Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited October 22, 2011
While I'm not saying that we should go around down-playing the differences between cameras, I would like to point out that it's simply counterproductive to make subjective arguments such as "not even close" etc. Let alone, personal attacks.
Neither do I think we should stay silent if we think a camera maker is making a huge mistake. Heaven knows how vocal I am when I think something is a bad idea.
All I'd like to say is that in my (short) experience with online discussion, it is clear to me that people don't listen when things get negative. If you'd like to make a point, it's a lot more productive to keep personal opinions worded carefully, and to state facts plainly.
I don't know about you, but I participate here so that I can learn new things about other areas of photography, and indeed also to have a little fun chatting about the latest tech. I'm just as surprised by the 1Dx as anyone else, to think that Canon would forsake a major aspect of their telephoto sports / wildlife advantage. But I still stand by my assertion, that Canon won't go down this road without thinking it through. If we're never going to see a 1.3x 1D mk5, then who knows maybe we'll see a 1.6x 7D mk2 (or a 4D? 6D?) ...with 45 pt AF and ISO performance that beats the 1.3x mk4... I dunno, think outside the box! I dunno about you, but to me the fun part is in dreaming up what could happen next, instead of getting angry about what may NOT happen...
By the way, I'm 27 and if you ask me I think we all have some growing up to do...
Now y'all can simmer down about the full frame 'problem'
I'd much rather have this lens than buy a crop body for wildlife... it will probably release in conjunction with the 1DX, or at least very close to it.
Now y'all can simmer down about the full frame 'problem'
I'd much rather have this lens than buy a crop body for wildlife... it will probably release in conjunction with the 1DX, or at least very close to it.
Not nearly enough reach for serious birding with a FF body. :nah
I don't recall Canon ever releasing a body with a single even number designator. They seem to prefer odd numbers somehow!
You're right, I guess I'm just used to Nikon alternating between odd / even numbers every generation. (D3, D300, D700, D7000, vs D2, D200, D80, etc.)
Either way, my point is that this is PROBABLY NOT the only dramatic lineup change from Canon, and I don't understand how anyone can think that Canon will continue with just TWO full-frame options. What happened to the SWARM of photogs who were screaming that FF is the future? All of a sudden, professionals and advanced amateurs are supposed to settle for ONLY the 1DX and 5D mk3? Using the same sensor? I highly, highly doubt that. Especially not with Nikon / Sony developing a 36 megapixel sensor.
So if you ask me, we're in for some more surprises. Possibly, a higher-res 5D mk3 *PLUS* a 1DX sensor'd 6D or 3DX or something. And, for the people missing 1.3x, maybe we'll see a semi-flagship 1.6x... The fact that Canon has a totally new AF system does kinda free up the "old" 45-point AF to be used in other bodies. I'd love love love to see some sort of $3K camera with the 1DX sensor and the 45-point AF. And for those of you who argue that Canon would never make such an affordable camera with flagship AF... well then I'd ask why the Nikon D700 is allowed to exist. ;-)
Isn't that where suitable telephoto glass comes in - just how birders did it in pre-digital days?
I don't understand where you're going with this. You posted a link to the Canon 200-400 with integrated TC1.4x, and I said it wasn't nearly enough for birders on a FF frame. What folks did pre-digital age is irrelevant. They took crappy pictures. Camera gear has generally gotten better over time and we are taking better pictures today than we did a decade or two ago. That's why when a major camera manufacturer takes something away that a large portion of their market wants, it's cause for concern.
One can buy long lenses up to a point. Canon developed the 800mm F5.6 lens, which I'm certain represented a huge engineering investment almost exclusively geared towards wildlife photographers. As referenced above, Art Morris called the loss of the ability to use a TC1.4 with the $14,000 800mm lens, "brutal". No only would he lose reach by going to FF, but he can't make it up with a TC. Do the arithmetic. With his 1DMKIV, 800mm, and TC1.4X, he's getting a 35mm equivalency of 1456mm. With the 1Dx, he gets 800mm. He's lost almost half of his maximum reach.
I don't understand where you're going with this. You posted a link to the Canon 200-400 with integrated TC1.4x, and I said it wasn't nearly enough for birders on a FF frame.
I posted that link
One can buy long lenses up to a point. Canon developed the 800mm F5.6 lens, which I'm certain represented a huge engineering investment almost exclusively geared towards wildlife photographers. As referenced above, Art Morris called the loss of the ability to use a TC1.4 with the $14,000 800mm lens, "brutal". No only would he lose reach by going to FF, but he can't make it up with a TC. Do the arithmetic. With his 1DMKIV, 800mm, and TC1.4X, he's getting a 35mm equivalency of 1456mm. With the 1Dx, he gets 800mm. He's lost almost half of his maximum reach.
If he's trying to fill the frame with the bird, half the reach will still be amazing looking with the IQ and resolution of the 1DX. The MKII already has astounding resolution and clarity, and the 1DX is going to do it even better. Granted some stuff would be too small with half reach but filling half the frame instead of %100 of the frame still looks amazing poster sized.
thank you Kdog for explaining this so clearly, as only a birder would understand the difference. we know because we deal with this every day. Most shots are not full frame, half if we are lucky. So do the math on that, or on any camera, no, its not pretty, nor amazing. Good point on the 800mm also. The 200-400 will also now become too short. Even with the teleconverter provided in it for 560mm. It sure changes everything! Again, I am soooo glad I have the MkIV, and feel fortunate that I don't have to worry about this mess for a few years.
The 1Dx in my eyes is the dream 5D professional FF camera long awaited for. It's too bad they didn't continue the MKIV and skip making the MKIVs series.
I don't understand where you're going with this. You posted a link to the Canon 200-400 with integrated TC1.4x, and I said it wasn't nearly enough for birders on a FF frame. What folks did pre-digital age is irrelevant. They took crappy pictures. Camera gear has generally gotten better over time and we are taking better pictures today than we did a decade or two ago. That's why when a major camera manufacturer takes something away that a large portion of their market wants, it's cause for concern.
One can buy long lenses up to a point. Canon developed the 800mm F5.6 lens, which I'm certain represented a huge engineering investment almost exclusively geared towards wildlife photographers. As referenced above, Art Morris called the loss of the ability to use a TC1.4 with the $14,000 800mm lens, "brutal". No only would he lose reach by going to FF, but he can't make it up with a TC. Do the arithmetic. With his 1DMKIV, 800mm, and TC1.4X, he's getting a 35mm equivalency of 1456mm. With the 1Dx, he gets 800mm. He's lost almost half of his maximum reach.
Solution: keep shooting with your 1D mk4. Heck buy a 2nd one used in mint condition for $2500, in 1-2 years! :-)
My point is, if it's a great camera now, it's going to be a great camera for a while. The 1DX improvements aren't going to stop the 1D mk4 from being great. So the whole argument is a bit weak.
I know, I know, the complaint is that a 1.3x 1D mk5 could be even better. Yes, I totally agree! But that argument still troubles me because if you buy into it, by the time a 1D mk6 gets here we'll probably be saying just how completely inadequate the 1D mk4 was. No? Well, how inadequate is the 1D mk2, "now"? Pretty un-acceptable, now that we have the newer models. And yet when I read reviews from ~7 years ago, they praise the AF system, (even for BIF) ...and don't whine about the ISO very much at all.
Anyways, my point is not to shut up and be happy with this incredible change in Canon's lineup. My point is just that if the cameras we have today are so great, then we can rest assured they'll stay great for another generation or two. And rest assured, Canon knows they have a corner on the telephoto sports market, they've probably got plenty up their sleeves...
As I've said many times before, I'm betting that the 1.6x lineup will soon surpass the "last" 1.3x sensor for image quality, and we'll see some sort of 7DX that really blows the doors off telephoto photography. That, and also I'd also wager that the 1DX mk2 will have enough resolution to allow for a 1.3x crop mode that puts PLENTY of "pixels on target"...
As I've said many times before, I'm betting that the 1.6x lineup will soon surpass the "last" 1.3x sensor for image quality, and we'll see some sort of 7DX that really blows the doors off telephoto photography. That, and also I'd also wager that the 1DX mk2 will have enough resolution to allow for a 1.3x crop mode that puts PLENTY of "pixels on target"...
Possible reason for 18MP
OK, there is a lot of speculation in what I'm about to say, but I think the reason for the resolution being 18MP may be video related.
One of the things Canon has touted about the new sensor is reduced moire, this is one of the main problems with DSLR video at the moment. It is caused by several factors, but one of them is that the pixels on the sensor do not translate directly to the 1080P frame.
If the sensor was designed with this in mind, for example 3x the horizontal and vertical resolution of the 1080p frame, with exactly 9 pixels to each video pixel, this might result in a sharper image with less moire.
Depending on various factors, this would result in a still 3x2 frame size of approx. 18MP.
Could be a total coincidence of course, and I don't think video is a major factor in the design of the 1Dx (most of the high end features on the camera are not relevant for video). However, if the same sensor was going to be used on the 5D3, it make a lot more sense, as the 5D2 is hugely popular for video.
If this is true, then I would expect the next generation of 1.6 crop cameras from Canon to have around the same resolution.
Thinking about it, a 7D2 with maybe 2 stops better low light performance (compared to current model) and improved autofocus might be ideal for the bird spotters, as its extra crop factor would negate the need for 1.4x converters etc.
thank you Kdog for explaining this so clearly, as only a birder would understand the difference. we know because we deal with this every day. Most shots are not full frame, half if we are lucky. So do the math on that, or on any camera, no, its not pretty, nor amazing. Good point on the 800mm also. The 200-400 will also now become too short. Even with the teleconverter provided in it for 560mm. It sure changes everything! Again, I am soooo glad I have the MkIV, and feel fortunate that I don't have to worry about this mess for a few years.
The 1Dx in my eyes is the dream 5D professional FF camera long awaited for. It's too bad they didn't continue the MKIV and skip making the MKIVs series.
Same with all wildlife, really, apart from elephants.
My solution was to replace my 1D3 with a 7D instead of the 1D4 - after all, you get 75% more pixels on target provided the target fits within the crop frame (most targets won't fill a full APS-C frame anyway, even at long focal lengths, let alone an APS-H frame) and you aren't often shooting at ISO 6400 or higher when shooting wildlife. Hoping that the 7D2 does even better...
http://www.imperialstudios.biz - Imperial Studios - Landscape, Travel and Fine Art Photography. Also happens to be my website, a work very much in progress... prints available here if anyone wants my work.
18MP is primarily to balance file size with the increased FPS, allowing for a higher fps, and reducing noise. On the side for birders (If a birder uses this) they will be able to avoid image diffraction until F13 or so. Since the 7D is so pixel packed, it suffers from diffraction F6.3. Diffraction really kills micro-contrast, and if that's something you want with your photos the 1DX will make drool worthy crops
18MP is primarily to balance file size with the increased FPS, allowing for a higher fps, and reducing noise. On the side for birders (If a birder uses this) they will be able to avoid image diffraction until F13 or so. Since the 7D is so pixel packed, it suffers from diffraction F6.3. Diffraction really kills micro-contrast, and if that's something you want with your photos the 1DX will make drool worthy crops
That is a very good point. BTW, what does 18 MP FF crop to at 1.3x, anyways? Isn't it still greater than 10 megapixels? (The resolution of the "revolutionary for it's time" 1D mk3...)
That is a very good point. BTW, what does 18 MP FF crop to at 1.3x, anyways? Isn't it still greater than 10 megapixels? (The resolution of the "revolutionary for it's time" 1D mk3...)
That is a very good point. BTW, what does 18 MP FF crop to at 1.3x, anyways? Isn't it still greater than 10 megapixels? (The resolution of the "revolutionary for it's time" 1D mk3...)
That is a very good point. BTW, what does 18 MP FF crop to at 1.3x, anyways? Isn't it still greater than 10 megapixels? (The resolution of the "revolutionary for it's time" 1D mk3...)
=Matt=
To get the "adjusted" pixel count for an imager with the same dimensions as the Canon 1D MKIII imager, but the same pixel/photosite density as the 1D x, we first have to calculate the size of the photosites on the 1D X.
The 1D X has a published resolution of 5184 x 3456 and an imager size of 36.0 x 24.0mm. Dividing 36mm by 5184, the linear number of photosites contained in the 36mm dimension, we get a photosite size of 0.0069444444444444mm. Dividing 24mm by 3456 yields the same number, so we can assume square pixels.
Using the same photosite size of 0.0069444444444444mm and dividing that into the published 1D MKIII imager sizes of 28.1 x 18.7mm, we get 4046 x 2693 (rounded to the nearest integer). This calculates to a pixel count of 11,030,528 pixels, or 11 MPix.
So a 1.3x crop from the 1D X frame should be around 11 MPix.
The 10 MPix resolution of the 1D MKIII was intended to be only a modest improvement over the prior 1D MKII/MKIIN of 8 MPix.
The 1D MKIV had a somewhat larger boost to 16 MPix, but that would translate to around 26.6 MPix for a 36x24mm FF imager, and I'm sure what some were expecting for a 1Ds MKIV (if it had happened).
Ziggy, thnx for your time, you've got some heavy numbers there! I think artists more or less visualize the difference rather than pixel count. From what I read, the MKIII compares close to the 1Dx, only slightly larger print file after the equal cropping. So, yes, you can not compare the 1Dx to the mkIV at all. A closer comparison is the MKIII. So my question all along would be, having the same size end print, why would one move to a $6800 camera to fall back to MKIII size. But you are correct, if one was jumping from the MKIII to the new 1Dx, they'd not feel the problem like a IV user would.
The way I feel about the 12- 14FPS is if you can't get it with 10FPS you ain't gonna get it! And unless one has all the longer lens line up, this camera is out of the league compared to todays expenses. It works well though for people with big bucks.
Ziggy, thnx for your time, you've got some heavy numbers there! I think artists more or less visualize the difference rather than pixel count. From what I read, the MKIII compares close to the 1Dx, only slightly larger print file after the equal cropping. So, yes, you can not compare the 1Dx to the mkIV at all. A closer comparison is the MKIII. So my question all along would be, having the same size end print, why would one move to a $6800 camera to fall back to MKIII size. But you are correct, if one was jumping from the MKIII to the new 1Dx, they'd not feel the problem like a IV user would.
The way I feel about the 12- 14FPS is if you can't get it with 10FPS you ain't gonna get it! And unless one has all the longer lens line up, this camera is out of the league compared to todays expenses. It works well though for people with big bucks.
Would you really be unwilling to forfeit ~5 pixels of lesser quality in favor of ~11 total pixels of FAR GREATER quality? (since we're still in the mood for dramatic comparisons, it seems) I thought that quality versus quantity is what everyone was so concerned about with the megapixel race?
All I'm saying is, I just don't see it as such a huge loss... Yes, it would be awesome to see a 1DV with ~18 megapixels at 1.3x, even if it forfeitted 1-2 stops of ISO. But then again like I said, if you're in the mood to forfeit a little ISO compared to FF, I'm betting that the 1.6x crop is just one generation away from matching the 1DIV's ISO performance. And if telephoto reach is so important to you, isn't your ultimate camera a 1.6x with acceptable IQ?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to help you see the possibilities of how birding could actually still get BETTER, even if we lose 1.3x.
Ziggy, thnx for your time, you've got some heavy numbers there! I think artists more or less visualize the difference rather than pixel count. From what I read, the MKIII compares close to the 1Dx, only slightly larger print file after the equal cropping. So, yes, you can not compare the 1Dx to the mkIV at all. A closer comparison is the MKIII. So my question all along would be, having the same size end print, why would one move to a $6800 camera to fall back to MKIII size. But you are correct, if one was jumping from the MKIII to the new 1Dx, they'd not feel the problem like a IV user would.
In my observation and experience pixel quality factors into the equation as well. I shoot with a 1dIV, a 1dIII, and a 5dII. I can crop my 5dII shots to a lower pixel density (which translates to fewer overall pixels in the shot) and still get better IQ than either of my 1d bodies. This is especially true in low light situations.
I don't shoot birds or wildlife, aside from the usual 'snapshots' when I am out hiking with my family, so I can't speak directly to this application.
The 1D X has a published resolution of 5184 x 3456 and an imager size of 36.0 x 24.0mm. Dividing 36mm by 5184, the linear number of photosites contained in the 36mm dimension, we get a photosite size of 0.0069444444444444mm. Dividing 24mm by 3456 yields the same number, so we can assume square pixels.
Using the same photosite size of 0.0069444444444444mm and dividing that into the published 1D MKIII imager sizes of 28.1 x 18.7mm, we get 4046 x 2693 (rounded to the nearest integer). This calculates to a pixel count of 11,030,528 pixels, or 11 MPix.
So a 1.3x crop from the 1D X frame should be around 11 MPix.
This assumes that the pixel size is the same on both sensors, which I don't think is correct. 1dx has a pixel size of 6.95µm (pretty close to your estimate!), the 1dIV is 5.7µm, and the 1dIII is 7.2µm. 5D Mark II is 6.4µm.
My personal order of priorities for improvements is:
AF. If the autofocus does not do its job and if images are not sharp, the image is not usable. The 1D X is an unknown in this regard. The specifications "look" good, but it will take testing to determine whether the AF is competent or not. (I have little doubt that this AF is extremely well tested, so I am extremely hopeful.)
Exposure system, including controls. If the exposure is not accurate and consistent between images and in varied conditions, it can make an otherwise wonderful image into a painful post-processing exercise, or worse. This exposure system appears to be related to the immediately previous exposure systems, with a little more in terms of regions. With a dedicated processor for the exposure system I suspect that it should be an improvement overall and that even in low light it should be very fast.
Responsiveness. More than the frames-per-second, this is how ready the entire camera system is in terms of shutter lag and viewfinder blackout, amongst other things. In this regard, with 2 processors just for AF and prep and a third processor just for exposure, I suspect that this is the most refined dSLR ever built. Throughput and image pipeline look to be faster than anything prior from any manufacturer. Responsiveness should be excellent.
Dynamic range and random sensor noise. These two measurements are somewhat related, but you also need to consider the "look" to both qualities. The 5D MKII and 1D MKIV are good in this regard, so I expect better from the 1D X. Specifications look good but the image samples and rigorous tests will tell the tale.
User interface. This looks like it's basically similar to previous Canon interfaces, just more complicated and adjustable/configurable than before. Just what I would expect.
Megapixels. More is generally better as long as random sensor noise doesn't overwhelm the image and as long as noise is not too visible. 18 MPix is normally plenty, and I am guessing that the designed frame rate and throughput limited the resolution choices. High-ISO designs probably also played a role.
Corbis and other digital image clearing houses can "require" 16 MPix and more, so even a mild crop from the original can require interpolation.
This assumes that the pixel size is the same on both sensors, which I don't think is correct. 1dx has a pixel size of 6.95µm (pretty close to your estimate!), the 1dIV is 5.7µm, and the 1dIII is 7.2µm. 5D Mark II is 6.4µm.
That is a very good point. BTW, what does 18 MP FF crop to at 1.3x, anyways? Isn't it still greater than 10 megapixels? (The resolution of the "revolutionary for it's time" 1D mk3...)
=Matt=
Matt's question was relating to a crop of 1.3x from the 1D X, so, of course, I used the photosite size of the 1D X. I used the imager dimensions from the 1D MKIII since that was the comparison Matt seemed to want to make.
Matt's question was relating to a crop of 1.3x from the 1D X, so, of course, I used the photosite size of the 1D X. I used the imager dimensions from the 1D MKIII since that was the comparison Matt seemed to want to make.
As far as I can tell, you're right Ziggy. For example I know for a fact that my D700 in DX 1.5x mode is about 6 megapixels, but if I just take 12 and divide it by 1.5, I get ~8. (The D700 has 8.4um pixels I think?)
Matt's question was relating to a crop of 1.3x from the 1D X, so, of course, I used the photosite size of the 1D X. I used the imager dimensions from the 1D MKIII since that was the comparison Matt seemed to want to make.
Comments
Neither do I think we should stay silent if we think a camera maker is making a huge mistake. Heaven knows how vocal I am when I think something is a bad idea.
All I'd like to say is that in my (short) experience with online discussion, it is clear to me that people don't listen when things get negative. If you'd like to make a point, it's a lot more productive to keep personal opinions worded carefully, and to state facts plainly.
I don't know about you, but I participate here so that I can learn new things about other areas of photography, and indeed also to have a little fun chatting about the latest tech. I'm just as surprised by the 1Dx as anyone else, to think that Canon would forsake a major aspect of their telephoto sports / wildlife advantage. But I still stand by my assertion, that Canon won't go down this road without thinking it through. If we're never going to see a 1.3x 1D mk5, then who knows maybe we'll see a 1.6x 7D mk2 (or a 4D? 6D?) ...with 45 pt AF and ISO performance that beats the 1.3x mk4... I dunno, think outside the box! I dunno about you, but to me the fun part is in dreaming up what could happen next, instead of getting angry about what may NOT happen...
By the way, I'm 27 and if you ask me I think we all have some growing up to do...
Cheers,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Now y'all can simmer down about the full frame 'problem'
I'd much rather have this lens than buy a crop body for wildlife... it will probably release in conjunction with the 1DX, or at least very close to it.
Link to my Smugmug site
Either way, my point is that this is PROBABLY NOT the only dramatic lineup change from Canon, and I don't understand how anyone can think that Canon will continue with just TWO full-frame options. What happened to the SWARM of photogs who were screaming that FF is the future? All of a sudden, professionals and advanced amateurs are supposed to settle for ONLY the 1DX and 5D mk3? Using the same sensor? I highly, highly doubt that. Especially not with Nikon / Sony developing a 36 megapixel sensor.
So if you ask me, we're in for some more surprises. Possibly, a higher-res 5D mk3 *PLUS* a 1DX sensor'd 6D or 3DX or something. And, for the people missing 1.3x, maybe we'll see a semi-flagship 1.6x... The fact that Canon has a totally new AF system does kinda free up the "old" 45-point AF to be used in other bodies. I'd love love love to see some sort of $3K camera with the 1DX sensor and the 45-point AF. And for those of you who argue that Canon would never make such an affordable camera with flagship AF... well then I'd ask why the Nikon D700 is allowed to exist. ;-)
=Matt=
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYxsi1L5cRM&feature=player_embedded
I don't understand where you're going with this. You posted a link to the Canon 200-400 with integrated TC1.4x, and I said it wasn't nearly enough for birders on a FF frame. What folks did pre-digital age is irrelevant. They took crappy pictures. Camera gear has generally gotten better over time and we are taking better pictures today than we did a decade or two ago. That's why when a major camera manufacturer takes something away that a large portion of their market wants, it's cause for concern.
One can buy long lenses up to a point. Canon developed the 800mm F5.6 lens, which I'm certain represented a huge engineering investment almost exclusively geared towards wildlife photographers. As referenced above, Art Morris called the loss of the ability to use a TC1.4 with the $14,000 800mm lens, "brutal". No only would he lose reach by going to FF, but he can't make it up with a TC. Do the arithmetic. With his 1DMKIV, 800mm, and TC1.4X, he's getting a 35mm equivalency of 1456mm. With the 1Dx, he gets 800mm. He's lost almost half of his maximum reach.
Link to my Smugmug site
I posted that link
If he's trying to fill the frame with the bird, half the reach will still be amazing looking with the IQ and resolution of the 1DX. The MKII already has astounding resolution and clarity, and the 1DX is going to do it even better. Granted some stuff would be too small with half reach but filling half the frame instead of %100 of the frame still looks amazing poster sized.
The 1Dx in my eyes is the dream 5D professional FF camera long awaited for. It's too bad they didn't continue the MKIV and skip making the MKIVs series.
My point is, if it's a great camera now, it's going to be a great camera for a while. The 1DX improvements aren't going to stop the 1D mk4 from being great. So the whole argument is a bit weak.
I know, I know, the complaint is that a 1.3x 1D mk5 could be even better. Yes, I totally agree! But that argument still troubles me because if you buy into it, by the time a 1D mk6 gets here we'll probably be saying just how completely inadequate the 1D mk4 was. No? Well, how inadequate is the 1D mk2, "now"? Pretty un-acceptable, now that we have the newer models. And yet when I read reviews from ~7 years ago, they praise the AF system, (even for BIF) ...and don't whine about the ISO very much at all.
Anyways, my point is not to shut up and be happy with this incredible change in Canon's lineup. My point is just that if the cameras we have today are so great, then we can rest assured they'll stay great for another generation or two. And rest assured, Canon knows they have a corner on the telephoto sports market, they've probably got plenty up their sleeves...
As I've said many times before, I'm betting that the 1.6x lineup will soon surpass the "last" 1.3x sensor for image quality, and we'll see some sort of 7DX that really blows the doors off telephoto photography. That, and also I'd also wager that the 1DX mk2 will have enough resolution to allow for a 1.3x crop mode that puts PLENTY of "pixels on target"...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Link to my Smugmug site
Link to my Smugmug site
My bad. Read post #103, three posts back. The rest of my points still stand.
Link to my Smugmug site
OK, there is a lot of speculation in what I'm about to say, but I think the reason for the resolution being 18MP may be video related.
One of the things Canon has touted about the new sensor is reduced moire, this is one of the main problems with DSLR video at the moment. It is caused by several factors, but one of them is that the pixels on the sensor do not translate directly to the 1080P frame.
If the sensor was designed with this in mind, for example 3x the horizontal and vertical resolution of the 1080p frame, with exactly 9 pixels to each video pixel, this might result in a sharper image with less moire.
Depending on various factors, this would result in a still 3x2 frame size of approx. 18MP.
Could be a total coincidence of course, and I don't think video is a major factor in the design of the 1Dx (most of the high end features on the camera are not relevant for video). However, if the same sensor was going to be used on the 5D3, it make a lot more sense, as the 5D2 is hugely popular for video.
If this is true, then I would expect the next generation of 1.6 crop cameras from Canon to have around the same resolution.
Thinking about it, a 7D2 with maybe 2 stops better low light performance (compared to current model) and improved autofocus might be ideal for the bird spotters, as its extra crop factor would negate the need for 1.4x converters etc.
Same with all wildlife, really, apart from elephants.
My solution was to replace my 1D3 with a 7D instead of the 1D4 - after all, you get 75% more pixels on target provided the target fits within the crop frame (most targets won't fill a full APS-C frame anyway, even at long focal lengths, let alone an APS-H frame) and you aren't often shooting at ISO 6400 or higher when shooting wildlife. Hoping that the 7D2 does even better...
Still, you occasionally get lucky on full-frame:
(Taken with 5D2, 70-200L II @ 200mm, uncropped):
http://www.imperialstudios.biz/Landscapes/Gallery/12098427_nFF4tW#1492457369_5Tqq5HR
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
A tad over 6% more pixels 'on target' with FF.
pp
Flickr
Well... if this formula is right: 18/1.3 = 13.85
14MP @ 1.3x with all the added IQ perks
To get the "adjusted" pixel count for an imager with the same dimensions as the Canon 1D MKIII imager, but the same pixel/photosite density as the 1D x, we first have to calculate the size of the photosites on the 1D X.
The 1D X has a published resolution of 5184 x 3456 and an imager size of 36.0 x 24.0mm. Dividing 36mm by 5184, the linear number of photosites contained in the 36mm dimension, we get a photosite size of 0.0069444444444444mm. Dividing 24mm by 3456 yields the same number, so we can assume square pixels.
Using the same photosite size of 0.0069444444444444mm and dividing that into the published 1D MKIII imager sizes of 28.1 x 18.7mm, we get 4046 x 2693 (rounded to the nearest integer). This calculates to a pixel count of 11,030,528 pixels, or 11 MPix.
So a 1.3x crop from the 1D X frame should be around 11 MPix.
The 10 MPix resolution of the 1D MKIII was intended to be only a modest improvement over the prior 1D MKII/MKIIN of 8 MPix.
The 1D MKIV had a somewhat larger boost to 16 MPix, but that would translate to around 26.6 MPix for a 36x24mm FF imager, and I'm sure what some were expecting for a 1Ds MKIV (if it had happened).
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The way I feel about the 12- 14FPS is if you can't get it with 10FPS you ain't gonna get it!
Would you really be unwilling to forfeit ~5 pixels of lesser quality in favor of ~11 total pixels of FAR GREATER quality? (since we're still in the mood for dramatic comparisons, it seems) I thought that quality versus quantity is what everyone was so concerned about with the megapixel race?
All I'm saying is, I just don't see it as such a huge loss... Yes, it would be awesome to see a 1DV with ~18 megapixels at 1.3x, even if it forfeitted 1-2 stops of ISO. But then again like I said, if you're in the mood to forfeit a little ISO compared to FF, I'm betting that the 1.6x crop is just one generation away from matching the 1DIV's ISO performance. And if telephoto reach is so important to you, isn't your ultimate camera a 1.6x with acceptable IQ?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to help you see the possibilities of how birding could actually still get BETTER, even if we lose 1.3x.
:-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
In my observation and experience pixel quality factors into the equation as well. I shoot with a 1dIV, a 1dIII, and a 5dII. I can crop my 5dII shots to a lower pixel density (which translates to fewer overall pixels in the shot) and still get better IQ than either of my 1d bodies. This is especially true in low light situations.
I don't shoot birds or wildlife, aside from the usual 'snapshots' when I am out hiking with my family, so I can't speak directly to this application.
This assumes that the pixel size is the same on both sensors, which I don't think is correct. 1dx has a pixel size of 6.95µm (pretty close to your estimate!), the 1dIV is 5.7µm, and the 1dIII is 7.2µm. 5D Mark II is 6.4µm.
AF. If the autofocus does not do its job and if images are not sharp, the image is not usable. The 1D X is an unknown in this regard. The specifications "look" good, but it will take testing to determine whether the AF is competent or not. (I have little doubt that this AF is extremely well tested, so I am extremely hopeful.)
Exposure system, including controls. If the exposure is not accurate and consistent between images and in varied conditions, it can make an otherwise wonderful image into a painful post-processing exercise, or worse. This exposure system appears to be related to the immediately previous exposure systems, with a little more in terms of regions. With a dedicated processor for the exposure system I suspect that it should be an improvement overall and that even in low light it should be very fast.
Responsiveness. More than the frames-per-second, this is how ready the entire camera system is in terms of shutter lag and viewfinder blackout, amongst other things. In this regard, with 2 processors just for AF and prep and a third processor just for exposure, I suspect that this is the most refined dSLR ever built. Throughput and image pipeline look to be faster than anything prior from any manufacturer. Responsiveness should be excellent.
Dynamic range and random sensor noise. These two measurements are somewhat related, but you also need to consider the "look" to both qualities. The 5D MKII and 1D MKIV are good in this regard, so I expect better from the 1D X. Specifications look good but the image samples and rigorous tests will tell the tale.
User interface. This looks like it's basically similar to previous Canon interfaces, just more complicated and adjustable/configurable than before. Just what I would expect.
Megapixels. More is generally better as long as random sensor noise doesn't overwhelm the image and as long as noise is not too visible. 18 MPix is normally plenty, and I am guessing that the designed frame rate and throughput limited the resolution choices. High-ISO designs probably also played a role.
Corbis and other digital image clearing houses can "require" 16 MPix and more, so even a mild crop from the original can require interpolation.
http://studioplus.corbis.com/DownloadableDocuments/IPTC_directed_shoots.pdf
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Matt's quoted question:
Matt's question was relating to a crop of 1.3x from the 1D X, so, of course, I used the photosite size of the 1D X. I used the imager dimensions from the 1D MKIII since that was the comparison Matt seemed to want to make.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yep--makes perfect sense!!