# Review: Canon EOS-1D X Mark III real world sports review



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 23, 2020)

> Longtime professional sports photographer Peter Read Miller had a chance to photograph some NFL playoff action recently with the brand new Canon EOS-1 D X Mark III.
> Peter breaks down everything about the camera and shows us a ton of images from a couple of NFL playoff games. I am quite impressed with how the autofocus performs.
> *What you get when you preorder from us.*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Go Wild (Jan 23, 2020)

Good review! Confirming what we expect! A huge camera!  Thumbs up Canon! But, off-topic question, does anyone heard anything from external recording? Atomos compatibility and what to expect about recording externally?


----------



## BadHorse (Jan 23, 2020)

Hey it's Peter Read Miller from On Sports Photography with Peter Read Miller!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 23, 2020)

Had a chance to demo one a Mark III. Can’t speak to the IQ or focus accuracy but if you are a BBF point focuser, and I think a lot of Canon shooters still are, that optical AF ON button is a game changer. It’s not a toggle it’s more like an optical mouse it senses your thumb move around but only focuses when you press it. Of course you can do both at once too which is currently impossible unless you have two thumbs on your right hand. very nice
Was back shooting with my Mark II this afternoon and all I could think about was how annoyed I was that I had to take my thumb off the AF On button to move the focus point.


----------



## Ozarker (Jan 23, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Had a chance to demo one a Mark III. Can’t speak to the IQ or focus accuracy but if you are a BBF point focuser, and I think a lot of Canon shooters still are, that optical AF ON button is a game changer. It’s not a toggle it’s more like an optical mouse it senses your thumb move around but only focuses when you press it. Of course you can do both at once too which is currently impossible unless you have two thumbs on your right hand. very nice
> Was back shooting with my Mark II this afternoon and all I could think about was how annoyed I was that I had to take my thumb off the AF On button to move the focus point.


I am living vicariously through you... even with the Mark II.


----------



## richperson (Jan 23, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Good review! Confirming what we expect! A huge camera!  Thumbs up Canon! But, off-topic question, does anyone heard anything from external recording? Atomos compatibility and what to expect about recording externally?



I can't imagine it would be any less compatible than the 1DXii was.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 23, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I am living vicariously through you... even with the Mark II.


And I was living vicariously through the demo unit. The Mark II was a one-off for me. It’s very nice but I don’t have any practical reason To justify owning it. I’ll likely sell it at some point to get one of the new R’s. But, It’s good to know that if I keep the Mark II it will never wear out.


----------



## Go Wild (Jan 23, 2020)

richperson said:


> I can't imagine it would be any less compatible than the 1DXii was.


Well, that´s the point.....it must be MUCH BETTER than the 1dx II. The 1dx II didn´t even allow you to record externally in 4k, only 1080p. I read in white paper this new one support external 4k, witch is a big thing! Now i hope we can use external monitors to have zebras and to allow direct video timelapse recording in 4k. (this last one is a wish, but don´t think it will be true.) Well, despite that, can´t wait to have the camera!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2020)

This is the review I've been waiting for. The autofocus improvements look very good. Feeling much better about 20 mpx now.


----------



## richperson (Jan 23, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> Well, that´s the point.....it must be MUCH BETTER than the 1dx II. The 1dx II didn´t even allow you to record externally in 4k, only 1080p. I read in white paper this new one support external 4k, witch is a big thing! Now i hope we can use external monitors to have zebras and to allow direct video timelapse recording in 4k. (this last one is a wish, but don´t think it will be true.) Well, despite that, can´t wait to have the camera!



Just out of curiosity, why would you want to shoot 4k video external on a 1DX body, when you could do it on an R body more conveniently and much cheaper?


----------



## Go Wild (Jan 24, 2020)

richperson said:


> Just out of curiosity, why would you want to shoot 4k video external on a 1DX body, when you could do it on an R body more conveniently and much cheaper?


Well, completely different cameras. I want the camera no only for video, I also shoot photography. I own a 1dx mkII and I want to keep the EOS 1d series. Love it for photo. Regarding video, EOS R makes good video but again, not up the match of this beast its coming. Different bitrate, different frame rates, different codec. HEVC (H265) in 1dx mkIII is a new game. Overall cameras can´t compare. EOS R was a great revolution! It´s a great camera and finally Canon have open the gate for 4k externally. But doesn´t compare to this new 1dx. This new 1dx almost kill the need of external recording, because camera can record everything internally (unless atomos could make some magic and unlock some 4k 120fps!!  ) But the mais reason of using an external monitor is to have another features...False color, zebras, focus peaking (wich now have the 1d) histogram, etc...and also with the plus that you can record to SSD cards if you need. So, it would be good if 1dx is fully compatible and have all the FPS unlocked, but i guess we will have only 25fps (im in Pal region).


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Jan 24, 2020)

This review is exactly why I love Canon as this model gets compared to Sony on other sites. These bodies and lenses are used by professionals who make a living on capturing that decisive moment. I am sure it will still be picked apart but I think it looks to be the best Camera on the market as it can do all. That AF tracking was amazing. Maybe I am just a Canon fanboy but I want this camera.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2020)

Doctor please, I have GAS. Trouble is there is no way I can justify selling what I have for this and the alternative of having a second camera that is lighter and mirrorless seems to make more sense.

Jack


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 24, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> And I was living vicariously through the demo unit. The Mark II was a one-off for me. It’s very nice but I don’t have any practical reason To justify owning it. I’ll likely sell it at some point to get one of the new R’s. But, It’s good to know that if I keep the Mark II it will never wear out.


I really would like being able to justify having to buy a EOS 1 Mk.III, but, sadly, I can't...


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 24, 2020)

Good straightforward review with good examples.


----------



## jedy (Jan 24, 2020)

KKCFamilyman said:


> This review is exactly why I love Canon as this model gets compared to Sony on other sites. These bodies and lenses are used by professionals who make a living on capturing that decisive moment. I am sure it will still be picked apart but I think it looks to be the best Camera on the market as it can do all. That AF tracking was amazing. Maybe I am just a Canon fanboy but I want this camera.


Sure it’s an amazing camera but it is far too expensive for most photographers. It’s also a huge camera so not great for a lot of people wanting a smaller, lighter camera. Also far from ideal ergonomics (esp with the in built in battery grip) for video camera rigs.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Jan 24, 2020)

jedy said:


> Sure it’s an amazing camera but it is far too expensive for most photographers. It’s also a huge camera so not great for a lot of people wanting a smaller, lighter camera. Also far from ideal ergonomics (esp with the in built in battery grip) for video camera rigs.


… it is not designed for 'most photographers' - that 's what the rest of the range is for.


----------



## jedy (Jan 24, 2020)

domo_p1000 said:


> … it is not designed for 'most photographers' - that 's what the rest of the range is for.


I know that, I was just responding to the comment that it’s the ‘best camera on the market’. Best is a very subjective word.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 24, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Doctor please, I have GAS. Trouble is there is no way I can justify selling what I have for this and the alternative of having a second camera that is lighter and mirrorless seems to make more sense.
> 
> Jack


except GAS is not about being sensible.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Jan 24, 2020)

Canon already improved AF, AF in low light situations, got awesome lenses (great lenses on EF, and personally love the RF). 1DXmk3 is a monster. Only wish to know if the Dynamic range is also improved over the 1dxmk2. Honestly, with the DR of 1dxmk2, 5Dmk4, eos R, is more than enough for my work, pure joy to work with eos R, (you have to be really bad exposing the photo or really need a huge DR, like some landscapes, if is not enough) but all the improvements are welcome!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 24, 2020)

unfocused said:


> This is the review I've been waiting for. The autofocus improvements look very good. Feeling much better about 20 mpx now.


The reduction in AA filtering and better low light performance could offset the lack of an MP bump. I guess we’ll have to wait a while to know that for sure. I think you’d be very impressed by the new AF. It feels much faster than the Mark II which I wouldn’t have thought possible. The additional AF points and the speed with which you can change them are going to be a big deal IMO. If you are a field/arena/stadium sports shooter and the finances are there I think youd have to go for it. Canon owns Tokyo 2020 at this point unless Sony has an A9 III up their sleeve.

For me, who isn’t a pro sports shooter and isn’t going to be doing multi cam big budget video productions that I shot in RAW, it’s going to be hard to justify buying any DSLR at this point let alone one that costs $6500.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2020)

That review makes me want a 5D5 even more, if it has the same focusing system. Also, I would like 30MP and a 200 shot buffer at 10 FPS. Last but certainly not least, a $3500 price tag.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 24, 2020)

Makes me want a 7D Mark III so I wouldn’t have to always be forcing my 5D to do things it wasn’t designed for.

we’ve had a 70D, 80D and 90D, all with much better sensors, since the Mark II was released 5 1/2 years ago. Canon has completely lost the casual wildlife shooters market. Mostly to Nikon with their affordable long lenses and the D500.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Jan 24, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Makes me want a 7D Mark III so I wouldn’t have to always be forcing my 5D to do things it wasn’t designed for.
> 
> we’ve had a 70D, 80D and 90D, all with much better sensors, since the Mark II was released 5 1/2 years ago. Canon has completely lost the casual wildlife shooters market. Mostly to Nikon with their affordable long lenses and the D500.


\
I was thinking the same thing. It makes me sad, because Canon CLEARLY has the autofocus technology, and has improved low light performance. If they would just put out a 7Diii I'd be over the moon.


----------



## Pixel (Jan 24, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> That review makes me want a 5D5 even more, if it has the same focusing system. Also, I would like 30MP and a 200 shot buffer at 10 FPS. Last but certainly not least, a $3500 price tag.


It won't have the "same" focusing as the 1Dx III. The sheer difference in battery sizes has a LOT to do with AF performance. And I'll bet the processors will be different as well.


----------



## Pixel (Jan 24, 2020)

....and all due respect to PRM but he is a paid Canon spokesperson.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> That review makes me want a 5D5 even more, if it has the same focusing system. Also, I would like 30MP and a 200 shot buffer at 10 FPS. Last but certainly not least, a $3500 price tag.


Would you like a pony with that too?


----------



## Joules (Jan 24, 2020)

Pixel said:


> It won't have the "same" focusing as the 1Dx III. The sheer difference in battery sizes has a LOT to do with AF performance. And I'll bet the processors will be different as well.


The battery is identical between the 1DX II and 1DX III. It is not the source of improvements we expect from the 1DX III.

The 1DX III uses a radically different focusing sensor. The white paper for the 1DX III goes into more detail, but essentially it represents a break with the traditional technology that relied on relatively few line pairs. Just look at the thing - on the new one, the detectors are so small you can't even count them:




The processors are also improved greatly. But it does look like we will see variations of that processor in future cameras.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2020)

Pixel said:


> ....and all due respect to PRM but he is a paid Canon spokesperson.


He is, but the examples he used are the type of use cases the II struggled with. In the past he’s been candid that he seldom used anything but single or expanded point autofocus, but was able to shoot successfully using zones on the III. I was more interested in the examples he was showing which I know would have been hard to do on the II.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Would you like a pony with that too?


I ordered my 5D3 on the day it was introduced because the focusing system was VERY similar to the 1Dx system and a major upgrade from the 5D and 5D2 focusing systems. The biggest difference was that the 1Dx had a larger battery than the 5D3 and could drive the lens focusing motors faster. There is precedent for what I want.

Concerning the 7D3, I would like one also but the 90D appears to be a major functional improvement over my 7D.


----------



## richperson (Jan 24, 2020)

unfocused said:


> He is, but the examples he used are the type of use cases the II struggled with. In the past he’s been candid that he seldom used anything but single or expanded point autofocus, but was able to shoot successfully using zones on the III. I was more interested in the examples he was showing which I know would have been hard to do on the II.



This was the main item I was waiting for in his review. Glad he explicitly mentioned it. I will say that American football is the easiest case for such AF. Very interested to see how it does in basketball and volleyball and other more condensed sports. Also noted that he appeared to shoot at f/3.5, which was interesting and also gives him better DOF and easier for the AF to look spot on. Not sure why he didn't shoot at f/2.8.

And it should be noted that these were likely JPEGs from the camera as raw processing is not out yet I believe.


----------



## tron (Jan 24, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> That review makes me want a 5D5 even more, if it has the same focusing system. Also, I would like 30MP and a 200 shot buffer at 10 FPS. Last but certainly not least, a $3500 price tag.


They can but will they do it? EOS 5DMkIV has 7fps half of 1DxMkII fps using viewfinder.
And 5DMkIII had 6fps half of the 12fps of 1Dx using viewfinder.
But even if 5DMkV gets 8fps this is enough for both birding and sports (remember the first Canon EOS 1D series?)
The issue with 5DMkV will be how fast and accurate is the focusing and whether it will be able to drive really fast the big teles (with or without the teleconverters). I think it will be well behind 1DxIII (in the white tele drive part at least)

EDIT: And what about the buffer?


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2020)

richperson said:


> This was the main item I was waiting for in his review. Glad he explicitly mentioned it. I will say that American football is the easiest case for such AF. Very interested to see how it does in basketball and volleyball and other more condensed sports. Also noted that he appeared to shoot at f/3.5, which was interesting and also gives him better DOF and easier for the AF to look spot on. Not sure why he didn't shoot at f/2.8.
> 
> And it should be noted that these were likely JPEGs from the camera as raw processing is not out yet I believe.



I was surprised that he used AV mode not manual. Also, I can't tell if he used Auto ISO. My guess is yes, since the ISO varies quite a bit but over a fairly narrow range. 1600 was the lowest ISO I saw in his images.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2020)

Such a sane and interesting thread at this point. Now we just need the extensive objective full reviews!

Jack


----------



## richperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I was surprised that he used AV mode not manual. Also, I can't tell if he used Auto ISO. My guess is yes, since the ISO varies quite a bit but over a fairly narrow range. 1600 was the lowest ISO I saw in his images.



My recollection is that he always shoots in Av mode because he always shoots in well lit stadium, so never has to worry about his shutter speed getting too low. I usually shoot manual with Auto ISO, as I don't have that luxury.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2020)

richperson said:


> This was the main item I was waiting for in his review. Glad he explicitly mentioned it. I will say that American football is the easiest case for such AF. Very interested to see how it does in basketball and volleyball and other more condensed sports. Also noted that he appeared to shoot at f/3.5, which was interesting and also gives him better DOF and easier for the AF to look spot on. Not sure why he didn't shoot at f/2.8.
> 
> And it should be noted that these were likely JPEGs from the camera as raw processing is not out yet I believe.


He has the luxury of shooting in pro sports venues with better lighting. I recall another video where he said he uses the 70-200 f4 because it’s lighter. And in this one I got the feeling that he was used to shooting at 3200, rather than 6400.

On the other hand I’m not sure 3.5 gets you all that much more depth of field. 

I’m not expecting miracles, but I’m feeling like Canon did recognize the need for autofocus improvements and made a real effort to improve performance.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Such a sane and interesting thread at this point...


Plenty of time for it to go off the rails.


----------



## richperson (Jan 24, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I’m not expecting miracles, but I’m feeling like Canon did recognize the need for autofocus improvements and made a real effort to improve performance.



I have always used single point and expanded for sports as nothing else is usable. The AF upgrade may really change the way I shoot. Mine is coming in February in the middle of volleyball season, so that will be one test.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 24, 2020)

richperson said:


> I have always used single point and expanded for sports as nothing else is usable. The AF upgrade may really change the way I shoot. Mine is coming in February in the middle of volleyball season, so that will be one test.



Well, do remember to gives us your feedback in that case scenario. 
And then go out doing some bird photography and report back! 
My single most significant complaint about the 1DX2 is that it almost certainly was not refocusing when shooting at 14 FPS, for me anyway, having tried a few different settings. Otherwise I could have had some more really great flight photos of small birds and action photos of running animals. AF and improved high ISO would be the possible tip the scale items for my GAS (and maybe the improvement in the sensor LP filter).

Jack


----------



## tron (Jan 24, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Plenty of time for it to go off the rails.


I would try to imitate a SONY troll but I wouldn't be good at it. You wouldn't believe me


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 24, 2020)

The III seems to be a worthy upgrade. It will be a long 5-6 years until I can buy one used at a (for my needs) reasonable price. 

My lens investments are mainly within RF at this point, but I love my collection of Canon L lenses, and also some Zeiss classic lenses. Recently I reacquired a 1DX, after selling the 1DXII a year ago. Got it way too cheap (Less than 1000 usd), and couldn’t resist. I have to say, the 1DX is, by todays standards, still in many ways an amazing camera. It is faster and more responsive than any other camera I have used (not including the 1DXII, of course.)The AF is faster and noticeably more precise than the 5DIV. ISO performance is still impressive. Somehow, it’s files seems to be sharper at a 100% view than I am used to, compared to the 6D and 5DIV. Last, and very significant, it’s viewfinder and standard matte screen is sooo good. It is large, bright, sharp, and is much better than newer DSLRs (Including the 1DXII) at showing the focus plane. Using it with Zeiss manual focus lenses works like a dream. 

Using the 1DX gives me a kind of photografic satisfaction that I never get from my 5DIV or EOS R. And yes. It is a highly subjective opinion.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2020)

richperson said:


> I have always used single point and expanded for sports as nothing else is usable. The AF upgrade may really change the way I shoot. Mine is coming in February in the middle of volleyball season, so that will be one test.


Very interested in your experience. I'm sticking to the 1Dx II for the remainder of this school year (or at least trying to) and hoping to see some modest deals over the summer. I agree, volleyball is about the most challenging for autofocus, so I'll be anxious to hear what you think. Not just on the zones, but also the ISO performance and the new selection pad. Sounded like Peter Read Miller was still trying to get used to the pad.


----------



## richperson (Jan 24, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Very interested in your experience. I'm sticking to the 1Dx II for the remainder of this school year (or at least trying to) and hoping to see some modest deals over the summer. I agree, volleyball is about the most challenging for autofocus, so I'll be anxious to hear what you think. Not just on the zones, but also the ISO performance and the new selection pad. Sounded like Peter Read Miller was still trying to get used to the pad.



Yeah, Peter is trying to keep up with new tech. He certainly appreciated the auto AF modes.

I have a tournament Feb 22 and 23, so hopefully my iii comes in before that. I can A/B with the ii and the same lenses for comparison.


----------



## richperson (Jan 24, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well, do remember to gives us your feedback in that case scenario.
> And then go out doing some bird photography and report back!
> My single most significant complaint about the 1DX2 is that it almost certainly was not refocusing when shooting at 14 FPS, for me anyway, having tried a few different settings. Otherwise I could have had some more really great flight photos of small birds and action photos of running animals. AF and improved high ISO would be the possible tip the scale items for my GAS (and maybe the improvement in the sensor LP filter).
> 
> Jack



I'm not normally a birder, but it would be fun to head out to the beach and catch some gulls or pelicans. Gives me an excuse to get away from the chaos that is my house.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2020)

tron said:


> They can but will they do it? EOS 5DMkIV has 7fps half of 1DxMkII fps using viewfinder.
> And 5DMkIII had 6fps half of the 12fps of 1Dx using viewfinder.
> But even if 5DMkV gets 8fps this is enough for both birding and sports (remember the first Canon EOS 1D series?)
> The issue with 5DMkV will be how fast and accurate is the focusing and whether it will be able to drive really fast the big teles (with or without the teleconverters). I think it will be well behind 1DxIII (in the white tele drive part at least)
> ...



I'd settle for 7 seconds at the fastest frame rate. Assuming 8 FPS, that's 56 frames. At 16 FPS, it's 112 frames. Six seconds is the longest time I've ever pressed the shutter and let the motor drive run. That was with an EOS 3 film camera and I used a 36 shot roll of film trying to shoot a weight throw contestant at a Scottish Highland Games. He twirled around for about 5 seconds and I got the shot I wanted 2 frames from the end of the roll. 16FPS would have been a great help.

I'm beginning to think that I should just break down and buy the 1DX3, but $6500 plus tax is a lot of money for a hobby. My buying a 90D is a lot more likely but a 7D3 at 12 FPS with an 84 shot buffer would be better.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 25, 2020)

It’s very surprising to me that they aren’t offering an accessory EVF. I asked Canon about it and I didn’t get the impression that one was being developed. Seems like a missed opportunity. Plus they could charge a ridiculous price for it and I think it would sell.


----------



## tron (Jan 25, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> I'd settle for 7 seconds at the fastest frame rate. Assuming 8 FPS, that's 56 frames. At 16 FPS, it's 112 frames. Six seconds is the longest time I've ever pressed the shutter and let the motor drive run. That was with an EOS 3 film camera and I used a 36 shot roll of film trying to shoot a weight throw contestant at a Scottish Highland Games. He twirled around for about 5 seconds and I got the shot I wanted 2 frames from the end of the roll. 16FPS would have been a great help.
> 
> I'm beginning to think that I should just break down and buy the 1DX3, but $6500 plus tax is a lot of money for a hobby. My buying a 90D is a lot more likely but a 7D3 at 12 FPS with an 84 shot buffer would be better.


I would love a 7DIII but I do not see it!


----------



## domo_p1000 (Jan 25, 2020)

jedy said:


> I know that, I was just responding to the comment that it’s the ‘best camera on the market’. Best is a very subjective word.


A very fair point. The 'best' camera remains the one you have with you!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2020)

I am very intrigued about page 41 of the white paper where it says:
"_While Canon engineers are careful not to over-promise on results users should expect, overall
preliminary comparisons of images show about a 1-stop improvement in general noise
performance vs. the previous EOS-1D X Mark II camera_." Has anyone yet compared this yet?


----------



## degos (Jan 25, 2020)

tron said:


> I would love a 7DIII but I do not see it!



Which is odd because every 7D2 user I know has bought at least one white L lens. Whereas 6D users in contrast usually just stick with their kit lens.

So not only do they make profit on the 7D body sales but also on lens sales


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 25, 2020)

degos said:


> Which is odd because every 7D2 user I know has bought at least one white L lens. Whereas 6D users in contrast usually just stick with their kit lens.
> 
> So not only do they make profit on the 7D body sales but also on lens sales


I'm an example of that: 300 f/2.8 IS and 100-400. The crop allowed me to buy the 300 instead of the 400. My guess is that Canon thinks the 90D is "good enough". It certainly seems to be better than my 7D and at least as good as the 7D2 but a lot cheaper than a 7D3 would be.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 25, 2020)

I’m guessing costs twice as much to manufacture a 7D3 vs a 90D but they can’t sell it for twice as much. It’s a tough camera market and I guess hard decisions have to be made. I think it’ll happen at some point. Canon is just much better at making DSLRs than they are at mirrorless.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2020)

kraats said:


> Is this supposed to be a good photographer? He has nothing to say and his photos are mediocre. I have seen his instagram account. Can anyone send me a link with great work from peter read miller? Why is it so important what he has to say?



I think I know where you're coming from with this question but maybe not 100%. Is the question, is this guy a good sports photographer? 

I don't have any history on him and am not going to research but my immediate reaction is that he must be very good at what he does and at the very least have skill and great technical abilities in the realm of sports photography. 

He seems to be very careful not to overstep his bounds of expertise - he uses the camera for a purpose and seems to succeed in that, very well. He's not making any claims relative to his artistic ability is he?

For me personally, it's important what any skilled person says or any artistic person or, well, practically any person other than what's his name. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I’m guessing costs twice as much to manufacture a 7D3 vs a 90D but they can’t sell it for twice as much. It’s a tough camera market and I guess hard decisions have to be made. I think it’ll happen at some point. Canon is just much better at making DSLRs than they are at mirrorless.



Perhaps, but long long ago when I used to sneak away from my desk at the college where I taught and go to the library to read photographic magazines, the underdog Canon, was striving, not content to be looked down upon. I wouldn't count them out too quickly in any realm where they desire to be/stay/or reach the top.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon is just much better at making DSLRs than they are at mirrorless.


Why would you say that? Canon have made millions more mirrorless cameras than DSLR’s.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would you say that? Canon have made millions more mirrorless cameras than DSLR’s.


As a matter of interest, how many of each of FF mirrorless, FF DSLRs, APS-C mirrorless, and APS-C DSLRs has Canon made? I have no idea and would love to know.


----------



## Buck (Jan 25, 2020)

that focus tracking certainly bumps up the keeper rate, in some ways not good as there will be more good images to pick from. the type of problem we all love to have.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 25, 2020)

AlanF said:


> As a matter of interest, how many of each of FF mirrorless, FF DSLRs, APS-C mirrorless, and APS-C DSLRs has Canon made? I have no idea and would love to know.


Also 1", 1/1.8", and 1/2.3" mirrorless.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Why would you say that? Canon have made millions more mirrorless cameras than DSLR’s.


Because I think they make the worlds best DSLRs and I don’t think they make anywhere near the worlds best mirrorless cameras although they do sell a large number of entry level mirrorless cameras that are primarily aimed at casual users.

Id love to see a Canon mirrorless that’s the technical equivalent of their best DSLRs like the 1DX mark III or a premiere mirrorless like the A9 but I don’t think it will be any time soon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Because I think they make the worlds best DSLRs and I don’t think they make anywhere near the worlds best mirrorless cameras although they do sell a large number of entry level mirrorless cameras that are primarily aimed at casual users.
> 
> Id love to see a Canon mirrorless that’s the technical equivalent of their best DSLRs like the 1DX mark III or a premiere mirrorless like the A9 but I don’t think it will be any time soon.


I do not believe the M6II, M6, M5, M50, G7X II, G5X or G1X III are aimed a casual shooters and they cost considerably more than the entry level DSLR's that for many years made Canon their money. 

But what doesn't the M6 II do that any crop sensor MILC does? Why is the M50 the 'content creators' darling? Same for the EOS R now they have gotten used to it! I think people are far too dismissive of Canon and even their current mirrorless cameras.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I do not believe the M6II, M6, M5, M50, G7X II, G5X or G1X III are aimed a casual shooters and they cost considerably more than the entry level DSLR's that for many years made Canon their money.
> 
> But what doesn't the M6 II do that any crop sensor MILC does? Why is the M50 the 'content creators' darling? Same for the EOS R now they have gotten used to it! I think people are far too dismissive of Canon and even their current mirrorless cameras.



I think he does have a point, however, in that Canon hasn't released a mirrorless as good as their 1 series.

You've also both forgotten the really-low-level point and shoots that cost less than US $200. I believe one model is still available, and even if not, the sales of those are no doubt part of the number of mirrorless cameras sold that exceeds the number of DSLRs sold....and those were indeed casual shooter cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I think he does have a point, however, in that Canon hasn't released a mirrorless as good as their 1 series.


As far as I know, no one has.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 26, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I do not believe the M6II, M6, M5, M50, G7X II, G5X or G1X III are aimed a casual shooters and they cost considerably more than the entry level DSLR's that for many years made Canon their money.
> 
> But what doesn't the M6 II do that any crop sensor MILC does? Why is the M50 the 'content creators' darling? Same for the EOS R now they have gotten used to it! I think people are far too dismissive of Canon and even their current mirrorless cameras.


This is a thread about shooting sports and the comments I made were in that context. I have no idea how the M50 relates to that. There is no evidence that Canon can make a sports/wildlife mirrorless camera that performs up to the standard of their S/W DSLRs. There is another thread about an APSC mirrorless and in that thread I commented that Canon would be better off making a 7D Mark III because that would be class leading for wildlife but I see no reason to believe that a DPAF based camera would be. My XT3 is also poor in that regard. I don’t think Canon should ambandon what they are very good at in pursuit of a line that clearly needs more work. I guess we’ll see how well the 1DX III does in live view but I noted that the reviewer didnt seem to think those features were relevant. I think if Canon was serious about live view they would have offered an accessory EVF.


----------



## BillB (Jan 26, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I guess we’ll see how well the 1DX III does in live view but I noted that the reviewer didnt seem to think those features were relevant. I think if Canon was serious about live view they would have offered an accessory EVF.


Live view can be very useful when using a tripod, either with stills or video.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 26, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I think he does have a point, however, in that Canon hasn't released a mirrorless as good as their 1 series.



I love the 1D-series, but that claim is only partially true. After getting the EOS R, I sold my 1DXII. The main reason for it was that I got much more keepers with less effort, when shooting my daughter indoors in poor lighting. Canons current mirrorless cameras has much more precise AF than any DSLR I have used, and it works in lower light conditions.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 26, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I love the 1D-series, but that claim is only partially true. After getting the EOS R, I sold my 1DXII. The main reason for it was that I got much more keepers with less effort, when shooting my daughter indoors in poor lighting. Canons current mirrorless cameras has much more precise AF than any DSLR I have used, and it works in lower light conditions.



It's a partial match on some very important criteria, I'm willing to stipulate. I've played with an R (borrowed it and got frustrated by the settings it was in and didn't have time to figure out how to adjust them--no, I don't hold that against the camera, but I bring it up to point out how limited my experience is) and rarely even laid eyes on a 1 series camera (even at the local brick and mortar shop).

But my understanding is the 1 beats out the R in ruggedness and number of manual controls--to say nothing of the ever lamented second card slot. Those, I think, would have to be added to a mirrorless to make it truly comparable to the 1 series. Plus I'm sure others could bring up other matters. 

Once those are taken care of, we really would have a match for the 1 series, but until then, my claim is only partially false.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 26, 2020)

Nobody is saying DPAF isn’t accurate. Of course it is. When I’m shooting non moving targets at high magnification in low light I often switch to live view. The issue with DPAF and moving targets with complicated foregrounds and backgrounds is that it very quickly becomes overwhelmed in a way that the focusing sensor of a IDX rarely does. If that’s not what your shooting it probably isn’t a problem for you but that’s exactly why I use a 1DX rather than a 5D or an R. I don’t think that’s a controversial statement but maybe it is. I don’t really know anymore now that we are all living in EOS R bizarre-o-world.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jan 26, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I love the 1D-series, but that claim is only partially true. After getting the EOS R, I sold my 1DXII. The main reason for it was that I got much more keepers with less effort, when shooting my daughter indoors in poor lighting. Canons current mirrorless cameras has much more precise AF than any DSLR I have used, and it works in lower light conditions.


Well I for one am happy for you. I own(ed) ((5D4 sold as pointless for me, 1DX2 sold and waiting for 1DX3)) 5D4, EOSR and the 1DX2 at the same time, there is no way in a million years my EOSR comes close to the 5D4 or 1DX2, the 1DX2 is king of focus in any situation, to be clear in my case the EOSR is great, BUT it FAILS in low light or shooting into sold backgrounds like a single colour wall or shooting into bright light or the sun, where it fails the 1DX2 nails it, also low light performance of the 1DX2 is incredible, forget pixel counts the 1DX2 kills them all when light is low, it just nails it time and time again for me hence I found it easy to sell and upgrade to the Mk3. I love the features of the EOSR and hope to upgrade mine as soon as the Mk2 is out, people often overlook the fact the 1DX2 is slick, zero shutter lag, perfect snappy focus, clear OVF in any light, and so much more than the 5D4 or the EOSR. I'd never sell up my 1DX2 for the R unless size was an option, and then I still feel the 5D4 is better at AF than the R by some margin when things get tough. The EOSR is a great camera but it has a long way to go to compare with the 1DX2 IMO, as for the 1DX3, well, spec wise it's a BEAST.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 26, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I love the 1D-series, but that claim is only partially true. After getting the EOS R, I sold my 1DXII. The main reason for it was that I got much more keepers with less effort, when shooting my daughter indoors in poor lighting. Canons current mirrorless cameras has much more precise AF than any DSLR I have used, and it works in lower light conditions.


I was talking to a professional sports photographer yesterday who happened to be using an R when I ran into him. i asked him what he thought of it and he was glowing in his praise of it. His main tool is a 1DX II but he replaced his 5DIII with an R and finds it a great camera. I was surprised just how positive he was. He said for normal type of work the R is perfect, a big fan of its eye focus. He thought image quality was great. Rate of keepers is high. I asked him about the control bar and he said he disabled it.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jan 26, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I was talking to a professional sports photographer yesterday who happened to be using an R when I ran into him. i asked him what he thought of it and he was glowing in his praise of it. His main tool is a 1DX II but he replaced his 5DIII with an R and finds it a great camera. I was surprised just how positive he was. He said for normal type of work the R is perfect, a big fan of its eye focus. He thought image quality was great. Rate of keepers is high. I asked him about the control bar and he said he disabled it.



I'd agree with him. A good photographer can get a great pic of action with 1 frame and Manual focus, with that in mind give the same person an EOSR and expect great results haha

I dont mind the touch bar, its just an extra control to me, mine is locked with the lock button, set to ISO 100 and Auto ISO, I can also use it to scroll through the ISO range, I dont mind it, to disable it fully is a waste imo.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 26, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I was talking to a professional sports photographer yesterday who happened to be using an R when I ran into him. i asked him what he thought of it and he was glowing in his praise of it. His main tool is a 1DX II but he replaced his 5DIII with an R and finds it a great camera. I was surprised just how positive he was. He said for normal type of work the R is perfect, a big fan of its eye focus. He thought image quality was great. Rate of keepers is high. I asked him about the control bar and he said he disabled it.


The 5DIV is an upgrade over the 5DIII, with the same IQ as the R and also very reliable AF.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 26, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I was talking to a professional sports photographer yesterday who happened to be using an R when I ran into him. i asked him what he thought of it and he was glowing in his praise of it. His main tool is a 1DX II but he replaced his 5DIII with an R and finds it a great camera. I was surprised just how positive he was. He said for normal type of work the R is perfect, a big fan of its eye focus. He thought image quality was great. Rate of keepers is high. I asked him about the control bar and he said he disabled it.


To each his own. After a number of attempts at using the R as a second sports body, I've switched back to the 5DIV as my second body. Neither compares to the 1Dx II, but I just found I had more success with the 5DIV. I still use the R for non sports, but I don't find it ready for prime time when it comes to sports shooting.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 26, 2020)

arthurbikemad said:


> Well I for one am happy for you. I own(ed) ((5D4 sold as pointless for me, 1DX2 sold and waiting for 1DX3)) 5D4, EOSR and the 1DX2 at the same time, there is no way in a million years my EOSR comes close to the 5D4 or 1DX2, the 1DX2 is king of focus in any situation, to be clear in my case the EOSR is great, BUT it FAILS in low light or shooting into sold backgrounds like a single colour wall or shooting into bright light or the sun, where it fails the 1DX2 nails it, also low light performance of the 1DX2 is incredible, forget pixel counts the 1DX2 kills them all when light is low, it just nails it time and time again for me hence I found it easy to sell and upgrade to the Mk3. I love the features of the EOSR and hope to upgrade mine as soon as the Mk2 is out, people often overlook the fact the 1DX2 is slick, zero shutter lag, perfect snappy focus, clear OVF in any light, and so much more than the 5D4 or the EOSR. I'd never sell up my 1DX2 for the R unless size was an option, and then I still feel the 5D4 is better at AF than the R by some margin when things get tough. The EOSR is a great camera but it has a long way to go to compare with the 1DX2 IMO, as for the 1DX3, well, spec wise it's a BEAST.



I don’t believe we differ very much in opinion. I agree with much of what you say, and I have a lot of praise for the 1DX. I made a post praising it earlier in this tread. 

My point is; put a 50 f1.2 or 85 f1.2 on a 1DX 1 or 2, shoot at f1.2, with “fill the frame framing” , when shooting a kid moving in around indoors in poor lighting and compare it to the R with the RF50 1.2 or RF 85 f1.2, and I can guarantee you that you get a much higher percentage of keepers, with eyes in focus. It’s no contest, and not even funny. The R works sooo much better in that scenario. 

The DSLRs have their advantages, but using larger apertures Than f2 isn’t their force.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 27, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I don’t believe we differ very much in opinion. I agree with much of what you say, and I have a lot of praise for the 1DX. I made a post praising it earlier in this tread.
> 
> My point is; put a 50 f1.2 or 85 f1.2 on a 1DX 1 or 2, shoot at f1.2, with “fill the frame framing” , when shooting a kid moving in around indoors in poor lighting and compare it to the R with the RF50 1.2 or RF 85 f1.2, and I can guarantee you that you get a much higher percentage of keepers, with eyes in focus. It’s no contest, and not even funny. The R works sooo much better in that scenario.
> 
> The DSLRs have their advantages, but using larger apertures Than f2 isn’t their force.


I have found the eye focus works great if you are shooting one subject. However, if you have a group of people and are trying to select just one (as in sports) it tends to move around picking different subjects. Other's may disagree, but that's my experience.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jan 27, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I don’t believe we differ very much in opinion. I agree with much of what you say, and I have a lot of praise for the 1DX. I made a post praising it earlier in this tread.
> 
> My point is; put a 50 f1.2 or 85 f1.2 on a 1DX 1 or 2, shoot at f1.2, with “fill the frame framing” , when shooting a kid moving in around indoors in poor lighting and compare it to the R with the RF50 1.2 or RF 85 f1.2, and I can guarantee you that you get a much higher percentage of keepers, with eyes in focus. It’s no contest, and not even funny. The R works sooo much better in that scenario.
> 
> The DSLRs have their advantages, but using larger apertures Than f2 isn’t their force.


Ah yes indeed, I agree totally, the main reason I have the R is for the RF50 and RF85. And yes, eye AF with my kids is a joy on the R in that situation. There is no comparison coming from the old EF50 and 85.


----------



## peters (Jan 27, 2020)

richperson said:


> Just out of curiosity, why would you want to shoot 4k video external on a 1DX body, when you could do it on an R body more conveniently and much cheaper?


The (current) R model offers only 30fps at 4k. 60fps makes a HUGE difference in my kind of work because you get quite nice slow-motions out of it.
The R also got a very big crop with 1,84 which is realy a lot and makes Wide angled shots very difficutl to get.
The biggest dealbreaker on the R is the insane rolling shutter though. This is completely unaccaptable in my personal opinion.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 27, 2020)

peters said:


> The (current) R model offers only 30fps at 4k. 60fps makes a HUGE difference in my kind of work because you get quite nice slow-motions out of it.
> The R also got a very big crop with 1,84 which is realy a lot and makes Wide angled shots very difficutl to get.
> The biggest dealbreaker on the R is the insane rolling shutter though. This is completely unaccaptable in my personal opinion.



I wholeheartedly agree on the rolling shutter (also slo-mo) I was shocked when I saw my daughter's video where she panned too fast, me having been used to the 1DX2.

Jack


----------



## Pixel (Jan 29, 2020)

kraats said:


> Is this supposed to be a good photographer? He has nothing to say and his photos are mediocre. I have seen his instagram account. Can anyone send me a link with great work from peter read miller? Why is it so important what he has to say?


You didn't just say that....?


----------



## Pixel (Jan 29, 2020)

A little background on PRM for those not in the know.
(Taken from his Canon Explorer of Light bio)


"Peter Read Miller has been photographing athletes, events and the sporting life for more than 40 years. He has worked as a staff and contract photographer for Sports Illustrated for more than 35 years. His images have appeared on over 100 Sports Illustrated covers. 
His editorial clients have included: TIME, LIFE, People, Money, The Associated Press, Playboy, Runner's World, Newsweek, USA Weekend and The New York Times. In addition to covering 9 Olympic Games and 38 Super Bowls, Peter has shot 14 NBA Finals. He has covered the Stanley Cup Finals, the World Series, the Kentucky Derby, the NCAA Basketball Final Four, and the Men's and Women's World Cup Soccer Finals.
Peter has been teaching Sports Photography workshops for over 15 years at locations including Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix, Santa Clara, Knoxville and Honolulu. 
Peter has spoken at the Los Angeles Chapter of the Advertising Photographers of America, Photoshop World, Imaging USA, CES and PDN's Photo Plus East. He has also lectured at numerous colleges, universities and professional photographic organizations.
Peter and his work has been the subject of articles in Photo District News, American Photographer, Digital Photo Pro, Rangefinder Magazine and Shutterbug.
Peter is the 2006 winner of The Dave Boss Award of Excellence Photographer of the Year awarded by The Pro Football Hall of Fame. He is a member of Canon's Explorers of Light program. Peter is also the winner of the Society of Professional Journalists 2012 Award for Sports Photography. 
Peter's book "Peter Read Miller on Sports Photography" is currently available from New Riders Press. Peter's advertising clients have included Canon, Nike, Microsoft, Western Digital, Adidas, Visa, Coca-Cola, Footlocker, ABC Television, Panasonic, and The National Football League."


----------



## Pixel (Jan 29, 2020)

Somebody was asking about extensive low light testing, there is no RAW software available for it yet, so nobody has had any depth look at IQ. Also the firmware is still considered pre-production so there's really nothing to gain on it yet other than the basic operations. 
It's also not legal for anyone outside of Canon's approval to even have possession of it yet either, so those in depth reviews will have to come in the second part of February.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2020)

Pixel said:


> A little background on PRM for those not in the know.
> (Taken from his Canon Explorer of Light bio)
> 
> 
> ...



A good reminder to myself to keep my mouth shut when I don't know what I'm talking about.  Seldom does putting someone down, elevate one's self and I can't think of a better example than this one - wow.

Jack


----------

