# How many megapixels will the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III have? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 6, 2019)

> The biggest question people have about the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III is what the resolution of the all-new full-frame sensors will have.
> We have been told multiple times that two different resolutions have been tested for the camera, but a good source is “80% sure” the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III will come equipped with a 24.x megapixel sensor.
> One of the select photographers that have had the chance to touch the EOS-1D X Mark III said no memory cards were allowed into test cameras, but that in the coming weeks they’ll be able to make images with the camera, so the resolution should be known for sure before the end of November.
> We’re also told that the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III will be officially announced near the end of January 2020.



Continue reading...


----------



## peters (Nov 6, 2019)

Sounds reasonable. But I wonder how they will get a 4k image out of this - via 1:1 pixel readout? that would mean again that it its croped in video mode... unless they offer 5k or something...


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 6, 2019)

peters said:


> Sounds reasonable. But I wonder how they will get a 4k image out of this - via 1:1 pixel readout? that would mean again that it its croped in video mode... unless they offer 5k or something...



24 MP is exactly right for 6K to 4K oversampling, although for DCI 4K you'd actually need a horizontal resolution of at least 6144. It could be that the sensor is slightly wider than 3:2 and the extra pixels are used for video but not for stills. The 90D indeed appears to do 6K->4K oversampling in its ~1.2x crop mode, and it's very plausible that the 1DX3 will follow suit (albeit without crop if 24MP).


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2019)

DCI 4k 4096 × 2160 = 3x2 of 4096 x 2730 = 11,184,810 or 12mp with the normal edge loss.
5k is 5120 × 2880 = 3x2 =5120 x 3413 = 17,476,267 or 18mp with the normal edge loss.
6k is 6144 x 3160 = 3x2 = rounded 24mp
8k is 7680x4320 = 3x2 = rounded 40mp

We know it is going to be at least 20mp so the 4k is going to either be a crop or a a resample of some kind. If you want uncropped unresampled 4k you need to look at cinema cameras.


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2019)

Very likely. 24/26 works great for me. I have given up my 'mirrorless dream' and will now go back to DSLR. Am waiting for this camera. But the lenses for mirrorless are so cool the 80-200!!! Ahhhhh. Canon is so smart!


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> DCI 4k 4096 × 2160 = 3x2 of 4096 x 2730 = 11,184,810 or 12mp with the normal edge loss.
> 5k is 5120 × 2880 = 3x2 =5120 x 3413 = 17,476,267 or 18mp with the normal edge loss.
> 6k is 6144 x 3160 = 3x2 = rounded 24mp
> 8k is 7680x4320 = 3x2 = rounded 40mp
> ...


Yes, it will be a crop for sure. But I hope not much. And I believe it will not be much. Hoping!


----------



## cpreston (Nov 6, 2019)

If Canon has become serious about video on a DSLR, they will most likely just port over their programming from the C500 II for a super sampled 4K.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 6, 2019)

sanj said:


> Yes, it will be a crop for sure. But I hope not much. And I believe it will not be much. Hoping!



Not for sure. As I noted, a 24–25MP sensor is perfect for 3:2 oversampled 4K without crop.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2019)

The latest Canon financial report said a new 1D series camera is coming early in 2020, so January seems right.


----------



## Pape (Nov 6, 2019)

Nobody suggesting they may recycle old 1dx2 sensor ?
doesnt 20fps electronic shutter burst sound few for new generation sensor?


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Not for sure. As I noted, a 24–25MP sensor is perfect for 3:2 oversampled 4K without crop.


You suggesting there will be zero crop? Hmmm. If yes, fantastic! I can live with .3 crop and actually prefer that. That way lenses will be sharp corner to corner!


----------



## -pekr- (Nov 6, 2019)

Isn't 24 mpx a bit too conservative nowadays? Maybe I have just got used to the 5DIV resolution though


----------



## edoorn (Nov 6, 2019)

difference is only about 700 pixels on the long side so not overly shocking


----------



## xanbarksdale (Nov 6, 2019)

I'm much more interested in the video specs...


----------



## AccipiterQ (Nov 6, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Isn't 24 mpx a bit too conservative nowadays? Maybe I have just got used to the 5DIV resolution though



I was thinking the same thing, thought it would be in the 27-28 range


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2019)

Personally I'd prioritize photo resolution over cropping in 4k. For me these cameras are over 90% stills cameras, and I know that is just me, but we are at the point where the compromises between the two disciplines hurt each other and I buy 1 series cameras primarily for stills.

I'd far rather have 28mp and a bad 4k crop or weird resampling going on than 21mp and a smaller crop for 4k video. If I want to prioritize video I have a host of other options, for stills I don't.


----------



## Joules (Nov 6, 2019)

24 MP at 20 FPS would mean it has just a 5% advantage in throughput over the M6 II. I hope that doesn't mean that's the limit of what they can do, as I have high hope for the high res R and had expected it to go above that...


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2019)

How about everybody's dream, two new 1 series:-
1: <20mp very small 4k crop, 20fps Live View, 16 fps with the mirror and full AF. An updated 1DC II and sports/action stills camera.
2: >28mp heavy 4k crop 15fps Live View, 14 fps with the mirror and full AF. A true 1 series successor with the best of the 1D and 1DS series.

I'd take option 2.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 6, 2019)

I agree 24 mp seems too conservative. Even stodgy old Leica is putting 47mp 10fps in the SL2.

Struggling to understand the logic here. We know from the 5DIV and R that there is no penalty for 30 mp in terms of high ISO performance. I can't see Canon letting video specs drive the sensor resolution in their premier sports and action stills camera. The new CFexpress cards deliver faster performance and I expect the 1Dx III will have a bigger buffer as well. 

If they do release a 5D V within a year and it comes with a modest boost to around 9-10 fps, and has similar autofocus, (both reasonable assumptions based on recent models) it could make it hard to make the case to pick the 1Dx III. 

Now, I'm not declaring Canon is ******* or suggesting we hold our breaths and pass out, but I would find it a bit surprising and will make me look much more closely at the other improvements before deciding to upgrade.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 6, 2019)

AccipiterQ said:


> I was thinking the same thing, thought it would be in the 27-28 range



Rumors are rumors...i could be!

But I think the vast majority of folks using this professionally have no need for the extra MP. Keeping it lower allows the limited processor capacity that can fit in to a camera to be used for other things, more FPS, etc. 20 seems like a lot to me, but others seem to think its not enough...so who knows. 



-Brian


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2019)

bbasiaga said:


> Rumors are rumors...i could be!
> 
> But I think the vast majority of folks using this professionally have no need for the extra MP. Keeping it lower allows the limited processor capacity that can fit in to a camera to be used for other things, more FPS, etc. 20 seems like a lot to me, but others seem to think its not enough...so who knows.
> 
> ...


The extra MP enable tighter cropping and looser framing so even for sports use it can be an advantage. The disadvantage is the data handling but honestly we can all handle tens of thousands of 30mp images.


----------



## sanj (Nov 6, 2019)

It there is a choice between speed - fps/buffer and higher mpx than 24, I prefer speed.


----------



## mpmark (Nov 6, 2019)

bbasiaga said:


> Rumors are rumors...i could be!
> 
> But I think the vast majority of folks using this professionally have no need for the extra MP. Keeping it lower allows the limited processor capacity that can fit in to a camera to be used for other things, more FPS, etc. 20 seems like a lot to me, but others seem to think its not enough...so who knows.
> 
> ...



If canon released a camera with 30FPS, some people would respond, why not 40?

Some will never be satisfied, honestly, if you are having an issue getting a shot with 20FPS then the camera is not the problem, I'd replace the user.


----------



## padam (Nov 6, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If they do release a 5D V within a year and it comes with a modest boost to around 9-10 fps, and has similar autofocus, (both reasonable assumptions based on recent models) it could make it hard to make the case to pick the 1Dx III.
> 
> Now, I'm not declaring Canon is ******* or suggesting we hold our breaths and pass out, but I would find it a bit surprising and will make me look much more closely at the other improvements before deciding to upgrade.


That is exactly the point. If the 5D V is coming anyway, what is the point of keeping the 1DX III close to it in terms of megapixels? (Which doesn't matter in the range of only a few extra megapixels anyway, compared to the strength of an AA filter for instance)


They are different cameras, no doubt that more megapixels will come with penalties in terms of the silent shooting abilities and video features(full sensor FF readout is still a possibility, that would boost the low-light in a big way as well, no way it is going to be offered in a higher-megapixel 5D, might even skip 4k60p as well and worse 120p) besides the speed, which has always been a priority.

The choice has always been there with the 5D III and 1DX, and while one is significantly cheaper (smaller, lighter) than the other, while also offering some of those features, overall it is not nearly the same thing.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> DCI 4k 4096 × 2160 = 3x2 of 4096 x 2730 = 11,184,810 or 12mp with the normal edge loss.
> 5k is 5120 × 2880 = 3x2 =5120 x 3413 = 17,476,267 or 18mp with the normal edge loss.
> 6k is 6144 x 3160 = 3x2 = rounded 24mp
> 8k is 7680x4320 = 3x2 = rounded 40mp
> ...


i think the crop will only be required for raw. I think it will be full frame for general purpose 4k.


----------



## flip314 (Nov 6, 2019)

mpmark said:


> If canon released a camera with 30FPS, some people would respond, why not 40?
> 
> Some will never be satisfied, honestly, if you are having an issue getting a shot with 20FPS then the camera is not the problem, I'd replace the user.



If Canon released a camera with 30FPS burst, people would respond, why not 24? That's more cinematic.


----------



## gsealy (Nov 6, 2019)

It seems to me that 24MP is a bit underwhelming when this is supposed to be Canon's flagship camera. The 5DIII was announced March 2012, and it shoots 22.3MP. It will be 8 years since then when the 1DxIII is available in 2020. The 1DxIII should be farther along, closer to 30MP.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 6, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> Isn't 24 mpx a bit too conservative nowadays? Maybe I have just got used to the 5DIV resolution though





gsealy said:


> It seems to me that 24MP is a bit underwhelming when this is supposed to be Canon's flagship camera. The 5DIII was announced March 2012, and it shoots 22.3MP. It will be 8 years since then when the 1DxIII is available in 2020. The 1DxIII should be farther along, closer to 30MP.



Not according to Sony  Last I heard the D6 is also rumored to get a 24 MP sensor. Now, when it comes to the 5DV, that's a different question.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 6, 2019)

mpmark said:


> If canon released a camera with 30FPS, some people would respond, why not 40?
> 
> Some will never be satisfied, honestly, if you are having an issue getting a shot with 20FPS then the camera is not the problem, I'd replace the user.



The issue is between the shutter button and the shoe. The leather shoe, not the hot shoe.


----------



## slclick (Nov 6, 2019)

It's what it does with those mp. And for all the initial video sensor mp chatter, it is primarily a stills body. The thought that the most expensive camera body should have the most mp's ...well, someone needs to take those folks aside and explain different strokes theory to them.


----------



## melgross (Nov 6, 2019)

Most of the people who use these cameras don’t need, or want higher resolution. 24MP is enough. They’re concerned not only with speed in shooting, but also speed in transfer over a network back to the office. Remember that when Canon came out with the 16.7MP model 1D all those years ago it was because that was enough for a Two page spread at 300 dpi, or 150 lines per inch. Anything a bit higher allows for some page fit. And most of these cameras are going to be used for that purpose.

anything larger is going to be viewed at greater distances. This is for advertising, photojournalism, sports, and wildlife. For most of that 24MP is fine.

we used to do work for billboards, where halftone dots are the size of golfballs, or larger. If you want high definition shots, you really need a tripod anyway, and that’s slow work. This isn’t the camera for that.


----------



## slclick (Nov 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> The issue is between the shutter button and the shoe. The leather shoe, not the hot shoe.


We called it a PEBKAC error when we discussed clients in the point of sale industry.


----------



## Architect1776 (Nov 6, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Interesting how reading the comments in that the Sony a9 II is roughly 24.2 mp and every review is singing how wonderful the video is at 4K yet if Canon does something similar it is old and worthless.
Interesting.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 6, 2019)

melgross said:


> Most of the people who use these cameras don’t need, or want higher resolution. 24MP is enough. They’re concerned not only with speed in shooting, but also speed in transfer over a network back to the office. Remember that when Canon came out with the 16.7MP model 1D all those years ago it was because that was enough for a Two page spread at 300 dpi, or 150 lines per inch. Anything a bit higher allows for some page fit. And most of these cameras are going to be used for that purpose.
> 
> anything larger is going to be viewed at greater distances. This is for advertising, photojournalism, sports, and wildlife. For most of that 24MP is fine.
> 
> we used to do work for billboards, where halftone dots are the size of golfballs, or larger. If you want high definition shots, you really need a tripod anyway, and that’s slow work. This isn’t the camera for that.


That is just too broad a generalization to make. I am not 'most' but I'd happily take way more than 24mp, and by the look of the likes on my earlier post so would a few others. More mp allows for more cropping and more flexibility in general, the down side is processing power and storage, well the video has pushed the processing power so that isn't an issue now, the CFexpress has solved the write speeds, and computers are easily able to deal with thousands of 30-40-50mp and up files.

The days of saying 'sports' cameras only need to be low resolution are long gone.


----------



## Warrenl (Nov 6, 2019)

Actually as a sports photographer my team and I shoot over 100 000 images per weekend covering indoor sports covering 3 or 4 different events, We shoot JPGS at M2 setting and storage is still a big concern..... So 24MPX and good video is perfect for me.


----------



## melgross (Nov 6, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> That is just too broad a generalization to make. I am not 'most' but I'd happily take way more than 24mp, and by the look of the likes on my earlier post so would a few others. More mp allows for more cropping and more flexibility in general, the down side is processing power and storage, well the video has pushed the processing power so that isn't an issue now, the CFexpress has solved the write speeds, and computers are easily able to deal with thousands of 30-40-50mp and up files.
> 
> The days of saying 'sports' cameras only need to be low resolution are long gone.


That’s my experience in the commercial world. I suspect very highly that the cross section of readers here aren’t the cross section of the users of this camera.

24MP isn’t low resolution. It’s more than enough for the use this camera mostly gets.


----------



## slclick (Nov 6, 2019)

Warrenl said:


> Actually as a sports photographer my team and I shoot over 100 000 images per weekend covering indoor sports covering 3 or 4 different events, We shoot JPGS at M2 setting and storage is still a big concern..... So 24MPX and good video is perfect for me.


100k images. In 2 days. ok.


----------



## diegopisante (Nov 6, 2019)

It's only me imagining that the AF button will be also a joystick for reposition the AF while you shooting instead of on the touch screen?
It looks like a joystick!!

24mp is good enough for a sports camera!!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 6, 2019)

A lot of similarities to the C500 Mark II full frame sensor. I'd imagine they would have many of the same requirements. If that sensor can readout fullframe 6K @ 30P it should be able to do 30 fps stills via e-shutter.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 6, 2019)

diegopisante said:


> It's only me imagining that the AF button will be also a joystick for reposition the AF while you shooting instead of on the touch screen?
> It looks like a joystick!!
> 
> 24mp is good enough for a sports camera!!


Yes, this is mentioned in the Canon’s press release.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 6, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> diegopisante said:
> 
> 
> > It's only me imagining that the AF button will be also a joystick for reposition the AF while you shooting instead of on the touch screen?
> ...



Though it appears to be more of a tiny trackpad than a joystick.


----------



## peters (Nov 6, 2019)

melgross said:


> Most of the people who use these cameras don’t need, or want higher resolution. 24MP is enough. They’re concerned not only with speed in shooting, but also speed in transfer over a network back to the office. Remember that when Canon came out with the 16.7MP model 1D all those years ago it was because that was enough for a Two page spread at 300 dpi, or 150 lines per inch. Anything a bit higher allows for some page fit. And most of these cameras are going to be used for that purpose.
> 
> anything larger is going to be viewed at greater distances. This is for advertising, photojournalism, sports, and wildlife. For most of that 24MP is fine.
> 
> we used to do work for billboards, where halftone dots are the size of golfballs, or larger. If you want high definition shots, you really need a tripod anyway, and that’s slow work. This isn’t the camera for that.


While I personaly dont work on a Sideline in a stadium with Ethernet connected, I can certainly see that a higher resolution can be very beneficial for sports-photogaphers. It allows for much tighter crops, giving the editor quite some advantage. And Ethernet CAT7 is certainly fast enough to handle a bit higher data rates. 30mpixel instead of 22 shouldnt be that much of a problem, even at gettys editing/publishing speed, where an image is transferred, picked, croped, edited, tagged and published in less than 90 seconds. I think better crop options are great for sports.
Also: if they just include a "smaller jpg" option, for the people with incredible need for speed and high amount of pictures, than this topic would be solved 
It also makes the camera way more versatile. Basicaly I could replace my 5D IV with it, if the 1DX III offers 30mpixel (or my Sony a7r IV which I just ordered). But for studio work, portraits, landscape and product shots, 22mpixel are not thaaat awesome. The higher resolution makes big prints, recomposed wedding photos and way better product shots possible (better retouch, cleaner cutout path).

Time will tell. As I use the current 1DX II for video projects, I am very exited for the Mark III, since its video options apears to be way advanced. Especially the unhandy codec and the missing hdmi 4k out on the Mark II are quite cumbersome. In Camera Canon RAW video is quite some heavy and welcomed upgrade in my opinion =) this alone may justify the upgrade for me =)


----------



## felipeolveram (Nov 7, 2019)

Any sources talking about prices?


----------



## slclick (Nov 7, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> Any sources talking about prices?


It's pretty much a given that it will be very close to 1DX2 launch price. A few hundred one way or another but at that price point, it's somewhat inconsequential. Not the deal breaker a 5D series might be.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 7, 2019)

It's interesting that so many people who don't use the 1Dx are so willing to tell those of us who do use the 1Dx series what we need.

Everyone's use case is different. I use the 1Dx II almost exclusively for sports. For almost everything else, I find the R and 5D more suitable. As a sports shooter I definitely would like more resolution. I'm a one-man show. On the field or the court, I can only be in one place at a time. That means that if the action happens at the other end of the field or court, I have to crop. Even if it's a sport where you can choose a fixed position, it can require severe cropping. Who wants to get hit by a hammer or a discus? With indoor sports like wrestling, you pick your place at the edge of the mat and hope the action comes to you. If it doesn't, you need to crop. And, God forbid, you get two or three wrestlers competing on separate mats and you need to shoot them all. Even if the action is close, I usually have to crop because framing tight is a guaranteed way to miss the action. As Peter Read Miller says: Sports is messy.

Plus with Canon's current autofocus system, most sports shooters are using a single point or expanded single point, which also means that framing is compromised and you have to make it up by cropping later.

More than 99% of my images will live on the web. But there are some that will end up on a poster, billboard, or double-truck catalog spread. I have no idea which ones those will be, so I need all my images to have enough resolution for that flexibility if possible.

I really don't care about file size. Once the images are on the computer, it's going to take me the same amount of time to sort through 2,000 30 mpx images as it will 2,000 20 mpx images.

I don't have an assistant who receives the files and starts processing. I go back to the office after the game and do it myself. So, I could not care less about how long it takes to transmit a file over a wireless connection.

Sure, additional FPS are nice, but aside from a very few cases, the current rate of the 1DX II is fast enough (It won't consistently catch a batter at the moment the ball hits the bat, but I'd guess that 20 fps won't be enough either).

Now, if I had any evidence that 24 mp would give me cleaner files at 12,800 ISO than 30 mp at 6,400, I'd take the trade off. But that isn't likely to happen.

I'll take whatever Canon gives me, but please don't be telling me what I need.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> Any sources talking about prices?


It will be between $5,799 and $6,499 USD if history is any indication. Most probable guess would be $5,999, if it is close to there they expect to sell a good number, if it is $6,999 then they expect to sell a lot fewer units.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It's interesting that so many people who don't use the 1Dx are so willing to tell those of us who do use the 1Dx series what we need.
> 
> I'll take whatever Canon gives me, but please don't be telling me what I need.



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 7, 2019)

I'd say pretty much everyone that uses a 1DX would like to see more resolution but there are practical limits to DSLR's that haven't changed. A 20% bump with no loss of function in other areas is realistic. The Mark III is not going to be radically different form the Mark II so a much higher resolution sensor was going to cost something. More pixels equals longer read times which means either less time for focusing, longer blackout or lower FPS. Sony has some of the fastest reading sensors on the planet, don't have a mirror to contend with, and they can still only manage 24 MP.

I guess 26 or 28 might still be a possibility but that was always a stretch IMO. I'd be betting on something very similar to the C500 II.

edit: I expect that if you want speed and high MP's you might need to wait for a pro sports R.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> ...
> More pixels equals longer read times which means either less time for focusing,
> ...


Not necessarily since 1DXII uses a dedicated 3rd processor for focusing and metering


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 7, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Though it appears to be more of a tiny trackpad than a joystick.


Or a Non-mechanical, pressure sensitive trackpoint. This will ensure the camera is well sealed. I hope this comes with a some sort of tactile feedback confirming the action. e.g. a subtle vibration of some sort


----------



## slclick (Nov 7, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Or a Non-mechanical, pressure sensitive trackpoint. This will ensure the camera is well sealed. I hope this comes with a some sort of tactile feedback confirming the action. e.g. a subtle vibration of some sort


Haptics have come a long way since the Mk2 was introduced.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 7, 2019)

slclick said:


> Haptics have come a long way since the Mk2 was introduced.


Yeah, I hope Canon is of the same opinion.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2019)

mpmark said:


> If canon released a camera with 30FPS, some people would respond, why not 40?
> 
> Some will never be satisfied, honestly, if you are having an issue getting a shot with 20FPS then the camera is not the problem, I'd replace the user.


Agree


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2019)

1D has never been about MPX. It caters to people who cannot miss a shot. For people who frame correct and use the appropriate lens.


----------



## Pape (Nov 7, 2019)

Warrenl said:


> Actually as a sports photographer my team and I shoot over 100 000 images per weekend covering indoor sports covering 3 or 4 different events, We shoot JPGS at M2 setting and storage is still a big concern..... So 24MPX and good video is perfect for me.


i dont see why they wouldnt add more smaller jpg shooting option too if someone needs.


----------



## Danglin52 (Nov 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> How about everybody's dream, two new 1 series:-
> 1: <20mp very small 4k crop, 20fps Live View, 16 fps with the mirror and full AF. An updated 1DC II and sports/action stills camera.
> 2: >28mp heavy 4k crop 15fps Live View, 14 fps with the mirror and full AF. A true 1 series successor with the best of the 1D and 1DS series.
> 
> I'd take option 2.



‘Don’t forget the need for high ISO performance Improvement. I would rather gain a stop of light than push beyond 24mpx.


----------



## deltoo (Nov 7, 2019)

I don‘t get. Why everybody is complaining about 4K Video or if its cropped or not, Go an get a Cinema camera, every Photograph i know using a 1D used the Video Feature for more than one time


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 7, 2019)

mpmark said:


> If canon released a camera with 30FPS, some people would respond, why not 40?
> 
> Some will never be satisfied, honestly, if you are having an issue getting a shot with 20FPS then the camera is not the problem, I'd replace the user.


If 20 FPS aren't enough maybe these people should buy a video camera? 
Better one with a super slo-mo function?
I've heard about vid cams that can do up to 300.000 FPS - maybe a little bit expensive though


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 7, 2019)

I’ve no idea what sensor Canon will put in. For a flagship camera more is more flexible than less. You can always use small Jpegs to get more manageable file sizes but you can’t add MPs. 
canon I’m sure will trade off. The might go in the middle at around 28 MP.
I’ll be interested in how intelligent and accurate it’s tracking system will be.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 7, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I'd say pretty much everyone that uses a 1DX would like to see more resolution but there are practical limits to DSLR's that haven't changed. A 20% bump with no loss of function in other areas is realistic. The Mark III is not going to be radically different form the Mark II so a much higher resolution sensor was going to cost something. More pixels equals longer read times which means either less time for focusing, longer blackout or lower FPS. Sony has some of the fastest reading sensors on the planet, don't have a mirror to contend with, and they can still only manage 24 MP.
> 
> I guess 26 or 28 might still be a possibility but that was always a stretch IMO. I'd be betting on something very similar to the C500 II.
> 
> edit: I expect that if you want speed and high MP's you might need to wait for a pro sports R.


Does read time affect blackout for the 1D series?


----------



## Todd (Nov 7, 2019)

As an owner of the 1DX Mark II, why would I pay $6500 if the resolution is only bumped to 24MP? I have to believe MANY other 1DX Mark II owners feel the same way. I photograph a lot of birds in flight and the Achilles Heel of the 1DX Mark II has always been the autofocus system, which is why several long time bird photographers have left Canon. A big improvement in the autofocus system is needed just to get even with the competition. Merely catching up to the competition with an incremental release is not reason enough to pay $6500. More resolution, much better autofocus system, better high ISO performance, better HDR capabilities, and reduced weight are just a few of the things that must be addressed to merely stay relevant. I'm trying to remain optimistic and get excited about a 1DX Mark III, but 24MP is no where near enough to get me to part with $6500 of my hard earned cash.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> DCI 4k 4096 × 2160 = 3x2 of 4096 x 2730 = 11,184,810 or 12mp with the normal edge loss.
> 5k is 5120 × 2880 = 3x2 =5120 x 3413 = 17,476,267 or 18mp with the normal edge loss.
> 6k is 6144 x 3160 = 3x2 = rounded 24mp
> 8k is 7680x4320 = 3x2 = rounded 40mp
> ...



All 4K video is resampled. Even if your sensor is exactly 4096x2160 pixels, each pixel is one of four in an RGBG cluster and those have to be resampled to give the final true colour result. So for colour accuracy without this resampling you're better off with a camera equipped with an 8K sensor (7680 x 4320) downsampling to 4K. The ideal 4K camera would have a 33mpx sensor. This won't be it.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 7, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Does read time affect blackout for the 1D series?


I thought so when I wrote that. I'm assuming that any tasks that have to get done while the mirror is up extend the blackout time. If it takes longer to read out the sensor I expect that would require slowing down the shutter cycle which cuts into or extends mirror up time. At least that's the way it works in my head. I could be wrong.

As is, he 1DX blackout is amazingly fast. After a while you barely even notice it.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 7, 2019)

tron said:


> Not necessarily since 1DXII uses a dedicated 3rd processor for focusing and metering


It's not mirrorless. It can only focus when the mirror is down and read when the mirror is up. If a larger sensor means more mirror up time than there will necessarily either be fewer FPS or less mirror down time for focusing. It has nothing to do with prcessors.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> It's not mirrorless. It can only focus when the mirror is down and read when the mirror is up. If a larger sensor means more mirror up time than there will necessarily either be fewer FPS or less mirror down time for focusing. It has nothing to do with prcessors.


You said "Less mirror down time for focusing" so it has everything to do with a fast dedicated autofocus processor.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

The interesting think is that most who think 24Mpixels are enough for 1DxIII are not owners of 1Dx or 1DxII.

I am not too but at least I do not ask for 24Mpixels. Of course Canon will do what they will think best.


----------



## Pape (Nov 7, 2019)

many peoples arent owner of 1d camera ,but i hope i am allowed shoot with one at least on dreams


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

To continue the previous post. A 24Mpixel 1DxIII may create the need for a 5DV that it has not much more Mpixels than 5DIV so they can improve speed (a mini 1DXIII if you will). But I am afraid this will not happen.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

A 28Mpixel 1DxIII would tempt many 5DIV owners...


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 7, 2019)

tron said:


> You said "Less mirror down time for focusing" so it has everything to do with a fast dedicated autofocus processor.


Yes I see what you mean. A faster processor would help if there was less mirror down time.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2019)

Todd said:


> As an owner of the 1DX Mark II, why would I pay $6500 if the resolution is only bumped to 24MP? I have to believe MANY other 1DX Mark II owners feel the same way. I photograph a lot of birds in flight and the Achilles Heel of the 1DX Mark II has always been the autofocus system, which is why several long time bird photographers have left Canon. A big improvement in the autofocus system is needed just to get even with the competition. Merely catching up to the competition with an incremental release is not reason enough to pay $6500. More resolution, much better autofocus system, better high ISO performance, better HDR capabilities, and reduced weight are just a few of the things that must be addressed to merely stay relevant. I'm trying to remain optimistic and get excited about a 1DX Mark III, but 24MP is no where near enough to get me to part with $6500 of my hard earned cash.



If you are paying for mpx, may I suggest 5ds. You could save lots of money. I doubt if MANY (!) 1dx2 owners feel the way you think they do. I will be HAPPY to spend 6500 for this camera.


----------



## reef58 (Nov 7, 2019)

I am a 1DX owner and have no issues with 24mp. I am looking forward to this camera. I have a lot of hard drives though, and don't shoot a lot of birds, so I would not cry if it were 28-30mp's.


----------



## djack41 (Nov 7, 2019)

24MP is fine but hoping Canon will work some magic with the AF!!


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

sanj said:


> If you are paying for mpx, may I suggest 5ds. You could save lots of money. I doubt if MANY (!) 1dx2 owners feel the way you think they do. I will be HAPPY to spend 6500 for this camera.


He also mentioned much better autofocus system, better high ISO performance, better HDR capabilities so comparing apples to oranges aren't you? EOS 5Ds(R) is a totally different camera! Very nice (I do have 5DsR) but totally different.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 7, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> All 4K video is resampled. Even if your sensor is exactly 4096x2160 pixels, each pixel is one of four in an RGBG cluster and those have to be resampled to give the final true colour result. So for colour accuracy without this resampling you're better off with a camera equipped with an 8K sensor (7680 x 4320) downsampling to 4K. The ideal 4K camera would have a 33mpx sensor. This won't be it.


Demosaicing and resampling are completely different things. You don't 'resample' when demosaicing you just use the luminosity values of other pixels to determine the most likely color of each individual pixel, the resolution stays the same.

No the ideal 4k camera would have a three chip or three layer sensitive sensor/s at 4k resolution.


----------



## sanj (Nov 7, 2019)

tron said:


> He also mentioned much better autofocus system, better high ISO performance, better HDR capabilities so comparing apples to oranges aren't you? EOS 5Ds(R) is a totally different camera! Very nice (I do have 5DsR) but totally different.


Of course I am. The OP said he will pay for MPX. I pointed him to the camera for that. 1dx is for other applications.


----------



## tron (Nov 7, 2019)

sanj said:


> Of course I am. The OP said he will pay for MPX. I pointed him to the camera for that. 1dx is for other applications.


" More resolution, much better autofocus system, better high ISO performance, better HDR capabilities, and reduced weight"


----------



## melgross (Nov 7, 2019)

slclick said:


> 100k images. In 2 days. ok.


His team, and him. That’s not so impossible. When I shot fashion with a digital camera I could easily shoot 30 pics a minute myself. For an actual shoot time for the day of maybe 4 hours that’s over 7,000 shots. You’d be surprised at how often that happened. There were days were we went overtime. I could shoot 10,000 shots that day. If we translate that to a team of ten people that could hit 100,000 shots over a day. For two days? Sure.


----------



## slclick (Nov 8, 2019)

melgross said:


> His team, and him. That’s not so impossible. When I shot fashion with a digital camera I could easily shoot 30 pics a minute myself. For an actual shoot time for the day of maybe 4 hours that’s over 7,000 shots. You’d be surprised at how often that happened. There were days were we went overtime. I could shoot 10,000 shots that day. If we translate that to a team of ten people that could hit 100,000 shots over a day. For two days? Sure.


Camera body with over the limit sensor on Ebay in one month


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 8, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> It's not mirrorless. It can only focus when the mirror is down and read when the mirror is up. If a larger sensor means more mirror up time than there will necessarily either be fewer FPS or less mirror down time for focusing. It has nothing to do with prcessors.



Not necessarily. The mirror could be all of the way back down and the AF working on the next shot using the dedicated processor while the sensor is still being read out using the two image processors. There's nothing that says the mirror can't be all of the way down until readout is complete. Rather than slowing down the mirror, they can just pause the mirror (and shutter reset) after it has returned to the reflex position.


----------



## Pape (Nov 8, 2019)

new sensor could be is 1/3 from high resolution cameras sensor. Just to keep cameras on order 
Like dx2 and 5sr ,sounds good ratio for me .
so if 80mpixel Rs camera so 30 mpixel sport camera ,but if Rs is 150mpx then even 60mpix is possible.


----------



## SecureGSM (Nov 8, 2019)

Pape said:


> new sensor could be is 1/3 from high resolution cameras sensor. Just to keep cameras on order
> Like dx2 and 5sr ,sounds good ratio for me .
> so if 80mpixel Rs camera so 30 mpixel sport camera ,but if Rs is 150mpx then even 60mpix is possible.



One cannot expect churning 60MP files out of camera at 16FPS. 
It is either sensor readout speed or mechanical mirror assembly and or shutter are the limitations

From a commercial perspective, a 28MP sensor will get Canon across the line till the next upgrade cycle. By then I expect R system to be the thing.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> Camera body with over the limit sensor on Ebay in one month


What is the physical mechanism of sensor wear out? Too much cleaning of oil splats?


----------



## melgross (Nov 8, 2019)

peters said:


> While I personaly dont work on a Sideline in a stadium with Ethernet connected, I can certainly see that a higher resolution can be very beneficial for sports-photogaphers. It allows for much tighter crops, giving the editor quite some advantage. And Ethernet CAT7 is certainly fast enough to handle a bit higher data rates. 30mpixel instead of 22 shouldnt be that much of a problem, even at gettys editing/publishing speed, where an image is transferred, picked, croped, edited, tagged and published in less than 90 seconds. I think better crop options are great for sports.
> Also: if they just include a "smaller jpg" option, for the people with incredible need for speed and high amount of pictures, than this topic would be solved
> It also makes the camera way more versatile. Basicaly I could replace my 5D IV with it, if the 1DX III offers 30mpixel (or my Sony a7r IV which I just ordered). But for studio work, portraits, landscape and product shots, 22mpixel are not thaaat awesome. The higher resolution makes big prints, recomposed wedding photos and way better product shots possible (better retouch, cleaner cutout path).
> 
> Time will tell. As I use the current 1DX II for video projects, I am very exited for the Mark III, since its video options apears to be way advanced. Especially the unhandy codec and the missing hdmi 4k out on the Mark II are quite cumbersome. In Camera Canon RAW video is quite some heavy and welcomed upgrade in my opinion =) this alone may justify the upgrade for me =)



you’re not going to get ethernet 7 in a newsroom in a sports stadium. Your lucky if you get decent WiFi to send your files through.


----------



## peters (Nov 8, 2019)

melgross said:


> you’re not going to get ethernet 7 in a newsroom in a sports stadium. Your lucky if you get decent WiFi to send your files through.


But than there is still the option to safe smaller JPGs in camera (20mpixel" for example and the problem would be solved ) 
This is an interesting read:








The 3 Minute Workflow of a Sochi Olympic Photographer & The Gear They Use Most


Get a peek behind the scenes of the set-up required to photograph the moments athletes become olympians. It should be an event in itself.




www.slrlounge.com


----------



## melgross (Nov 8, 2019)

slclick said:


> Camera body with over the limit sensor on Ebay in one month


Not really. But we used to wear out cameras in the film days pretty quickly with a lot less shots. The Nikons, in particular, used to break down constantly, and the crappy focus helical, made out of all aluminum (you could hear the grinding), would roughen to the point of feeling it was going to break. Using the earlier motors destroyed a number of them.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Nov 8, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Not necessarily. The mirror could be all of the way back down and the AF working on the next shot using the dedicated processor while the sensor is still being read out using the two image processors. There's nothing that says the mirror can't be all of the way down until readout is complete. Rather than slowing down the mirror, they can just pause the mirror (and shutter reset) after it has returned to the reflex position.


Yes you may be right. I'm probably out of my depth discusing it as I'm not really sure where in the cycle some tasks would have to be completed. There are also many tasks betond the few I mentioned. I guess my point was there is a lot going on and adding more MP's to the mix isn't as easy as just dropping in a 30mp sensor and a faster card slot.

Process timing around the mirror at faster than 10 FPS must get pretty complicated. No wonder only a few companies have mastered high speed SLR capture. It'll be sad when they are gone because once the DSLR tech is lost it isn't coming back.


----------



## jolyonralph (Nov 12, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Demosaicing and resampling are completely different things. You don't 'resample' when demosaicing you just use the luminosity values of other pixels to determine the most likely color of each individual pixel, the resolution stays the same.
> 
> No the ideal 4k camera would have a three chip or three layer sensitive sensor/s at 4k resolution.



They're different, yes, but they're not completely different. You're still using the data from more than one pixel to generate both luminosity and colour for the target pixel. If you're using 4 pixels in the source to generate a single pixel in your 4K output you get the best possible output and avoid the usual problems associated with resampled video.

Obviously the three layer/three chip 4K sensor is going to give the best results but you aren't going to see anything like that in a standard MILC setup. 

Generally, for a MILC, resampled video from full sensor area is going to be the best we're going to get.


----------

