Canon EOS 1D X

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/news/2011/oct18e.html?WT.mc_id=C126149">http://www.canon.com/news/2011/oct18e.html?WT.mc_id=C126149</a><br>

See fifth paragraph<br>

got this link from canonrumors.com and it looks like that canon leaked their new flagship camera. <br>

not really sure if i should be excited as it is speculated to be way out of my budget but hey technology moves forward</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll take two. One for the office and one for the house.</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5149972341/canon-eos-1d-x-overview</p>

<p>Wow. Stunning. Will be interesting to see how all this power comes together in the flesh, initial production bugs notwithstanding. It will get a good professional workout at the 2012 Olympics, so it could come out smelling like a rose or like garlic.<br>

I wish Canon the best with this beast; Nikon has its work cut out.</p>

<p>Probably a great camera. But the naming is beyond me. Why is this not a 1D-Mark V? Now everyone will say it's a Canon EOS 1-DX. No big deal perhaps but a bit odd nevertheless.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why is this not a 1D-Mark V?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it can also be seen as the 1D<strong>s</strong>-Mark IV. Going with either "1D" or "1Ds" would have left doubt about whether it really is the replacement for both of those cameras--which Canon says it is.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now everyone will say it's a Canon EOS 1-DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By naming it as such, they're presumably hoping that people will start referring to it as the Canon 1-Dx.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By naming it as such, they're presumably hoping that people will start referring to it as the Canon 1-Dx.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is odd given that "DX" is Nikon's name for the APS-C format. Never mind. Again, no big deal.</p>

<p>No doubt this will be welcomed by those that need such a camera. Not a need for me, if for no other reason than that experience with the EOS-1V+PB-E2 taught me that I would never want a camera with a non-removable vertical grip, and all the extra weight and bulk associated with it. Oh yes, there is the price, too ... </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why is this not a 1D-Mark V?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Different format.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Now everyone will say it's a Canon EOS 1-DX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon have never used the DX/FX convention to characterise sensor size, so this is unlikely to cause any misunderstandings.</p>

<p>Whilst I can see the point of staking out a clear postion that yet more megapixels is no longer the be-all and end-all of sensor design, I am slightly surprised that Canon did not maintain the same pixel size as that on the 1DIV, which would have taken the new camera to about 27Mp, so that cropping produced an equivalent image. It will be interesting to see whether 1DIV users have any issues over this, or alternatively whether 16Mp on the 1DIV was more than they actually needed.</p>

<p>I see no mention of centre-point AF at f/8 standard precision and f/4 high precision. Perhaps it was just not thought worth mentioning, but if it has gone away then that would be a step backwards.</p>

<p>Built-in gigabit ethernet is good, and no doubt will be very wecome for users of such a body, but at the prosumer level what would be really handy would be powered HOST USB, to allow direct connection of a portable hard drive. That would also be a good way to connect a GPS. Incidentally, someone should tell Canon that USB 3.0 has been around for a while.</p>

<p>I just hope that Canon don't use the positioning of this camera to give the 5DIII (or whatever it will be called) a substantially higher pixel count than the 5DII. As between 21Mp and, say, 24Mp I don't care, but I don't want or need anything more. What I do want is, among other things, improved sensor performance and much more advanced AF. I take it as read that there will shortly be some sort of high-megapixel body, probably without a built-in vertical grip (otherwise the idea of converging the 1D line is meaningless), but I hope that will not be the excuse to take the 5DIII downmarket.</p>

<p>For the highest end lenses, 16MP on the 1D-IV wasn't quite enough... I'm really disappointed with Canon on this one. I'd rather have the ability to trade resolution for noise in post... but I suppose Canon has their reasons, though I cannot imagine what they are as surely this magical DIGIC V technology should be able to read 18MP far quicker than the DIGIV IV equipped ID-IV could read 16MP.</p>

<p>All I can think is that Canon was sick of people pixel peeping at 100% and complaining about noise and resolution.</p>

<p>I guess I'll be snapping up another 1D-IV before stocks are gone. Oh well.</p>

<p>Though the electronic first curtain is intriguing (and perhaps the reason for the lower pixel count). I wonder what the sync speed will be on this camera. Oh never mind... I measly 1/250. Thats a slight step back. </p>

<p>Name? Who cares? AF, fps and IQ notwithstanding, I like the human conveniences that the "target market" has been asking Canon for: dual CF card slots (end of this CF/SD nonsense), customizable buttons, multiuple exposures, battery backward compatible with the 1Ds3/1D3/1D4, even though the control layout is slightly different, the camera is "ergonomically correct", i.e. very much like the previous models; plus Ethernet, manual gain control and low pass filter for audio etc. And of course - more brains - 3 processors...</p>

<p>Craig: 1D4 is one o fthe finest cameras ever produced but in 1Dx you have pretty much the same mpixel count on a much larger sensor area than in 1D4...Can't underestimate that! Stick with the 1D4 or, if you need a higher mpixel count, with 1Ds3, but something tells me that the 1Ds series is not dead.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>something tells me that the 1Ds series is not dead.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a quote from Canon Australia: "the Canon EOS-1D X. Superseding the EOS-1D Mark IV and the EOS-1Ds Mark III, the EOS-1D X"</p>

<p>Peter: Yes, but does it supersede a 1Ds Mark IV..?<br>

:-)<br>

By whatever name, I cannot imagine the Canon's lineup without a high megapixel Series 1  DSLR.</p>

<p>From Rob Galbraith</p>

<p>"Canon is naming the body differently too. Rather than calling it the EOS-1D Mark V, thereby carrying on a practice that began when the EOS-1D Mark II came out in 2004, they've broken with that convention and called it simply EOS-1D X. The X, says Canon USA Technical Advisor Chuck Westfall, is meant to suggest three things about the new camera:<br>

 

<ul>

<li> <b>X</b> for extreme (X-treme) performance</li>

<li> <b>X</b> for cross-over (X-over), since this represents the merging of Canon's two pro digital SLR cameras, the higher-resolution EOS-1Ds Mark III and higher-performance EOS-1D Mark IV, into a single next-generation model</li>

<li> The Roman numeral <b>X</b>, as in 10, because the EOS-1D X represents the 10th generation of pro-class SLR from Canon since the F-1 debuted in 1971"</li>

</ul>

</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1848587">Clayton Tullos</a> - What was the point in cut and pasting the details of the camera announcement? Wouldn't a simple link sufficed?</p>

 

<p>disregard, bad post; Is there a post erase procedure?</p>

<p><a href="

 

<p><em>I'd rather have the ability to trade resolution for noise in post... but I suppose Canon has their reasons, though I cannot imagine what they are</em></p>

<p>Perhaps it is simply that Canon knows that you can get better quality in high ISO images by using a more moderate resolution sensor... and there is a compromise involved. You can downsample the images from a high-resolution sensor in post but it will never get as low noise as it would have if the sensor had been designed for that size in the first place ...</p>

<p>Naw, this cannot be, even though they've made that same call in the G series compacts, going for a lower resolution and achieving much better quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps it is simply that Canon knows that you can get better quality in high ISO images by using a more moderate resolution sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Jeez..</em>.</p>

<p>No truth whatsoever in that statement, and you know it.</p>

<p>I'll bet my pension that 18 mps on this camera is simply a count that optimises video throughput, and a marketing nod to the Flat Earthers out there that actually <em>believe</em> this demonstrably discredited drivel about more pixels meaning more noise.</p>

<p>Keith - agreed that there's no truth in Ilkka's statement at DSLR pixel densities.</p>

<p>My guess is that Canon was limited by the fps requirement. Video certainly might have also played a part. I doubt the Flat Earthers had any influence on the engineering department, though the marketing department will certainly latch onto their beliefs right up until Canon releases a higher resolution body.</p>

<p>I hope we see a >30 MP FF sensor from Canon soon, perhaps in a 5D mkIII, or in a new FF body. It will seem odd for the "flagship" to have less resolution then a "lower tier" body, but sales may dictate this. How much reason was there to spend the money on a 1Ds rather than a 5D mkII? It may simply make sense for Canon to make the next 5D the landscape / studio / body, and the 1D the sports / PJ body. (Not that the 1DX would do poorly at the other tasks. But landscape and studio photographers will take all the pixels they can get, and they don't care about frame rates.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No truth whatsoever in that statement, and you know it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I, for one, do NOT know it. Perhaps we should compare similar ISO imagery from the 1D4 & 1Ds3 to that of the 1Dx, then, assuming your conclusion (if it can be called such) is correct, we will ALL 'know it'</p>

<p>Obviously Canon knows <em>something</em> about noise vs. resolution vs. pixel size... they've been building digital cameras that have nearly constantly improving noise characteristics for at least a decade now... Also notably is Nikon's D3x, which is similarly designed, w/ a CMOS w/ a moderate pixel count/ size (12.1mp FF) , and it is well noted for high performance and outstanding noise at very high ISOs. My guess is that they reached a similar conclusion that Canon has (as is readily apparent from the last few generations of top tier Canon P&S's): That there truly exists a 'sweet spot' (at least given a certain amount of processing power!) for a certain pixel size/resolution/noise relationship. I'd bet your pension that optimized video throughput has virtually <em>nothing</em> to do w/ the 18.1MP number... but the proof is in the pudding. If you are right, then we should see similar noise (or at least close) from this guy as we've seen from the 1D4, 1Ds3, and nikon D3x... right? </p>

 

<p>I think it is pretty clear that this camera is directed at sports and photojournalism folks, and that explains the low(ish) resolution. I am sure Canon has done their homework and found that the vast majority of the sales of their 1D-series cameras are not to the forum-creeping, pixel-peeping, resolution-addicted types. The sports and photojournalism folks need to take a lot of pictures quickly and in any weather environment, transmit them very quickly, process them without much fuss, and get them into print. Canon spends millions of dollars in market research to make sure that it sells as many cameras as possible; if a 30MP+ sensor in this form-factor would have sold, they would have made it. However, the truth is that a headline photo on CNN, ESPN, BBC, or the New York Times will almost never be viewed at higher than 700 pixels on its longest side; how does that change your worldview about the place and purpose of resolution?</p>

<p>However, clearly there is a demand for high-resolution camera; it just may not be a high-frame-rate, weather-sealed, integrated-vertical-grip camera that looks like a 1D. For those of us who want high resolution, watch out for a 5Diii or similar in the next year.</p>

<p><em>I, for one, do NOT know it. Perhaps we should compare similar ISO imagery from the 1D4 & 1Ds3 to that of the 1Dx, then, assuming your conclusion (if it can be called such) is correct, we will ALL 'know it'</em></p>

<p>This controls for neither technology nor sensor surface area.</p>

<p><em>Also notably is Nikon's D3x, which is similarly designed, w/ a CMOS w/ a moderate pixel count/ size (12.1mp FF) , and it is well noted for high performance and outstanding noise at very high ISOs.</em></p>

<p>You're confusing the D3x (25 MP) and D3s (12 MP; one year newer). There is little difference between them at ISO 6400 despite the D3s being lower resolution and newer. I can only speculate as to why the D3x was capped at ISO 6400, but a comparison of ISO 6400 images from these two bodies does not support the notion that pixel density is a primary factor in image noise.</p>

<p><em>I'd bet your pension that optimized video throughput has virtually nothing to do w/ the 18.1MP number...</em></p>

<p>The higher the sensor resolution, the more CPU bandwidth required to apply processing to the image (i.e. NR, lens corrections, etc.) or produce a video stream. Even with three CPUs, two dedicated to image processing, one or both of these factors most likely limited Canon's options for resolution given the other specs.</p>

<p><em>If you are right, then we should see similar noise (or at least close) from this guy as we've seen from the 1D4, 1Ds3, and nikon D3x... right?</em></p>

<p>The 1DX is the newest chip design fabricated with the latest technology. We should see noise and DR improvements based on the technology and, in the case of the 1D4, larger sensor surface area.</p>

<p>Not with standing the per-pixel noise flat-earthers (all that matters is sensor size and technology as micro-lenses ensure that all but a fraction of the photons reaching the sensor actually find a pixel) I understand why Canon went with the lower count as it offers better video (higher throughput), enough transistors to drive an electronic shutter (which is apparently not being used for stills as the sync speed is 1/250th... though it will eliminate the rolling shutter problem for video users), and the fact that pjs and sports shooters don't care about MPs. </p>

<p>However, I can't help feeling a bit miffed as a wildlife shooter. Basically, if I have to crop half the frame (quite likely on a FF sensor under normal working conditions), I'm left with a measly 9MP, which really isn't going to get the job done. I guess this situation would be fine if Canon continued offering the 1D IV, but given that it is not, wildlife folks are SOL here. If we want the best AF/weather sealing/frame rate we are stuck with a camera with too low of a pixel count (and at 7.2K, too high of a price). If we want to step up to something with a higher pixel pitch we are stuck with the 7D (great camera, I love mine, but it lacks the 1D feature set). Now I know how the Nikon guys have felt... this sucks. Need to see if I can talk the wife into another IV before they are gone for good. Of course, that guarantees that 1D AF and sealing goes down-market to the 7D replacement, but that should make everyone else happy. </p>

<p>OMG - I needed a cigarette after reading that and I don't smoke. <br>

I will say 2 things I noted - f8 autofocus is gone from the 1D line and it would be nice for autofocus during video like the Sony A35 and A55. </p>