# Comparing the EOS-1D X, EOS-1D X Mark II & EOS-1D X Mark III



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 5, 2020)

> While we wait for tomorrow’s announcement of the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III, I figured I do a specs comparison of the 3 cameras in the EOS-1D X series. I think that the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III is a bigger step forward than the jump we saw between the original EOS-1D X and EOS-1D X Mark II.
> We don’t know all of the specifications yet. There has been no confirmation of the processors the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III uses, and we don’t know how much more advanced this new autofocus system is and there are probably more things to learn about the video features.
> This is a comparison of the basic known specifications of the three cameras.
> 
> ...


*

Continue reading...*


----------



## armd (Jan 5, 2020)

This is a humorous conclusion at best. While there are certainly advancements in specifications, the improvements are relatively meaningless to photographers. Had they achieved the same thing with a 45 MP sensor which could also operate in a smaller “H” crop mode, it might be worth the $7k price tag. I’ll pass.


----------



## Jim Corbett (Jan 5, 2020)

The mk3 spec sheet looks great. Let's see it in action.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 5, 2020)

armd said:


> This is a humorous conclusion at best. While there are certainly advancements in specifications, the improvements are relatively meaningless to photographers. Had they achieved the same thing with a 45 MP sensor which could also operate in a smaller “H” crop mode, it might be worth the $7k price tag. I’ll pass.



Yeah, the all-new image sensor (and hopefully jump in IQ) and an all-new and more precise autofocus system are definitely not for photographers. Obviously we have to see it in action first, but to claim there's nothing here for photographers is silly.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 5, 2020)

I'd buy one if I had the money... along with a 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm. People keep saying that it is not enough reason to upgrade. Maybe not. However, it is enough for first time buyers of 1 series cameras.

One has to wonder how many 1DC were sold at $14,999. Wow.


----------



## woodman411 (Jan 5, 2020)

I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.


----------



## pixel8foto (Jan 5, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Yeah, the all-new image sensor (and hopefully jump in IQ) and an all-new and more precise autofocus system are definitely not for photographers. Obviously we have to see it in action first, but to claim there's nothing here for photographers is silly.



As a stills camera I must confess I was hoping to see some new in-the-pipeline features (IBIS high among them), but if the performance enhancements with focus, battery and *particularly* high ISO, are as strong as the PR suggests, then I'd deffo think to swap my older mk2 over in time. 

Shutter speed and buffer are crazy and I guess they can just do that now anyway, so why not and, assuming it isn't for buffer speed, I care less about a bump in megapixels than I do about a stop of high ISO performance.

Built in wifi knocks off an additional (and irrepairable/easily losable and clumsy) £500 purchase for many who shoot live from their hands. Saving 100g is nice, and it's prob double that if the battery life improvement hits the mark.

But, while I'd consider this over time, I'd immediately buy this kind of spec in a lightweight mirrorless (or even 5d5), with a removable grip, IBIS and a flippy screen.

I bet they still haven't added in-camera 0.1 degree fidelity rotation


----------



## mclaren777 (Jan 5, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.



I'm guessing that the massive buffer is only possible because of the CFexress cards – they will write data fast enough to keep the buffer from filling.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 5, 2020)

I'm curious to know how they managed all of that camera and to shave off over 100 grams of weight.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 5, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'd buy one if I had the money... along with a 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm. People keep saying that it is not enough reason to upgrade. Maybe not. However, it is enough for first time buyers of 1 series cameras.
> 
> One has to wonder how many 1DC were sold at $14,999. Wow.


If I had the money...  , I'd buy one today if it weren't for the weight...


----------



## bellorusso (Jan 5, 2020)

If only IBIS and more pixels were added, this would instantly become the greatest camera for every pro shooter. Now Canon just limited this model to news agencies. Maybe, Canon don't really care for other types of photographers to be interested in this.


----------



## RunAndGun (Jan 5, 2020)

Some others have picked up on it and taken notice, as well, but the HUGE buffer is incredible and not to just be glossed over. If you’re a sports photographer you can basically just hold down the shutter during an entire play and not have to worry about the camera choking or slowing down.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 5, 2020)

bellorusso said:


> If only IBIS and more pixels were added, this would instantly become the greatest camera for every pro shooter. Now Canon just limited this model to news agencies. Maybe, Canon don't really care for other types of photographers to be interested in this.



The EOS-1D series is developed with pro photographers' input, and I imagine it came down to better ISO performance, DR, speed, and whatnot instead of bumping the resolution to 24mp, which is a barely noticeable difference compared to 20mp.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2020)

People want more DR and more megapixels, but ignore the reality that there are only so many photons entering the camera at the exposure time..... you can’t have both At the same time.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 5, 2020)

I don't see the specs as anything that will sell this camera. The real question comes down to autofocus and high ISO performance, neither of which can be determined by specs. If the autofocus lives up to the hype and there are significant but realistic improvements in noise at high ISO, it will be worth the trade off of less resolution. I'm sincerely hoping that will be the case. 

The larger buffer is, in my opinion, little more than a spec sheet advantage. The truth is, shooting raw to a cfast card I can't recall ever having the buffer fill shooting sports. The reason being that most sports plays only take a few seconds before they are over with, giving plenty of time to clear the buffer before the next play. In contrast, I've had to wait for the buffer to clear on the 5DIV and R many, many times.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jan 5, 2020)

Eh....compared in a chart like that it's a marginal improvement at best. As others noted the buffer is huge, but even for sports photographers, I can't imagine many situations where you need to hold a shutter for a minute straight, unless you're in spray & pray mode or have no idea where big moments are in the sport you're covering. I get that sports are fast and you never know EXACTLY when something will happen...but if you can't narrow it down to less than a minute maybe go do something else with your time.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 5, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.


True. I was thinking air shows too. Blue Angels, Thunderbirds, Racing, etc. But I don't really know.


----------



## Adelino (Jan 5, 2020)

Removed WIFI?


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2020)

Actually, there are some interesting "video" options. I suspect the "buffer" is effectively unlimited with HEIF, so set the camera to electronic shutter and HEIF mode and you have 5.4k 20 fps video with AF.


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Jan 5, 2020)

Just wondering if we are talking about the same old sensor or a totally new tech.


----------



## armd (Jan 5, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Yeah, the all-new image sensor (and hopefully jump in IQ) and an all-new and more precise autofocus system are definitely not for photographers. Obviously we have to see it in action first, but to claim there's nothing here for photographers is silly.


The 1dxii is a stellar performer for sports, BIF, etc. Buffer size is not a problem and I’ve never filled it shooting a game. There is no reason for me to spend $7k on a new camera which offers little more than my current body. That’s why it is humorous.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.



It also means that in JPEG mode you can blow the entire 400,000 shutter actuation rating in a little less than seven hours of continuous shooting. LOL.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 5, 2020)

Adelino said:


> Removed WIFI?



No. It has internal WiFi. The external unit is for when more range (distance) is needed or the same speed at greater distance is needed or more speed at the same distance is needed.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 5, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> Just wondering if we are talking about the same old sensor or a totally new tech.


The specs list a whole new sensor.


----------



## ethanz (Jan 5, 2020)

woodman411 said:


> I'm still coming to grips with the 1000+ raw buffer. At 16 fps, that means it'll take over 62 seconds to reach it, that is amazing. For sports photography this is probably important, since it'll allow a sequence of uninterrupted continuous bursts.



That is a great spec, but I've never had a problem with the buffer on my 1dx2 with sports. I think with the upgraded processors they are able to make the buffer a lot bigger.


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 5, 2020)

This comparison guide should also show the A9II. 

* 24Mp,
* 20FPS,
* 693-Point Phase-Detection AF System
* real time eye tracking AF


----------



## Nelu (Jan 5, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> This comparison guide should also show the A9II.
> 
> * 24Mp,
> * 20FPS,
> ...


I agree but switching brands is neither fun or cheap.
I have more than 30K of Canon lenses that right now I feel like they keep me trapped in the Canon ecosystem.
It was fine for sports and landscape but for birding Canon have no suitable camera and I don’t think they actually care.
The best there’s at this moment is the 1DX Mark II which you can get for a great price.
The resolution could be better but otherwise it’s a great camera for BIF.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 6, 2020)

I don't see any reason why I wouldn't buy one.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> This comparison guide should also show the A9II.
> 
> * 24Mp,
> * 20FPS,
> ...



This is comparing Tesla and Suburban, and saying Suburban is better since it has larger fuel tank.

Currently Canon doesn't compete in mirrorless space, so comparing cameras between DSLR and mirrorless is meaningless.

That said, I really hope Canon finally comes up with mirrorless worth buying. The current ones are just jab at the market, and no real contender to Sony.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 6, 2020)

tpatana said:


> This is comparing Tesla and Suburban, and saying Suburban is better since it has larger fuel tank.
> 
> Currently Canon doesn't compete in mirrorless space, so comparing cameras between DSLR and mirrorless is meaningless.
> 
> That said, I really hope Canon finally comes up with mirrorless worth buying. The current ones are just jab at the market, and no real contender to Sony.


I think the passengers don’t give a damn about the fuel tank as long as they get to their destination quickly and safely
One thing people seem to forget about Dslr’s is the AFMA: such a pain in the back!
I’m so happy the EOS R doesn’t need it !


----------



## tpatana (Jan 6, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I think the passengers don’t give a damn about the fuel tank as long as they get to their destination quickly and safely
> One thing people seem to forget about Dslr’s is the AFMA: such a pain in the back!
> I’m so happy the EOS R doesn’t need it !



Just saying different tools are made for different situations/people. Comparing some specific specs doesn't make sense, especially when comparing different technologies.

I hope the DPAF can be used to do automatic AFMA. I don't understand why that isn't a feature for all cameras with DPAF sensor.


----------



## ricardoko (Jan 6, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> People want more DR and more megapixels, but ignore the reality that there are only so many photons entering the camera at the exposure time..... you can’t have both At the same time.



I know the point you're trying to make... there are tradeoffs to be made when increasing both. However it would be incorrect to say you cant increase DR and megapixels at the same time. Just look at sensors now vs. 10 years ago.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Yeah, the all-new image sensor (and hopefully jump in IQ) and an all-new and more precise autofocus system are definitely not for photographers. Obviously we have to see it in action first, but to claim there's nothing here for photographers is silly.


There is NOT going to be a "jump in IQ", there is nowhere to jump to. Maybe half a stop improvement in camera processed non RAW output, RAW output will be basically identical.

There is NOTHING here for photographers, NOTHING, all the meaningful improvements are video centric, it is essentially a 1DC II.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jan 6, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Yeah, the all-new image sensor (and hopefully jump in IQ) and an all-new and more precise autofocus system are definitely not for photographers. Obviously we have to see it in action first, but to claim there's nothing here for photographers is silly.


we havent even seen the sensor in action for the sarcasm.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> Just wondering if we are talking about the same old sensor or a totally new tech.


i am kinda thinking old sensor in new body/circuitry like the eos r. that is a good guess. we will find out soon.


----------



## TAF (Jan 6, 2020)

I rather hope the high iso filters down to the next gen EOS-R, as I find the 1 series form factor too large for my hands.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 6, 2020)

Tou


Profit007 said:


> This comparison guide should also show the A9II.
> 
> * 24Mp,
> * 20FPS,
> ...


You forgot to include a rubbish quality of Sony customer service vs an amazing Canon CPS.


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 6, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Tou
> 
> You forgot to include a rubbish quality of Sony customer service vs an amazing Canon CPS.


I joined CPS nearly 20 years ago, back when it was free if you owned the appropriate kit. Once they replaced an L series AF motor I simply wore out.
Yes, it is good.
Yes it is better than anything Sony has.
No I'm not impressed by the 1DxIII, at least not after the trade marked Canon Cripple Hammer department did it's thing.


----------



## sanj (Jan 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> There is NOT going to be a "jump in IQ", there is nowhere to jump to. Maybe half a stop improvement in camera processed non RAW output, RAW output will be basically identical.
> 
> There is NOTHING here for photographers, NOTHING, all the meaningful improvements are video centric, it is essentially a 1DC II.


Private how do you conclude there will not be better IQ here? Not even half stop better ISO and a slight improvement in dynamic range? Besides, the speed will ensure fewer shots are missed. No?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> It also means that in JPEG mode you can blow the entire 400,000 shutter actuation rating in a little less than seven hours of continuous shooting. LOL.



Lets be honest though. if you could go around telling people that you blew up a 1d shutter in seven hours you would feel like a KING!!!!!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> There is NOT going to be a "jump in IQ", there is nowhere to jump to. Maybe half a stop improvement in camera processed non RAW output, RAW output will be basically identical.
> 
> There is NOTHING here for photographers, NOTHING, all the meaningful improvements are video centric, it is essentially a 1DC II.


It all depends on just how big an improvement the AF is. A small improvement will get it to the D5 level but if they manage a large improvement it may tempt people to upgrade. TBH though. If you are a 1dx2 user I doubt you would feel the need to get rid of your body to get the mk3. When the time comes to retire it though you may very well get that newer body rather than another mk2


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 6, 2020)

ricardoko said:


> I know the point you're trying to make... there are tradeoffs to be made when increasing both. However it would be incorrect to say you cant increase DR and megapixels at the same time. Just look at sensors now vs. 10 years ago.


Yes, but ten years ago you could also improve the efficiency of the sensor significantly. now almost everything is in the 70-80 percent efficiency range, so that parameter is essentially finished

and yes, my first DSLR had only 8 stops of DR and ISO1600 was as high as it would go, anything over 400 was unusable


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> I joined CPS nearly 20 years ago, back when it was free if you owned the appropriate kit. Once they replaced an L series AF motor I simply wore out.
> Yes, it is good.
> Yes it is better than anything Sony has.
> No I'm not impressed by the 1DxIII, at least not after the trade marked Canon Cripple Hammer department did it's thing.


I just do not get this “cripple hammer” thingy. 
There is technical limitations around DPAF and full frame high speed readout. 
20Mp DPAF sensor is technically 40Mp. Reading 40Mp at 60 times per second rates equates to 2.4 Gigapixel per second readout. 
That’s a serious number. 
I do not believe that Canon would even consider crippling potentially last 1D series DSLR unless there is a serious technical limitation or going higher in Mp or whatever prevents them from delivering a next generation AF performance or any other features they consider mission critical for the success of the product. 
I do not use the word “believe me” much. but you can believe me on this. Canon understand pro photography market drivers really well and are focused on delivery of products for photographers that are simply outstanding.
Sony on the other hand is an opportunistic company that would do anything to seize the momentum and use what ever tricks and populistic tools to gain a short term competitive advantage. 
They will also dump you as a client without giving it a second thought.
I have multiple evidences of how Sony customer support operates.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 6, 2020)

sanj said:


> Private how do you conclude there will not be better IQ here? Not even half stop better ISO and a slight improvement in dynamic range? Besides, the speed will ensure fewer shots are missed. No?


Because if there was any more to get somebody would have got it without cooking their RAW files with baked in noise reduction, yes I'm looking at you Pentax! I upgraded to the higher DR of the newer sensors (1Ds MkIII's to 1DX MkII's), that was a comparatively large 1.2 stop increase and differences are minimal, indeed if you ETTR they can be mitigated to practically nothing. What I'm saying is a <1.0 stop of DR 'improvement' is basically impossible to see in the real world so is irrelevant.

If after 13 years we have gone backwards in MP (twice!), and in four years increased full functioning fps by 14% then how many more shots are you truthfully going to get?

This is not a photographic upgrade *i*t is a worthy 1DC II, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that in itself, it just isn't the crowning example of the 1 series I was hoping for.


----------



## Russ6357 (Jan 6, 2020)

Nelu said:


> I agree but switching brands is neither fun or cheap.
> I have more than 30K of Canon lenses that right now I feel like they keep me trapped in the Canon ecosystem.
> It was fine for sports and landscape but for birding Canon have no suitable camera and I don’t think they actually care.
> The best there’s at this moment is the 1DX Mark II which you can get for a great price.
> The resolution could be better but otherwise it’s a great camera for BIF.


+1


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 6, 2020)

Technical limitations???  
The C200 offers 4k 60p and costs less than the 1DxIII rumored price. If it was 'so difficult' then just give us 4k 60p with DPAF with a 1.3x crop. Next you'll be saying that's also too hard, execpt whoops, Canon did that with the 4 year old camera it's replacing, with a 4 year old CPUs.

This is a strategic choice because the A9II didn't offer it while the FX9 does. So now Canon is doing the same, even though it means removing a pre-existing 1 series feature. Wake up, you're being robbed.


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> This is not a photographic upgrade *i*t is a worthy 1DC II,


It could have been, but just like the 1DC was a con (add a heatsink, switch on features in firmware, and double the price), this is a con as well. Canon still want us to pay double the price for capabilities that have been disallowed in firmware.


----------



## londonxt (Jan 6, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> I'm guessing that the massive buffer is only possible because of the CFexress cards – they will write data fast enough to keep the buffer from filling.



Don't get that conclusion, the generous size of the buffer, ie large enough to hold 1000+ RAW would be more an advantage of RAM prices and RAM chip density improvements over the years, which also ties in with power requirements. Once the data is written to a persistant state storage like a CFExpress card the data is no longer in a "buffer".

The max frame rate that the buffer can sustain (assuming its the full 16/20fps for the whole 1000 RAW photos) will be down to Canon improving its own tech eco-system ie the brute processing power and the bandwidth of the internal data bus (dual digic xx) plus the speed of the RAM ie DDR 5 or 6.

You could have the slowest storage card tech out there (5.25 floppy anyone?) and still have that same buffer spec, holding max 1000 RAW at 16/20fps but then with a slow storage device, brew a cup of tea or call it a day to allow the buffer enough time to start to empty while the shutter button is forced to pause. We dont yet know the real world timing of the Card Write speed to remove data from the buffer and therefore how long the shutter button pause will be.

Not increasing resolution of the sensor helps to take max advantage of the new Digic processing power and bandwidth plus general RAM improvements. This 'raw' throughput is clearly the prize and is something Canon would have decided to prioritise and even not slightly compromise with a resolution buff after customer consultations.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 6, 2020)

londonxt said:


> Don't get that conclusion, the generous size of the buffer, ie large enough to hold 1000+ RAW would be more an advantage of RAM prices and chip density improvements over the years. Once the data is written to a persistant state storage like a CFExpress card the data is no longer in a "buffer".
> 
> The max frame rate that the buffer can sustain (assuming its the full 16/20fps for the whole 1000 RAW photos) will be down to Canon improving its own tech eco-system ie the bandwidth of the internal data bus (dual digic xx) plus the speed of the RAM ie DDR 5 or 6.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure it's mostly due to the CFExpress write speed, only partially on the RAM amount. 1000 RAWs would be something like 20GB. Even with modern chips that'd be lot of space (and money). On the other hand, lets assume Gen3 x4 lane on the card, that could sustain 2GB/s+ fairly easy. 30MB * 16fps = <0.5GB/s, so even if they use one lane on the bus they could probably keep writing as fast as the camera takes, assuming there's no other bottlenecks like the DIGIC or something.

So especially after that calculation, I'm pretty sure it's mostly the write speed and only small part on the RAM buffer.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> Technical limitations???
> The C200 offers 4k 60p and costs less than the 1DxIII rumored price. If it was 'so difficult' then just give us 4k 60p with DPAF with a 1.3x crop. Next you'll be saying that's also too hard, execpt whoops, Canon did that with the 4 year old camera it's replacing, with a 4 year old CPUs.
> 
> This is a strategic choice because the A9II didn't offer it while the FX9 does. So now Canon is doing the same, even though it means removing a pre-existing 1 series feature. Wake up, you're being robbed.




Does the c200 have active cooling and/or a bigger more open body therefore meaning it is not weather sealed? Or would that not matter to you?


----------



## degos (Jan 6, 2020)

Don Haines said:


> People want more DR and more megapixels, but ignore the reality that there are only so many photons entering the camera at the exposure time..... you can’t have both At the same time.



Umm, about 10,000,000,000,000,000 photons per square centimetre per second in daylight...

We haven't hit Peak Photon yet!

Scaling-up the pixel density of a sensor doesn't suck photons away from other photosites, it actually makes better use of the incoming photon stream.


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 6, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Does the c200 have active cooling and/or a bigger more open body therefore meaning it is not weather sealed? Or would that not matter to you?


The 1DC, remember that extra heat sink that allowed all sorts of impossible physics (according to forum posters of the day, perhaps you were one of them?) to suddenly be switched on with different firmware and a $15k money grab?

I don't know how much heat would be created by switching DPAF back on again, but I doubt it's that big a deal, after all, the 1DxII already does what we want, at least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> The 1DC, remember that extra heat sink that allowed all sorts of impossible physics (according to forum posters of the day, perhaps you were one of them?) to suddenly be switched on with different firmware and a $15k money grab?
> 
> I don't know how much heat would be created by switching DPAF back on again, but I doubt it's that big a deal, after all, the 1DxII already does what we want, at least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to.


“... At least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to...” that’s is quite a possibility. If not at release time but then with a firmware update a bit down the road. My guts feeling that Canon will need a bit more time to sort this issue out.
I would not bet my house on it, but it is highly likely that we will see 4K60 dpaf feature implemented in 1Dx III in one or another form in coming months.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> The 1DC, remember that extra heat sink that allowed all sorts of impossible physics (according to forum posters of the day, perhaps you were one of them?) to suddenly be switched on with different firmware and a $15k money grab?
> 
> I don't know how much heat would be created by switching DPAF back on again, but I doubt it's that big a deal, after all, the 1DxII already does what we want, at least give us back a 1.3 crop mode with DPAF if they really feel they have to.


No. I wasnt one of those posters all those years ago. Before my time. But i can say with confidence that the processors in the 1dx3 will put out plenty of heat, especially doing 4k at 60p. And if you had dpaf that is effectively a 40mp sensor running at 60p. That is a LOT of processing power and is sure to generate a LOT of heat. As for the 1.3 crop. Maybe that will happen. But i guarantee if it does all we will hear is whinging about the canon cripple hammer forcing users to live with a crop. Because people just want to whinge.


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 6, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Actually, there are some interesting "video" options. I suspect the "buffer" is effectively unlimited with HEIF, so set the camera to electronic shutter and HEIF mode and you have 5.4k 20 fps video with AF.


There's a lot of people waiting for 24/25 fps stills. We're almost there, but it looks like it will be Sony that bring it to market.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jan 6, 2020)

I don't see much of an understanding of heat consequences of features here. And I doubt that most people actual understands the extent to which Canon is checking their assumptions with the professionals. So the professional sports photographers get what they need the most.

If we have 4K on a 1D X, Canon shooters expect it to be available *all *the time. They would be frothing if Canon starts talking about the camera needing time to cool down. Cooling down periods is OK for consumer stuff, but not for an 1D X.

I will expect that around 20Mpx is about the sweet spot for a professional sports and wildlife camera. If I had one I would probably try to use the 4K or 6K video in order to get the frame rate.


----------



## londonxt (Jan 6, 2020)

tpatana said:


> I'm pretty sure it's mostly due to the CFExpress write speed, only partially on the RAM amount. 1000 RAWs would be something like 20GB. Even with modern chips that'd be lot of space (and money). On the other hand, lets assume Gen3 x4 lane on the card, that could sustain 2GB/s+ fairly easy. 30MB * 16fps = <0.5GB/s, so even if they use one lane on the bus they could probably keep writing as fast as the camera takes, assuming there's no other bottlenecks like the DIGIC or something.
> 
> So especially after that calculation, I'm pretty sure it's mostly the write speed and only small part on the RAM buffer.



Or its more likely that they would be using a cheaper NAND based memory buffer running on a faster NVMe memory controller, but still means a persistant state storage buffer. Canon couldn't claim a fixed "buffer" specification if they were relying on a users storage card and using a slower while more expensive removable storage spec like CFExpress for a dedicated internal buffer doesnt make sense to me (edit: perhaps there are some power consumption benefits with CFExpress). Either way it would mean the buffer would persist even after a power loss, interesting.


----------



## fox40phil (Jan 6, 2020)

Maybe in 10 years we will have a 30MP 1D-like camera from Canon....


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> This comparison guide should also show the A9II.
> 
> * 24Mp,
> * 20FPS,
> ...


Yeah, but then not only would that not fit with the title of the article, but you'd need extra columns for things like weather sealing, ergonomics, colour science, menu usability, ability to cope with internal light flickering, professional back-up, customer service, lens range, .....

Oh, wait, no, I see ... we just pick on certain specs that suit our own requirements for photography and ignore the whole package...?


----------



## makera (Jan 6, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> Technical limitations???
> The C200 offers 4k 60p and costs less than the 1DxIII rumored price. If it was 'so difficult' then just give us 4k 60p with DPAF with a 1.3x crop. Next you'll be saying that's also too hard, execpt whoops, Canon did that with the 4 year old camera it's replacing, with a 4 year old CPUs.
> 
> This is a strategic choice because the A9II didn't offer it while the FX9 does. So now Canon is doing the same, even though it means removing a pre-existing 1 series feature. Wake up, you're being robbed.


I think most of the target group the full frame is more important than DPAF.
Professional cameramen prefer manual focusing anyway.
There will never be a camera that can do everything. 
You must buy the C500 II and you have your wishes.


----------



## Profit007 (Jan 6, 2020)

I just posted this in another thread, but I think it's also relevant here:

Like stills, there are different market segments. Those producing content have good options in the $12-25k range, or for under $10k there is the $2900 Pocket Cinema Camera 6K with no AF. It records straight to interchangable SSDs with better options than Canon Raw Light, 265, etc.

Then there is the content gathering crowd: documentary production, news, and live events like weddings. These folk need AF in a way that controlled productions don't. This numerically much larger market segment is never going to turn up at weddings with a pair of C500s, and Canon doesn't understand this.

The 1DxIII is only a worthy successor to the 1DC in that it was a Canon strategy to withhold tech and charge more of it.

Remember the 1DC was just a vanilla 1Dx with an extra heatsink, different firmware, and a $15k price tag.
It was a stunningly blatant cash grab from Canon which exposed that they really would switch off a feature in firmware unless you paid an extra $8.5k for it..... with all other hardware being the same. (And in this case it failed, sales were dismal.)


----------



## Quirkz (Jan 7, 2020)

Profit007 said:


> This comparison guide should also show the A9II.
> 
> * 24Mp,
> * 20FPS,
> ...



In that case, lets bring in the m6 II as well:

* 32Mp
* 30 fps
* 5,481 point dual pixel AF system
* real time eye tracking.

I love numbers.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 7, 2020)

... and, and.. M6 II is lighter and smaller


----------



## Dragon (Jan 18, 2020)

londonxt said:


> Or its more likely that they would be using a cheaper NAND based memory buffer running on a faster NVMe memory controller, but still means a persistant state storage buffer. Canon couldn't claim a fixed "buffer" specification if they were relying on a users storage card and using a slower while more expensive removable storage spec like CFExpress for a dedicated internal buffer doesnt make sense to me (edit: perhaps there are some power consumption benefits with CFExpress). Either way it would mean the buffer would persist even after a power loss, interesting.


DPR did early testing using XQD cards and I didn't see any whimpering about the buffer. I think the buffer is real. What kind of memory is in the buffer is up for grabs. It could be LP RAM. It could be very high quality (I.e. log life) NAND. It even could be 3D Crosspoint memory from Micron. So far, Only Intel has released open market products with 3D xpt memory, but Micron is the manufacturer and they have the right to sell the stuff, so it is not out of the question. However, I do think that if the buffer was persistent, Canon would have made a big deal out of it, so most likely it is RAM for speed and ease of access (for as much concurrency in read and write as possible). In today's world that is only a few RAM chips.


----------

