5D Mark II, so you may never hit the 29 minute limit. The only time you would possibly need a longer recording time is in the case of shooting an entire wedding ceremony or event, in these situations a camcorder may be a better option.
That's what I tell people when they ask me about recording events. SLR's are fantastic for movies and edited media, but for a straight run though of a wedding or concert, its much better to buy a $250 HD camcorder and pop a 32GB card into it. SLRs generate a lot of heat recording over long periods too, so its generally not a good idea to let them record for hours straight anyway... especially in hot places.
Funny with all the bells and whistles, the thing that I want the most from this camera into mine is the ethernet port... although once I see the noise profiles I'm sure I'll drool over that too. lol.
As I expected, there is increasing specialisation for purpose at the top level - pro sport, pro wildlife, pro landscape, pro indoor. The modularisation which I expected to begin to appear about now is not happening. Still multiple hitech bodies with a single range of lotech lenses. This fits within the current manufacturing resources and shrunken economies, and is a major challenge to the revitalised MF market. I expect a version of the 5D at this level. ~$6-10K
I expect further rationalisation and constriction of the mid-level. Sophisticated do-it-all broad application bodies which still attract pros, but directed at the far more numerous and lower spending serious amateur and workaday photography labourer like small business wedding photographers. Perhaps a disappearance of the XXD series into the supermarket level, and a 5D + 7D = 8D. ~$4K I am at this level and I don't want to pay more, and I don't want to continue to be torn over the 5D-7D divide, which I think has sent heaps of customers hurrying over to the D700.
The low/supermarket level will be throw-away fun toys. ~$100-$1000 (the most unsustainable market, you have to see the pile of discarded out-of-fashion product to believe it!) to make a fashion statement with gimmicks, MPs and whatever features are cool second by second.
1.) I don't think the high-res flagship series is dead. Especially when Nikon still produces the 24 megapixel D3X. I think we will see a 30-40 megapixel 1Ds mk4, or a 1DXs, or something. They would have to add dual card slots and some SERIOUS weather sealing, etc. etc. to the 5D mk3 to compensate for the lack of a 1Ds successor. The landscape shooters working for National Geographic wouldn't have it any other way.
2.) This unprecedented level of "listening to photographers" definitely still paves the way for a split in the 5-series, however. The 5D mk3 will be the high-res brother to something like a 6D. I would expect the 5D mk3 to have the same 30-40 megapixel sensor as the 1Ds successor, and the 6D to have the same 18 megapixel sensor as the 1DX. And now that Canon has updated their pro AF system, I hope they can find a way to fit in the "old" 45-point AF system into their $3-4K range FF options.
Yes, FOUR FF camera bodies is a lot of options, and currently has never been done by either Nikon or Canon. But hasn't everyone been ranting about how FF is the future? I think four FF bodies, using "only" two different sensors, is highly likely.
=Matt=
Several thoughts as to the reason why the 1D line would be "merged" were costs. I think merge means something different than we all think. I think they are merging the 1D line into ONE FRAMEWORK. Now, they can use one body for 2 cameras, a 1Dx and 1DsX or whatever, saving them money on tooling to produce 2 different bodies. You couldn't do that before because of the APS-C and a FF sensor being different sizes they had to tool 2 different bodies. Now with a FF 1D, they could use the 1D body for a new 1Ds and not have to spend as much creating it.
I still don't like the $6800 price tag, I think they are doing that because they can.
Several thoughts as to the reason why the 1D line would be "merged" were costs. I think merge means something different than we all think. I think they are merging the 1D line into ONE FRAMEWORK. Now, they can use one body for 2 cameras, a 1Dx and 1DsX or whatever, saving them money on tooling to produce 2 different bodies. You couldn't do that before because of the APS-C and a FF sensor being different sizes they had to tool 2 different bodies. Now with a FF 1D, they could use the 1D body for a new 1Ds and not have to spend as much creating it.
I still don't like the $6800 price tag, I think they are doing that because they can.
Yes, that is my perception also.
I think that price $6K to $10K will be the 1D series.
Several thoughts as to the reason why the 1D line would be "merged" were costs. I think merge means something different than we all think. I think they are merging the 1D line into ONE FRAMEWORK. Now, they can use one body for 2 cameras, a 1Dx and 1DsX or whatever, saving them money on tooling to produce 2 different bodies. You couldn't do that before because of the APS-C and a FF sensor being different sizes they had to tool 2 different bodies. Now with a FF 1D, they could use the 1D body for a new 1Ds and not have to spend as much creating it.
I still don't like the $6800 price tag, I think they are doing that because they can.
You seem to be assuming that there is a significant market for a 35+ Mp camera. I'm not sure that there would be. 18Mp is around the same as the old 1Ds3, but it now can be used for sports etc as well with high FPS. Seems like an all rounder to me.
Galbraith had this on his site though, so who knows...
Going forward, the EOS-1D X will be the only 1-series camera the company makes, or at least it will be once it becomes a shipping product starting next year.
I'd also love to know what this is he had as a bullet point? You mean you can shoot RAW then have the camera convert it to JPG???
In-camera RAW converter
Which reading more into it seems pretty nice to have if you don't have a laptop handy:
In-camera RAW converter Pressing the Q button while in Playback mode brings up an overlay; one of the options that appears is RAW processing, which is new to a 1-series camera and which is handled by the DIGIC 5+. Conversion settings that can be adjusted prior to conversion include software exposure compensation, white balance, Picture Style, colour space, Auto Lighting Optimizer, High ISO NR, Peripheral Illumination Correction, Chromatic Aberration Correction and the output dimensions and quality of the converted JPEG.
You seem to be assuming that there is a significant market for a 35+ Mp camera. I'm not sure that there would be. 18Mp is around the same as the old 1Ds3, but it now can be used for sports etc as well with high FPS. Seems like an all rounder to me.
The pro market is much more demanding of use-specific choice (the whole point of modularisation) than the mid-level market, where broad application gear is much more favoured.
The pro market is much more demanding of use-specific choice (the whole point of modularisation) than the mid-level market, where broad application gear is much more favoured.
Neil
Which part of the pro market do you think this camera is unsuited to?
Which part of the pro market do you think this camera is unsuited to?
I don't think it's a matter of being "unsuited". If there isn't the choice of modularisation, then it's a choice of bodies incorporating specialisations, as is the case with this 1DX, coupled to the same lens range (I don't see Canon moving away from that product configuration - there is less profit in new lenses than in new bodies). This is a way of exploiting and developing new tech while keeping the price acceptable - put the cutting edge tech for one kind of application into one body, for another application into another body etc. This is a less costly, and viable and challenging alternative to modularisation which the MF market is into, and which obviously is very attractive to pros.
Which part of the pro market do you think this camera is unsuited to?
I would say the only market it's not suited to is wildlife, which always needs more reach. It would have needed about 28mp to have the same reach as the 1DIV.
Some sports shooters are complaining that their 400/2.8s are going to be too short now. :wow I think the only place that might be true is in baseball or tennis or sports where the distance from the photographer to the athlete is basically fixed. Otherwise for field sports they will need to adjust their shooting style and wait for the action to get closer. I shot a soccer tournament on a full-size 120 yard field recently with just a 7D and a 70-200/2.8II and somehow I came away with plenty of keepers.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I would say the only market it's not suited to is wildlife, which always needs more reach. It would have needed about 28mp to have the same reach as the 1DIV.
Some sports shooters are complaining that their 400/2.8s are going to be too short now. :wow I think the only place that might be true is in baseball or tennis or sports where the distance from the photographer to the athlete is basically fixed. Otherwise for field sports they will need to adjust their shooting style and wait for the action to get closer. I shot a soccer tournament on a full-size 120 yard field recently with just a 7D and a 70-200/2.8II and somehow I came away with plenty of keepers.
I'm no sports shooter, but wouldn't the high ISO capabilities enable faster shutter speeds and cheaper/lighter (slower) lenses. I would have thought these would be really useful for them. The new zoom lens with tele converter would be great with this camera. This would also be handy for wildlife shooters I presume.
I don't think it's a matter of being "unsuited". If there isn't the choice of modularisation, then it's a choice of bodies incorporating specialisations, as is the case with this 1DX, coupled to the same lens range (I don't see Canon moving away from that product configuration - there is less profit in new lenses than in new bodies). This is a way of exploiting and developing new tech while keeping the price acceptable - put the cutting edge tech for one kind of application into one body, for another application into another body etc. This is a less costly, and viable and challenging alternative to modularisation which the MF market is into, and which obviously is very attractive to pros.
Neil
It's generally less costly to develop and support 1 camera then 2. This is why they are doing it, but I think it covers the needs of most pros very well. The Pros it might not suit are those that would already be using MF anyway.
If they put the same sensor in the 5D3 it will sell like hot cakes. Large file sizes are a pain for wedding shooters etc, so 18Mp sounds around right.
Not sure how qualified I am to say anything about this new body, but as 1DMKIII shooter, I am giddy over some of the new specs and features! Currently I shoot about 90% of my sports indoors so I can't wait to see the noise profiles on the higher ISOs. I don't shoot with the spray and pray technique so I wouldn't use the 12 fps except in personal shots when trying new things. 18.1 MP, I like that but would only use the full size Raw when shooting portraits, but would still use it enough to justify the leap up to this body. I shoot tethered as often as possible and the gigabit ethernet has me salivating, although I still like to have the laptop show my images as they are taken. I wonder if you still get a full 100 meters out of this connection?
I'm a big guy and the weight of the MKIII has never been an issue and I doubt the added weight here will bother me, so that is a non issue to me. Having big hands, it still feels like thumb acrobatics when I am reaching for the joystick when shooting in portrait orientation so I was happy to see a second one added.
I'm no sports shooter, but wouldn't the high ISO capabilities enable faster shutter speeds and cheaper/lighter (slower) lenses. I would have thought these would be really useful for them. The new zoom lens with tele converter would be great with this camera. This would also be handy for wildlife shooters I presume.
It won't focus with an f/8 lens, so putting a teleconverter on an f/5.6 lens like the 400/5.6L, 100-400L or 70-300L won't work.
-Jack
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Comments
Good point. My main thinking was the reach being good for sports/wildlife, but I guess that's the same as cropping in post. Although it would be nice if they could use that electronic shutter to get some crazy frame rate like 20fps in an APS-C mode. I guess that's what the 7D Mark II is for.
Think corners on fullframe
Many lenses are superb in the center where the aps-c sweet spot is.
― Edward Weston
Crop mode is better for sports and wildlife, I agree. But with that many pixels crop away in post!
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Agreed. Taking the same price reduction from 1DsIII to 1DX, the 5DIII or 3D should come in at $2295 MSRP at announcement.
I am really excited to see this sensor trickle down into a mid-line body. A generation (or two) newer than the 5DII AND fewer pixels? Hello DR and stratospheric ISO!! Even if it "only" has the 7D AF (mine is great) it will be my perfect camera, bar none.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Personally, I doubt it. I think very few people would find 18Mp to be not enough pixels, and those that don't probably shoot MF anyway, a very small market.
A 5D with this sensor would be awesome in my eyes, and I think the vast majority of potential buyers will think the same.
- 1Ds IV - 36mp? 48mp? 61pt AF - $7999
- 1DX - $6800
- 5DIII - 36-48mp, 7D AF - $3499
- 3D - 1DX sensor, 7D AF or "old" 45pt AF, 8-10fps - $2499
- 7D II - APS-C, mostly unchanged, maybe 10fps - $1699
OR- 1DX
- 5DIII
- 3D
- 6D - 1DX sensor, 5DII AF, 4-5fps - $1999
- 7D II
Come oonnnnnnn 3D!!!An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Right, in my mind that would be the 3D.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
My guess is because computer systems aren't totally there yet... and it's not cost-friendly or practical for manufacturers to do it yet either considering where the computer market is with higher bit rendering. %95+ of displays and video cards right now are still 8 bits a channel and even though there are "full range wide gamut" monitors, some of those only simulate full AdobeRGB or sRGB gamut (like mine) by shifting bits around (dont ask me the exact way). You'd need a 10-bit per channel support on your OS, video card, and display to actually see the benefits to their fullest extent in a 16 bit image. It would still help with dynamic range in-camera though, and would still benefit down sampling to 8 bits/channel, but I couldn't say how much. Apparently it's not enough to Canon to warrant the budget to include it as a feature.
Because it would cost Canon more money and that would get passed down to the consumers... heres a quote from a forum that explains it much better than I could:
That's what I tell people when they ask me about recording events. SLR's are fantastic for movies and edited media, but for a straight run though of a wedding or concert, its much better to buy a $250 HD camcorder and pop a 32GB card into it. SLRs generate a lot of heat recording over long periods too, so its generally not a good idea to let them record for hours straight anyway... especially in hot places.
Funny with all the bells and whistles, the thing that I want the most from this camera into mine is the ethernet port... although once I see the noise profiles I'm sure I'll drool over that too. lol.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/eos-1d-x-new-canon-flagship.html
I expect further rationalisation and constriction of the mid-level. Sophisticated do-it-all broad application bodies which still attract pros, but directed at the far more numerous and lower spending serious amateur and workaday photography labourer like small business wedding photographers. Perhaps a disappearance of the XXD series into the supermarket level, and a 5D + 7D = 8D. ~$4K I am at this level and I don't want to pay more, and I don't want to continue to be torn over the 5D-7D divide, which I think has sent heaps of customers hurrying over to the D700.
The low/supermarket level will be throw-away fun toys. ~$100-$1000 (the most unsustainable market, you have to see the pile of discarded out-of-fashion product to believe it!) to make a fashion statement with gimmicks, MPs and whatever features are cool second by second.
1D a, b, c, d
8D
toys
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Several thoughts as to the reason why the 1D line would be "merged" were costs. I think merge means something different than we all think. I think they are merging the 1D line into ONE FRAMEWORK. Now, they can use one body for 2 cameras, a 1Dx and 1DsX or whatever, saving them money on tooling to produce 2 different bodies. You couldn't do that before because of the APS-C and a FF sensor being different sizes they had to tool 2 different bodies. Now with a FF 1D, they could use the 1D body for a new 1Ds and not have to spend as much creating it.
I still don't like the $6800 price tag, I think they are doing that because they can.
Yes, that is my perception also.
I think that price $6K to $10K will be the 1D series.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
You seem to be assuming that there is a significant market for a 35+ Mp camera. I'm not sure that there would be. 18Mp is around the same as the old 1Ds3, but it now can be used for sports etc as well with high FPS. Seems like an all rounder to me.
I'd also love to know what this is he had as a bullet point? You mean you can shoot RAW then have the camera convert it to JPG???
Which reading more into it seems pretty nice to have if you don't have a laptop handy:
The pro market is much more demanding of use-specific choice (the whole point of modularisation) than the mid-level market, where broad application gear is much more favoured.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
This camera is a significant improvement over both the 1D and 1Ds, yet it costs $1200 less than a 1Ds. I'd say that is a pricing achievement.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Which part of the pro market do you think this camera is unsuited to?
I don't think it's a matter of being "unsuited". If there isn't the choice of modularisation, then it's a choice of bodies incorporating specialisations, as is the case with this 1DX, coupled to the same lens range (I don't see Canon moving away from that product configuration - there is less profit in new lenses than in new bodies). This is a way of exploiting and developing new tech while keeping the price acceptable - put the cutting edge tech for one kind of application into one body, for another application into another body etc. This is a less costly, and viable and challenging alternative to modularisation which the MF market is into, and which obviously is very attractive to pros.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I would say the only market it's not suited to is wildlife, which always needs more reach. It would have needed about 28mp to have the same reach as the 1DIV.
Some sports shooters are complaining that their 400/2.8s are going to be too short now. :wow I think the only place that might be true is in baseball or tennis or sports where the distance from the photographer to the athlete is basically fixed. Otherwise for field sports they will need to adjust their shooting style and wait for the action to get closer. I shot a soccer tournament on a full-size 120 yard field recently with just a 7D and a 70-200/2.8II and somehow I came away with plenty of keepers.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm no sports shooter, but wouldn't the high ISO capabilities enable faster shutter speeds and cheaper/lighter (slower) lenses. I would have thought these would be really useful for them. The new zoom lens with tele converter would be great with this camera. This would also be handy for wildlife shooters I presume.
It's generally less costly to develop and support 1 camera then 2. This is why they are doing it, but I think it covers the needs of most pros very well. The Pros it might not suit are those that would already be using MF anyway.
If they put the same sensor in the 5D3 it will sell like hot cakes. Large file sizes are a pain for wedding shooters etc, so 18Mp sounds around right.
Party like it's 2007, Canon! I've been doing that in my Nikon's since the D300 came out.
(Gimme a break, I'm just trying to find SOMETHING to rub in since Nikon just got pwned... ;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I'm a big guy and the weight of the MKIII has never been an issue and I doubt the added weight here will bother me, so that is a non issue to me. Having big hands, it still feels like thumb acrobatics when I am reaching for the joystick when shooting in portrait orientation so I was happy to see a second one added.
It won't focus with an f/8 lens, so putting a teleconverter on an f/5.6 lens like the 400/5.6L, 100-400L or 70-300L won't work.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
But didn't the previous generation 1D bodies autofocus somewhat at f/8 (without all focus points active)?
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky