# What surprises does Canon still have in store for the EOS-1D X Mark III?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2019)

> As the world knows, Canon has announced the development of the EOS-1D X Mark III DSLR. While some good information was given by Canon about the upcoming flagship DSLR, not everything about the camera has been made public.
> We have been told by multiple sources that there are at least 2 “major” features that are unannounced at this time.
> The first one, and probably expected is that the EOS-1D X Mark III will shoot 4K video without a crop and with DPAF.
> One source also claims that 5.9K external RAW recording has also been tested in the EOS-1D X Mark III prototypes, but that a decision had not been made at the time of the testing whether or not to include it. We were told a few months ago that 6K was a possibility for the EOS-1D X Mark III.
> IBIS hasn’t yet been confirmed by any of our sources at...



Continue reading...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

Well all the rest is icing on the cake, if there isn't a resolution bump I will have no compelling reason to sell my two 1DX MkII's to upgrade. As so often it sounds like the emphasis on new features is strongly weighted to video shooters and video just isn't that big a deal to me personally.

If it had 24MP I'd swap out one of my current cameras pretty quickly, if it had 28MP I'd sell both and get two MkIII's as soon as I could, 20.1MP, absolutely no compelling reason to spend the money, I'd rather invest in a faster NAS and newer monitors.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Well all the rest is icing on the cake, if there isn't a resolution bump I will have no compelling reason to sell my two 1DX MkII's to upgrade. As so often it sounds like the emphasis on new features is strongly weighted to video shooters and video just isn't that big a deal to me personally.
> 
> If it had 24MP I'd swap out one of my current cameras pretty quickly, if it had 28MP I'd sell both and get two MkIII's as soon as I could, 20.1MP, absolutely no compelling reason to spend the money, I'd rather invest in a faster NAS and newer monitors.



I'm looking forward to hearing more about the autofocus improvements and if it's as good as they're suggesting it is. It may be worth the price of admission alone.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2019)

Keeping the resolution the same would indeed be a surprise so we have our answer to the title of this thread


----------



## analoggrotto (Dec 17, 2019)

Canon, we will settle for 22.5 megapixels! C'mon do us a solid for xmas.


----------



## NorskHest (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Well all the rest is icing on the cake, if there isn't a resolution bump I will have no compelling reason to sell my two 1DX MkII's to upgrade. As so often it sounds like the emphasis on new features is strongly weighted to video shooters and video just isn't that big a deal to me personally.
> 
> If it had 24MP I'd swap out one of my current cameras pretty quickly, if it had 28MP I'd sell both and get two MkIII's as soon as I could, 20.1MP, absolutely no compelling reason to spend the money, I'd rather invest in a faster NAS and newer monitors.


Let’s be real, the mark II is ok, as a owner of that and a 1dc there is a couple nice upgrades but nothing revolutionary, this mark iii has the potential to be what the mark ii should have been. I’ll take better pixels with better iso range and a camera that tracks as advertised over what we were sold on with the mark ii. I love the mark ii but it has a lot of short comings. This mark iii could be the ultimate DSLR but let’s hope canon doesn’t shit the bed like they oh so often do.


----------



## NorskHest (Dec 17, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the autofocus improvements and if it's as good as they're suggesting it is. It may be worth the price of admission alone.


Right! The mark ii doesn’t do so well like so many say it does.


----------



## haggie (Dec 17, 2019)

Perhaps a cropped version, perhaps call it 7D Mk III?
No problem for me if all "high-end" video features are left out.


----------



## zonoskar (Dec 17, 2019)

How do you get 5.9K video from a 20Mpix sensor? Wouldn't that require more resolution? 20Mpix is around 5400x3600 right?


----------



## Jim Corbett (Dec 17, 2019)

The only thing that can surprise me is If they find a way to avoid AFMA torture. 
And use some magic to put RF mount on it.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2019)

Jim Corbett said:


> The only thing that can surprise me is If they find a way to avoid AFMA torture.
> And use some magic to put RF mount on it.


It's not possible but the opposite is. They could make a mirrorless camera with EF mount!
We would not need AF adjustment and if they could make 2 more EF L IS 2.8 zooms (15-35, 24-70) everything would be OK. We would miss nothing!
At least this does not require magic. Still, both of the above combinations will not happen.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I'm looking forward to hearing more about the autofocus improvements and if it's as good as they're suggesting it is. It may be worth the price of admission alone.


As a generalist I very rarely run into AF limitations, when I do it is invariably due to light limitations so my only real interest in AF improvements for DSLR's is in low light sensitivity.

Indeed I find the criticism of AF to be, in general, farcical when most people don't even know exactly what the three variables do and rarely if ever change them. I ignore anybodies comments about AF unless I know they know what they are talking about, people like Grant Atkinson, Ari Hazeghi, who not only shoot a lot but also intimately understand the specifics of the AF settings. I find AF so adjustable I will use different settings after I have been shooting for a half hour and gotten into the swing of things and then after a few hours I'll dial responsiveness down as I get tired.

Eye AF in a DSLR is a cute gimmick with very limited functionality outside video, at which point we go back to the video centricity of the majority of these improvements.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 17, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> How do you get 5.9K video from a 20Mpix sensor? Wouldn't that require more resolution? 20Mpix is around 5400x3600 right?


Technically 20.1 megapixels is just a hair over 6000x3375 which would be 5.9k.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 17, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> How do you get 5.9K video from a 20Mpix sensor? Wouldn't that require more resolution? 20Mpix is around 5400x3600 right?



Must be going back to the Cinerama (2.66:1) or the VistaVision (2:1) aspect ratios for the sensor. A VistaVision aspect sensor at 20 mp would be about 5900x3390. Just like Hitchcock's 'Vertigo.' Of course, your stills would wind up cropped to 15mp at normal print sizes, but apparently stills "pros" love low megapixels.

And, just to be clear to the (video) people who don't think camera stuff is funny, that was tongue-in-cheek. The warning is required because Canon's decisions in the past 1-2 years have been guided by, well, I don't know what they've been guided by. They bet the company on a suite of new mount lenses, but use a 4-year-old body/sensor with a new mount to seat them. When they do announce a new pro body, they make it the old mount. They certainly needn't poll the high end users to make a long-term plan, but the high end users do want to have a sense that they HAVE a plan. That sense of there being a governing strategy has gone from "it's just mysterious, and their market share proves that they're smart" to something that smells more like "yeah, these are random actions by competing departments in an unmanageably large organization."


----------



## zonoskar (Dec 17, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Technically 20.1 megapixels is just a hair over 6000x3375 which would be 5.9k.


Yes, but the 1D doesn't take photo's in 16:9 format. It is a photo camera first, video camera second.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As a generalist I very rarely run into AF limitations, when I do it is invariably due to light limitations so my only real interest in AF improvements for DSLR's is in low light sensitivity.
> 
> Indeed I find the criticism of AF to be, in general, farcical when most people don't even know exactly what the three variables do and rarely if ever change them. I ignore anybodies comments about AF unless I know they know what they are talking about, people like Grant Atkinson, Ari Hazeghi, who not only shoot a lot but also intimately understand the specifics of the AF settings. I find AF so adjustable I will use different settings after I have been shooting for a half hour and gotten into the swing of things and then after a few hours I'll dial responsiveness down as I get tired.
> 
> Eye AF in a DSLR is a cute gimmick with very limited functionality outside video, at which point we go back to the video centricity of the majority of these improvements.


It really depends on the sport. But it's really identifying and focusing on eyes is stepping stone to future enhancements. Eventually computational photography applied to the af system is going to expand the horizon quite a bit. With more horsepower, depth perception in the af sensors could be used to have a setting that focuses on the eyes and calculates a focus that keeps every other point within x number of feet (forwards and backwards) in focus too, by changing the aperture and speed on the fly to match the distance and speed needed to crisply capture the objects in motion.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 17, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> Yes, but the 1D doesn't take photo's in 16:9 format.


you're right. hrmmm. It would need to be 23.4 mp to hit 5.9k on a 3:2 sensor.

Unless of course they said "5.9k at the optional 3:2 aspect ratio".


----------



## peters (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Well all the rest is icing on the cake, if there isn't a resolution bump I will have no compelling reason to sell my two 1DX MkII's to upgrade. As so often it sounds like the emphasis on new features is strongly weighted to video shooters and video just isn't that big a deal to me personally.
> 
> If it had 24MP I'd swap out one of my current cameras pretty quickly, if it had 28MP I'd sell both and get two MkIII's as soon as I could, 20.1MP, absolutely no compelling reason to spend the money, I'd rather invest in a faster NAS and newer monitors.


Jeah on the photography side I totaly agree.
The video front is REALY exciting though. 4k RAW with 60fps on a canon fullframe... this is truely exciting! The 1DX II even competes with c200 and got a truely beautifull image (though the dynamic range and shadow details are quite bad compared to a blackmagic pocket cinema camera 6k for example or compared to the Panasonic S1H, which we both have in my studio). 
The Mark III could get closer to a c500 (at least when it comes to resolution and pure image quality). Its truely promising =)


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 17, 2019)

Waiting to see what it offers in terms of video.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2019)

Waiting to see what it offers in terms of stills photo


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Waiting to see what it offers in terms of video.





tron said:


> Waiting to see what it offers in terms of stills photo


Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 17, 2019)

If, after they've strung out this release for an extra year, the iii has a 20.X sensor I'm going to Sony. I can't wait to complain about whatever they complain about in the AlphaRumors forums. 

Seriously though, if they need to go with their little 20MP micro-sensor to match what Sony/Nikon/The rest of the world can do as far as IQ, ISO performance, etc. on larger sensors, then they're tacitly admitting their R&D/technology sucks.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!



IMO there's not excitement because the messaging has been mixed, and it looks like they're going to F this up with a sensor that's inferior to competitors.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 17, 2019)

At 20MP I'm not interested. This 1DXMKIII is for video not photography.


----------



## Nelu (Dec 17, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> At 20MP I'm not interested. This 1DXMKIII is for video not photography.


I have the original 1DX and I skipped the Mark II, waiting now for the Mark III. Well, if the resolution stays the same I guess I'll get a cheap Mark II because the video bells and whistles mean nothing to me:-(


----------



## perfpix (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As a generalist I very rarely run into AF limitations, when I do it is invariably due to light limitations so my only real interest in AF improvements for DSLR's is in low light sensitivity.
> 
> Indeed I find the criticism of AF to be, in general, farcical when most people don't even know exactly what the three variables do and rarely if ever change them. I ignore anybodies comments about AF unless I know they know what they are talking about, people like Grant Atkinson, Ari Hazeghi, who not only shoot a lot but also intimately understand the specifics of the AF settings. I find AF so adjustable I will use different settings after I have been shooting for a half hour and gotten into the swing of things and then after a few hours I'll dial responsiveness down as I get tired.
> 
> Eye AF in a DSLR is a cute gimmick with very limited functionality outside video, at which point we go back to the video centricity of the majority of these improvements.



I run into AF limitations all the time and I know what I'm doing. Try shooting an elite gymnast in a highly sequined leo often against an extremely busy background, or a dancer in a head to toe black costume against a velour back drop...you'll find the limitations very quickly. A big Improvement in AF is about the only reason I'd quickly pickup a III. I don't need any more MP. Actually I could really use a vastly improved silent shutter mode for dance, but I'm pretty sure I have to wait for a pro mirrorless body to get that.


----------



## Jim Corbett (Dec 17, 2019)

tron said:


> It's not possible but the opposite is. They could make a mirrorless camera with EF mount!
> We would not need AF adjustment and if they could make 2 more EF L IS 2.8 zooms (15-35, 24-70) everything would be OK. We would miss nothing!
> At least this does not require magic. Still, both of the above combinations will not happen.


Well, that's the magic, isn't it - 1dx body and CPU, sans mirror, RF mount, CFexpress, high rate EVF, 4k Super 35, 16fps, lossless comp., 200 frames buffer, back in business 
The real problem is not so much the technicalities, but the stagnant corporate thinking; lack of faith and will to even imagine it.


----------



## gouldopfl (Dec 17, 2019)

tron said:


> It's not possible but the opposite is. They could make a mirrorless camera with EF mount!
> We would not need AF adjustment and if they could make 2 more EF L IS 2.8 zooms (15-35, 24-70) everything would be OK. We would miss nothing!
> At least this does not require magic. Still, both of the above combinations will not happen.


The rumor is that they are working on a D1 caliber camera that could use EF and RF without an adapter. They would have a way to move the sensor based on the lens type.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!


If rumors are wrong and it comes close to 30Mpixels I could see it replacing my 5DMkIV. Also I could see it becoming a birding camera albeit with the help of a 1.4XIII.

As far as an EOS Rs model I could hardly find any use since I use 5DsR for birding and it is good enough. More megapixels would probably be useful only in the form of a 5DsRMkII. Also, 5DsR, 5DIV and EOS R are already very good for landscapes.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!


Olympus had illuminiated buttons even on their entry level 4/3 DSLR E620. Nikon has been selling cameras with illuminated buttons for sometime now and it is a useful feature hoping to see on Canon cameras(maybe upto 7D mk II replacement).


----------



## lglass12189 (Dec 17, 2019)

Nelu said:


> I have the original 1DX and I skipped the Mark II, waiting now for the Mark III. Well, if the resolution stays the same I guess I'll get a cheap Mark II because the video bells and whistles mean nothing to me:-(




DITTO I'll be keeping my MK II's, I don't give a hoot about video.


----------



## rikstir (Dec 17, 2019)

Hybrid OVF/EVF. Didn't they have a patent for that last summer?


----------



## amorse (Dec 17, 2019)

I'm really not the target market for this camera, but part of me wishes they'd implement the hybrid viewfinder patent they applied for recently on this body. With the performance increases they've shown on their mirrorless cameras, the really high-speed burst rate available in live view, the silent shooting, it seems like a hybrid viewfinder would make a lot of sense here. Let the photographer choose if they want it to operate as a mirrorless camera or DSLR based on their use case or immediate need.

With the caveat that again I'm not the target market for this, that sort of technology advancement would turn some heads in my mind.


----------



## amorse (Dec 17, 2019)

rikstir said:


> Hybrid OVF/EVF. Didn't they have a patent for that last summer?


You beat me to the punch! Hybrid Viewfinder patent application


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

perfpix said:


> I run into AF limitations all the time and I know what I'm doing. Try shooting an elite gymnast in a highly sequined leo often against an extremely busy background, or a dancer in a head to toe black costume against a velour back drop...you'll find the limitations very quickly. A big Improvement in AF is about the only reason I'd quickly pickup a III. I don't need any more MP. Actually I could really use a vastly improved silent shutter mode for dance, but I'm pretty sure I have to wait for a pro mirrorless body to get that.


If I saw a dramatic change of elite gymnastics photographers dropping Canon for any other single brand I'd think you had a point, but I don't so I don't.

But you will get the silent sguttewre in the MkIII.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As a generalist I very rarely run into AF limitations, when I do it is invariably due to light limitations so my only real interest in AF improvements for DSLR's is in low light sensitivity.
> 
> Indeed I find the criticism of AF to be, in general, farcical when most people don't even know exactly what the three variables do and rarely if ever change them. I ignore anybodies comments about AF unless I know they know what they are talking about, people like Grant Atkinson, Ari Hazeghi, who not only shoot a lot but also intimately understand the specifics of the AF settings. I find AF so adjustable I will use different settings after I have been shooting for a half hour and gotten into the swing of things and then after a few hours I'll dial responsiveness down as I get tired.
> 
> Eye AF in a DSLR is a cute gimmick with very limited functionality outside video, at which point we go back to the video centricity of the majority of these improvements.


I shoot birds-in-flight (BIF) with my 1DX2/EOS 600mm F4 lll and believe I have a good grasp of the AF custom case settings, as well as BIF shooting techniques. That said, the 1DX2 uses "predictive" algorithms that causes the subject tracking to be unstable against backgrounds with contrast. The AF of the D6 and A92 are biased toward tracking and maintaining focus lock, once acquired. You mention Ari Hazeghi. Ari is a highly accomplished BIF photographer who shot Canon for a decade. Last year he sold his Canon gear and now shoots the Nikon D6. Ari has written in detail of the shortcomings of the Canon AF for BIF photography. Another dedicated BIF photographer is Art Morris. Art was a Canon Explorer of Light but now shoots the Sony A92. Art is outspoken about the limitations of the Canon AF for BIF photography. I was recently shooting BIF with Art in Bosque Del Apache. The tracking of the A92 is remarkable. 

Canon said in a recent interview that improvements in AF tracking is one of the main developments of the 1DX3. If true, I am a buyer. Canon also said to expect a reduction of weight with the 1DX3 which is great news! Another big improvement will be adoption of dual CFexpress cards and adoption of HEIF files. I am curious to see the IQ of the compressed HEIF files, and the benefit, if any, HEIF may have on FR and/or buffer capacity. 

BTW My daughter is a wedding photographer and is ecstatic about her results with Eye AF for still photography.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I shoot birds-in-flight (BIF) with my 1DX2/EOS 600mm F4 lll and believe I have a good grasp of the AF custom case settings, as well as BIF shooting techniques. That said, the 1DX2 uses "predictive" algorithms that causes the subject tracking to be unstable against backgrounds with contrast. The AF of the D6 and A92 are biased toward tracking and maintaining focus lock, once acquired. You mention Ari Hazeghi. Ari is a highly accomplished BIF photographer who shot Canon for a decade. Last year he sold his Canon gear and now shoots the Nikon D6. Ari has written in detail of the shortcomings of the Canon AF for BIF photography. Another dedicated BIF photographer is Art Morris. Art was a Canon Explorer of Light but now shoots the Sony A92. Art is outspoken about the limitations of the Canon AF for BIF photography. I was recently shooting BIF with Art in Bosque Del Apache. The tracking of the A92 is remarkable.
> 
> Canon said in a recent interview that improvements in AF tracking is one of the main developments of the 1DX3. If true, I am a buyer. Canon also said to expect a reduction of weight with the 1DX3 which is great news! Another big improvement will be adoption of dual CFexpress cards and adoption of HEIF files. I am curious to see the IQ of the compressed HEIF files, and the benefit, if any, HEIF may have on FR and/or buffer capacity.
> 
> BTW My daughter is a wedding photographer and is ecstatic about her results with Eye AF for still photography.


Anybody who quotes Arthur Morris in support of an opinion clearly has little background understanding. You are as welcome to your opinion as is anybody else, however I disagree with you and think Art is a joke, and I have spoken to him personally about it. In person he is much more accepting of his personal limits regarding BIF as a genre he freely admits he does not specialize in and never has.

I do believe very experienced single genre users can find differences between manufacturers AF algorithms to make a marginal difference to their personal keeper rates (and that is what Ari actually says), but I believe anybody that lambasts 1DX MkII, D5 or A9 II as being uncompetitive or dramatically different from either of the others is an idiot.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

I get a little tired of this trope that only people who don't know what they are doing complain about the autofocus. 

The fact is, many if not most sports shooters still default to single point or single point expanded because virtually none of the other settings do well at locking on a subject when shooting sports. That shows right there that there is room for improvement. 

To say that people just need to study the various use cases and refine their choices is a red herring. I can guarantee you that top sports photographers like Peter Read Miller aren't digging through the menu like that. In fact, he says as much on his video channel. If a system isn't intuitive right out of the box it needs work. Canon's autofocus is good, but it definitely can be improved and judging by Canon's own development announcement, they realize that.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Dec 17, 2019)

haggie said:


> Perhaps a cropped version, perhaps call it 7D Mk III?
> No problem for me if all "high-end" video features are left out.


Same


----------



## koch1948 (Dec 17, 2019)

What about including full touch screen operation? The EOS-1D X Mark II does not include touch screen menus or screen swipe on playback for camera stills.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I get a little tired of this trope that only people who don't know what they are doing complain about the autofocus.
> 
> The fact is, many if not most sports shooters still default to single point or single point expanded because virtually none of the other settings do well at locking on a subject when shooting sports. That shows right there that there is room for improvement.
> 
> To say that people just need to study the various use cases and refine their choices is a red herring. I can guarantee you that top sports photographers like Peter Read Miller aren't digging through the menu like that. In fact, he says as much on his video channel. If a system isn't intuitive right out of the box it needs work. Canon's autofocus is good, but it definitely can be improved and judging by Canon's own development announcement, they realize that.


I'm not and never have said the AF couldn't be better and I'd like it to be better, of course there are improvements to make and I welcome them and look forwards to them.

My point has always been there is a very small difference between the three top end AF cameras and people heavily criticizing one brand over another brand are almost certainly not using whichever they hate to its full potential.

As for Peter Reed Millers opinion, it is foolish and ultimately he will pay the price. Why would you not explore the tools at your disposal? It's like having a car with different performance settings and never trying any of them because you need to push a button, a pathetic self limitation. Sure things have to work out of the box but does he take the same attitude with exposure?


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 17, 2019)

That resolution is really disappointing. 

I was hoping for at least 24mp.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

koch1948 said:


> What about including full touch screen operation? The EOS-1D X Mark II does not include touch screen menus or screen swipe on playback for camera stills.



It will definitely have the same touch screen functionality of the 5DIV. It won't have the same functionality of the R because it isn't possible to do that with a DSLR. 

I don't think touch screens that have been a part of the XXD series for two generations could be called a major new feature in this day and age.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I shoot birds-in-flight (BIF) with my 1DX2/EOS 600mm F4 lll and believe I have a good grasp of the AF custom case settings, as well as BIF shooting techniques. That said, the 1DX2 uses "predictive" algorithms that causes the subject tracking to be unstable against backgrounds with contrast. The AF of the D6 and A92 are biased toward tracking and maintaining focus lock, once acquired. You mention Ari Hazeghi. Ari is a highly accomplished BIF photographer who shot Canon for a decade. Last year he sold his Canon gear and now shoots the Nikon D6. Ari has written in detail of the shortcomings of the Canon AF for BIF photography. Another dedicated BIF photographer is Art Morris. Art was a Canon Explorer of Light but now shoots the Sony A92. Art is outspoken about the limitations of the Canon AF for BIF photography. I was recently shooting BIF with Art in Bosque Del Apache. The tracking of the A92 is remarkable.
> 
> Canon said in a recent interview that improvements in AF tracking is one of the main developments of the 1DX3. If true, I am a buyer. Canon also said to expect a reduction of weight with the 1DX3 which is great news! Another big improvement will be adoption of dual CFexpress cards and adoption of HEIF files. I am curious to see the IQ of the compressed HEIF files, and the benefit, if any, HEIF may have on FR and/or buffer capacity.
> 
> BTW My daughter is a wedding photographer and is ecstatic about her results with Eye AF for still photography.


Allow me to repost 3 older postings of mine.

Ari is a fantastic bird photographer.

His reviews





__





Nikon D5 Review – Ari Hazeghi Photography






arihazeghiphotography.com





vs

http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/eos-1d-x-mark-ii-field-review/

however prove just that and the fact that both Nikon and Canon cameras are fantastic too.

And actually Canon's review contained more interesting (and possibly more difficult to take) BIF pictures.

All photos taken with Nikon cameras are of birds that fly straight keeping the distance to the photographer more or less the same. So NO Big deal. All cameras would manage to take these pictures successffully especially if used by a competent photographer like Ari.

In contrast, photographs taken with 1DxII show movement towards photographer (like "Juvenile falcon changing direction at high speed" and "Juvenile peregrine falcon screaming") and many show bird interactions on air.

Coincidence of course but all these prove that statements like Canon's AF is worse than Nikon's are tottally *BS* so the switch to Nikon seems to be made for totally different reasons.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

I still doubt the 20.1 mp rumor. Unless the camera can shoot at 25,600 and have it look like ISO 400 in RAW (which I doubt is even possible) Canon would take one heck of a lot of grief. More importantly, Canon needs 1Dx users (Both I and II) to upgrade, and not making any improvement in resolution won't cut it.


----------



## ToonD (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> If I saw a dramatic change of elite gymnastics photographers dropping Canon for any other single brand I'd think you had a point, but I don't so I don't.


I think that will be a different story in Tokyo. I work for a press agency and lots of photographers have gone the Sony route or are thinking about it. I will wait for the Mark III and decide after that.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 17, 2019)

I'm still convinced it will be the ~24 MP sensor from the C300 Mark III. At it's core the 1DX is a Cinema Cam. The 5.9K rumor is more evidence of that. 

I'm guessing Canon is cleverly tempering expectations with the 20MP rumor so that when it launches at 24MP everyone will be happy rather than bitching it's not 30MP. That's what I'd be doing. 

I may be wrong but I can't imagine why Canon would develop an entirely new sensor for a camera that doesn't sell in big volumes and has no other use in their system.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 17, 2019)

tron said:


> Coincidence of course but all these prove that statements like Canon's AF is worse than Nikon's are tottally *BS* so the switch to Nikon seems to be made for totally different reasons.


The Arty and Ari show is all about monetizing clicks and selling gear. Any opinions they offer on equipment are intended to increase clicks or sell gear. It's a business.

Edit: Not implying they aren't both good photographers in their individual styles because they are. But, then again, so are a lot of people.


----------



## photo212 (Dec 17, 2019)

The dual CFast slots is a deal breaker for me. I'd prefer one CFast and one CF. I'll probably grab a Mk II deal when the Mk III hits the market.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 17, 2019)

Wow, even by the standards of CR, there's a lot of negativity in this thread.

Fwiw I'd expect the 1-series to be the last place they introduce IBIS (for various reasons), but I've been surprised before, so who knows.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 17, 2019)

photo212 said:


> The dual CFast slots is a deal breaker for me. I'd prefer one CFast and one CF. I'll probably grab a Mk II deal when the Mk III hits the market.


As far as we know, 1D X III has no CFast slots. Only CFexpress.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Anybody who quotes Arthur Morris in support of an opinion clearly has little background understanding. You are as welcome to your opinion as is anybody else, however I disagree with you and think Art is a joke, and I have spoken to him personally about it. In person he is much more accepting of his personal limits regarding BIF as a genre he freely admits he does not specialize in and never has.
> 
> I do believe very experienced single genre users can find differences between manufacturers AF algorithms to make a marginal difference to their personal keeper rates (and that is what Ari actually says), but I believe anybody that lambasts 1DX MkII, D5 or A9 II as being uncompetitive or dramatically different from either of the others is an idiot.


LOL Such a vicious characterization of Art Morris (who has spent the last 40 years photographing birds around the world) only cast a dim light on the maker. I guess Ari Hazeghi and I are simply idiots.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2019)

I doubt if most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24, and probably wouldn’t want more that 24. That’s not the business for this camera.


----------



## Russ6357 (Dec 17, 2019)

Wildlife photography often requires the sturdiness and sealing of a 1DX with fast frame rates and solid AF but frank 20MP is often barely enough even with big glass

24 is a nice bump but 28 would be better...


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

melgross said:


> I doubt if most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24, and probably wouldn’t want more that 24. That’s not the business for this camera.


This one does. Shooting sports means cropping, sometimes radical cropping. The more pixels available to throw away and still have a usable image the better.


----------



## Pape (Dec 17, 2019)

Russ6357 said:


> Wildlife photography often requires the sturdiness and sealing of a 1DX with fast frame rates and solid AF but frank 20MP is often barely enough even with big glass
> 
> 24 is a nice bump but 28 would be better...


Maybe it will be focus f11 so new 4x tele converter for 1dx3


----------



## richperson (Dec 17, 2019)

I would welcome 24mp, but I would welcome better low light performance more--for my shooting. When I do crop down for reach, noise is usually a much bigger factor than pixelation. I can understand if you are making large prints that it could make a difference, but that doesn't matter to me.

I also expect IBIS not that Nikon has added it to the D6. Can't imagine Canon won't want to match that.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 17, 2019)

tron said:


> Allow me to repost 3 older postings of mine.
> 
> Ari is a fantastic bird photographer.
> 
> ...


I have owned Canon gear for many years but have had opportunities to used the Nikon D6 and the Sony A92 for BIF. Canon has ground to make up in regards to AF tracking and stability. Hopefully, Canon will make advances with the 1DX3.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

djack41 said:


> LOL Such a vicious characterization of Art Morris (who has spent the last 40 years photographing birds around the world) only cast a dim light on the maker. I guess Ari Hazeghi and I are simply idiots.


I have formed my opinion of Art after a lot of background reading and a relatively short personal interaction, I used has words in describing his BIF experience and capabilities, he is and has always passed himself off as an avian behavioral image maker not a BIF image maker.

I don't know if you are an idiot, I don't know you, but again I used Ari's words to describe his personal use, and that is incredibly narrowly defined and specific to him as an individual in one particular and highly specialized use case. If you shoot like him and have similar experience to him with both subjects and equipment I wouldn't be surprised if you reached similar conclusions. I do know that if I had a Nikon and Ari was standing beside me with a Canon he would get more keepers than me. He believes he gets more keepers with Nikon than Canon, others have felt the opposite, Andy Rouse being one who switched from the D5 to the 1DX MkII specifically because of the AF. I also know very high level sports pros who have gone from 1DX MkII's to A9's mainly because of the silent mode.

Again, I welcome any improvements in AF but anybody that says there is a high percentage difference of keepers due to AF between the 1DX MkII, the D5 and the A9II is wrong. There are small differences for some users in very specific situations, none truly outclass the other anywhere and if they did you would only see that one brand everywhere. Sony has some very interesting features that make the A9II attractive over and above the AF and I'd expect Nikon and Canon to address those features in the D6 and the 1DX MkIII.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I have owned Canon gear for many years but have had opportunities to used the Nikon D6 and the Sony A92 for BIF. Canon has ground to make up in regards to AF tracking and stability. Hopefully, Canon will make advances with the 1DX3.


I'll bet $1,000,000's you haven't shot with the D6, further suggesting your opinion is not based in reality.


----------



## Buck (Dec 17, 2019)

One issue about resolution that is overlooked, how quick can you get the files transferred. Can the the wireless transmitter handle the higher resolution pictures, is the current transmitter limited in performance?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

Buck said:


> One issue about resolution that is overlooked, how quick can you get the files transferred. Can the the wireless transmitter handle the higher resolution pictures, is the current transmitter limited in performance?


I'm guessing so I could be wrong, but I imagine that most photographers who use the wireless transmitter are transferring jpgs for the sake of speed and file size. I doubt that higher resolution jpgs would be beyond the capability of the wireless transmitter and it it were, I would expect that Canon would either produce a new transmitter or upgrade the current transmitter through firmware if possible.


----------



## tron (Dec 17, 2019)

djack41 said:


> I have owned Canon gear for many years but have had opportunities to used the Nikon D6 and the Sony A92 for BIF. Canon has ground to make up in regards to AF tracking and stability. Hopefully, Canon will make advances with the 1DX3.


Nikon D6? Do you know someone who is testing it? And if so you compare a future camera with an old one?
Sorry but even so - which I doubt - you failed to address my post which referred purely to Ari's work and nothing else!

You see he has presented so nice pictures shooting BIF with Canon which makes it hard for me to believe him when he says something oposite (to his own work!)


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

richperson said:


> I would welcome 24mp, but I would welcome better low light performance more--for my shooting...



It depends on the improvement. If it is less than a full stop, I'll take more resolution. And, based on what people who understand these things better than I do have written on this forum and elsewhere, I doubt that a full stop of improvement is likely even at 20 mp. Of course, Canon may amaze us all with some massive leapfrog over all competitors in sensor performance, but based on what exists today I'm not holding my breath. 

Compare the 1DII and the 5DIV and there is no significant difference in low light performance at 30 mp. As I've said before, I'd happily take a 1DX II with a 5DIV sensor and improved autofocus.


----------



## peters (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!


The completely silent Shutter is a big plus for wedding photographers or general event photographers.
The higher resolution is also quite nicefor event photographers that like to have a more versatile camera.

The AF improvements are certainly great for sports photographers. And this is probably the most important group of people that canon builds this camera for. On sports events you pretty much EXCLUSIVELY see 1DX and some nikon D5... there are simply pretty much zero 5Ds or Sony A9s on the sideline of a olympia stadium. And for this market the improvements are certainly great =)


----------



## richperson (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It depends on the improvement. If it is less than a full stop, I'll take more resolution. And, based on what people who understand these things better than I do have written on this forum and elsewhere, I doubt that a full stop of improvement is likely even at 20 mp. Of course, Canon may amaze us all with some massive leapfrog over all competitors in sensor performance, but based on what exists today I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> Compare the 1DII and the 5DIV and there is no significant difference in low light performance at 30 mp. As I've said before, I'd happily take a 1DX II with a 5DIV sensor and improved autofocus.



I disagree with this statement in my practice. I don't have a variable-controlled studio comparison, but when shooting football in low light, my 1DXii is significantly better than my R, which has essentially then same sensor as the 5DIV.

And yes, a full stop would likely not be reasonable, but a half stop would make a big enough difference for me to get excited.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> This one does. Shooting sports means cropping, sometimes radical cropping. The more pixels available to throw away and still have a usable image the better.


I used to shoot sports for CBS a a long time ago. Most of that goes to newspapers or magazines, or now, online mags who don’t print more than a lowered rez, small image. It’s rarely over 2,000 x 1500 pixels, and usually a lot smaller.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I'm guessing so I could be wrong, but I imagine that most photographers who use the wireless transmitter are transferring jpgs for the sake of speed and file size. I doubt that higher resolution jpgs would be beyond the capability of the wireless transmitter and it it were, I would expect that Canon would either produce a new transmitter or upgrade the current transmitter through firmware if possible.


Believe it or not, most mags use jpeg. It’s often speed to press that matters most. Nobody is sitting there fixing RAW images in the press room. It’s shoot, and transmit. Back at the mag, it’s select and print.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

melgross said:


> I used to shoot sports for CBS a a long time ago. Most of that goes to newspapers or magazines, or now, online mags who don’t print more than a lowered rez, small image. It’s rarely over 2,000 x 1500 pixels, and usually a lot smaller.


And those same pictures that I post at 1140 px wide on the website have to be available for publication at 300 dpi, sometimes in a double page spread in the college catalog, or put on display outside the gym or used on a banner or billboard. So please, don't tell me how you used to shoot on Tri-X and printed using a hot type letterpress at 72 dpi, so that should be good enough for everybody else.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2019)

peters said:


> The completely silent Shutter is a big plus for wedding photographers or general event photographers...



Just to clarify, the silent shutter is in live view mode only. I don't shoot weddings. But I do shoot events and a silent shutter in live view doesn't really interest me. I'll keep my R for silent shutter work.


----------



## AJ (Dec 17, 2019)

Triple card slots


----------



## peters (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Just to clarify, the silent shutter is in live view mode only. I don't shoot weddings. But I do shoot events and a silent shutter in live view doesn't really interest me. I'll keep my R for silent shutter work.


True, but obviously a DSLR can never have a silent shutter AND a viewfinder with a mirror. So thats a compromise I am fine with.
Though they should CERTAINLY improve the silent shutter mode on the 1D in "normal mirror viewfinder mode". The silent shutter mode is still MUCH louder than the 5D regular shutter mode xD


----------



## geffy (Dec 17, 2019)

the problem is i cannot carry two lensed 1d's anymore and i see less of them at shoots where they were the badge of success only a year ago amongst a rabble of snappers, it may well be a video and sports camera but photographers are making less money than when the mark II came out and videographers have been selling their II's to buy elsewhere which may well sink its launch


----------



## geffy (Dec 17, 2019)

peters said:


> Jeah on the photography side I totaly agree.
> The video front is REALY exciting though. 4k RAW with 60fps on a canon fullframe... this is truely exciting! The 1DX II even competes with c200 and got a truely beautifull image (though the dynamic range and shadow details are quite bad compared to a blackmagic pocket cinema camera 6k for example or compared to the Panasonic S1H, which we both have in my studio).
> The Mark III could get closer to a c500 (at least when it comes to resolution and pure image quality). Its truely promising =)


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 17, 2019)

AccipiterQ said:


> If, after they've strung out this release for an extra year, the iii has a 20.X sensor I'm going to Sony. I can't wait to complain about whatever they complain about in the AlphaRumors forums.
> 
> Seriously though, if they need to go with their little 20MP micro-sensor to match what Sony/Nikon/The rest of the world can do as far as IQ, ISO performance, etc. on larger sensors, then they're tacitly admitting their R&D/technology sucks.


Remind me what the Sony A9II sensor resolution is? Was it 24MP? So you are technically saying Canon is a incompetent company if they released a specialist camera with sensor resolution 14% less measured along the longest side of the sensor?
Never mind all other parameters, build quality, lens and services eco system. You are going to a Sony. Ok. Do us a favour.


----------



## perfpix (Dec 17, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> If I saw a dramatic change of elite gymnastics photographers dropping Canon for any other single brand I'd think you had a point, but I don't so I don't.
> 
> But you will get the silent sguttewre in the MkIII.
> 
> View attachment 187817



When did I say any other brand was better than Canon?

Here are a few of my own. By the way, AF works very well when shooting events like these in TV lighting. Shooting in less ideal conditions is when the AF gets challenged and can be improved. In my experience Nikon has had the AF edge for a few generations, but not by much. Certainly not enough for me to switch.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 17, 2019)

melgross said:


> I doubt if most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24, and probably wouldn’t want more that 24. That’s not the business for this camera.


Thank you. I regained my sanity.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I do wonder if Canon may have distributed some test bodies wi
> 
> And those same pictures that I post at 1140 px wide on the website have to be available for publication at 300 dpi, sometimes in a double page spread in the college catalog, or put on display outside the gym or used on a banner or billboard. So please, don't tell me how you used to shoot on Tri-X and printed using a hot type letterpress at 72 dpi, so that should be good enough for everybody else.


Double page spread is 17MP.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 17, 2019)

richperson said:


> I disagree with this statement in my practice. I don't have a variable-controlled studio comparison, but when shooting football in low light, my 1DXii is significantly better than my R, which has essentially then same sensor as the 5DIV.
> 
> And yes, a full stop would likely not be reasonable, but a half stop would make a big enough difference for me to get excited.


Half a stop can make a big difference in low light settings. That’s a difference between say shooting at iso6400 and iso10000. That’s tangible.thank you.


----------



## melgross (Dec 17, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I do wonder if Canon may have distributed some test bodies wi
> 
> And those same pictures that I post at 1140 px wide on the website have to be available for publication at 300 dpi, sometimes in a double page spread in the college catalog, or put on display outside the gym or used on a banner or billboard. So please, don't tell me how you used to shoot on Tri-X and printed using a hot type letterpress at 72 dpi, so that should be good enough for everybody else.


No, I’m not going to tell you that, because it wouldn’t be true. But I did work in fashion and product photography before opening a commercial film lab in NYC with some people where we developed a professional Kodachrome line in conjunction with Kodak, and were one of the first labs to go digital in 1988 with “The Crossfield System” before Adobe asked us, in 1990, to become one of the first Adobe shops.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

perfpix said:


> .......Nikon has had the AF edge for a few generations, but not by much. Certainly not enough for me to switch.



And that is in line with all I have ever said.


----------



## perfpix (Dec 17, 2019)

photo212 said:


> The dual CFast slots is a deal breaker for me. I'd prefer one CFast and one CF. I'll probably grab a Mk II deal when the Mk III hits the market.


I agree. I have to show up for certain gigs with as many as 20 cards. It will cost me a fortune to switch. I own a total of 4 Cfast cards that I use solely for backup. I'd much prefer they do what Nikon did with the D5 and have modules for either dual CF slots or dual XQD slots.


----------



## bellorusso (Dec 17, 2019)

How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.


I don't care one iota about IBIS and will buy the camera sooner or later, sooner if it has more MP, later if not as my current cameras wear out.

I got my 1DX MkII's in March and May 2017 so they will both be fully written down next year.


----------



## richperson (Dec 18, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.



It won't impact my decision at all as almost all of my shooting is at higher shutter speeds, and my portrait lens is stabilized. Now on my next version of the EOS R, I would be more insistent on IBIS to go with the 28-70mm f/2.


----------



## gregster (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I would add that neither the A9II nor the D5 have IBIS.



A9/A9II most definitely have IBIS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2019)

gregster said:


> A9/A9II most definitely have IBIS.


My apologies and well caught, I was ahead of myself and 100% wrong. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

criscokkat said:


> Technically 20.1 megapixels is just a hair over 6000x3375 which would be 5.9k.



Except 6000x3375 is 16:9. It would be a 6000x4000 (24MP) sensor to take 3:2 stils.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

Chaitanya said:


> Olympus had illuminiated buttons even on their entry level 4/3 DSLR E620. Nikon has been selling cameras with illuminated buttons for sometime now and it is a useful feature hoping to see on Canon cameras(maybe upto 7D mk II replacement).



I've never understood what the big hoopla about illuminated buttons is. I rarely actually look at most of the buttons I push. I've already learned where they are before shooting in the dark with a new camera.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 18, 2019)

tron said:


> Nikon D6? Do you know someone who is testing it? And if so you compare a future camera with an old one?
> Sorry but even so - which I doubt - you failed to address my post which referred purely to Ari's work and nothing else!
> 
> You see he has presented so nice pictures shooting BIF with Canon which makes it hard for me to believe him when he says something oposite (to his own work!)


Sorry. My bad. I meant D5.


----------



## flip314 (Dec 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Except 6000x3375 is 16:9. It would be a 6000x4000 (24MP) sensor to take 3:2 stils.



If some of the recent rumors are true, maybe it's a 6000x3375 16:9 sensor that does sensor shifting to fake 3:2 aspect ratio stills


----------



## djack41 (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> Believe it or not, most mags use jpeg. It’s often speed to press that matters most. Nobody is sitting there fixing RAW images in the press room. It’s shoot, and transmit. Back at the mag, it’s select and print.


JPEG may soon be obsolete with the adoption of HEIF. 4x the color range of JPEG and half the size RAW. I read that Canon will include HEIF in its upcoming cameras. Sounds good!


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

peters said:


> The completely silent Shutter is a big plus for wedding photographers or general event photographers.



Most wedding photographers (by "wedding photogs" I mean those whose primary market is weddings, not PJs moonlighting by shooting weddings a few weekends per year) want more than 20MP because they hope to sell very large prints. At 300ppi, one can only go to 20 x 13 (effectively 18 x12, 14 x11, etc. at "standard"enlargement sizes). To do a 16 x 20 @ 300ppi, one needs an image 4,800 pixels on the short side, which equates to a 34.5 MP 3:2 sensor.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 18, 2019)

What Canon NEEDS TO DO is to provide a camera that can take SEVERE lighting situations and Let Loose the Dogs of Noise (i.e. remove noise from low light shots!) I have some photos below taken with a very low end camera! YES! The photos are basically crap in terms of light gathering power and severe noise, BUT would Canon (and others!) not have the technical fortitude to be able to sample a point of light that is UNIFORM ENOUGH across a group of pixels such that noise would be reduced to levels that are MUCH MUCH BETTER than what is noted below?

The camera community is at a cross-roads as of late 2019. The ONLY WAY to really get truly great low-light gathering power is:

a) Increase the sensitivity of the individual photosites at any given sensor size by an at least 1.5x factor.

b) Make each sensor site LARGER so that it gathers more light.

Today, most manufacturers are going with "Option A", when I think it should be more about "Option B" where individual photosites on modern image sensors NEED to be MUCH LARGER than they are today. In order to get 20 to 30 megapixels at the LARGER than 7+ microns per photosite which is the MINIMUM THRESHOLD for advanced low-light capable still photo systems, it does mean the actual sensor size needs to get into the range of 65 mm and larger which is where Hollywood Cinema cameras are (i.e. Arri Alexa-65) but stuffed into a still photo camera body the size of a Fujifilm GFX-100. Once that happens, TRULY IDEAL low-light gathering power can be increased along with noise levels being decreased by a significant amount!

Again, I have previously espoused in many other posts that just such a camera revolution IS coming quite soon now.... BUT .... I have not yet seen Canon even REMOTELY ADDRESS the issue of a larger sensor with larger photosites at 20 to 30 megapixel resolutions. It IS coming sooner rather than later (i.e. a 65mm+ sensor in a GFX100-like body) but WHAT will Canon do in response when that large sensor revolution comes to stills photography? 

Questions for YOU the enthusiast photographer:

1) What is your price threshold for still cameras that are greater than Full Frame in size where you would say YES I would buy it?
Is it $3000 US (2400 Euros), $5000, $7500, $9500?

2) Would you buy a Full Frame Camera that was around 16.7 megapixels (i.e. 5000 x 3350 pixels at 3:2 ratio) IF YOU KNOW that the sensor photosites are larger than 7 microns with superior low-light gathering power because they use a much more photosensitive substrate AND larger photosites than a Canon 1Dx Mk2?

3) Would you accept 24 megapixels ( i.e. 6000 by 4000 pixels) from a 65mm sensor (technically 65mm is only 56mm by 38mm at 3:2 aspect ratio) where the photosites would be 9.3 microns or larger giving you at least 70% GREATER light gathering area COMBINED with a much more photosensitive substrate?

4) For such a low-light monster of a 24 megapixel 65mm sensor camera in a body the size of a Fuji GFX-100, would you be willing to pay $8500 US (7700 Euros) for it?

Answer those questions and maybe we CAN make your dreams come true!

.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Remind me what the Sony A9II sensor resolution is? Was it 24MP? So you are technically saying Canon is a incompetent company if they released a specialist camera with sensor resolution 14% less measured along the longest side of the sensor?
> Never mind all other parameters, build quality, lens and services eco system. You are going to a Sony. Ok. Do us a favour.



The linear difference between 20 MP (5472x3648) and 24 MP (6000x4000) is only about 9%.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

perfpix said:


> When did I say any other brand was better than Canon?
> 
> Here are a few of my own. By the way, AF works very well when shooting events like these in TV lighting. Shooting in less ideal conditions is when the AF gets challenged and can be improved. In my experience Nikon has had the AF edge for a few generations, but not by much. Certainly not enough for me to switch.
> View attachment 187819
> View attachment 187820



Maybe the reason most Canon shooters think the D5 has better AF is because they never see the D5 shooters' rejects, and the reason the D5 shooters think the 1D X Mark II has better AF is because they don't see all of the Canon shooters' rejects?


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

djack41 said:


> JPEG may soon be obsolete with the adoption of HEIF. 4x the color range of JPEG and half the size RAW. I read that Canon will include HEIF in its upcoming cameras. Sounds good!



That all depends on when almost all web connected devices can display HEIF. Until then, the lowest common denominator is JPEG. Currently only about 1/3 of Android phones in use run Android Pie. There are no current browsers (as of October 2019) that support HEIF.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 18, 2019)

LOL 201.1MP pretty sad and undoes everything good about this camera. First time in history 1 series resolution hasn't been improved. Not to be able to offer 24MP in 2020 very lame indeed. D6 looking better and better.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 18, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> What Canon NEEDS TO DO is to provide a camera that can take SEVERE lighting situations and Let Loose the Dogs of Noise (i.e. remove noise from low light shots!) I have some photos below taken with a very low end camera! YES! The photos are basically crap in terms of light gathering power and severe noise, BUT would Canon (and others!) not have the technical fortitude to be able to sample a point of light that is UNIFORM ENOUGH across a group of pixels such that noise would be reduced to levels that are MUCH MUCH BETTER than what is noted below?
> 
> The camera community is at a cross-roads as of late 2019. The ONLY WAY to really get truly great low-light gathering power is:
> 
> ...



How much for the lenses?


----------



## slclick (Dec 18, 2019)

AccipiterQ said:


> IMO there's not excitement because the messaging has been mixed, and it looks like they're going to F this up with a sensor that's inferior to competitors.


What do we really know, jack, that's what.


----------



## slclick (Dec 18, 2019)

mclaren777 said:


> That resolution is really disappointing.
> 
> I was hoping for at least 24mp.


Did you get a copy?


----------



## slclick (Dec 18, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.


From what I hear here, the IBIS crying crowds is not the 1D group. A few sure but not the actual working pro's from what I gathered.Just the latest thing to carry on about. First it was DR then card slots now stabilization. As if Canon hasn't had top tier lens IS all along. 

Seriously, the other companies lenses do not hold a candle to Canons IS yet so many demand they put it in bodies? It seems it's just the case of crying about having what others have even though the end result is a fantastic 4+ stops of stabilizing. How can you complain about that? Oh yeah, video....ugh.


----------



## Profit007 (Dec 18, 2019)

Re: 5.9k Raw Video
Canon will only offer 5.9k raw if they feel 'forced' to by Nikon and Sony, but would rather keep this capability at C500/C700 $$$. 
Leaks like this and announcements about 'considering' offering XYZ are often signals to competitors - ie 'if you do we will too, but if you don't, we can all force the market to pay more.'
For example, Sony did with with their FX9 announcement, they 'may' offer more capability in the future (if competitors make the market hotter or anyone tires to trump them).
I suspect at least one CR informant is from inside Canon and occasionally sends strategic info with permission. If you can't stop the leaks, at least use them to your advantage from time to time.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 18, 2019)

Profit007 said:


> Re: 5.9k Raw Video
> Canon will only offer 5.9k raw if they feel 'forced' to by Nikon and Sony, but would rather keep this capability at C500/C700 $$$.
> Leaks like this and announcements about 'considering' offering XYZ are often signals to competitors - ie 'if you do we will too, but if you don't, we can all force the market to pay more.'
> For example, Sony did with with their FX9 announcement, they 'may' offer more capability in the future (if competitors make the market hotter or anyone tires to trump them).
> I suspect at least one CR informant is from inside Canon and occasionally sends strategic info with permission. If you can't stop the leaks, at least use them to your advantage from time to time.



Keep in mind that there's a lot of internal power struggles with Sony. Sony's alpha line is bullied by the cinema line, but it doesn't stop Sony Semiconductor from selling their new secret sauce sensor to Nikon. 

Otherwise, the A7S III is likely to be handicapped, even though the sensor has the capability to outperform the FX9. The same sensor will be available to third parties.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I've never understood what the big hoopla about illuminated buttons is. I rarely actually look at most of the buttons I push. I've already learned where they are before shooting in the dark with a new camera.


I'd very much like illuminated buttons, not for when I am hand holding where muscle memory is plenty good enough, but for tripod mounted dawn, dusk, and night shots they would be much nicer than a night vision busting flashlight. A common scenario for me would be using a stupid high iso to get the exposure I want in a relatively speedy timeframe then changing iso, shutter speed and aperture to get much lower noise, this would be much faster with illuminated buttons. Dawn shoots are another example where I'd find them useful especially if Canon do the regular 1 series trick of moving one or two buttons, I cannot say how often I have missed the magnify button on the 1DX MkII because it changed place from my 1DS MkIII's and earlier.


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Dec 18, 2019)

Completely agree

anyone who is excited by the high resolution R and think AF improvements aren’t needed is basically a landscape or showroom shooter.

we just live in different worlds



perfpix said:


> I run into AF limitations all the time and I know what I'm doing. Try shooting an elite gymnast in a highly sequined leo often against an extremely busy background, or a dancer in a head to toe black costume against a velour back drop...you'll find the limitations very quickly. A big Improvement in AF is about the only reason I'd quickly pickup a III. I don't need any more MP. Actually I could really use a vastly improved silent shutter mode for dance, but I'm pretty sure I have to wait for a pro mirrorless body to get that.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Dec 18, 2019)

NorskHest said:


> Let’s be real, the mark II is ok, as a owner of that and a 1dc there is a couple nice upgrades but nothing revolutionary, this mark iii has the potential to be what the mark ii should have been. I’ll take better pixels with better iso range and a camera that tracks as advertised over what we were sold on with the mark ii. I love the mark ii but it has a lot of short comings. This mark iii could be the ultimate DSLR but let’s hope canon doesn’t shit the bed like they oh so often do.



what are the shortcomings?


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 18, 2019)

slclick said:


> What do we really know, jack, that's what.


I'm thinking the MKIII will be underwhelming! Too much put into video and really nothing much for photographers. If less than 24MP why even bother???


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The linear difference between 20 MP (5472x3648) and 24 MP (6000x4000) is only about 9%.


 oh, even less reason for someone to be disappointed with Canon brand then


----------



## sanj (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> I doubt if most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24, and probably wouldn’t want more that 24. That’s not the business for this camera.


YES


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> As a generalist I very rarely run into AF limitations, when I do it is invariably due to light limitations so my only real interest in AF improvements for DSLR's is in low light sensitivity.
> 
> Indeed I find the criticism of AF to be, in general, farcical when most people don't even know exactly what the three variables do and rarely if ever change them. I ignore anybodies comments about AF unless I know they know what they are talking about, people like Grant Atkinson, Ari Hazeghi, who not only shoot a lot but also intimately understand the specifics of the AF settings. I find AF so adjustable I will use different settings after I have been shooting for a half hour and gotten into the swing of things and then after a few hours I'll dial responsiveness down as I get tired.
> 
> Eye AF in a DSLR is a cute gimmick with very limited functionality outside video, at which point we go back to the video centricity of the majority of these improvements.



Why is a generalist shooting/interested in a camera like this? The cost, size/weight, low resolution/high speed combo seems like the worst of all worlds for such a person - by necessity, by design. If video is the focus, there are better cameras for the configured system price. I just don't get it.


----------



## criscokkat (Dec 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> How much for the lenses?


I think canon has kept the potential for “larger than 35mm“ up their sleeve with the RF mount. I think they have the ability to add at least 25% more area that fits under the design optimum image circle area, all the way up to roughly 42x28 (vs 36x24). Nikon has similar capabilities, if not a fraction larger. Sony doesn’t easily have that option with their much smaller diameter mount. However computational photography might open that up by using a sensor on rails. Making defocused areas focused by having detailed 3D models computed on the fly might be a thing in the future.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Dec 18, 2019)

The 1D range has always opted for quality rather than quantity where resolution is concerned, but I thought I would take a different angle on the discussion:

Perhaps I have been influenced by the recent UK Elections, but worried by the 'suggested' resolution, I have been looking at the statistics for the EOS-1D range...


So, throwing photography, hopes and wishes out of the window, and taking into account *ONLY* the date and resolution of the 'normal' bodies (i.e. not the 's' or 'C' ranges), then the suggestion of a 20MP sensor looks entirely wrong. 22.3MP would be a direct continuation of the development/evolution of the '1D X' series. Something around 24MP would start to bring the sensor size back in line with previous incremental developments (24.4MP being the statistically predicted resolution), with 28MP being the data point that best matches the evolution from 1D to 1D MkII, as well as from 1D MkIII to 1D MkIV.

I would like to see the sensor around 24MP, not least because I have just exchanged my 1D X as a deposit against the MkIII. However, even if the resolution remains around 20MP, developments in the DIGIC processors et al. would help to produce improvements in AF, dynamic range, low light capabilities and shooting speed. I would welcome improvements in the low light capabilities and dynamic range over image resolution.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Dec 18, 2019)

20 mp is okay for an action camera. My wife just recently made impressively detailed A3 prints from image files shot with her old 12 mp Nikons. The only downside is that there's not much room for cropping, which is indeed something a birder could miss.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 18, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> I'm thinking the MKIII will be underwhelming! Too much put into video and really nothing much for photographers. If less than 24MP why even bother???



It will be underwhelming to those who are habitually underwhelmed, for sure.


----------



## peters (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> Double page spread is 17MP.


And I wonder if any newspaper or magazines even REALY print at 300dpi. 
300dpi is a term which is widely named "necessary for print" but I doubt that many newspapers print that resolution. It requites good printer and also very good paper...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> I doubt if most pros who use the 1D care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24, and probably wouldn’t want more that 24. That’s not the business for this camera.





sanj said:


> YES


No.

There are still 1DS MkIII holdouts that want, like or need the 1 series but also want and need more than the 20 odd MP they have had since 2007. I bought the 1DS MkIII when it was the only way to get that resolution, I refused to go backwards on resolution to the 1DX but really had to get new cameras after 10 years use so got the 1DX MkII's. I'd welcome any resolution increase in the 1 series and would pay very dearly for a high resolution 1 series with limited (comparatively) fps as the technological tradeoff for that higher resolution.

But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 18, 2019)

Your right.....for once! lol I meant D5.


----------



## ozturert (Dec 18, 2019)

IBIS and 5K with no crop! Now that would be something.
But, I think Canon also needs to improve AF tracking as well. D5 is sitll the best to track erratic subjects but A9 II is not far behind D5. 1DX II is behind these cameras, I think, in that area.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No.
> 
> There are still 1DS MkIII holdouts that want, like or need the 1 series but also want and need more than the 20 odd MP they have had since 2007. I bought the 1DS MkIII when it was the only way to get that resolution, I refused to go backwards on resolution to the 1DX but really had to get new cameras after 10 years use so got the 1DX MkII's. I'd welcome any resolution increase in the 1 series and would pay very dearly for a high resolution 1 series with limited (comparatively) fps as the technological tradeoff for that higher resolution.
> 
> But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.


PBD, the key poynt is: *most pros who use the 1D* care much about whether the Rez will be 20 or 24
you have just admitted that You and your" kind are in a small minority"
so correct answer is "YES", with exception of a small minority - the "Your kind".


----------



## NorskHest (Dec 18, 2019)

Most of you in here comment and write like you will buy this camera or that it is in your price range and let’s be real you won’t be getting it. There is as little company called Arri and they time and time again have proven the fewer and better pixels are better compared to lots of pixels and shitty ones at that. The 1 series needs better iso, sensitivity and tracking af. If your image is blurry or noisy and doesn't have much shadow detail then what is point of alllllllll those pixels. Canon has shown little innovation in terms of sensor tech when compared to Arri, Sony , red and so on, let’s hope this camera is the technological paradigm shift for them


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 18, 2019)

peters said:


> And I wonder if any newspaper or magazines even REALY print at 300dpi.
> 300dpi is a term which is widely named "necessary for print" but I doubt that many newspapers print that resolution. It requites good printer and also very good paper...



Every single photo I send the newspaper I work with ends up at 200 DPI.

The files they request are specifically only 10 inches at 200 dpi, or 2000 pixels on the long end max. That's legitimately two megapixels.

The 20 megapixels of the 1DX2 are perfectly big enough for anything we do already, and they're "small" enough to make shooting 15,000 photos for one event not a disaster for storage, since we keep and archive legitimately every single raw image we've ever shot.


----------



## tron (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No.
> 
> There are still 1DS MkIII holdouts that want, like or need the 1 series but also want and need more than the 20 odd MP they have had since 2007. I bought the 1DS MkIII when it was the only way to get that resolution, I refused to go backwards on resolution to the 1DX but really had to get new cameras after 10 years use so got the 1DX MkII's. I'd welcome any resolution increase in the 1 series and would pay very dearly for a high resolution 1 series with limited (comparatively) fps as the technological tradeoff for that higher resolution.
> 
> But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.


Are you in a minority? I wonder! Maybe but it is a good wish. I use 5DsR for birding. That way I have the high pixel density of a 7DII and the 2.56X (1.6*1.6) image area of 7DII so as to be more flexible in BIF shots. The slightly better quality at lower to mid ISOs helps too. A 1 series body would add a capability to drive fast the big white teles (even with a teleconverter), big buffer space and more than 5 fps. I guess it would be a win. In addition as a full frame it would be a perfect landscape camera.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 18, 2019)

twoheadedboy said:


> Why is a generalist shooting/interested in a camera like this? The cost, size/weight, low resolution/high speed combo seems like the worst of all worlds for such a person - by necessity, by design. If video is the focus, there are better cameras for the configured system price. I just don't get it.



Some of us generalists need to deliver photos and produced videos of the same event and in multiple aspect ratios. I work for a large organization and I'm our primary photographer, most of the times there's only one slot for a event and I need to shoot the video for it as well. This was the case yesterday. Our A camera would be amazing to bring, but I need to be light and efficient. I had this exact scenario yesterday.

Yesterday's event required photos of the entire event(around 40 edited photos) and a 2 minute IG story video. This required shooting vertical video and interviews since the EOS R can't shoot a decent full frame 4K. In the future we want full frameshoot horizontal(for YouTube, Twitter, historic archive and crop for a full HD vertical video on IG Story and likely TikTok in the near future. 

I'm hoping this 1D comes out soon(or any full frame 4K Canon) so I can stick with the Canon camp.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Every single photo I send the newspaper I work with ends up at 200 DPI.
> 
> The files they request are specifically only 10 inches at 200 dpi, or 2000 pixels on the long end max. That's legitimately two megapixels.
> 
> The 20 megapixels of the 1DX2 are perfectly big enough for anything we do already, and they're "small" enough to make shooting 15,000 photos for one event not a disaster for storage, since we keep and archive legitimately every single raw image we've ever shot.


That's all well and good for the dying newspaper industry, but that's hardly the only use of the 1Dx II. As I've explained too many times, there are lots of other professional users out there with different needs. 

My needs require maximum flexibility because the images I shoot can end up being used in any number of ways from the web to billboards. Sports shooting almost always requires cropping and often it is radical cropping because the action is unpredictable and I can only be one place at a time. A further complicating factor is that if you shoot for web use, almost everything has to be horizontal, even if the action demands vertical. That also means shooting loose and cropping those shots later for other uses.

A shot that's used on the web might also be needed for high quality print (yes, at 300 dpi) and that same shot may be cropped by the designer and used vertically. Some shots will end up as large prints on the walls of the campus. Others may show up on a billboard. All of the shaving off of pixels adds up and I'll take any increase I can get. 

I'm really getting tired of people on this forum who tell others what they need.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> ...But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.



I don't think you are. In fact, as I look over the comments on this thread, it seems like the majority of people (there are a few exceptions) who actually own and use the 1Dx are expressing disappointment in the prospect of no increase in resolution. There is also a vocal group of non-1Dx users (several seem to be self-appointed experts on every topic) who illustrate their ignorance by telling us what we need.


----------



## hazydave (Dec 18, 2019)

zonoskar said:


> Yes, but the 1D doesn't take photo's in 16:9 format. It is a photo camera first, video camera second.


Other 6K or 5.9K "hybrid" cameras are using the whole sensor for 6K and require an anamorphic lens for 16:9 or other wide formats. Yeah, sort of a cheat, but the point would be that it can shoot full sensor video.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2019)

In a rare moment of self-reflection, I realize it's kind of pointless to discuss a non-rumor that is really nothing more than clickbait designed to keep readers engaged while offering absolutely no reliable information. Good on Craig. He knows how to generate traffic and revenue, even when there is nothing to report. Perhaps my New Year's resolution will be to ignore these threads until something actually hits the CR3 level.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 18, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I get a little tired of this trope that only people who don't know what they are doing complain about the autofocus.
> 
> The fact is, many if not most sports shooters still default to single point or single point expanded because virtually none of the other settings do well at locking on a subject when shooting sports. That shows right there that there is room for improvement.



I'm not a sports photographer, but using single point or the like sounds to me more like choosing the right mode for the job rather than evidence of deficiency in other modes. Of course improvements will always be welcome when considering an upgrade.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Blah, waiting to see what the high resolution R brings, I just don't see any excitement in the 1DX MkIII for stills shooters, so far the most interesting thing has been illuminated buttons, big whoop (not)!



It's true that the 5DS does produce a sharper image from live view shooting most of the time, even compared with mirror lock up in viewfinder mode, so in a way a mirrorless high res camera makes sense. However personally I would have preferred the option of Live View for mirrorless shooting and an OVF when I want it ! I think my 5DSs will be with me for a long time to come.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I'm not a sports photographer, but using single point or the like sounds to me more like choosing the right mode for the job rather than evidence of deficiency in other modes. Of course improvements will always be welcome when considering an upgrade.


It's the right mode because the state of Canon's autofocus technology makes all the other modes the wrong choice. And, it's a little bit sad that with all the much-touted improvements in autofocus over the years, a significant segment of users are still relying on the simplest and oldest autofocus mode. If the other modes aren't really useful, why do we have them?

You can see glimpses in other focus modes and in the eye tracking of the EOS R (which is still less than perfect) of what could be. Some reviewers say that Sony and Nikon have better tracking. I've not used them, so I don't know. But I do know that there is room for improvement. Based on Canon's development announcement, they agree.


----------



## tron (Dec 18, 2019)

I do something crazy with my 5DsR and 7DMkII cameras when I try to shoot BIF. I use all points. The way I do it is to assign that together with a high shutter (1/2500 or 1/3200) and f/4 aperture to gether with some other values regarding tracking parameters to a button via the custom options. So when I take some pictures with lower speed, probably using 1 point (with 4 as an assist) and I realize there is a bird flying I use that button and try to see it through the viewfinder. I have no time to change settings so this helps a lot. I have failures but I have hits too. I can try the 1 point but it will be difficult in case of fast birds (almost all of them are). Maybe zone AF would help. I remember back a few years I had used zone AF successully with my 5D3 and 100-400 II lens shooting seagulls at rather close distances.


----------



## serhatakbal (Dec 18, 2019)

While almost all brands work with Atomos products, Canon insists on staying away from this medium..


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 18, 2019)

peters said:


> And I wonder if any newspaper or magazines even REALY print at 300dpi.
> 300dpi is a term which is widely named "necessary for print" but I doubt that many newspapers print that resolution. It requites good printer and also very good paper...



The fashion magazines I've worked with do. The high gloss Hi-end do


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 18, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> It's true that the 5DS does produce a sharper image from live view shooting most of the time, even compared with mirror lock up in viewfinder mode, so in a way a mirrorless high res camera makes sense. However personally I would have preferred the option of Live View for mirrorless shooting and an OVF when I want it ! I think my 5DSs will be with me for a long time to come.


Indeed, and if the high resolution R doesn't light a spark I will be getting one of the new old stock 5DS/r's for a song just to get that resolution when I need it.


----------



## peters (Dec 18, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> The fashion magazines I've worked with do. The high gloss Hi-end do


Hm jeah, but most newspapers are probably far away from 300dpi =)


----------



## peters (Dec 18, 2019)

serhatakbal said:


> While almost all brands work with Atomos products, Canon insists on staying away from this medium..


Hm with internal Canon RAW I dont see that much need for an Atomos recorder with ProRes RAW.
Though it certainly will work fine as an external mointor and as a recorder for proxy files (and even good ProRes files). I am certain they wont dismiss 4k hdmi output again (a big shortcoming of the 1DX II in my opinion. Especialy since the codec options on the 1DX II are quite limited and note for every workflow ideal since MJPG is pretty large.)


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2019)

peters said:


> Hm jeah, but most newspapers are probably far away from 300dpi =)


If you are trying to make a point, I can't figure out what it is. Are you suggesting that Canon should be making cameras to accommodate the dying newspaper industry?


----------



## motofotog (Dec 18, 2019)

The less we expect more happy we will be when it’s launched.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Dec 18, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> Some of us generalists need to deliver photos and produced videos of the same event and in multiple aspect ratios. I work for a large organization and I'm our primary photographer, most of the times there's only one slot for a event and I need to shoot the video for it as well. This was the case yesterday. Our A camera would be amazing to bring, but I need to be light and efficient. I had this exact scenario yesterday.
> 
> Yesterday's event required photos of the entire event(around 40 edited photos) and a 2 minute IG story video. This required shooting vertical video and interviews since the EOS R can't shoot a decent full frame 4K. In the future we want full frameshoot horizontal(for YouTube, Twitter, historic archive and crop for a full HD vertical video on IG Story and likely TikTok in the near future.
> 
> I'm hoping this 1D comes out soon(or any full frame 4K Canon) so I can stick with the Canon camp.



I mentioned video but I really meant the stills part. I can't imagine carrying a 1DX for anything but sports. You mention the EOS R being insufficient but not the 5D MK IV.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2019)

djack41 said:


> JPEG may soon be obsolete with the adoption of HEIF. 4x the color range of JPEG and half the size RAW. I read that Canon will include HEIF in its upcoming cameras. Sounds good!


It’s not well supported as yet. Apple supports it, but what cameras do?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> It’s not well supported as yet. Apple supports it, but what cameras do?


1Dx III


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 18, 2019)

twoheadedboy said:


> I mentioned video but I really meant the stills part. I can't imagine carrying a 1DX for anything but sports. You mention the EOS R being insufficient but not the 5D MK IV.



That makes sense for a stills only generalist. At that point, the 5D Mark III is good enough for me on stills, the 5D Mark IV would be icing on the cake and would be preferred over the R if video wasn't a priority.

On the video side, the R and the Mark IV have the same crop which is my limitation. I preferred the R for hybrid shooting just because of the ergonomics. We'd definitely take a 5D Mark V with full frame 4K over the 1D if the 5D comes out in time. We have some big events we want to cover in multiple aspect ratios next year and we can't afford to wait much longer. 

If we have to make the jump today, it's a toss up between a couple Panasonic Netflix approved full frame DSLR cameras or the A7R IV and a FX9. We already have a few GH5 cameras, but they're video only in my eyes and they only work well for one aspect ratio.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2019)

peters said:


> And I wonder if any newspaper or magazines even REALY print at 300dpi.
> 300dpi is a term which is widely named "necessary for print" but I doubt that many newspapers print that resolution. It requites good printer and also very good paper...


Ok, so 150 lines of rez, which is a large portion of high quality journals, is 300dpi. But a large number are just 133 lines, which is just 266dpi. a few really high quality publications are 175 lines, which of course, is 350. high quality books are between 150 and 175 lines as well, usually, for graphics and photos. Newspapers used to print photos at just 85 lines, but I think it’s a bit higher today. The cheap paper has problems with fine halftones and color.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No.
> 
> There are still 1DS MkIII holdouts that want, like or need the 1 series but also want and need more than the 20 odd MP they have had since 2007. I bought the 1DS MkIII when it was the only way to get that resolution, I refused to go backwards on resolution to the 1DX but really had to get new cameras after 10 years use so got the 1DX MkII's. I'd welcome any resolution increase in the 1 series and would pay very dearly for a high resolution 1 series with limited (comparatively) fps as the technological tradeoff for that higher resolution.
> 
> But I do admit that I and my kind are in a small minority, unfortunately.


And that’s why the answer is yes, not no. A problem with these types of forums is that the people are skewed towards those who care more about technical advances than the person who is just using the device.


----------



## melgross (Dec 18, 2019)

unfocused said:


> 1Dx III


Ok, that’s good to know. It’s rare though. If the computer itself doesn’t support it, then having the camera support it won’t help.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 18, 2019)

One problem relative to the resolution issue is that Canon refuses to put those few features that make the 1DX2 outstanding, in other bodies. I love some of the 1DX2 features such as illuminated focus point and I hate to give them up. Given the cropping I do I want more MPs. Give me 1D features and decent FPS in an alternate body and then let the 1DX3 have 20 MP, I wouldn't care.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> Ok, that’s good to know. It’s rare though. If the computer itself doesn’t support it, then having the camera support it won’t help.


The whole idea about the camera making jpg files is to have something quick that is viewable over a wide variety of devices. Replacing jpg with an uncommon file type negates that reason. If you want real quality, you shoot RAW. If you want fast and portable, you produce a jpg. A file format that meets neither set of conditions is ******* to failure.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 18, 2019)

melgross said:


> Ok, so 150 lines of rez, which is a large portion of high quality journals, is 300dpi. But a large number are just 133 lines, which is just 266dpi. a few really high quality publications are 175 lines, which of course, is 350. high quality books are between 150 and 175 lines as well, usually, for graphics and photos. Newspapers used to print photos at just 85 lines, but I think it’s a bit higher today. The cheap paper has problems with fine halftones and color.


The numbers you are using are technically correct but those are the absolute minimum acceptable standards. We wouldn't typically accept original art at resolutions below 300 DPI and we would prefer it to be much higher. All editing is usually done on high rez files and we don't sample down until we are ready to do seperations and go to press. 150 LPI may be OK for some publications but you are not going to get a photgraphic quality image at that LPI. The screen pattern will usually be visible on high quality coated paper at 150 or lower LPI.

We can often get high quality offset from 300 DPI files if they don't require a lot of editing but it is far from ideal and anything below that will definitely effect the quality of the final print.

(Offset color process printing is done with fixed line per inch dot matrixes rather than the dispersed ink used by ink-jets for those that aren't familiar with the process)


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The whole idea about the camera making jpg files is to have something quick that is viewable over a wide variety of devices. Replacing jpg with an uncommon file type negates that reason. If you want real quality, you shoot RAW. If you want fast and portable, you produce a jpg. A file format that meets neither set of conditions is ******* to failure.


Is it though? My understanding is that HEIF is sort of a middle ground, allowing non-destructive editing like a raw, but smaller file sizes like jpg. The major question I have is how much data is "cooked" into an HEIF file. For, me, one of the main advantages of raw is the flexibility of not being locked into pre-determined color balance, but being able to adjust the balance during post-processing. I might be very interested in HEIF if it offers similar flexibility to raw. I would still use raw for my personal work, but I could see there might be some advantage to HEIF with certain client photos.

I'd be interested in hearing from people who actually understand and know this file type.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2019)

melgross said:


> And that’s why the answer is yes, not no. A problem with these types of forums is that the people are skewed towards those who care more about technical advances than the person who is just using the device.


Says the guy who is telling people who actually use the 1Dx II what they need and don't need.


----------



## geffy (Dec 19, 2019)

jugs, lots of them, make it a goddess of a camera


----------



## djack41 (Dec 19, 2019)

melgross said:


> It’s not well supported as yet. Apple supports it, but what cameras do?


I only know what I have read. Apparently, all the major photo players joined hands and developed a file format HEIF which will have standards which are universal


melgross said:


> It’s not well supported as yet. Apple supports it, but what cameras do?


Think you will see it in the new cameras and likely some firmware updates. Canon and Adobe was part of the collaboration that developed HEIF.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 19, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I get a little tired of this trope that only people who don't know what they are doing complain about the autofocus.
> 
> The fact is, many if not most sports shooters still default to single point or single point expanded because virtually none of the other settings do well at locking on a subject when shooting sports. That shows right there that there is room for improvement.
> 
> To say that people just need to study the various use cases and refine their choices is a red herring. I can guarantee you that top sports photographers like Peter Read Miller aren't digging through the menu like that. In fact, he says as much on his video channel. If a system isn't intuitive right out of the box it needs work. Canon's autofocus is good, but it definitely can be improved and judging by Canon's own development announcement, they realize that.


I completely agree. All these More fancy setting often don’t make a huge difference. The focusing systems in general are pretty good. Not so fantastic for fast moving objects and hopefully can be improved upon. Being better able to lock into the subject would be great.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 19, 2019)

domo_p1000 said:


> The 1D range has always opted for quality rather than quantity where resolution is concerned, but I thought I would take a different angle on the discussion:
> 
> Perhaps I have been influenced by the recent UK Elections, but worried by the 'suggested' resolution, I have been looking at the statistics for the EOS-1D range...
> View attachment 187832
> ...



Except the 1D X and 1D X Mark II are more accurately a continuation of the full frame 1Ds line, not the APS-C 1D series.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 19, 2019)

melgross said:


> It’s not well supported as yet. Apple supports it, but what cameras do?



Cameras will support it when enough devices can display it.

Right now, Apple's current product line support it, all the way from desktops to powerbooks to iPhones.

Android 9/Pie supports it, but only about 1/3 of current Android phones in use are running 9/Pie.

The biggest issue is that none of the major web browsers support it yet. When they get on board it will be "Katy bar the door" and cameras will start offering it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 19, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd very much like illuminated buttons, not for when I am hand holding where muscle memory is plenty good enough, but for tripod mounted dawn, dusk, and night shots they would be much nicer than a night vision busting flashlight. A common scenario for me would be using a stupid high iso to get the exposure I want in a relatively speedy timeframe then changing iso, shutter speed and aperture to get much lower noise, this would be much faster with illuminated buttons. Dawn shoots are another example where I'd find them useful especially if Canon do the regular 1 series trick of moving one or two buttons, I cannot say how often I have missed the magnify button on the 1DX MkII because it changed place from my 1DS MkIII's and earlier.



Meh. I've shot astro at night with the camera on a tripod. The buttons are still all in the same place they've always been.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Meh. I've shot astro at night with the camera on a tripod. The buttons are still all in the same place they've always been.


You are better than me then. I do use a very compact travel tripod so I'm regularly shooting from 12"-18" above the ground so even though the buttons might be in the same place relative to each other they are not in the same place relative to me. I also regularly use and adjust lights for dawn shots so walk to and from the camera a lot of times in the dark. But I'll often use a CamRanger or WFT in situations like this so I don't have to keep bending down to adjust the camera and I can do test shots from the light position rather than the camera position.

Bottom line, I would find illuminated buttons useful, other companies offer them. You wouldn't, that is fine.

Here is an example of when I'd find them useful, pre dawn shoot, seven lights, setup in complete darkness.


----------



## sanj (Dec 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Meh. I've shot astro at night with the camera on a tripod. The buttons are still all in the same place they've always been.


Sure. But illuminated buttons would be a nice feature.


----------



## sanj (Dec 19, 2019)

I have not tried other top-end cameras but find the focusing of 1dx2 just fine. But must say I have read up and experimented a lot and am very good with focus settings and change them quickly for my needs. I do wildlife.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 19, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> You are better than me then. I do use a very compact travel tripod so I'm regularly shooting from 12"-18" above the ground so even though the buttons might be in the same place relative to each other they are not in the same place relative to me. I also regularly use and adjust lights for dawn shots so walk to and from the camera a lot of times in the dark. But I'll often use a CamRanger or WFT in situations like this so I don't have to keep bending down to adjust the camera and I can do test shots from the light position rather than the camera position.
> 
> Bottom line, I would find illuminated buttons useful, other companies offer them. You wouldn't, that is fine.
> 
> Here is an example of when I'd find them useful, pre dawn shoot, seven lights, setup in complete darkness.


As much as I like to think I know my camera backward illuminated buttons would be a help at times. It wouldn't be a big selling point but its definitely very useful.
I'll be interested in what they do about keeping the camera silent when required. I think it will get more common that people will expect press conferences to have the noise of cameras kept down. Same for weddings and some sporting events. Now that's its possible to be silent , more rules may come into play. Yes you can flip the mirror up but unless the viewfinder is some sort of hybrid its not ideal. It will be interesting if they try to solve that issue. None of the Canon DSLR's are particulary quiet on silent mode. A hybrid viewfinder would be attractive to me.
The key selling points for me will be the progress in focusing, ISO performance and FPS. 
I'd be surprised if they don't move the MP slightly at least as it nudges people to replace their 1 DX II's.
You'd need a significant improvement in focusing and ISO performance otherwise as a 1DX II is very robust and would work on for most needs.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2019)

I only shoot stills. In fact the only video I have ever shot was with my 7DII behind a 500mm f/4L IS II on a tripod.
But since there are many video shooters who are supposed to have/want/like 1Dx series let's say for fun that a nice surprise would be a global shutter.

Now I can leave CR and come back a few days later to read (or not read) the responses


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2019)

Other surprises could be a hardware implementation of dual iso to boost DR. Or 16 bit raw implementation. Or both of them


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Meh. I've shot astro at night with the camera on a tripod. The buttons are still all in the same place they've always been.


I play piano with my toes there really is no need for fingers and hands.  

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Dec 19, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> You'd need a significant improvement in focusing and ISO performance otherwise as a 1DX II is very robust and would work on for most needs.



What improvement in 'ISO performance' are you hoping for? Given, as is repeated here often, all current sensors are almost at the limit of low light sensitivity.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2019)

The only reasonable improvement has to be at DR which has also been improved on 1DxII. So 1/3 to a 1/2 stop of improvement tops is not worth in my opinion the 20mpixel sensor. A 24mpixel with the exact noise per pixel characteristics of the previous 20mpixel one seems a better choice to me. YMMV.


----------



## photo212 (Dec 19, 2019)

perfpix said:


> I agree. I have to show up for certain gigs with as many as 20 cards. It will cost me a fortune to switch. I own a total of 4 Cfast cards that I use solely for backup. I'd much prefer they do what Nikon did with the D5 and have modules for either dual CF slots or dual XQD slots.


yeah, seems I typed CFast out of ignorance. Another said dual CFExpress slots. Just as bad for me, and worst for you. I would love to be able to customize the card slots. I understand the desire to be able to write really fast for the video and high burst modes. I can accept whatever slower writing is required. My issue is storage. I currently travel with a portable photo wallet - it only has SD and CF slots. The Mk II is looking better and better, if the price drops considerably.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> How much for the lenses?




From what I understand and have been told, the new MF "65mm-series" lenses will be 15% to 25% more in price across the board than competing "Luxury" series full frame lenses. There will be NO cheaper "Kit Lenses" for this range of camera. It will be ALL-PRO, ALL THE TIME in terms of available lenses !!! However, there WILL be a great 18-to-55mm zoom and a great 70 to 200mm zoom though at "reasonable" price points though if you don't want to spend too much on the big glass primes which WILL be expensive! It's actually EASIER and slightly cheaper to build lenses for a larger sensor but since ALL the primes will be BIG high end glass, get your wallet out!

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 19, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> 20 mp is okay for an action camera. My wife just recently made impressively detailed A3 prints from image files shot with her old 12 mp Nikons. The only downside is that there's not much room for cropping, which is indeed something a birder could miss.




I've been able to get GREAT high quality 36 by 24 inch prints from EIGHT megapixel cameras! The KEY is to first edit, crop, colour correct, unsharp mask FIRST, and THEN use a FRACTAL RESIZER to resample your original image to about 4x the original pixel count (i.e. 32 megapixels) and then print at 600 dpi (or about 280 Lines per inch -- Note DPI and LPI are NOT the same thing!) using Error Diffusion and Best Quality Printing set to ON. (some printers use the slowest print setting for best printed image quality!) Both Epson and Canon professional printers have this capability to CHOOSE the type of error diffusion (test which diffusion setting works BEST for your specific image). The fractal resize step does the increase in actual pixel density. The error diffusion settings during the print stage re-distributes the aliasing and edge softening errors of the upsize operation amongst neighbouring pixels so the human eye is TRICKED into seeing a higher resolution image than it really is!

.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 19, 2019)

scyrene said:


> What improvement in 'ISO performance' are you hoping for? Given, as is repeated here often, all current sensors are almost at the limit of low light sensitivity.


You mean the full frame sensor designers who write on this forum, yes maybe I should have listened to them


----------



## scyrene (Dec 19, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> You mean the full frame sensor designers who write on this forum, yes maybe I should have listened to them



I'm only giving my impression of what I've read, of course, but it is possible to understand the principles underpinning technology without being directly involved in its development, don't you think? Dreaming is fine, but it often leads to disappointment.


----------



## domo_p1000 (Dec 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Except the 1D X and 1D X Mark II are more accurately a continuation of the full frame 1Ds line, not the APS-C 1D series.


A well observed point - you can tell I didn't go the studio route!


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 22, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> I've been able to get GREAT high quality 36 by 24 inch prints from EIGHT megapixel cameras! The KEY is to first edit, crop, colour correct, unsharp mask FIRST, and THEN use a FRACTAL RESIZER to resample your original image to about 4x the original pixel count (i.e. 32 megapixels) and then print at 600 dpi (or about 280 Lines per inch -- Note DPI and LPI are NOT the same thing!) using Error Diffusion and Best Quality Printing set to ON. (some printers use the slowest print setting for best printed image quality!) Both Epson and Canon professional printers have this capability to CHOOSE the type of error diffusion (test which diffusion setting works BEST for your specific image). The fractal resize step does the increase in actual pixel density. The error diffusion settings during the print stage re-distributes the aliasing and edge softening errors of the upsize operation amongst neighbouring pixels so the human eye is TRICKED into seeing a higher resolution image than it really is!
> 
> .


So at an international sports competition where we take 1000's of pictures we could die before we hand in our assignments using your workflow?????


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 22, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> I play piano with my toes there really is no need for fingers and hands.
> 
> Jack



False analogy. Ray Charles could play piano with is hands without seeing the keys. So could Stevie Wonder, and Pig Robbins, and Ronnie Milsap, etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> False analogy. Ray Charles could play piano with is hands without seeing the keys. So could Stevie Wonder, and Pig Robbins, and Ronnie Milsap, etc.


They could/can, but somebody has to show them where the piano is first. On a tripod in the dark illuminated buttons would do that for sighted photographers.

As with any feature every user won't find it useful, indeed some may never use it, that's not the point, the point is many users would find it useful other manufacturers offer the feature and Canon have already said they will include it on the MkIII.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Except the 1D X and 1D X Mark II are more accurately a continuation of the full frame 1Ds line, not the APS-C 1D series.


I disagree.

The 1D line were APS-H, a bastardized sensor size forced on the model due to sensor costs and manufacturing limitations of yield and wafer size at the time. But the 1D line was always primarily focused on fps iso performance and AF, the 1Ds line was more about the best 135 format sensor Canon could make coupled with their best AF (though detuned from the concurrent 1D model AF), the fps, a sports cameras raison d'être, were lackluster at best. 

For sure nobody outside Canon ever considered the 1D X a step up in outright low iso image quality from the higher resolution 1Ds MkIII, indeed that final 1Ds still had more MP (though the difference was trivial) than the 1D X MkII.

No I'd say the 1D X was the natural replacement for the 1D MkIV and the 1Ds MkIII was the end of the line for the studio and wedding photographer orientated 1 series cameras irrespective of sensor size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 23, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The 1D line were APS-H, a bastardized sensor size forced on the model due to sensor costs and manufacturing limitations of yield and wafer size at the time. But the 1D line was always primarily focused on fps iso performance and AF, the 1Ds line was more about the best 135 format sensor Canon could make coupled with their best AF (though detuned from the concurrent 1D model AF), the fps, a sports cameras raison d'être, were lackluster at best.
> 
> ...



The 1D X forced users of both the 1D Mark IV and the 1Ds Mark III to accept some compromises from what they could have had if the division had been maintained.

The fact remains, the 1D X has the same sensor size as the 1Ds series did. Lenses have the same angle of view on the 1D X that they had on the 1Ds Mark III and its predecessor.

The fact remains that the 1D X mark IV was the end of the line for Canon's APS-H sensors. Lenses did not give the same angle of view on the 1D Mark IV and its predecessors as they give on the 1D X.

In return for a relatively minor decrease in resolution compared to the 1Ds Mark III, the 1D X offered the same full frame size sensor and a quantum leap forward in fps for a FF camera.


----------



## melgross (Dec 23, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> The whole idea about the camera making jpg files is to have something quick that is viewable over a wide variety of devices. Replacing jpg with an uncommon file type negates that reason. If you want real quality, you shoot RAW. If you want fast and portable, you produce a jpg. A file format that meets neither set of conditions is ******* to failure.


I don’t know, the format is slowly gaining acceptance. It really is much better. For both still and video. Same quality at half the file size, or much better quality and the same file size.

in my experience, though not lately, since I’m retired, magazines in a hurry with deadlines prefer HPC. If it’s shot properly, it’s fine for magazine usage.


----------



## melgross (Dec 23, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The numbers you are using are technically correct but those are the absolute minimum acceptable standards. We wouldn't typically accept original art at resolutions below 300 DPI and we would prefer it to be much higher. All editing is usually done on high rez files and we don't sample down until we are ready to do seperations and go to press. 150 LPI may be OK for some publications but you are not going to get a photgraphic quality image at that LPI. The screen pattern will usually be visible on high quality coated paper at 150 or lower LPI.
> 
> We can often get high quality offset from 300 DPI files if they don't require a lot of editing but it is far from ideal and anything below that will definitely effect the quality of the final print.
> 
> (Offset color process printing is done with fixed line per inch dot matrixes rather than the dispersed ink used by ink-jets for those that aren't familiar with the process)


Almost every magazine is 150 lines. So photographic quality is being printed at that level. Is it the same as a high quality inkjet? No, but magazine quality is the best most people will ever see.

i know a lot about fashion photography, and while clients claim to want high Rez, as soon as the images are turned in to the editing department in the mag, they get brought all the way down. Maybe you don’t know that, but I’ve had the experience many times with photographers in my lab.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 24, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> So at an international sports competition where we take 1000's of pictures we could die before we hand in our assignments using your workflow?????



===

I don't have to worry about speed, as OUR custom designed and coded Fractal Resizer is the FASTEST in the world using 8 CPU cores (16 threads on an AMD Threadripper) and can resample a low resolution 4096 by 2160 pixel VIDEO FRAME from a higher end video camera up to as much as 65,556 by 34,560 pixels (1.89:1 aspect ratio) in less than TWO SECONDS and it still looks quite decent !!! Normally, we resample video frames from DCI 4K video resolution to about 8192 by 4320 (35.3 megapixel) for print and poster use, since we use the Canon C700 Global shutter camera at 12 bits or greater UNCOMPRESSED as a stills camera at 60 fps burst rate equivalent ...OR.... we can use our "NEW" 50.3 megapixel unreleased MONSTER Medium Format camera which has 16-bits per RGBA channel (64 bit colour -- RAW) and can shoot 8196 by 4320 RAW pixels at 60 fps burst rate!

When you have access to a BILLION DOLLAR+ Aerospace company's compute resources, there is NOTHING I cannot do or use to get or fix my shots! I can even rent satellite time on WHOLE UPLINK and DOWNLINK CHANNELS in mere minutes with a simple phone call !!!

I also hook up my camera to a 30 GHz radio modem (terrestrial link -- not a satellite link!) and can beam my photos in less than half a second since at that high frequency, the maximum channel bandwidth available with GREAT error correction is 1.25 GIGABYTES per second, so I can send over 500 frames If I use a Wavelet intraframe compression method in less than three seconds. I can send 35 frames of RAW uncompressed 4K video frames in about the same about of time with PROPER error correction. So I can choose whether it's RAW or Wavelet (JPEG-2000/HEIF) for my images. Speed of workflow is NOT an issue with us!

.
I will PROBABLY be in Tokyo this year (2020 Olympics) but who knows as I get sent EVERYWHERE to do tests on our custom gear. I will be likely staying in Osaka and then take a crew chopper over to Tokyo to do aerials and MAYBE get some stadium shots on the track events and the Marathon ending MOST LIKELY.
Since we're not with NHK (Host Broadcaster Tokyo 2020) but rather a technical aerospace company, our current schedule is very fluid. The other possibility is the Summer X games in July 16-19 in Minneapolis OR the UCI Road World championships September 20-27, 2020!

We'll see! There's also the actual INTRODUCTION / WORLD PREMIERE of the new 50.3 megapixel/DCI-8K 60 fps Monster Combined Stills/Video Medium Format camera and it's APS-C and 2/3rd inch DCI 8K large sensor super-smartphone siblings event that I will be at!

.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 24, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> When you have access to a BILLION DOLLAR+ Aerospace company's compute resources, there is NOTHING I cannot do or use to get or fix my shots! I can even rent satellite time on WHOLE UPLINK and DOWNLINK CHANNELS in mere minutes with a simple phone call !!!



Hey!

you must be the person who wrote the control code on the Starliner!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 24, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I disagree.
> 
> The 1D line were APS-H, a bastardized sensor size forced on the model due to sensor costs and manufacturing limitations of yield and wafer size at the time. But the 1D line was always primarily focused on fps iso performance and AF, the 1Ds line was more about the best 135 format sensor Canon could make coupled with their best AF (though detuned from the concurrent 1D model AF), the fps, a sports cameras raison d'être, were lackluster at best.
> 
> ...


Agreed!


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 24, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ===
> 
> I don't have to worry about speed, as OUR custom designed and coded Fractal Resizer is the FASTEST in the world using 8 CPU cores (16 threads on an AMD Threadripper) and can resample a low resolution 4096 by 2160 pixel VIDEO FRAME from a higher end video camera up to as much as 65,556 by 34,560 pixels (1.89:1 aspect ratio) in less than TWO SECONDS and it still looks quite decent !!! Normally, we resample video frames from DCI 4K video resolution to about 8192 by 4320 (35.3 megapixel) for print and poster use, since we use the Canon C700 Global shutter camera at 12 bits or greater UNCOMPRESSED as a stills camera at 60 fps burst rate equivalent ...OR.... we can use our "NEW" 50.3 megapixel unreleased MONSTER Medium Format camera which has 16-bits per RGBA channel (64 bit colour -- RAW) and can shoot 8196 by 4320 RAW pixels at 60 fps burst rate!
> 
> ...



Harry, please. Hold on posting until the April the first 2020 and then unleash all your posting power and wild imagination in a single mega long post. How cool that may be...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 24, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> I can even rent satellite time on WHOLE UPLINK and DOWNLINK CHANNELS in mere minutes with a simple phone call !!!


Wow! Impressive! In a simple phone call!
We can’t do that and we own the satellites!


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 24, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Harry, please. Hold on posting until the April the first 2020 and then unleash all your posting power and wild imagination in a single mega long post. How cool that may be...



---

Naaaahh !!! I've got TONS more MALARKEY to expunge onto CanonRumors before April 1st, 2020! My verbal diarrhea is THE benchmark by which to measure vestigal verbal vomit! If you can't see it here, you won't see it ANYWHERE ELSE !!!

I AM HARRYFILM !!!!! --- AND....you heard it and saw it HERE FIRST !!!!

.

.


----------



## HarryFilm (Dec 24, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Wow! Impressive! In a simple phone call!
> We can’t do that and we own the satellites!



...actually... WE own the satellites -- Five of them to be exact !!!

.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 3, 2020)

HarryFilm said:


> I've been able to get GREAT high quality 36 by 24 inch prints from EIGHT megapixel cameras! The KEY is to first edit, crop, colour correct, unsharp mask FIRST, and THEN use a FRACTAL RESIZER to resample your original image to about 4x the original pixel count (i.e. 32 megapixels) and then print at 600 dpi (or about 280 Lines per inch -- Note DPI and LPI are NOT the same thing!) using Error Diffusion and Best Quality Printing set to ON. (some printers use the slowest print setting for best printed image quality!) Both Epson and Canon professional printers have this capability to CHOOSE the type of error diffusion (test which diffusion setting works BEST for your specific image). The fractal resize step does the increase in actual pixel density. The error diffusion settings during the print stage re-distributes the aliasing and edge softening errors of the upsize operation amongst neighbouring pixels so the human eye is TRICKED into seeing a higher resolution image than it really is!


Sorry for the extremely delayed reply, HarryFilm, before Xmas I had a busy time...Your printing recipe looks quite well elaborated, thank you very much. In fact, my wife used a German professional printing service, and their printer software seems to turn her 12 mp files in high res images with some comparable tricks - without producing visible artifacts. The results were really impressive. Well, today's smartphones demonstrate that heavy-sided algorithms can produce quite useful images out of tiny sensors with very small pixels and often not so brillant lenses. The cost of adding "information" to low quality raw images, of course, is that those algorithms sometimes create very strange artifacts.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 3, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> So at an international sports competition where we take 1000's of pictures we could die before we hand in our assignments using your workflow?????


 Well, to help HarryFilm a bit: if you really work on ONE very promising image, e.g. a beautiful landscape or an elaborated portrait etc., it can be worth to invest quite a bit of work in ONE print. Heavy-sided editing is nothing new in the history of photography, in former times it was done by dark-room wizards. An impressive example is how Pablo Inirio, the master printer of Magnum, edited Dennis Stock’s shot of James Dean in Times Square and turned it into one of the most iconic film star portraits in history:








Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom


Want to see what kind of work goes into turning a masterful photograph into an iconic print? Pablo Inirio, the master darkroom printer who works at Magnum




petapixel.com


----------



## unfocused (Jan 3, 2020)

It looks like the answer to this thread’s original question is “none”


----------



## Nelu (Jan 3, 2020)

unfocused said:


> It looks like the answer to this thread’s original question is “none”


None good, you mean...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2020)

unfocused said:


> It looks like the answer to this thread’s original question is “none”


It really depends on what you shoot and it what way. The MkIII is a much better video specced camera than the MkII and the WiFi speeds are going to be faster, if those are critical to your shooting then they are both major steps up. 

Another thing people miss is that many companies buy tools like this on cycles that fit in with their useage for shutter cycles, tax advantages/write offs etc and they need to buy new cameras, if there is a newer model they buy it and will often hold off purchasing if a newer model is due.

As I see it the acceptance or rejection of the model will, as always, be down to AF performance, if the MkIII is better than the MkII it will be loved. Video shooters and crossover shooters are already going to love it.

BUT as a MkII owning generalist photo orientated shooter I am not enthused one bit. Indeed I am very unlikely to buy one soon and quite possibly never depending on what happens with the future RF releases. It looks like my days with the one series are now numbered, though the first of the writing on the wall for us stills orientated shooters was the amalgamation 1D X, killing off the 1Ds line was a real setback that the 5Ds/r did not fill.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 4, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Well, to help HarryFilm a bit: if you really work on ONE very promising image, e.g. a beautiful landscape or an elaborated portrait etc., it can be worth to invest quite a bit of work in ONE print. Heavy-sided editing is nothing new in the history of photography, in former times it was done by dark-room wizards. An impressive example is how Pablo Inirio, the master printer of Magnum, edited Dennis Stock’s shot of James Dean in Times Square and turned it into one of the most iconic film star portraits in history:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great link - thanks for taking the time to post it justaCanonuser.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 4, 2020)

I am reminded of when I would mitigate converging verticals by setting something under on side of the easel to elevate it. Then I’d need to dodge that end of the picture to make the exposure consistent.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 7, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Sorry for the extremely delayed reply, HarryFilm, before Xmas I had a busy time...Your printing recipe looks quite well elaborated, thank you very much. In fact, my wife used a German professional printing service, and their printer software seems to turn her 12 mp files in high res images with some comparable tricks - without producing visible artifacts. The results were really impressive. Well, today's smartphones demonstrate that heavy-sided algorithms can produce quite useful images out of tiny sensors with very small pixels and often not so brillant lenses. The cost of adding "information" to low quality raw images, of course, is that those algorithms sometimes create very strange artifacts.



---

Since MOST cameras are actually pretty good these days, it's now up to the printers themselves, where almost ALL now have great error-diffusion based rendering. We have 48 inch wide Epson, Canon and OCE (a division of Canon) to do our large screen prints. At 2400 DPI that is about 600 lines per inch using CMYK or about 400 LPI using 4-colour, 6-colour or 8-colour inkjets. 

We have found that by using a fancy Fractal Resizer (we designed our own!) with the very advanced edge detection and object recognition to scale objects, it STILL keep edges razor sharp. We can resize almost ANY image by up to 4x on each axis and get more-than-decent result for bus-poster work or we can merely DOUBLE the resolution on the X and Y axis to get a SUPERB premium glossy magazine quality result. This means our older 8-megapixel pro cameras from 10 years ago (they still work!) can give us 32 megapixels and our high end 1Dx2's will give us 80+ megapixels, and our unreleased 50 megapixel monsters will now give us 200 megapixels! What WE HAVE BEEN DOING is finally coding the "Fractal Resizer" into a CPU chip directly so that ALL our new cameras and computers will have it built-in for real-time or near-real-time SUPER-HIGH-QUALITY image scaling!

Live Fractal Resize on a camera ALSO acts as a form of 1.5x, 2x, 3x and 4x digital zoom! We HAVE TRIED it up to 8x on each axis but it softens edges a tad bit too much for my tastes BUT for some people it may be perfectly acceptable depending upon your application! 4x resize on each axis is the upper limit in my opinion for HIGH QUALITY SCALING results!

Fractal Resize is the BEST resize algorithm out there and so long you work within it's parameters and do ONLY 1.5x, 2x, 3x and 4x resize on the X-axis, you WILL get excellent results! The printers will take care of the rest of the quality issues by distributing any basic/intrinsic image capture errors out to other pixels using simple error diffusion which TRICKS the human eye to thinking there is more resolution than there really is.

.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 7, 2020)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Great link - thanks for taking the time to post it justaCanonuser.


You're welcome, it is always a pleasure for me to take look back in the history of photography and talk a bit about it. In the digital age, it is worth remembering that photography isn't only about shooting 4000 images a day, despite many pro photographers (wedding, sports, wildlife) are forced to do so.


----------

