# The follow-up to the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II may come in 2019 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 19, 2018)

> A lot of Canon’s DSLR lineup is becoming a bit long-in-the-tooth. Canon hasn’t announced a professional DSLR body since the EOS 5D Mark IV in August of 2016.
> We’re told that Canon will “likely” address the EOS-1D X line sometime in 2019. If we had to guess, we’d say the 4th quarter of 2019 would be the earliest we’d see an EOS-1D X Mark III.
> While the EOS R is obviously the future of full frame ILC cameras, there will be at least one more iteration of the EOS-1D X we’re told. The source mentions that “Full frame mirrorless isn’t yet advanced enough to take over the duties of the EOS-1D line in Canon’s eyes”. I think in a lot of professional photographers would agree with that way of thinking.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

Does any manufacturer have in-body automated AFMA? Or in the works? Put a lens on, point at a target and let the camera do the rest? That would be a great feature until mirrorless actually is fast enough to take on the work of a 1D X level of performance.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 19, 2018)

Sounds reasonable to me.
If they release a 1D X Mk3 now maybe they can make a "EOS R 1" prototye until Tokyo Summer Olympics 2020.


----------



## gregster (Dec 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Does any manufacturer have in-body automated AFMA? Or in the works? Put a lens on, point at a target and let the camera do the rest? That would be a great feature until mirrorless actually is fast enough to take on the work of a 1D X level of performance.



Nikon does.


----------



## MartinF. (Dec 19, 2018)

Do I understand this right? - Isit CRs guess that the 1DX III will be the last with EF-mount? - so 4-5 years from now, the will not be a EF mount option for 1DX series - it will be an RF mount?


----------



## peters (Dec 19, 2018)

There is so much wrong with the 1dx II, its REALY time for an upgrade. Compared to the 5d iv it feels realy ancient (though it is incredible fast). It just lacks basic stuff without any reason... intervallometer, a working touchscreen, at least a bit of advanced video options...


----------



## gzroxas (Dec 19, 2018)

Actually, I think Canon should really push the boundaries of their knowledge on the mirrorless system to try and create a 1DX Mirrorless Body that rocks!
As long as they say “hmm we can’t with mirrorless and so we should still make a DSLR” they won’t be making great leap forwards like other competitors did.
We can wait a bit more if they can deliver with that, at least in my opinion. What do you guys think?


----------



## proutprout (Dec 19, 2018)

Canon really has communication problems. They just told us « look at this amazing lense system it’s the future » and got us excited about it, just to say right after « oh by the way forget about getting a pro camera before next cycle - which is around 4 years ». Sure. I’m happy now.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

Wait...Does this cancel out the CR1 "Flagship R Body to be announced in February"? I thought 1D Xx is the flagship line.


----------



## amorse (Dec 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Wait...Does this cancel out the CR1 "Flagship R Body to be announced in February"? I thought 1D Xx is the flagship line.


I wonder if that would be in reference to the high-MP mirrorless coming? As in their top tier for the R series for some time not their top tier over all?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 19, 2018)

I knew when the R was released it was time to make the switch. Holy cow for those looking for a 1dx2 they will be a STEAL in two years, it was already hard to sell at a good price.


----------



## ethanz (Dec 19, 2018)

peters said:


> There is so much wrong with the 1dx II, its REALY time for an upgrade. Compared to the 5d iv it feels realy ancient (though it is incredible fast). It just lacks basic stuff without any reason... intervallometer, a working touchscreen, at least a bit of advanced video options...



The 1dx2 is a great camera. Image quality is excellent, maybe better than 5d4. Video is great. Not sure how it feels "really ancient."


----------



## djack41 (Dec 19, 2018)

Frankly, the Sony A9 is a pretty amazing sports/wildlife camera. 

The AF of the Nikon D5 simply out performs the 1DX2. So many wildlife photographers are dumping Canon gear and switch to Nikon. And Canon does not have a camera body even comparable to the D850. Hopefully, Canon will at least close the gap if they lack the technology to take the lead.

I like my 1DX2 but the keeper rate for BIF is far below a D5.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 19, 2018)

MartinF. said:


> Do I understand this right? - Isit CRs guess that the 1DX III will be the last with EF-mount? - so 4-5 years from now, the will not be a EF mount option for 1DX series - it will be an RF mount?


Things change, but I would agree, it was implied and it is the conventional wisdom that the 1DX III may in fact be the last EF mount 1D body. I doubt the 1DX III is the last EF mount DSLR. I would expect a 5DV and some consumer/prosumer bodies. 

I would actually expect a 1D equivalent in the RF mount sooner than 4-5 years. It would make sense to overlap them a bit. Say, 2021-2022.



YuengLinger said:


> Wait...Does this cancel out the CR1 "Flagship R Body to be announced in February"? I thought 1D Xx is the flagship line.


I wouldn't think so. A "Flagship R body" could mean a number of different things, most likely a direct competitor to the Z 7 and A7RIII, so higher MP (and if rumors hold, maybe 75 MP). It could mean an A9 competitor or a "1D lite".....we'll see. I would expect one of those in 2019.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 19, 2018)

Nikon Rumors announced the new Nikon D6 will be released in 2019 with field testing starting in February.

Will the Canon glacier move?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 19, 2018)

This will earn me flames, I'm sure, but for a while now, I haven't considered the 1D series to be the flagship. I say this as a former owner of 4 or 5 1DX bodies over time, usually two at a time. It is a special use camera more so than the 5D4. And that's coming from someone who actually *does* those special uses. I can take every bit of fps and af speed and put it to good use, and few cameras beat it for those features. 

After the 5DSR came out, the king of image quality shifted to that body. With severe limitations albeit. 

But the 5D4 came out later, and made the compromises that made it the best all-around body, better in most use cases in image quality than the 1DX, many more additional features, a non-limiting size and form factor. But yes, unwarrantedly slow for a pro camera.

When the 1DX2 came out, it was an improvement, but an incremental one, where the 5D3 to the 5D4 move was much more radical. 

If a 1DX3 comes out and it can't use the RF lenses, and a new 5-series comes out in RF, so it can exploit those lenses (as is rumored) then that really puts the nail in the coffin of the 1 series' flagship status. Yes, there will continue to be a good use case for a 1DX style body where low 20s megapixels is fine; it's just not a sort of flagship most people are looking for now. 

On the other hand, the comment that CR Guy's source made about Canon's mirrorless tech not being adequate to the mission of the 1 series does seem to portend that the RF system - even with a "5" series entry in 2019 - may be even worse than we thought speed-wise.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Dec 19, 2018)

It's probably a reasonable expectation that Canon would release a 1DX3 prior to the 2020 Olympic games. If dual DIGIC 8+ processors can yield 50% more throughput than the dual DIGIC 6+ processors in the 1DX2 (I'm assuming that's not a stretch), then it's possible for the 1DX3 to sport a 30MP sensor at the same 16fps of the 1DX2 - I think the bump in resolution and improved noise management at high ISO would be welcome additions in the wake of an increasingly competitive full-frame market.

My personal wishlist for some new features on such a camera would be:

30MP DPAF sensor
CR3 & C-RAW support
IBIS (hybrid OIS/IBIS mode) & high-res pixel-shift mode
Articulating touchscreen
Unlimited RAW buffer (using C-RAW)
Dual CF-Express card slots
Uncropped 4k/60fps & 1080p/240fps
Zebra, focus peaking, and waveform monitoring
XLR jack for integrated high-quality audio
Full cross-type phase-detection AF array
The 1DX2 is already one hell of a camera. But if Canon tossed in some of the above features on a new model, then they I'll probably refinance my house and pre-order one


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> This will earn me flames, I'm sure, but for a while now, I haven't considered the 1D series to be the flagship.



Excellent insights adroitly avoiding anything that would draw "flames" from rational individuals!

I love my 5D IV, and I also believe it is a much bigger improvement over the 5D III than generally recognized. It fits my needs perfectly, as I don't do anything often enough that benefits from several thousands of dollars more of FPS. Plus it just fits my hands like it was tailor made.

The only thing that gets me hot and bothered about RF is the lure of lenses that will no longer be updated for EF. Namely, at this time, the 50mm f/1.2L. Plus being able to forget about AFMA, and, maybe, the most controversial feature ever, IBIS.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 19, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> This will earn me flames, I'm sure, but for a while now, I haven't considered the 1D series to be the flagship. I say this as a former owner of 4 or 5 1DX bodies over time, usually two at a time. It is a special use camera more so than the 5D4. And that's coming from someone who actually *does* those special uses. I can take every bit of fps and af speed and put it to good use, and few cameras beat it for those features.
> 
> After the 5DSR came out, the king of image quality shifted to that body. With severe limitations albeit.
> 
> ...



No flames, lol! Agree that the 1D/1Ds has now been split into 1Dx/5DS but the 1D series still retains flagship status in another category besides FPS and that is price.

I'm not surprised that the 1D series would be the last to transition to mirrorless. The mirrorless successor must have a similar user experience. It can't have the idiosyncrasies that the R has with the multifunction bar, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the 1DX3 was designed alongside the 400 III and 600 III. There is a reason why those lenses were released as EF as opposed to RF.

The R does not supplant the 5D4. And cameras that will be released next year have been in development for the last couple years. The R EVF is good, the single shot AF is great, but there are other aspects that make the 1D a 1D. One can argue that the R obsoletes the 6D2, and it's possible the next R ("flagship") might obsolete the 5D4. Canon probably has the tech now to make a mirrorless 1D camera, but that would be released 3-4 years down the road.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I'm not surprised that the 1D series would be the last to transition to mirrorless. The mirrorless successor must have a similar user experience. It can't have the idiosyncrasies that the R has with the multifunction bar, etc.



Yes, and on the flipside, the commodity class of budget dSLR's and their ef-s mates will likely be the last to see end-of-production.


----------



## melgross (Dec 19, 2018)

If this body will be out in the 4th quarter next year, much of the specs will already have been determined. Actually, considering lead times for equipment of this level of complexity, it could have been determined several months ago.


----------



## LoudNinja (Dec 19, 2018)

I have been holding off purchasing my next body for quite some time now. I have been a canon user for years and would hate to switch away, but if this is true I think canons slow pace is going to force me (at least temporarily) to consider moving to Sony. With everything eventually moving to the RF mount I can’t justify to myself investing in a system that is going to be outdated. As much as I want to, I don’t think I can wait until the end of next year.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 19, 2018)

I'd rather see an increase in resolution over frame rate. Hard to imagine they can flip that mirror much faster. 

I don't think I'd by another DSLR with the idea of using it to shoot video. The form factor is just too awkward and hybrid MILC really own that space now. I might consider it for video if they offered a tilt screen but I don't see that happening in a 1 series camera. However, if they do beef up the video specs, they have to add some way of streaming High Quality 4K to an external recorder. 

Tethering over ethernet would be nice. USB cables are a constant headache. 

Presumably the AF will get a little bit better but I can't say that's an issue for me.
I've never had any need to AFMA my IDX2. I don't use legacy portrait lenses with my 1DX2 which seems to be where most of those issues come up. None of my big or little whites have required it. 

I'd prefer a high speed SD slot to the CF slot. I like knowing I can always find a card in a pinch if I need one. My guess is they go dual CFast. Abandoning CFast, should they go that route, would probably tick me off.

Other than that the 1DX2 is a pretty solid camera. Best viewfinder of any camera I've ever owned which is as important to me as any other feature of the camera.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2018)

If I am still shooting sports when the 1DxIII comes out, the deciding factor for me will be autofocus. That's the one area where significant improvements remain possible. I dream of a reliable face/eye detection system that actually locks on the subject and follows it around the frame while the shutter button is engaged. 

For me, everything else is quibbling. 

If I'm not shooting sports any longer, the 5D IV meets my needs. The quieter shutter, higher resolution and lighter weight make it my preferred camera for everything except sports. I even prefer the 5D for birds in flight, finding the extra resolution more important than the high frame rate.

Based on the current state of affairs, I do think it will be a long time before a mirrorless camera can compete with the 1Dx for sports shooting.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Excellent insights adroitly avoiding anything that would draw "flames" from rational individuals!
> 
> I love my 5D IV, and I also believe it is a much bigger improvement over the 5D III than generally recognized. It fits my needs perfectly, as I don't do anything often enough that benefits from several thousands of dollars more of FPS. Plus it just fits my hands like it was tailor made.
> 
> The only thing that gets me hot and bothered about RF is the lure of lenses that will no longer be updated for EF. Namely, at this time, the 50mm f/1.2L. Plus being able to forget about AFMA, and, maybe, the most controversial feature ever, IBIS.




I think they came pretty close with the R, but there were a few things that tanked it for me, IBIS not being one of them (nor 1 card slot). 3 fps while in servo focus did it for me, full stop. Imagine if they'd come out with 7 fps in servo, had one more month of figuring out how to implement the touch bar to make it a little slicker. I'd certainly have traded 2 5d4s for a couple Rs. 

As it is now, I'm expecting a double-slotted, IBIS-slinging, better touch bar bearing new version of the R with perhaps a sensor that wasn't born in the first Obama Administration. BUT, I fear, it'll likely still have pretty cruddy throughput. Can I deal with 5 fps? I might be about to find out. The comment from CR Guy's source makes me even more pessimistic. 

*There's* one way to make the 1DX3 become the "flagship" once more: make the new 5 series camera have 5 fps in servo. Mission accomplished.

But, yeah, Yuenglinger, I know what you're talking about. Those lenses. That 50, and - for me - that f/2 zoom. If Nikon had come out with those on the Z7, I think I'd have sold one of my 5D4s to try it out.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 19, 2018)

It seems RF is casting quite a shadow over talk of the dSLR flagship...


----------



## degos (Dec 19, 2018)

LoudNinja said:


> With everything eventually moving to the RF mount I can’t justify to myself investing in a system that is going to be outdated. As much as I want to, I don’t think I can wait until the end of next year.



Although many ( rich ) amateurs buy 1D series cameras they are primarily intended for the commercial market who will depreciate them over three years and then dispose of them before they fail. Bodies get used and chucked, lenses don't.

From a news-photography perspective there isn't any real investment in the EF system as such when buying the 1Dx3, in fact it's the opposite in that they can keep using their big whites for another cycle until the R1 or whatever appears.


----------



## melgross (Dec 19, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I'd rather see an increase in resolution over frame rate. Hard to imagine they can flip that mirror much faster.
> 
> I don't think I'd by another DSLR with the idea of using it to shoot video. The form factor is just too awkward and hybrid MILC really own that space now. I might consider it for video if they offered a tilt screen but I don't see that happening in a 1 series camera. However, if they do beef up the video specs, they have to add some way of streaming High Quality 4K to an external recorder.
> 
> ...



Professionals know that resolution isn’t very important, unless they’re photographing landscapes or architecture and printing very large, where the images can be viewed from close up.

Otherwise, 20-24MP is really enough. I suppose that the way things are going, higher resolutions will be had with the next generation. But I don’t see it jumping by very much. What for? If you do photograph landscapes or architecture you can get high resolution in cameras with lower speeds and less durability, which is fine for that.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 19, 2018)

There is also the fact that the general users of the 1d series are sports and wildlife shooters who in general would be telling canon that EVFs are not as good as OVFs for that niche. I can't see canon dumping OVF cameras untill those photographers are happy with EVFs


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Nikon Rumors announced the new Nikon D6 will be released in 2019 with field testing starting in February.
> 
> Will the Canon glacier move?


Logic says this mk 3 will be 24mp ….


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 19, 2018)

Next version - 24mp ...


----------



## 100 (Dec 19, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> I say this as a former owner of 4 or 5 1DX bodies over time, usually two at a time. It is a special use camera more so than the 5D4. And that's coming from someone who actually *does* those special uses.



So, you don’t even know if you owned 4 or 5 1Dx bodies?
Maybe Santa will get you a counting frame for Christmas, a nice flagship abacus for special use cases…


----------



## unfocused (Dec 19, 2018)

degos said:


> Although many ( rich ) amateurs buy 1D series cameras they are primarily intended for the commercial market who will depreciate them over three years and then dispose of them before they fail. Bodies get used and chucked, lenses don't.
> 
> From a news-photography perspective there isn't any real investment in the EF system as such when buying the 1Dx3, in fact it's the opposite in that they can keep using their big whites for another cycle until the R1 or whatever appears.



What are you talking about? What "commercial market" are you thinking of? The majority of news and sports photographers don't have the luxury of having an employer pay for their equipment. With the death of print and the farming out of staff positions to freelancers, it's on the photographer to buy the equipment (which is the way it has been any way for most small- to mid-size market photographers for decades). Employers that do provide equipment are facing budget constraints as well. 

And, I don't think you know how depreciation works. Depreciation only means that the expense of equipment gets deducted from your profits, saving you a bit on the taxes you owe on your profits -- which in no way matches the actual expense. And a three-year depreciation (which is very short for cameras) means that you have to wait three years to deduct the full expense from your profits. Finally, you have to have a profit to save on taxes and profitable publications are becoming more and more rare these days. 

I'm still trying to unpack this statement: _"From a news-photography perspective there isn't any real investment in the EF system as such when buying the 1Dx3, in fact it's the opposite in that they can keep using their big whites for another cycle until the R1 or whatever appears." _I have no idea what you are saying.


----------



## sdz (Dec 19, 2018)

This prognostication makes sense.

Entry level mirrorless camera
EOS R (mirrorless)
5D V then mirrorless version
5DS R/R Mirrorless
1D X then mirrorless version

The 5D and 1D X systems would likely require a sensor upgrade in order to produce the kind of performance needed to support a mirrorless system and the uses these cameras will have.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 19, 2018)

melgross said:


> Professionals know that resolution isn’t very important, unless they’re photographing landscapes or architecture and printing very large, where the images can be viewed from close up.
> 
> Otherwise, 20-24MP is really enough. I suppose that the way things are going, higher resolutions will be had with the next generation. But I don’t see it jumping by very much. What for? If you do photograph landscapes or architecture you can get high resolution in cameras with lower speeds and less durability, which is fine for that.


When shooting unpredictable action sequences with prime lenses I almost always have to crop in order to get the kind of dramatic framing that I like. I'm often trying to crop a full height vertical " portrait" out of a horizontal frame. When you only have 20 MP to work with that can be a problem. The 30MP sensor in the 5D mark IV would be just about right IMO. Please don't tell me that professionals don't need to crop. I've seen very few OOC images that couldn't be improved by cropping.

I do agree that for a final image most of the time 20 MP's is fine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 19, 2018)

I'll get one pretty much regardless of specs and others understanding of the word flagship.

I currently run two 1DX MkII's and would happily upgrade one to a MkIII and the other to an R1X.

P.S. Any photographer with a decent accountant is going to get them to lease purchase the camera, that is 100% deductible as you pay it and you generally end up with the body at the end of the term. You still need to make the money to cover it of course and that isn't an easy thing for the vast majority of sports photographers.


----------



## melgross (Dec 19, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> When shooting unpredictable action sequences with prime lenses I almost always have to crop in order to get the kind of dramatic framing that I like. I'm often trying to crop a full height vertical " portrait" out of a horizontal frame. When you only have 20 MP to work with that can be a problem. The 30MP sensor in the 5D mark IV would be just about right IMO. Please don't tell me that professionals don't need to crop. I've seen very few OOC images that couldn't be improved by cropping.



Professionals rarely crop more than to adjust minor framing mishaps. Zoom lenses are made for those needs.. I’m not saying it NEVER happens, but there’s a very good reason why the top pro models have remained at about the same resolution for a long time,maven moving down.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

melgross said:


> Professionals rarely crop more than to adjust minor framing mishaps. Zoom lenses are made for those needs.. I’m not saying it NEVER happens, but there’s a very good reason why the top pro models have remained at about the same resolution for a long time,maven moving down.


I spent a couple decades in publishing and I could count on one hand the number of times I published an uncropped image. That's an internet myth. In fact, the better photographers I published intentionally shot "loose" so that art directors and layout artists wouldn't have problems with composition. I've seen far more artwork discarded for being shot too tight than for having to be excessively cropped. We may have different definitions of who are and are not "professionals".

edit: Sorry if that makes me sound like a jerk. Amazon has been telling me for the last six hours that they are only two stops away with my delivery.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 20, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I spent a couple decades in publishing and I could count on one hand the number of times I published an uncropped image. That's an internet myth. In fact, the better photographers I published intentionally shot "loose" so that art directors and layout artists wouldn't have problems with composition. I've seen far more artwork discarded for being shot too tight than for having to be excessively cropped. We may have different definitions of who are and are not "professionals".
> 
> edit: Sorry if that makes me sound like a jerk. Amazon has been telling me for the last six hours that they are only two stops away with my delivery.



What you said is exactly hits the nail on the head for the organization I work with. The extra breathing room gives space for graphic treatments, along with different aspect ratios for different platforms.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 20, 2018)

Sony says a successor to the A9 is coming. Look out! Canon is certainly facing a lot of pressure from Sony and Nikon.


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2018)

I don't believe this. I doubt there will be any more DSLR leave alone 1dx. Really doubt. It is mirrorless now and all for good reasons.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 20, 2018)

sanj said:


> I don't believe this. I doubt there will be any more DSLR leave alone 1dx. Really doubt. It is mirrorless now and all for good reasons.



Why would Canon deliberately lose all the birders, wildlife and sports photographers who almost unanimously agree that they don't want an EVF that would drain their batteries and fatigue their eyes when trying to look through the EVF for hours at a time?

I would imagine that we will see both an R and DSLR version of their "sports' camera before the 2020 Olympics. Canon can then look at the sales data for both in deciding what will happen after that. Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## gmon750 (Dec 20, 2018)

ethanz said:


> The 1dx2 is a great camera. Image quality is excellent, maybe better than 5d4. Video is great. Not sure how it feels "really ancient."



It's just rants from wannabe weekend shooters. They've never tried the 1DX line and these kind of people need something new and shiny every year to keep their attention span.

Meanwhile, pro-shooters continue on with what works best for them. The 1DX line is an incredible system. Sure... mirrorless will one day take over but that does not mean that suddenly those amazing 1DX shots are no longer useable.

Best to just ignore them.


----------



## Mediabug (Dec 20, 2018)

If you really want to put a serious hurt on the competition get away from the useless PIXEL war. Currently the industry has enough PIXELS to choke anything. BUT give me 18 or 20 steps of gradient. Let me see into the shadows and stare at the sun!! Without some math trickery to artificially get there, this would stand the industry on its ear!!!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Why would Canon deliberately lose all the birders, wildlife and sports photographers who almost unanimously agree that they don't want an EVF that would drain their batteries and fatigue their eyes when trying to look through the EVF for hours at a time?
> 
> I would imagine that we will see both an R and DSLR version of their "sports' camera before the 2020 Olympics. Canon can then look at the sales data for both in deciding what will happen after that. Just my opinion, of course.


Well Andy Rouse has been very impressed with the EOS-R and decided to use 2of them as his primary cameras with a 1DX2 as back up and fast action only. 'Wildlife' clearly means different things to different people.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 20, 2018)

melgross said:


> Professionals rarely crop more than to adjust minor framing mishaps. Zoom lenses are made for those needs.. I’m not saying it NEVER happens, but there’s a very good reason why the top pro models have remained at about the same resolution for a long time,maven moving down.



That might be true for non-reach-limited shooters. People shooting wildlife, and a bunch of other use cases (some sports, etc.), never have the final framing in their viewfinder because their final framing is going to be cropped for further reach. My wife runs a wildlife magazine, and the crop ratio for cover photos is pretty extreme. This has gotten even more the case as internet use has become a primary medium. Because you don't get much benefit from resolution over 72 ppi, people are doing extremely heavy crops to get further reach - crops that would never stand up to print scrutiny.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Why would Canon deliberately lose all the birders, wildlife and sports photographers who almost unanimously agree that they don't want an EVF that would drain their batteries and fatigue their eyes when trying to look through the EVF for hours at a time?
> 
> I would imagine that we will see both an R and DSLR version of their "sports' camera before the 2020 Olympics. Canon can then look at the sales data for both in deciding what will happen after that. Just my opinion, of course.



There will certainly be a 1DXlll, but shortly thereafter Canon will release a 1DR or whatever and by then there will be more fun RF lenses to play with and no one will care if a version 4 is in the pipeline.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 20, 2018)

sdz said:


> This prognostication makes sense.
> 
> Entry level mirrorless camera
> EOS R (mirrorless)
> ...


I go with almost all of your thoughts. Except for the highlighted one.
And though I would like to see a 5D V and believed in one until a few weeks ago, right now I suppose that this body as MILC would give the R system a great push and this might give Canon a big reason to go directly to a MILC version of a 5D IV successor.
If the EVF and the battery power were good enough then I suppose I would be part of its market.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Dec 20, 2018)

Maybe I am old fashioned, but a real camera still needs a mirror and an optical viewfinder for me, that's lets you see reality with your own eyes instead of a digital copy of reality on an electronic viewfinder.

Weight is also important for me. A camera has to be heavy. As a rule of thumb I should be able to knock someone unconscious with my camera and the camera should still work after that. The 5D series are too light and small for my taste. You need attach a battery grip to them until they become real cameras. 

The problem of Canon are neither the resolution, the autofocus or the frame rate, but the sensors. Canon sensors just show too much noise. Even at ISO 100 there is simply too much noise in dark areas, which becomes very visible if you try to recover detail from underexposed areas. The EOS R sensor even is a step back, because it introduces heavy banding in dark areas, that Canon DSLRs did not have. 

If Canon solves the problems with sensor noise and adds IBIS to the 1D Mark III, that could already be the perfect camera for ten years or more to go. 

I really do not want a small mirrorless camera which costs the same price as a large DSLR. 

At least in medium format DSLRs may be around much longer, but to be honest I can not afford a medium format camera plus all the lenses needed.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 20, 2018)

Number of new FD bodies that Canon launched after switching to EF mount: 0
Number of new 35mm SLR bodies that Canon launched after launching their first proper Digital camera (D30): 5 (but they were all minor incremental upgrades of the 30, 300 and 3000 lines. The flagship 35mm SLR, the EOS 1V, remained on sale unchanged for 17 and a half years. 

The reality is that Canon will produce DSLRs as long as it remains profitable to do so. I think we'll see one more iteration of the 1DX series, possibly a 7D Mark III and possibly some minor updates to the lower end line but that will be it. Whatever DSLR models are available by the end of 2019 will continue to be produced until there's no more demand for DSLRs.

I think a 5D Mark V is unlikely (but not impossible).

We won't see any new exciting EF lens designs. Sorry, no 50mm f1.4 refresh! Only kit lens changes if any. Probably not even that.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 20, 2018)

melgross said:


> Professionals know that resolution isn’t very important, unless they’re photographing landscapes or architecture and printing very large, where the images can be viewed from close up.
> 
> Otherwise, 20-24MP is really enough. I suppose that the way things are going, higher resolutions will be had with the next generation. But I don’t see it jumping by very much. What for? If you do photograph landscapes or architecture you can get high resolution in cameras with lower speeds and less durability, which is fine for that.


Agreed, going from the 1dx2 to the R I notice only a tad higher res, and it only matters in my studioshots where conditions are optimal. Out and above iso 640 I would rather have the 20mp and cleaner shots as the iso increases. It was at least a full stop - one and a half stop better ...


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 20, 2018)

Don't see how a 3 year old camera can be considered "long in the tooth". Some of "you peoples" photography skills and styles are far more long in the tooth. A new camera ain't gonna help you none. "Canon doesn't innovate." Well, you innovate even less. Please. There are not any innovators here; just complainers who couldn't do any better if they actually had what they say they want. Honestly, are there actually any working photographers here (making a profit and a living) that are actually upgrading every 3 years and feel pressure from customers to do so? I doubt it.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Well Andy Rouse has been very impressed with the EOS-R and decided to use 2of them as his primary cameras with a 1DX2 as back up and fast action only. 'Wildlife' clearly means different things to different people.


My 5DSR gives better images of birds than my 5DIV, and the R has the same sensor as the IV and poorer tracking and FPS than the 5DSR and far worse than the 5DIV. No way would I trade in either my 5DIV or 5DSR for an EOS R for bird photography.


----------



## dolina (Dec 20, 2018)

Faster memory cards, please like CFast or XQD.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 20, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Frankly, the Sony A9 is a pretty amazing sports/wildlife camera.
> 
> The AF of the Nikon D5 simply out performs the 1DX2. So many wildlife photographers are dumping Canon gear and switch to Nikon. And Canon does not have a camera body even comparable to the D850. Hopefully, Canon will at least close the gap if they lack the technology to take the lead.
> 
> I like my 1DX2 but the keeper rate for BIF is far below a D5.



I agree. I owned the 1DX and 5D4 then couldn't bring myself to get the 7D2 and went with the D500. That camera's AF was an eye opener and I hadn't realised how much Canon had fallen behind. I still couldn't bring myself to sell the 1DX even though I was using it a lot less. After getting getting feedback from some amazing bird photographers that had been using CAnon for a very long time and had all the good gear that had bought the A9, I couldn't resist when Sony had a huge sale. This was the final nail in the coffin for my 1DX. AF superior, silent shooting, zero blackout, 33% more pixels, better DR, very nice 4K and overall IQ and 600g lighter. 

Nikon will be relasing the D6 next year and talk of much improved AF over the D5 which would make it damn impressive. Canon not only has to get the snesor up to speed, but their AF has long gone from being best around. It's still good, but no longer the best especially for fast action/birding.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 20, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Frankly, the Sony A9 is a pretty amazing sports/wildlife camera.
> 
> The AF of the Nikon D5 simply out performs the 1DX2. So many wildlife photographers are dumping Canon gear and switch to Nikon. And Canon does not have a camera body even comparable to the D850. Hopefully, Canon will at least close the gap if they lack the technology to take the lead.
> 
> I like my 1DX2 but the keeper rate for BIF is far below a D5.



I've not heard of many Canon 1DXII to Nikon D5 swappers among my wildlife pro colleagues. Nikon really crapped on a lot of pros with the D4 lock up fiasco and there's not a lot of uk pros who currently trust Nikon as a stable brand. There are however a number of shooters who are predominantly Nikon photographers and when Nikon produce a pup (which happens more often than you'd think) they quietly move over to Canon for a few seasons. Once Nikon have something competitive again...then they rather vocally re-jump back to Nikon again. Some people are fan boys and buy what they like...it's a free country and it's their choice. 

Most pros are looking for a return on their camera investment over a 6 year run and the lenses are usually a 10 year run. So for a pair of 1DXII's and 600mm f4 LIS II....that's a LOT of coin over a 6/10 year working life. Most pros are still selling work from 5 years ago and making a good living off those photos taken with "inferior" kit. After all...having state of the art kit doesn't directly relate to photographic or sell-able content. 

Most pros don't have the cash to swap entire systems / lens catalogs because a different brand has a camera with a slightly better AF system (not that I've ever found the 1DXII lacking in any area). What makes Canon superior is their complete system. Their repair network is the best, their equipment is far more robust than other brands and their lens portfolio is vastly superior to any other brand.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 20, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> It's probably a reasonable expectation that Canon would release a 1DX3 prior to the 2020 Olympic games. If dual DIGIC 8+ processors can yield 50% more throughput than the dual DIGIC 6+ processors in the 1DX2 (I'm assuming that's not a stretch), then it's possible for the 1DX3 to sport a 30MP sensor at the same 16fps of the 1DX2 - I think the bump in resolution and improved noise management at high ISO would be welcome additions in the wake of an increasingly competitive full-frame market.
> 
> My personal wishlist for some new features on such a camera would be:
> 
> ...


Usually there's a 1.4x bump in data throughput between Digic generations. This is only a guideline as Canon can over clock and create "+" and other dual variants. But generally it's a 1.4x bump. So 16fps @20mp = 320 mb/s throughput. If we assume Canon opt for the same frame rate then 1.4x 320 mb/s = 448 mb/s. Divide this lump by the frame rate 448/16=28mp. So if Canon mated this processor and shutter unit to a 28mp sensor....these figures would work well for a 1DXIII


----------



## sid.safari (Dec 20, 2018)

peters said:


> There is so much wrong with the 1dx II, its REALY time for an upgrade. Compared to the 5d iv it feels realy ancient (though it is incredible fast). It just lacks basic stuff without any reason... intervallometer, a working touchscreen, at least a bit of advanced video options...



'Ancient' ? - perhaps for your application but for wildlife photography and especially moments of action the 1Dx II is one of the best systems out there. Some might argue the D5 has slightly better autofocus but frankly having used it extensively in the field in both African and India I don't think there is any situation in which the 1Dx II is lacking. 

Most wildlife photographers I know aren't going to jump to mirrorless unless it's been proven in the field. Sure, the Sony A9 looks promising but I'll give it a few years before I trust it. We need rugged bodies which can withstand the dust, the heat and the rain. The battery life needs to be solid and AF has to work in critical situations. The 1Dx II has all these areas covered plus it has some of the best wildlife super telephotos lens ever made. 

Oh and if you need an intervallometer for astrophotography or timelapse or anything serious you can always buy an external one. Most pro's would probably already have one and it can last for years. The touch screen is perhaps a good point, that should be improved on the 1dx III...and as far as video the 1dx II has some of the best files on any dslr -- very few people who use it for video are complaining about it. 

Bottom line, the 1dx II is an amazing camera, and for wildlife I don't think there are many that beat it. I would expect Canon know the III will need to exceed the current one in all aspects so if that means continuing the DSLR for another generation i'm ok with that.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Why would Canon deliberately lose all the birders, wildlife and sports photographers who almost unanimously agree that they don't want an EVF that would drain their batteries and fatigue their eyes when trying to look through the EVF for hours at a time?
> 
> I would imagine that we will see both an R and DSLR version of their "sports' camera before the 2020 Olympics. Canon can then look at the sales data for both in deciding what will happen after that. Just my opinion, of course.


Even though I like my EOR R (bought for using vintage lenses), I'm still convinced that an optical viewfinder is a better solution for many uses.
So, I'm also hoping Canon will introduce in a close future a successor to the EOS 5 D 4. One gets quickly tired peeking through an electronic viewfinder, so, for wildlife photography, nothing beats the OVF. Video? I don't care, and if I did, would buy a video camera.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Dec 20, 2018)

Reading many comments here i am asking myself, how I can be so happy with my 5DIV and 1DXII.
I also had the pleasure to use other cameras (Fuji, APS-C and medium Format, Sonys), but never thought jumping ship.
Reasons: glasses, reliability, image quality, service, GPS
And I really hope, there will be OVFs in the future


----------



## rbielefeld (Dec 20, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Frankly, the Sony A9 is a pretty amazing sports/wildlife camera.
> 
> The AF of the Nikon D5 simply out performs the 1DX2. So many wildlife photographers are dumping Canon gear and switch to Nikon. And Canon does not have a camera body even comparable to the D850. Hopefully, Canon will at least close the gap if they lack the technology to take the lead.
> 
> I like my 1DX2 but the keeper rate for BIF is far below a D5.


I disagree with this assessment. I have shot both systems a lot and shoot almost exclusively BIF and when the AF is set up correctly for the BIF scenario being shot, the Canon holds its own if not does better than the D5 in my experience. Moreover, the Canon system performs extremely well with BIF at 1200mm (600mm f/4 + 2xTC), something Nikon cannot achieve. Overall, I try to avoid making sweeping statements about any particular system without a lot of data from a lot of photographers. Basically, everyone shoots differently. Some people will find the Canon does better for them and visa versa. Both are very good systems and can consistently capture action I never thought would be possible to photograph with any regularity.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Dec 20, 2018)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Weight is also important for me. A camera has to be heavy. As a rule of thumb I should be able to knock someone unconscious with my camera and the camera should still work after that.



Just curious, have you had real life practical tests with the cameras you buy?


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 20, 2018)

rbielefeld said:


> I disagree with this assessment. I have shot both systems a lot and shoot almost exclusively BIF and when the AF is set up correctly for the BIF scenario being shot, the Canon holds its own if not does better than the D5 in my experience. Moreover, the Canon system performs extremely well with BIF at 1200mm (600mm f/4 + 2xTC), something Nikon cannot achieve. Overall, I try to avoid making sweeping statements about any particular system without a lot of data from a lot of photographers. Basically, everyone shoots differently. Some people will find the Canon does better for them and visa versa. Both are very good systems and can consistently capture action I never thought would be possible to photograph with any regularity.
> View attachment 182150


Wonderful picture, really superb!


----------



## rbielefeld (Dec 20, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Wonderful picture, really superb!


Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2018)

rbielefeld said:


> I disagree with this assessment. I have shot both systems a lot and shoot almost exclusively BIF and when the AF is set up correctly for the BIF scenario being shot, the Canon holds its own if not does better than the D5 in my experience...



I'm always interested in learning more about other people's techniques. Can you expand on the settings you use for BIF scenarios.


----------



## ethanz (Dec 20, 2018)

alexanderferdinand said:


> Reading many comments here i am asking myself, how I can be so happy with my 5DIV and 1DXII.



You must be crazy and delusional to be happy with them. Sorry to break it to you.


----------



## ethanz (Dec 20, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Just curious, have you had real life practical tests with the cameras you buy?



Takes Canon bashing to a whole new level


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Frankly, the Sony A9 is a pretty amazing sports/wildlife camera.
> 
> The AF of the Nikon D5 simply out performs the 1DX2. So many wildlife photographers are dumping Canon gear and switch to Nikon. And Canon does not have a camera body even comparable to the D850. Hopefully, Canon will at least close the gap if they lack the technology to take the lead.
> 
> I like my 1DX2 but the keeper rate for BIF is far below a D5.


That is user error, plain and simple.

If there was a genuine keeper rate difference between the two then there is no way the two biggest sports shooting agencies in the world would be using Canon. Neither would world renowned wildlife shooters like Andy Rouse who switched back to Canon after shooting Nikon for years, he changed to Nikon when he was affected by the 1D MkIII AF issues. He tried out the 1DX MkII and the 200-400 and said the AF returned him many more keepers than his D5 for wildlife.

As for the D5 hype, that all happened around the time Arthur Morris said he couldn't get a good shot of a nearly static pelican with a 1DX MkII but could with a Nikon, utter bullish!t.


----------



## imagery99 (Dec 20, 2018)

rbielefeld said:


> I disagree with this assessment. I have shot both systems a lot and shoot almost exclusively BIF and when the AF is set up correctly for the BIF scenario being shot, the Canon holds its own if not does better than the D5 in my experience. Moreover, the Canon system performs extremely well with BIF at 1200mm (600mm f/4 + 2xTC), something Nikon cannot achieve. Overall, I try to avoid making sweeping statements about any particular system without a lot of data from a lot of photographers. Basically, everyone shoots differently. Some people will find the Canon does better for them and visa versa. Both are very good systems and can consistently capture action I never thought would be possible to photograph with any regularity.
> View attachment 182150


Nice image! I have been reading on fredmiranda and dpreview for 2-3 years now and yes, lots of Canon wildlife shooters seem to have switched to Nikon for the better af/ tracking. Some of the top BIF shooters like Arash Hazeghi, Art Morris, arbitrage (forgot his name) to name a few switched last year (not sure if you consider Art Morris as one of top maybe just popular). Of course it was very hard form them to accept the reality at first and sell their Canon gear but they eventually did. I don't think they would sell their Canon gears if the AF of Nikon bodies is 'marginally better'. The keeper rate is probably 10% more than with Canon as what I've been reading. Also, the moderator of BPN recently switched after staunchly defending Canon's AF according to Art Morris on his blog. I know people who are emotionally attached to Canon will say Canon has the best of everything but that's not true at all.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 20, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I spent a couple decades in publishing and I could count on one hand the number of times I published an uncropped image. That's an internet myth. In fact, the better photographers I published intentionally shot "loose" so that art directors and layout artists wouldn't have problems with composition. I've seen far more artwork discarded for being shot too tight than for having to be excessively cropped. We may have different definitions of who are and are not "professionals"...



Another complicating factor is the reality of shooting for the internet (which is where most pictures live today.) Most websites are optimized for horizontal shots, which means that even subjects that would be better framed as verticals, must be shot as horizontals to accommodate publishing on the web.


----------



## imagery99 (Dec 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> That is user error, plain and simple.
> 
> If there was a genuine keeper rate difference between the two then there is no way the two biggest sports shooting agencies in the world would be using Canon. Neither would world renowned wildlife shooters like Andy Rouse who switched back to Canon after shooting Nikon for years, he changed to Nikon when he was affected by the 1D MkIII AF issues. He tried out the 1DX MkII and the 200-400 and said the AF returned him many more keepers than his D5 for wildlife.
> 
> As for the D5 hype, that all happened around the time Arthur Morris said he couldn't get a good shot of a nearly static pelican with a 1DX MkII but could with a Nikon, utter bullish!t.


Some popular wildlife shooters switched before Art Morris though. In fact, he switched after hearing some Canon shooters switched and was surprised about how the Nikon D500/ D850 / D5 have much higher keeper rate.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

imagery99 said:


> .....Some of the top BIF shooters like Arash Hazeghi, Art Morris, .....


Really?
“I Suck at Flight Photography.”
Art Morris

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/10/27/i-suck-at-flight-photography-but/
His forte is set-piece portraits, which he does rather well.


----------



## imagery99 (Dec 20, 2018)

@ AlanF ---which is why I said I wasn't sure if you people consider him as 'one of the top' BIF shooters.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to what some "popular" internet photographers are doing. Switching brands causes controversy, controversey attracts page views and page views are monetized. Nikon AF is a bit more intelligent while Canon AF uses a bit more brute force but competent photographers seem to get similar results with both systems. For unskilled users. the Nikon system is easier to get good results so it does better with reviewers who haven't spent much time photographing action. At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## rbielefeld (Dec 20, 2018)

I am not emotionally attached to Canon. I will shoot whatever system I believe is the best for what I do. My Canon system works for my BIF photography. I am not a casual BIF shooter, I make a living do it, so I try other equipment all the time. Canon is still the overall best tool for me. People switch systems all the time based on how they shoot. 


imagery99 said:


> Nice image! I have been reading on fredmiranda and dpreview for 2-3 years now and yes, lots of Canon wildlife shooters seem to have switched to Nikon for the better af/ tracking. Some of the top BIF shooters like Arash Hazeghi, Art Morris, arbitrage (forgot his name) to name a few switched last year (not sure if you consider Art Morris as one of top maybe just popular). Of course it was very hard form them to accept the reality at first and sell their Canon gear but they eventually did. I don't think they would sell their Canon gears if the AF of Nikon bodies is 'marginally better'. The keeper rate is probably 10% more than with Canon as what I've been reading. Also, the moderator of BPN recently switched after staunchly defending Canon's AF according to Art Morris on his blog. I know people who are emotionally attached to Canon will say Canon has the best of everything but that's not true at all.





privatebydesign said:


> That is user error, plain and simple.
> 
> If there was a genuine keeper rate difference between the two then there is no way the two biggest sports shooting agencies in the world would be using Canon. Neither would world renowned wildlife shooters like Andy Rouse who switched back to Canon after shooting Nikon for years, he changed to Nikon when he was affected by the 1D MkIII AF issues. He tried out the 1DX MkII and the 200-400 and said the AF returned him many more keepers than his D5 for wildlife.
> 
> As for the D5 hype, that all happened around the time Arthur Morris said he couldn't get a good shot of a nearly static pelican with a 1DX MkII but could with a Nikon, utter bullish!t.


Shoot the system that works best for you. Plain and simple. Canon works better for me, especially when taking the 600 f/4 and putting 1.4x and 2x TCs on it. It just works when set up correctly.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

BIF shooting is 90 percent technique and opportunity. I can tell the difference between shots I take with a 7D2/400 f5.6 combo and a 1DX2/600 f4 combo but I doubt if very many of the folks who see the finished work are able to.


----------



## imagery99 (Dec 20, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I wouldn't pay too much attention to what some "popular" internet photographers are doing. Switching brands causes controversy, controversey attracts page views and page views are monetized. Nikon AF is a bit more intelligent while Canon AF uses a bit more brute force but competent photographers seem to get similar results with both systems. For unskilled users. the Nikon system is easier to get good results so it does better with reviewers who haven't spent much time photographing action. At least that's the way I see it.


I think this is the great summary of how they differ. But if you can get it easier, why not? The same with Sony's eye-AF, if you can shoot portraits faster with eye-AF instead of moving your focus point, why not? Technology improves and people want to shoot their favorite subjects easier and easier. If you want the upcoming 1DXiii to have some improvements, I'm pretty sure you want it to shoot sports/BIF easier. What I don't like hearing is hardcore fanboys who refuse to believe that some systems have a better/ efficient way of capturing an image. You want those features too to be present to an upcoming Canon camera.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I wouldn't pay too much attention to what some "popular" internet photographers are doing. Switching brands causes controversy, controversey attracts page views and page views are monetized. Nikon AF is a bit more intelligent while Canon AF uses a bit more brute force but competent photographers seem to get similar results with both systems. *For unskilled users. the Nikon system is easier to get good results *so it does better with reviewers who haven't spent much time photographing action. At least that's the way I see it.


That's a very good argument for most of us to move to Nikon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2018)

imagery99 said:


> Some popular wildlife shooters switched before Art Morris though. In fact, he switched after hearing some Canon shooters switched and was surprised about how the Nikon D500/ D850 / D5 have much higher keeper rate.


Yes and some switched the other way, like Andy Rouse who had a very dim view of Canon but the reality of the resultant images persuaded him to change back, the initial 'divorce' from Canon was very public and acrimonious and changing back wasn't a simple thing.

Some will get better results with one, some the other, neither is measurably 'better' than the other. One thing I have noticed with the 1DX MkII AF is that it is way more responsive the I am, my settings from day to day might change depending on my level of alertness, tiredness, fatigue, etc Sometimes I can outrun an AF change sensitivity, sometimes I can't, I don't find one set of settings works for a specific situation rather I adjust as I am going through a shoot. I watched a video by Grant Atkinson on AF setup where he creates a custom menu panel with just the three AF adjustments in it and uses those rather than case modes, it works very well for me.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

imagery99 said:


> I think this is the great summary of how they differ. But if you can get it easier, why not? The same with Sony's eye-AF, if you can shoot portraits faster with eye-AF instead of moving your focus point, why not? Technology improves and people want to shoot their favorite subjects easier and easier. If you want the upcoming 1DXiii to have some improvements, I'm pretty sure you want it to shoot sports/BIF easier. What I don't like hearing is hardcore fanboys who refuse to believe that some systems have a better/ efficient way of capturing an image. You want those features too to be present to an upcoming Canon camera.


For me it's a question of how much control you want to cede to the AF system. When making a solo portrait obviously you want to focus on the closest eye most of the time so eye AF is fine. But there are many situations where the AF is not going to be intelligent enough to make that decision which is why I prefer to control that myself. AI and computational photography are progressing rapidly but I don't think we are at a place yet where I'm going to turn control of something as important as autofocus selection entirely over to the camera. YMMV.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes and some switched the other way, like Andy Rouse who had a very dim view of Canon but the reality of the resultant images persuaded him to change back, the initial 'divorce' from Canon was very public and acrimonious and changing back wasn't a simple thing.


According to Mikehit, he has relegated his 1DXII to third place.


Mikehit said:


> Well Andy Rouse has been very impressed with the EOS-R and decided to use 2of them as his primary cameras with a 1DX2 as back up and fast action only. 'Wildlife' clearly means different things to different people.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> According to Mikehit, he has relegated his 1DXII to third place.


Yep, the 1DX MkII is used for BIF because the AF does a better job.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> I watched a video by Grant Atkinson on AF setup where he creates a custom menu panel with just the three AF adjustments in it and uses those rather than case modes, it works very well for me.


That's how I do it as well. Much appreciation to Grant Atkinson and whoever posted the link to that video on CR.


----------



## melgross (Dec 20, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I spent a couple decades in publishing and I could count on one hand the number of times I published an uncropped image. That's an internet myth. In fact, the better photographers I published intentionally shot "loose" so that art directors and layout artists wouldn't have problems with composition. I've seen far more artwork discarded for being shot too tight than for having to be excessively cropped. We may have different definitions of who are and are not "professionals".
> 
> edit: Sorry if that makes me sound like a jerk. Amazon has been telling me for the last six hours that they are only two stops away with my delivery.


We also did a lot of publishing work over a more than 20 year period. The only major cropping I’ve regularly seen was to fit a particular box for the photo. So many 35mm photos are too long, and the ends need to be cropped to fit. That’s most of it. But to drop heavily for framing purposes other than to fit a box that doesn’t match the original photo ratio wasn’t very common.

On the other hand, yes, some photos are cropped too tightly to allow that. That’s not what I’m talking about.


----------



## melgross (Dec 20, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> That might be true for non-reach-limited shooters. People shooting wildlife, and a bunch of other use cases (some sports, etc.), never have the final framing in their viewfinder because their final framing is going to be cropped for further reach. My wife runs a wildlife magazine, and the crop ratio for cover photos is pretty extreme. This has gotten even more the case as internet use has become a primary medium. Because you don't get much benefit from resolution over 72 ppi, people are doing extremely heavy crops to get further reach - crops that would never stand up to print scrutiny.



I’m not talking about nature photos. I did a lot of that too, though not professionally. We always wanted a longer lens.

I’m mostly talking about commercial photography, though I should have specified that. That was my business from both ends of the camera, and when I think “pro”, that’s what I think about, mostly.


----------



## fyngyrz (Dec 20, 2018)

After the release of the 6D mkII, where Canon made it clear they were no longer looking to improve the actual IQ of the body, I became... let's say "unmotivated"... to look at the rest of their line. If the IQ of the 6D is the best that line will ever offer, well then, EBay will have 'em for quite some time, and I don't have to worry about new models. To me, if Canon wants my money, they need to improve the dynamic range, and/or the noise levels, and/or the ISO vs. noise curves. These determine the actual IQ capability. I *might* someday be interested in a used 5Dmk-whatever, but it'd have to be used. Otherwise, the price/performance just isn't there the way it was with the original 6D. Which is probably why the 6D's IQ was never improved. I have a raft of Canon lenses, so I'll definitely be sticking with Canon bodies, but I will only purchase a new camera if that camera offers the kind of price/performance the original 6D did. Given the increased prices of the 5D and 1D lines, the increase in performance would have to be very large to get me to buy. And it isn't.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

melgross said:


> We also did a lot of publishing work over a more than 20 year period. The only major cropping I’ve regularly seen was to fit a particular box for the photo. So many 35mm photos are too long, and the ends need to be cropped to fit. That’s most of it. But to drop heavily for framing purposes other than to fit a box that doesn’t match the original photo ratio wasn’t very common.
> 
> On the other hand, yes, some photos are cropped too tightly to allow that. That’s not what I’m talking about.


We rarely used 35mm film as a source but you are right that cropping small format film is more of a challenge.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

Link to Grant Atkinson's set up video on youtube for the 5D MarkIV which describes how to create a shortcut for the AF settings if anyone is interested and hasn't seen it. The part about the shortcut for AF parameters is about 7 minutes in but it's all well thought out in my opinion. Thanks to Grant for the great work and PBD who I think first posted.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy_72JQ-QT4


----------



## memoriaphoto (Dec 20, 2018)

proutprout said:


> Canon really has communication problems. *They just told us *« look at this amazing lense system it’s the future » and got us excited about it, just to say right after « oh by the way forget about getting a pro camera before next cycle - which is around 4 years ». Sure. I’m happy now.



No they didn't


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Link to Grant Atkinson's set up video on youtube for the 5D MarkIV which describes how to create a shortcut for the AF settings if anyone is interested and hasn't seen it. The part about the shortcut for AF parameters is about 7 minutes in but it's all well thought out in my opinion. Thanks to Grant for the great work and PBD who I think first posted.
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy_72JQ-QT4


Grant is one of the very few youtubers I can bear to watch: concise; informative; unbiased and always useful.


----------



## robotfist (Dec 20, 2018)

“Full frame mirrorless isn’t yet advanced enough to take over the duties of the EOS-1D line in Canon’s eyes”. 

Well... CANON’S full frame mirrorless might not be advanced enough...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> According to Mikehit, he has relegated his 1DXII to third place.


Alan, if you are still coming to Florida in late January I might well be there and if you are in the Orlando wetlands area you can borrow one of the 1DX MkII's anytime.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Alan, if you are still coming to Florida in late January I might well be there and if you are in the Orlando wetlands area you can borrow one of the 1DX MkII's anytime.


Definitely! We have booked our flights and planned a circular tour beginning and ending in Orlando (6-21 Jan)


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 20, 2018)

Nikon may be leading the way on BIF but when it comes to Fish-in-Flight it's all Canon. That poor fish is pretty much out of good options.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Yep, the 1DX MkII is used for BIF because the AF does a better job.


I own the EOS-R and 1DX2. The EOS-R is a poor choice for action shooting and close to useless for BIF. The EOS R frame rate is far too slow. The EVF has a lag which makes tracking a fast subject very difficult. EOS R lacks the power to drive the focusing servos of a large telephoto as well as the 1dx2. Just to name a few...


----------



## Viggo (Dec 20, 2018)

djack41 said:


> I own the EOS-R and 1DX2. The EOS-R is a poor choice for action shooting and close to useless for BIF. The EOS R frame rate is far too slow. The EVF has a lag which makes tracking a fast subject very difficult. EOS R lacks the power to drive the focusing servos of a large telephoto as well as the 1dx2. Just to name a few...


I have a buddy who shoots eos R alongside the 1dx2 with 300 f2.8 II, 400 f2.8 II and 600 f4 II and he showed me some shots of birds, it’s some of what he does. He did it to answer some of us that wasn’t really sure what to believe on the inter webs regarding AF and serious action with the R. And I was blown away, he had some geese on take off etc and the focus was so dead on it’s incredible. So I’ve seen proof of the opposite, I guess we can both be right, different people and different setting, although same type of subjects...


----------



## ethanz (Dec 20, 2018)

Viggo said:


> I have a buddy who shoots eos R alongside the 1dx2 with 300 f2.8 II, 400 f2.8 II and 600 f4 II and he showed me some shots of birds, it’s some of what he does. He did it to answer some of us that wasn’t really sure what to believe on the inter webs regarding AF and serious action with the R. And I was blown away, he had some geese on take off etc and the focus was so dead on it’s incredible. So I’ve seen proof of the opposite, I guess we can both be right, different people and different setting, although same type of subjects...



I know a pro sports shooter who tried out the R (normally he has the 1dx2) and I asked him about the AF on the R for sports. He said it was fantastic.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Dec 20, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Another complicating factor is the reality of shooting for the internet (which is where most pictures live today.) Most websites are optimized for horizontal shots, which means that even subjects that would be better framed as verticals, must be shot as horizontals to accommodate publishing on the web.



Photography is leaning more to the horizontal side and video is trending towards vertical. 2018 is a weird.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 21, 2018)

Think the 1DX3 would be the final installment before a "1RX" or a similar mirrorless version arrives.
Before the "1RX", think the next DSLR series to be replaced could be the 5Ds where a "5Rs" be arriving to challenge Medium Format....


----------



## drama (Dec 21, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> Think the 1DX3 would be the final installment before a "1RX" or a similar mirrorless version arrives.
> Before the "1RX", think the next DSLR series to be replaced could be the 5Ds where a "5Rs" be arriving to challenge Medium Format....



Seems like that's the safe money. Canon's transitioning to FF Mirrorless without a doubt, but with the Olympics coming, and a heritage of DLSR lineup, a more specified 5D, and an incremental 1DX upgrade with a faster processor and minor megapixel bump seems to make a lot of sense.

In the meantime, next year looks like it will bring two bodies to the FF mirrorless lineup, although what they look like and in what order is anyone's guess. Canon I think are holding off a true 5D killer to eke another 6 months / year out of the 5D4, so the better body will likely be the later one.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2018)

djack41 said:


> I own the EOS-R and 1DX2. The EOS-R is a poor choice for action shooting and close to useless for BIF. The EOS R frame rate is far too slow. The EVF has a lag which makes tracking a fast subject very difficult. EOS R lacks the power to drive the focusing servos of a large telephoto as well as the 1dx2. Just to name a few...


 The frame rate is not hypersonic but you can shoot at 5fps and get great tracking(from what i am hearing). Yes. There is a bit of lag but it is not as bad as i thought it would be. Not as good as an ovf but manageable. For me the worry is the eye fatigue caused by the evf.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Dec 21, 2018)

I struggle sometimes to understand Canons marketing of the 1D line , each time i come to replace a camera I look at the 1D line and think how nice it would be to have the ferrari of cameras and then look at the latest 5D line and find it does pretty much everything better and seems as if they almost want the 5D to be the better seller. I have never ever had a 5D fail in bad weather and been using them since the 5D1 , never had a problem tracking since the 5D3 and 5D4 came along , the video is more advanced now in the 5D lines , what is the actual reason for purchasing the 1D line is it purely sports / speed and the theoretical longer lasting shutter ? and once again it looks likely that if they do release a new 1Dx and new 5D line will be shortly after ? So have these two lines become to close to each other.

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 21, 2018)

robotfist said:


> “Full frame mirrorless isn’t yet advanced enough to take over the duties of the EOS-1D line in Canon’s eyes”.
> 
> Well... CANON’S full frame mirrorless might not be advanced enough...


Neither are Sony's A 9 or Nikon's mirrorless, and I won't even mention color rendition , ergonomics or reliability.
It's hard to beat the EOS 1, or the Nikon D 5, Sony's A 9 has a higher fps rate and a few other advantages, but otherwise, feels like a toy compared to real professional cameras.


----------



## PerKr (Dec 21, 2018)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I struggle sometimes to understand Canons marketing of the 1D line , each time i come to replace a camera I look at the 1D line and think how nice it would be to have the ferrari of cameras and then look at the latest 5D line and find it does pretty much everything better and seems as if they almost want the 5D to be the better seller. I have never ever had a 5D fail in bad weather and been using them since the 5D1 , never had a problem tracking since the 5D3 and 5D4 came along , the video is more advanced now in the 5D lines , what is the actual reason for purchasing the 1D line is it purely sports / speed and the theoretical longer lasting shutter ? and once again it looks likely that if they do release a new 1Dx and new 5D line will be shortly after ? So have these two lines become to close to each other.
> 
> Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria



Whenever you need speed and durability and the weight is not an issue, that's when the 1D is good to have. So sports and nature basically. The 5D line seems to have taken the spot the 1Ds line had way back when.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2018)

ethanz said:


> I know a pro sports shooter who tried out the R (normally he has the 1dx2) and I asked him about the AF on the R for sports. He said it was fantastic.



If you are doing a single shot then the AF of the R will be fine. But, when you get into continuous AF (AI servo), you get into trouble. The fps for AF is 5/s or less. But, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the viewfinder during a burst is looking at the frame you have just taken which will be 200ms or more old. So, if you are taking a bird in flight that is moving rapidly across the field of view, you will be shooting at where it was, which could be out of frame. The same will be true for sports with rapid movement across. Sure, in some circumstances that won't matter, but in a lot of cases it will.


----------



## djack41 (Dec 21, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> The frame rate is not hypersonic but you can shoot at 5fps and get great tracking(from what i am hearing). Yes. There is a bit of lag but it is not as bad as i thought it would be. Not as good as an ovf but manageable. For me the worry is the eye fatigue caused by the evf.


Back in the day, 5 FPS was smoking!. Now it is very slow, especially for capturing bird interaction or ideal subject posture during BIF. There is definitely a slight lag and momentary blackout in the EVF that makes tracking fast birds much more difficult. Even with image review disabled, my EOS R wants to briefly display the last image taken. This is a complaint reported by many wildlife photographers. It is a solid camera for many applications but not so much for fast action photography.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Dec 21, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Neither are Sony's A 9 or Nikon's mirrorless, and I won't even mention color rendition , ergonomics or reliability.
> It's hard to beat the EOS 1, or the Nikon D 5, Sony's A 9 has a higher fps rate and a few other advantages, but otherwise, feels like a toy compared to real professional cameras.


I appreciate your opinion, but facts to support it are sparse. It's way too soon to know much about reliability of EOS R, Sony a9, Nikon Z7. Ergonomics are a matter of personal fit. And, color rendition... well watch this Tony Northrup video and see how you feel about Canon color science:


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 21, 2018)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I struggle sometimes to understand Canons marketing of the 1D line , each time i come to replace a camera I look at the 1D line and think how nice it would be to have the ferrari of cameras and then look at the latest 5D line and find it does pretty much everything better and seems as if they almost want the 5D to be the better seller. I have never ever had a 5D fail in bad weather and been using them since the 5D1 , never had a problem tracking since the 5D3 and 5D4 came along , the video is more advanced now in the 5D lines , what is the actual reason for purchasing the 1D line is it purely sports / speed and the theoretical longer lasting shutter ? and once again it looks likely that if they do release a new 1Dx and new 5D line will be shortly after ? So have these two lines become to close to each other.
> 
> Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


The 5DIV is a fine camera but not sure why you would say the video is more advanced than the 1DX2. I'd take a 1DX2 for video every time. The 5DIV has log available but it's not a particularly good implementation of log, it has significant rolling shutter and the only workable frame rates are 4k 25/30P. The IDX2 has very good 4K 25/30p and 50/60P, decent 120fps at 1080p and very low rolling shutter. Not to mention a lower crop ratio. It doesn't have log but the log on the 5DIV is mostly a marketing gimmic IMO. On a gimbal there simply isn't any comparison. It's an excellent video tool if you can live with the awkward form factor. I have both so it's not a mine is better thing. I rarely shoot video with the 5DIV. I like the 5D's, I've owned all four models but don't underestimate what a great camera Canon released in the 1DX2.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 21, 2018)

AlanF said:


> If you are doing a single shot then the AF of the R will be fine. But, when you get into continuous AF (AI servo), you get into trouble. The fps for AF is 5/s or less. But, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the viewfinder during a burst is looking at the frame you have just taken which will be 200ms or more old. So, if you are taking a bird in flight that is moving rapidly across the field of view, you will be shooting at where it was, which could be out of frame. The same will be true for sports with rapid movement across. Sure, in some circumstances that won't matter, but in a lot of cases it will.


Do remember that this is very different if you use adapted EF lenses or if you use RF lenses...


----------



## melgross (Dec 21, 2018)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I struggle sometimes to understand Canons marketing of the 1D line , each time i come to replace a camera I look at the 1D line and think how nice it would be to have the ferrari of cameras and then look at the latest 5D line and find it does pretty much everything better and seems as if they almost want the 5D to be the better seller. I have never ever had a 5D fail in bad weather and been using them since the 5D1 , never had a problem tracking since the 5D3 and 5D4 came along , the video is more advanced now in the 5D lines , what is the actual reason for purchasing the 1D line is it purely sports / speed and the theoretical longer lasting shutter ? and once again it looks likely that if they do release a new 1Dx and new 5D line will be shortly after ? So have these two lines become to close to each other.
> 
> Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


The 1D is faster. It has better auto focus for moving subjects. It has better metering. It’s much more rugged and water resistant.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Do remember that this is very different if you use adapted EF lenses or if you use RF lenses...


Viewing 0.2s behind the real time if view is the best you can do with an RF lens on the current EOS R. With an adapted lens it could be worse than that. Which means that the R is not the camera of choice for rapid erratic movement though it will work well in other circumstances.


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 21, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> I appreciate your opinion, but facts to support it are sparse. It's way too soon to know much about reliability of EOS R, Sony a9, Nikon Z7. Ergonomics are a matter of personal fit. And, color rendition... well watch this Tony Northrup video and see how you feel about Canon color science:


Honestly I don't understand why people use this video in different forums as a reference for "color science". With respect, from scientific data analysis perspective it is totally nonsense. He has collected some random data from unspecified subjects with different demography, skill level and preferences, and then interprets his junk data in a purely subjective and awkward way without posing any hypothesis and without testing validity of the claim he makes! And interestingly he calls it color "science"!!


----------



## Jucesar (Dec 21, 2018)

LOL! I think you are too worried about what's to come next and fairly soon, forgetting you already have beautiful equipment, but nevertheless Mirrorless is the future, is written on the wall; remember the beginning of the transition from film to digital? some of us (me included) thought the new technology was just a phase, boy were we wrong!!. Hopefully we will be able to keep using the same cards.....

But once Canon feels the mirrorless they can produce can stand the abuse and perform like the
1D Series, BOOM!!

In the mean time I am perfectly happy and I'll keep using my 1DX and 5D Mark III and I'll keep using my 1D Mark III to beat it over the head with a bat....


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 21, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Back in the day, 5 FPS was smoking!. Now it is very slow, especially for capturing bird interaction or ideal subject posture during BIF. There is definitely a slight lag and momentary blackout in the EVF that makes tracking fast birds much more difficult. Even with image review disabled, my EOS R wants to briefly display the last image taken. This is a complaint reported by many wildlife photographers. It is a solid camera for many applications but not so much for fast action photography.


I agree about the delay while displaying the previous frame. But i still reckon that despite that and potential eye fatigue, the eos r would do a better job than portrayed as a camera that can be used for a bit of action at a pinch. I don't think anyone would recommend buying it for that specific purpose though.


----------



## degos (Dec 21, 2018)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> what is the actual reason for purchasing the 1D line is it purely sports / speed and the theoretical longer lasting shutter ?



Durability, speed, responsiveness. For example being able to track the target in the viewfinder whilst shooting at high FPS, because the shutter blackout time is very short.

And if you've ever seen pitch-side shooters just letting their monopod go to switch to another camera for a close-shot...


----------



## epiieq1 (Dec 22, 2018)

Jucesar said:


> LOL! I think you are too worried about what's to come next and fairly soon, forgetting you already have beautiful equipment, but nevertheless Mirrorless is the future, is written on the wall; remember the beginning of the transition from film to digital? some of us (me included) thought the new technology was just a phase, boy were we wrong!!. Hopefully we will be able to keep using the same cards.....
> 
> But once Canon feels the mirrorless they can produce can stand the abuse and perform like the
> 1D Series, BOOM!!
> ...



I'm with you. I've got a 5D3 and a 1DX that I use. The 5D3 for general purpose, landscapes, portraits, events, etc. with my 1DX backing it up there. Then, I use the 1DX for sports and when I get the rare occasion to go out for wildlife. I've rented the 5Ds R and really liked the additional ability to crop and still have a highly usable picture. I'm starting to look for a 5D3 replacement, and am hoping we get a 5Ds R update (mirrorless or not) to add to my set. I've had major repairs done to my 5D3 this year (main board and sensor both replaced), so I'm planning to use it for many years to come!


----------



## sanj (Dec 22, 2018)

rbielefeld said:


> I disagree with this assessment. I have shot both systems a lot and shoot almost exclusively BIF and when the AF is set up correctly for the BIF scenario being shot, the Canon holds its own if not does better than the D5 in my experience. Moreover, the Canon system performs extremely well with BIF at 1200mm (600mm f/4 + 2xTC), something Nikon cannot achieve. Overall, I try to avoid making sweeping statements about any particular system without a lot of data from a lot of photographers. Basically, everyone shoots differently. Some people will find the Canon does better for them and visa versa. Both are very good systems and can consistently capture action I never thought would be possible to photograph with any regularity.
> View attachment 182150


What a photo!


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 22, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> Honestly I don't understand why people use this video in different forums as a reference for "color science". With respect, from scientific data analysis perspective it is totally nonsense.



He's not wrong though. When you convert raw files in Lightroom from different camera manufacturers you are mostly going to get the same results because you're using Adobe's "colour science". There are differences between the sensor implementation between different manufacturers but the difference that makes is far less than the interpretation of the RAW files down to viewable RGB images.

As he says, I've use both Canon and Sony on the same shoots, and when the raw files from the two systems are converted in Lightroom the resultant files are indistinguishable in terms of colour rendition when using Canon lenses on both systems!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 22, 2018)

epiieq1 said:


> I'm with you. I've got a 5D3 and a 1DX that I use. The 5D3 for general purpose, landscapes, portraits, events, etc. with my 1DX backing it up there. Then, I use the 1DX for sports and when I get the rare occasion to go out for wildlife. I've rented the 5Ds R and really liked the additional ability to crop and still have a highly usable picture. I'm starting to look for a 5D3 replacement, and am hoping we get a 5Ds R update (mirrorless or not) to add to my set. I've had major repairs done to my 5D3 this year (main board and sensor both replaced), so I'm planning to use it for many years to come!


Once you have used the 50mpx 5DSR without an AA-filter for wild life, the lower resolution Canon's with filters are disappointing - not to say you don't get superb results from them, the 5DSR is better still. I'm in the market for the Canon hi-res R, with a second lower res body in reserve for extreme action.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 22, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> He's not wrong though. When you convert raw files in Lightroom from different camera manufacturers you are mostly going to get the same results because you're using Adobe's "colour science". There are differences between the sensor implementation between different manufacturers but the difference that makes is far less than the interpretation of the RAW files down to viewable RGB images.
> 
> As he says, I've use both Canon and Sony on the same shoots, and when the raw files from the two systems are converted in Lightroom the resultant files are indistinguishable in terms of colour rendition when using Canon lenses on both systems!



Which is one reason why some of us use DPP for RAW conversion. Adobe color is quite different in my opinion. I often wonder what the heck happened when using Adobe.


----------



## dcm (Dec 22, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Which is one reason why some of us use DPP for RAW conversion. Adobe color is quite different in my opinion. I often wonder what the heck happened when using Adobe.



I wondered about this as well when using Lightroom and comparing the camera jpgs some time ago. Then I noticed the Profile: under Camera Calibration which has evolved over time. The import selects Adobe Standard profile. There are other profiles corresponding to Canon's basic picture styles. Changing the Profile can make a significant difference, but it is still Adobe's interpretation of Canon's picture style. Here's a comparison of processing with DPP4/LR6/PhotoLab2 using different picture styles/profiles/corrections corresponding to a default, standard, and landscape setting. The image is from an M5/28mm with Fine Detail picture style. They all can achieve similar effects, but the defaults vary.

Adobe Standard does not appeal to me so I've applied one of the camera profiles for some time. There is no profile corresponding to "fine detail" on the M5/1DX2. This caused me to start evaluating alternatives (DPP and PhotoLab2 so far) to start using in 2019.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2018)

Yes and it's wrong. I have processed many events where multiple body manufacturers were used and they all look very different in a basic LR render. Adobe take a lot of time trying to replicate each manufacturers in camera profiles.

To make a wedding dress and the brides complexion match across camera brands at the same event you have to make custom profiles for each camera.

It is very easy to create custom profiles to match brands, which is my reason for thinking people promoting 'color science' are barking up the wrong tree, and it isn't difficult to make your own profiles for any individual camera to replicate any look you want, just save a processed image setting and apply on import.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 22, 2018)

dcm said:


> Adobe Standard does not appeal to me so I've applied one of the camera profiles for some time. There is no profile corresponding to "fine detail" on the M5/1DX2. This caused me to start evaluating alternatives (DPP and PhotoLab2 so far) to start using in 2019.


I think Adobe realized that the Adobe Standard profile wasn't working so they've added new profiles to Lightroom this year. Adobe Color is now the default. I believe there are a total of six if you include monochrome. Not sure that solves your problem but they provide a much better starting point than Standard IMO.

edit: I think Tony Northrups video, which I found very entertaining, was about the psychology of perception. Not about color science which it barely touched on. It was pretty obvious that he has a keen understanding of who follows his channel.


----------



## dcm (Dec 22, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I think Adobe realized that the Adobe Standard profile wasn't working so they've added new profiles to Lightroom this year. Adobe Color is now the default. I believe there are a total of six if you include monochrome. Not sure that solves your problem but they provide a much better starting point than Standard IMO.



I'm on LR6, not CC. Going to evaluate alternatives before going to CC, although the iPadPro version makes it tempting. Too bad DPP Express doesn't support my bodies. I like the noise reduction in DXO OpticsPro / PhotoLab, but the others may have caught up. Strictly a hobby so ease of use is a key factor. Shot film for 20+ years so I like to get in right in camera and leave minimal post processing.


----------



## tmc784 (Dec 23, 2018)

Just wish Canon has the ability to upgrade firmware to 1.0 crop 4K video and 1080p at high frame rate video for 5DIV.
Silly Christmas wish ! LOL........


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Which is one reason why some of us use DPP for RAW conversion. Adobe color is quite different in my opinion. I often wonder what the heck happened when using Adobe.



Thank god they allow the use of ColorChecker profiles, which is the only way I get sensible colors from any camera or software.


----------



## AdamBotond (Dec 23, 2018)

I would be surprised if that rumor would turn out to be true! With cycles constantly increasing between generations of high-end DSLRs in Canon in recent years, now with the market (and their focus) shifting towards MILC, it would be somewhat unexpected to see a flagship 1D successor in 3 years, when it took almost 5 years to replace the 1D-X. Not that I would mind it, I just don't think it is likely to happen.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 23, 2018)

AdamBotond said:


> I would be surprised if that rumor would turn out to be true! With cycles constantly increasing between generations of high-end DSLRs in Canon in recent years, now with the market (and their focus) shifting towards MILC, it would be somewhat unexpected to see a flagship 1D successor in 3 years, when it took almost 5 years to replace the 1D-X. Not that I would mind it, I just don't think it is likely to happen.



Generally agree. I could see a 2019 announcement with release in 2020, in time for summer Olympics.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 24, 2018)

Could it be a close to 1 level mirrorless not intended to obsolete the 1DX2?

Jack


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 24, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I find the 1DXMKII to be an amazing tool. I find that most users don't use most of the cameras capabilities. As a pro sports photog, there is no better camera in the world. For me, I'd love more cross points, auto MA, 30MP and increased DR. By all means shooting the 2020 games in Japan with the new body would be nice. Tied by cat5 to the truck for shots the producers can use for inserts during the games, I'd like weather sealing for the Cat5 cable. I now rig a cut piece of window foam and tape to keep the element out. Still best dedicated Sports camera ever owned. With the f/2.8 300 and 400 my favorites, historic equipment, historic!!!!


----------



## deleteme (Dec 24, 2018)

peters said:


> There is so much wrong with the 1dx II, its REALY time for an upgrade. Compared to the 5d iv it feels realy ancient (though it is incredible fast). It just lacks basic stuff without any reason... intervallometer, a working touchscreen, at least a bit of advanced video options...



IMO the 1DxmkII is at best a break-even model for Canon. The bulk of sales (and profit) come from their prosumer lines and the M series. As a flagship camera they know they have to deliver a showstopper. The last few years were spent developing the new RF lenses and the mirrorless FF bodies. With the development of those bodies now well advanced they can turn their attention to the 1D series. 
The real issue for them is they have to make a convincing argument for a DSLR in this segment when Sony has delivered a 20FPS 24MP powerhouse that is gaining significant traction among pros.
I find it hard to believe they can deliver comparable speed with a mirror.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 24, 2018)

djack41 said:


> I own the EOS-R and 1DX2. The EOS-R is a poor choice for action shooting and close to useless for BIF. The EOS R frame rate is far too slow. The EVF has a lag which makes tracking a fast subject very difficult. EOS R lacks the power to drive the focusing servos of a large telephoto as well as the 1dx2. Just to name a few...



As the R is a mirrorless analog for the 6DmkII I am not surprised. Using a modest spec mirrorless body as metric to disparage their performance as a whole is not realisitc.
The Sony A9 has no problems being a credible BIF camera and it is certain that Canon will deliver a credible competitor without a mirror. It is just a matter of processing power and appropriate components.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Dec 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> If I am still shooting sports when the 1DxIII comes out, the deciding factor for me will be autofocus. That's the one area where significant improvements remain possible. I dream of a reliable face/eye detection system that actually locks on the subject and follows it around the frame while the shutter button is engaged.
> 
> For me, everything else is quibbling.
> 
> ...





the 5d4 is a very adequate sports camera


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2018)

I suspect battery life is an issue for a mirrorless 1DX


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2018)

I have had both the 5D IV and the 1DX2 and in my opinion the 1DX2 wins hands down for picture quality


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 24, 2018)

briansquibb said:


> I have had both the 5D IV and the 1DX2 and in my opinion the 1DX2 wins hands down for picture quality



Unless you need to regularly crop and you run out of pixels. That was my only regret; if only it could have had a high resolution and low resolution mode select where you trade off speed for resolution. The video swayed me.

Jack


----------



## Viggo (Dec 24, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> IMO the 1DxmkII is at best a break-even model for Canon. The bulk of sales (and profit) come from their prosumer lines and the M series. As a flagship camera they know they have to deliver a showstopper. The last few years were spent developing the new RF lenses and the mirrorless FF bodies. With the development of those bodies now well advanced they can turn their attention to the 1D series.
> The real issue for them is they have to make a convincing argument for a DSLR in this segment when Sony has delivered a 20FPS 24MP powerhouse that is gaining significant traction among pros.
> I find it hard to believe they can deliver comparable speed with a mirror.



Yes, with electronic shutter and a whole bunch of if’s and but’s.

The scenarios where you can’t use electronic shutter, and I’ve found a few already, you’re stuck with the same speed as the EOS R at 5 fps with the mechanical shutter. While the 1dx2 shoots away at 14 fps not matter what.

Difference between Sony, Nikon and Canon is that the first two are much about spec sheets and can’t really deliver on them, and Canon who seems under spec’d, but deliver so incredibly solid...


----------



## fentiger (Dec 24, 2018)

briansquibb said:


> I suspect battery life is an issue for a mirrorless 1DX


if the mirrorless 1D retains its form factor and battery i would suspect battery life will be much better than any mirrorless 
currently on the market.


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 24, 2018)

briansquibb said:


> I have had both the 5D IV and the 1DX2 and in my opinion the 1DX2 wins hands down for picture quality



What do you think separate the two in terms of image quality? High ISO performance, colors or something else?


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 24, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> What do you think separate the two in terms of image quality? High ISO performance, colors or something else?


I looked at the quality of the image for the pictures I take - regardless of lens, ISO and speed the 1DX2 is better than the 5D 4. The 1DX2 has other benefits as well, such as battery live. I am talking here about stills …

The only time the 5d4 was better was when the picture needed a big crop which was not that often as I use a 600mm + 2x for birding. - and then I use my 7D2 which outruns the 5D4 for that ...

We all have our preferences - I can see that the weight and size of the 1DX is an issue for some people - this might be where a lighter camera such as for forthcoming mirrorless bodies will help. The recent lightweight lens such as the new 400/500 and 600 are a big bones for handheld photos - it is hard to wave a 600 mk1 around after birds..


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 24, 2018)

briansquibb said:


> I looked at the quality of the image for the pictures I take - regardless of lens, ISO and speed the 1DX2 is better than the 5D 4. The 1DX2 has other benefits as well, such as battery live. I am talking here about stills …
> 
> The only time the 5d4 was better was when the picture needed a big crop which was not that often as I use a 600mm + 2x for birding. - and then I use my 7D2 which outruns the 5D4 for that ...
> 
> We all have our preferences - I can see that the weight and size of the 1DX is an issue for some people - this might be where a lighter camera such as for forthcoming mirrorless bodies will help. The recent lightweight lens such as the new 400/500 and 600 are a big bones for handheld photos - it is hard to wave a 600 mk1 around after birds..



I own the 5DIV and sold my 1DXII after getting the EOS R. I never had the need for the high fps, and the EOS R has much better AF with large aperture lenses and low light, especially with moving subjects. 

In terms of IQ, I find it hard to tell a difference between the 1DXII and 5DIV, when you look away from the difference in resolution. However, I admit that I sometimes have the impression that the 1DXII files have a more organic/less digital look to them, which I like, but it could very well be my imagination playing me a trick. 

It is sort of a ridiculous side reason for me to sell the 1DXII instead of the 5DIV, but it was partly because I mostly view my pictures on a thirteen inch iPad Pro. When zooming in, the 1DXII files comes short in resolution, while the 30 megapixel files still has a lot left. This silly reason is part of my motivation behind preferring the 5DIV files.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2018)

I wouldn't argue with anyone who uses a 1DXII and a 600/4 Mk1 for birds in flight because he must the strength of Tarzan. I'll stick with the 400mm DO II and a 5D series without a tripod.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 24, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Yes, with electronic shutter and a whole bunch of if’s and but’s.
> 
> The scenarios where you can’t use electronic shutter, and I’ve found a few already, you’re stuck with the same speed as the EOS R at 5 fps with the mechanical shutter. While the 1dx2 shoots away at 14 fps not matter what.
> 
> Difference between Sony, Nikon and Canon is that the first two are much about spec sheets and can’t really deliver on them, and Canon who seems under spec’d, but deliver so incredibly solid...


It's funny how everybody thought _'the answer'_ was going to be electronic shutters, mainly driven by tech hungry 'reviewers' like those at DPR, yet now we have them they have more compromises than the boring regular shutters we have had for decades.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 24, 2018)

It will be interesting what the specs are for the 1DX III. 
It will also be interesting if it marks the last great DSLR.
Is it feasible to improve the FPS on a mechanical shutter.
The shutter needs not only to be able to hit high FPS but do it over a number of years without failing.
The 1 DX II is loud even on "Silent Shutter".
How good the focusing will be is critical. BIF can still be a frustrating subject.
Autofocus could be more intelligent.
A 1 DR could have much higher FPS and Silent shutter.
To do 20+FPS it would need an upgrade in processor power.
This mirrorless business must be tricky enough. 
I thought Canon could move to this seamlessly any time they wanted to but they still seem very cautious.
The EOS-R while it seems good is a conservative first attempt. 
The lens with it seem to be very good but the camera is "good enough" as opposed to innovative.
It wasn't enough for me to consider moving.
A 1 DX III is more tempting but it depends on what it is.
It may not be until a 1 DR that Canon will showcase what they can do with mirrorless


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 24, 2018)

The length of the release cycles is a function of customer's willingness to fork over cash for a new model.

The digital revolution raise photographers' willingness to upgrade cameras. Now that its over, I expect the release cycles to return to what they used to be back in the film days, ~5 years. The high end lines (1DX, 5D, 7D) are almost there, and the lower lines have slowed to half the pace.

Mirrorless is a new mini-revolution, so EOS-R cycle will be shorter, but the twenty-twenties aren't going to be as exciting as the first decade of the 20th century.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 24, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> There is also the fact that the general users of the 1d series are sports and wildlife shooters who in general would be telling canon that EVFs are not as good as OVFs for that niche. I can't see canon dumping OVF cameras untill those photographers are happy with EVFs


As a pro sports shooter always in bright sun and over reflective water for kitesurfing. Following acrobatics in the air the only option is OVF. It takes years to hone these shooting techniques.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 24, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The length of the release cycles is a function of customer's willingness to fork over cash for a new model.
> 
> The digital revolution raise photographers' willingness to upgrade cameras. Now that its over, I expect the release cycles to return to what they used to be back in the film days, ~5 years. The high end lines (1DX, 5D, 7D) are almost there, and the lower lines have slowed to half the pace.
> 
> Mirrorless is a new mini-revolution, so EOS-R cycle will be shorter, but the twenty-twenties aren't going to be as exciting as the first decade of the 20th century.


Long cycle times just like the iPhone, laptops etc?


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 24, 2018)

sanj said:


> I don't believe this. I doubt there will be any more DSLR leave alone 1dx. Really doubt. It is mirrorless now and all for good reasons.


I could not disagree more. As a sports photographer for pro and Olympic sports, there is no technology today from Sony, Nikon or Canon that can replace the OVF when following very fast moving athletes especially in bright sun. I don't miss critical shots with OVF. I've been asked by another company to compare my 1DXMKII and full kit to theirs for the 2020 games. I will not be doing it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 24, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The length of the release cycles is a function of customer's willingness to fork over cash for a new model.
> 
> The digital revolution raise photographers' willingness to upgrade cameras. Now that its over, I expect the release cycles to return to what they used to be back in the film days, ~5 years. The high end lines (1DX, 5D, 7D) are almost there, and the lower lines have slowed to half the pace.
> 
> Mirrorless is a new mini-revolution, so EOS-R cycle will be shorter, but the twenty-twenties aren't going to be as exciting as the first decade of the 20th century.


Mirrorless isn’t revolutionary, it’s at best evolutionary. However, it is very processor-limited. Since processors show no sign of slowing their advancements, I wouldn’t expect mirrorless cameras to slow theirs.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 24, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> For me it's a question of how much control you want to cede to the AF system. When making a solo portrait obviously you want to focus on the closest eye most of the time so eye AF is fine. But there are many situations where the AF is not going to be intelligent enough to make that decision which is why I prefer to control that myself. AI and computational photography are progressing rapidly but I don't think we are at a place yet where I'm going to turn control of something as important as autofocus selection entirely over to the camera. YMMV.


I agree, I prefer telling my camera what to do. As opposed to the other way around


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 24, 2018)

I'm not in the same class as those in the know here but I often find myself having to wait anticipating a moment for long times and staring at a screen is not something I enjoy, being headache prone. And being active during those wait periods represents battery drain but the alternative is to miss the shot. I sure wish the focus points could be spread further but that's something I accept. 

It's enlightening to hear the comments of pros!

Jack


----------



## deleteme (Dec 25, 2018)

Viggo said:


> Yes, with electronic shutter and a whole bunch of if’s and but’s.
> 
> The scenarios where you can’t use electronic shutter, and I’ve found a few already, you’re stuck with the same speed as the EOS R at 5 fps with the mechanical shutter. While the 1dx2 shoots away at 14 fps not matter what.
> 
> Difference between Sony, Nikon and Canon is that the first two are much about spec sheets and can’t really deliver on them, and Canon who seems under spec’d, but deliver so incredibly solid...



I was unaware of the A9's mechanical shutter speed (or lack of it). Good to know. Of course we still have the model of the original Pellix (or more recently the A99) to offer speed with a mechanical shutter.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 25, 2018)

Hi Jack, on one day of shooting I've exceeded 10,000 shot for international sporting events. Staring at a screen for everything I don't want to shoot would be INSANITY. To anyone who has not shot Freestyle kitesurfing, sat under the hoops for the NBA or shot in the end zone for the NFL, an EVF can't hack it. Ever wonder why TV networks have 4-5 $250K cameras all focused on the SAME areas? You're one man covering a fast moving sport with a hand held camera. You need skill, experience and an OVF


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

Normalnorm said:


> I was unaware of the A9's mechanical shutter speed (or lack of it). Good to know. Of course we still have the model of the original Pellix (or more recently the A99) to offer speed with a mechanical shutter.


I presume the next iteration of a9 will have at least the 10fps a7riii shutter; possibly more, unless they stuff in a global shutter and do away with the mechanism entirely.



GoldWing said:


> Hi Jack, on one day of shooting I've exceeded 10,000 shot for international sporting events. Staring at a screen for everything I don't want to shoot would be INSANITY. To anyone who has not shot Freestyle kitesurfing, sat under the hoops for the NBA or shot in the end zone for the NFL, an EVF can't hack it. Ever wonder why TV networks have 4-5 $250K cameras all focused on the SAME areas? You're one man covering a fast moving sport with a hand held camera. You need skill, experience and an OVF



Agreed. People often assume I’m being facetious, but I’m not when I say that someone should make an SLR with an EVF. For birding, sports, otherwise extended viewing scenarios, and very bright environments, use OVF. For others, use EVF. One could easily package an EVF into an SLR form factor; top left (shooter’s POV) is prime territory.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Hi Jack, on one day of shooting I've exceeded 10,000 shot for international sporting events. Staring at a screen for everything I don't want to shoot would be INSANITY. To anyone who has not shot Freestyle kitesurfing, sat under the hoops for the NBA or shot in the end zone for the NFL, an EVF can't hack it. Ever wonder why TV networks have 4-5 $250K cameras all focused on the SAME areas? You're one man covering a fast moving sport with a hand held camera. You need skill, experience and an OVF



I believe you, trust me. That's why we need to be careful before accepting many of the uneducated comments that appear on CR. Sure all opinions are welcome but not all are equally useful.

Jack


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 25, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> I believe you, trust me. That's why we need to be careful before accepting many of the uneducated comments that appear on CR. Sure all opinions are welcome but not all are equally useful.
> 
> Jack


Best to you and eveyone who has pro sports exp and has had enough of the marketing BS about EVF for pro sports shooting. The world has gone nuts!!


----------



## dak723 (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Best to you and eveyone who has pro sports exp and has had enough of the marketing BS about EVF for pro sports shooting. The world has gone nuts!!



I don't think it is marketing BS so much as forum BS. As Jack said, there are far too many uneducated comments. If people don't have actual experience with a camera, they really should say so - and admit that they don't actually know much about it. But, unfortunately, forums aren't about discussion and sharing information. They are about people pushing their agendas, trying to one-up others, and often just making up crap in order to support their arguments.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I don't think it is marketing BS so much as forum BS. As Jack said, there are far too many uneducated comments. If people don't have actual experience with a camera, they really should say so - and admit that they don't actually know much about it. But, unfortunately, forums aren't about discussion and sharing information. They are about people pushing their agendas, trying to one-up others, and often just making up crap in order to support their arguments.


There is enough proper discussion and sharing of infoprmation to make CR worthwhile, and the BS gets stamped upon.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 25, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Mirrorless isn’t revolutionary, it’s at best evolutionary. However, it is very processor-limited. Since processors show no sign of slowing their advancements, I wouldn’t expect mirrorless cameras to slow theirs.



As PC evolution shows, we didn't get anything new since the seventies, except smaller. Digital made cameras smaller, but we've already hit the wall due to physics of sensor area and lens size.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Long cycle times just like the iPhone, laptops etc?



iPhones are <$1,000 fashion items, just like clothes. High end cameras are >$2,000 work tools. Therefore, no - not alike.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> iPhones are <$1,000 fashion items, just like clothes. High end cameras are >$2,000 work tools. Therefore, no - not alike.


The topgrade iPhone is $1349. Laptops that are work tools cost >$2000. They have short cycle times because of new specs. They might be fashion items to you, but the cellphones get improved cameras each generation and laptops get faster and faster. And there are enough photo enthusiasts who upgrade their camera gear when new more highly specced upgrades are released.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Best to you and eveyone who has pro sports exp and has had enough of the marketing BS about EVF for pro sports shooting. The world has gone nuts!!


No its not marketing BS exclusively, I know a working couple who are pro sports shooters who sold all their Canon gear, including 1DX MkII's, this year and moved to A9's. They are very happy as, for their specific specialty, the truly silent shutter is worth it alone. But in general the demise of the flagship DSLR is overstated and there is a decent sized number of hardcore users who are so embedded in the form factor they will never change. 

I wonder if I will....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> As PC evolution shows, we didn't get anything new since the seventies



Say what?


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 25, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Say what?


Yeah. I had to "wow" that one myself.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah. I had to "wow" that one myself.



It’s pretty funny to post that on a platform spanning the world facilitating practically instant communication in multiple forms, inconceivable in the 70s, and powered by the PC revolution 

All I can possibly think of what was meant is that computers do fundamentally the same thing now as in the 70s: pass data through transistor based logic gates to perform operations.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 25, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No its not marketing BS exclusively, I know a working couple who are pro sports shooters who sold all their Canon gear, including 1DX MkII's, this year and moved to A9's. They are very happy as, for their specific specialty, the truly silent shutter is worth it alone. But in general the demise of the flagship DSLR is overstated and there is a decent sized number of hardcore users who are so embedded in the form factor they will never change.
> 
> I wonder if I will....


Curious, what action sport that a professional sports photographer shoots where a silent camera is preferred? First for me in 30 years. NFL no, NBA no, MLB, no, Soccer no, Boxing no, NHL no, Kitesurfing no, Olympics no, Extreme sports no.... I shot for all and have never had exposure to this. You must tell me... Its driving me nuts!!!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Curious, what action sport that a professional sports photographer shoots where a silent camera is preferred? First for me in 30 years. NFL no, NBA no, MLB, no, Soccer no, Boxing no, NHL no, Kitesurfing no, Olympics no, Extreme sports no.... I shot for all and have never had exposure to this. You must tell me... Its driving me nuts!!!


If golf an action sport?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 25, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Say what?



The Internet started developing in the sixties, GUI in the seventies. The WWW, as a fusion, came up in the late eighties. Windows was GUI on DOS. Windows NT had nothing new over seventies operating systems, like OpenVMS and Mac. Kodak started developing digital cameras in '75. I'll give way to the claim we didn't get a digital camera till 2000.

Bigger (= more pixels, more RAM), smaller (form factor), faster (more MHz) is more of the same. Evolution going forward.

So what new technologies did we get in the last twenty years?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> The Internet started developing in the sixties, GUI in the seventies. The WWW, as a fusion, came up in the late eighties. Windows was GUI on DOS. Windows NT had nothing new over seventies operating systems, like OpenVMS and Mac. Kodak started developing digital cameras in '75. I'll give way to the claim we didn't get a digital camera till 2000.
> 
> Bigger (= more pixels, more RAM), smaller (form factor), faster (more MHz) is more of the same. Evolution going forward.
> 
> So what new technologies did we get in the last twenty years?



2018-1970 is far more than 20 years.

Think about it this way: what software do you use today? Could it run on a 1970 machine? Certainly not. Could it run on a 1998 machine? Probably not; most things are 64-bit. Those software abilities are enabled by the advances in processor design. Are those advanced facilitated by size? Sure; you can now fit 40 cores on a single chip. You would have me believe that is “nothing new,” yet the capabilities extend nonetheless. I expect camera makers to exploit those continued advances.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> ..... I'll give way to the claim we didn't get a digital camera till 2000.
> .....


Your history is a bit weak. I had a Casio QV10 digital camera in 1995, which was good enough for mugshots of my students and a 1.3 mpx Agfa in 1998 which produced some very nice shots.


----------



## degos (Dec 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Long cycle times just like the iPhone, laptops etc?



Cycle times for coal-face developer kit in the IT industry have gone from three years in the late 90s / 2000s to five years. Some hero roles might get new kit every year or two but they are a tiny minority. Non-dev cycles are five to seven years.

Phone cycle periods are also slowing, three years is common now for Android and Apple back-support OS upgrades for five years.

What amateur photographers do with their kit is orthogonal to what companies do. Canon has the 1D and 5D lines integrated with corporate cycle times, not rich amateurs. Buy to match, build to beat: when every company has access to the same kit there's no competitive advantage to faster cycle times, the advantage comes through improving skills and opportunities.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Curious, what action sport that a professional sports photographer shoots where a silent camera is preferred? First for me in 30 years. NFL no, NBA no, MLB, no, Soccer no, Boxing no, NHL no, Kitesurfing no, Olympics no, Extreme sports no.... I shot for all and have never had exposure to this. You must tell me... Its driving me nuts!!!


Golf, Beer Pong, and Coitus.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Your history is a bit weak. I had a Casio QV10 digital camera in 1995, which was good enough for mugshots of my students and a 1.3 mpx Agfa in 1998 which produced some very nice shots.


Some time in the mid-late 1990's we had a (cough) Sony with a 3.5" floppy that I thought was pretty amazing at the time.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 25, 2018)

degos said:


> Cycle times for coal-face developer kit in the IT industry have gone from three years in the late 90s / 2000s to five years. Some hero roles might get new kit every year or two but they are a tiny minority. Non-dev cycles are five to seven years.
> 
> Phone cycle periods are also slowing, three years is common now for Android and Apple back-support OS upgrades for five years.
> 
> What amateur photographers do with their kit is orthogonal to what companies do. Canon has the 1D and 5D lines integrated with corporate cycle times, not rich amateurs. Buy to match, build to beat: when every company has access to the same kit there's no competitive advantage to faster cycle times, the advantage comes through improving skills and opportunities.


Not necessarily so as corporate cycles vary with corporation. Canon is very long, Sony is very short with 2 year cycles for the flagship A7R-A7RII-A7RIII.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 25, 2018)

peters said:


> There is so much wrong with the 1dx II, its REALY time for an upgrade. Compared to the 5d iv it feels realy ancient (though it is incredible fast). It just lacks basic stuff without any reason... intervallometer, a working touchscreen, at least a bit of advanced video options...



Maybe, but it is an incredible camera and those things don't bother me a bit.

What bothers me is a likely >$6500.00 USD price tag and a questionable life expectancy of the lens mount?

I'll hold onto my beloved 1DXII for a long time.

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 25, 2018)

gzroxas said:


> Actually, I think Canon should really push the boundaries of their knowledge on the mirrorless system to try and create a 1DX Mirrorless Body that rocks!
> As long as they say “hmm we can’t with mirrorless and so we should still make a DSLR” they won’t be making great leap forwards like other competitors did.
> We can wait a bit more if they can deliver with that, at least in my opinion. What do you guys think?


I am excited about mirrorless but the cost of the lenses isn't cheap. The thought of having my glass collection being instantly obsolete is gut wrenching.

Scott


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Curious, what action sport that a professional sports photographer shoots where a silent camera is preferred? First for me in 30 years. NFL no, NBA no, MLB, no, Soccer no, Boxing no, NHL no, Kitesurfing no, Olympics no, Extreme sports no.... I shot for all and have never had exposure to this. You must tell me... Its driving me nuts!!!


Golf mainly with a healthy side of tennis. Both benefit from the silent shutter as tennis courts are so small, and the 20 fps allow more consistent ball touching club/racket shots and ball in frame shots. Yes we all got by without those functions, they find it more consistent and get more sale-able shots with them.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 25, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Golf mainly with a healthy side of tennis. Both benefit from the silent shutter as tennis courts are so small, and the 20 fps allow more consistent ball touching club/racket shots and ball in frame shots. Yes we all got by without those functions, they find it more consistent and get more sale-able shots with them.


Never thought of golf as an action sport or tennis but I guess tennis could be considered quick. How someone would justify a camera being better because it makes less noise for golf is a bit of a stretch... but as my uncle always falls asleep watching it, I guess we don't want to wake anyone up!!! The guys I know who shoot golf are far away with 200-400's and 1.4 TC 's... I dont think they are waking anyone up ROFL


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 25, 2018)

CR for the humour.

Jack


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 25, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Never thought of golf as an action sport or tennis but I guess tennis could be considered quick.



Note the OP never used the phrase “action sports,” which I don’t believe is an established category.

He said “pro sports shooters.”


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 26, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Never thought of golf as an action sport or tennis but I guess tennis could be considered quick. How someone would justify a camera being better because it makes less noise for golf is a bit of a stretch... but as my uncle always falls asleep watching it, I guess we don't want to wake anyone up!!! The guys I know who shoot golf are far away with 200-400's and 1.4 TC 's... I dont think they are waking anyone up ROFL


No pro golf is very serious and very quiet, photographers have to be silent especially on the back swing which is when many of the most dynamic images are taken. Having a silent shutter allows you to use a wide angle lens rather than a telephoto to get a much more dynamic image. It was the silent shooting for golf that was the biggie. I've shot some pro-am stuff and even then they take noise from photographers or spectators very seriously.

Pro tennis is more about the fps as they are not as touchy about camera shutters, but it doesn't hurt...


----------



## ethanz (Dec 26, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No pro golf is very serious and very quiet, photographers have to be silent especially on the back swing which is when many of the most dynamic images are taken. Having a silent shutter allows you to use a wide angle lens rather than a telephoto to get a much more dynamic image. It was the silent shooting for golf that was the biggie. I've shot some pro-am stuff and even then they take noise from photographers or spectators very seriously.
> 
> Pro tennis is more about the fps as they are not as touchy about camera shutters, but it doesn't hurt...



Yeah, tennis is very fast paced. Need good AF and FPS.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 26, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Never thought of golf as an action sport...How someone would justify a camera being better because it makes less noise for golf is a bit of a stretch.../QUOTE]
> 
> I shoot college golf (as well as all other sports). It is definitely an action sport. Catching that ball on a drive is very much hit or miss, even with a 1Dx II. Best shots usually come in the sand traps. The odds of catching the ball go up a lot, but you still need to stop the action and 10+ fps is pretty much required (at least for me). As for silent shutter, when a golfer is putting, it's just common courtesy to keep things as quiet as possible, even if it's just small college golf. Maybe professional golf is shot with 200-400 with teleconverter, but I'm usually using a 100-400 II and shooting from the edge of the fairway or green. 400mm, even with a 1.6x still requires you to be fairly close to get good shots.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 26, 2018)

I think you mean a 1.4TC There is no 1.6TC

If you consider golf to be an action sport, we seriously are of different schools of thought of why a sports photographer even buys a 1DXMKII to make a living. 

Golfers don't move. Feet planted like a potted plant. Frame them out, shoot.... done. Hard to capture ball? Not with a 1DXMKII.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 26, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No pro golf is very serious and very quiet, photographers have to be silent especially on the back swing which is when many of the most dynamic images are taken. Having a silent shutter allows you to use a wide angle lens rather than a telephoto to get a much more dynamic image. It was the silent shooting for golf that was the biggie. I've shot some pro-am stuff and even then they take noise from photographers or spectators very seriously.
> 
> Pro tennis is more about the fps as they are not as touchy about camera shutters, but it doesn't hurt...


Serious question here. I know that good strides have been made with electronic shutters but how do they go with rolling shutter while shooting golf? Is the trade off for a silent 20fps worth the negative effect of the rolling shutter?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 26, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Serious question here. I know that good strides have been made with electronic shutters but how do they go with rolling shutter while shooting golf? Is the trade off for a silent 20fps worth the negative effect of the rolling shutter?


Supposedly (note: I’ve not used one, just read up on them) the readout is fast enough that rolling shutter distortion is generally inconsequential. It probably won’t surpass mechanical curtains (which roll too) until they use global shutters, however that could be next generation if they choose (canon too).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2018)

Coming back to cycle times and long in the tooth, I like the Olympus model of having long cycle times and firmware updates, followed by a very major upgrade in their flagship. Sony has got where it is by having frequent upgrades at the expense of their customers. The ATRII had rave reports from DPR etc, which took me into buying and fortunately immediately returning it as not being up to what was expected. When the A7RIII was released, 18 months later, it was described as being what the A7RIII should have been.The RX10 series is one of their extremes with upgrades from Mk1 to MkIV in 16 month steps. But, each step has seen a major improvement and the MkIV is quite remarkable. Canon tends to get things right when they release a new model, but they can be very slow with their high end models. The 7DII desperately needs to be updated.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 26, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Serious question here. I know that good strides have been made with electronic shutters but how do they go with rolling shutter while shooting golf? Is the trade off for a silent 20fps worth the negative effect of the rolling shutter?


Unfortunately I don't know personally, they say there is no problem but neither of them are camera geeks, they are sports geeks, so the truth is I wouldn't be surprised if there was some effect they might not notice it. I suppose the point is they are very happy with their migration for their very specific uses.

As for those people saying golf isn't a sport and tennis isn't an action sport, really? Roger Fedora and Phil Mickelson have higher name recognition and brand value than pretty much anyone in the NFL/NBA on a worldwide basis apart from LeBron James. Heck Serena Williams even bests Tom Brady for brand value.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 26, 2018)

I have the Mark 1 and II. I am not sure this CR2 will come true, but it does make me wonder whether I should sell my Mark I sharpish. There's very little that Canon can improve on with the 1D series. Sure built-in wifi, a few more fps, etc would be nice. Touch screen would only be good if can turn it off but really it's amazing.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Supposedly (note: I’ve not used one, just read up on them) the readout is fast enough that rolling shutter distortion is generally inconsequential. It probably won’t surpass mechanical curtains (which roll too) until they use global shutters, however that could be next generation if they choose (canon too).


I have just downloaded several bursts at 24 fps from my RX10IV of a tournament tennis player practicing serving this afternoon. There was no observable rolling shutter from the racquet. Sony has the rolling shutter problem licked with their fast read-out sensors, and no doubt Canon will do the same in the future.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Dec 26, 2018)

FYI, i write this with 10 years of experience shooting sports.
That includes the EURO2016 and the recent FIFA WC in Russia.
(Some sample images and tear sheet from the recent WC can be found here:
https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000FrucfpGrwrQ )



privatebydesign said:


> Golf mainly with a healthy side of tennis. Both benefit from the silent shutter as tennis courts are so small, and the 20 fps allow more consistent ball touching club/racket shots and ball in frame shots. Yes we all got by without those functions, they find it more consistent and get more sale-able shots with them.



I would like to say that the photographers timing is fare more important than the FPS number on the camera.
And that 20 images per second for sure will fill your memory card with a lot of crap.




Professional sports photographers generally knows how to time the photos well enough to be just fine without 20 FPS.
I actually challenged myself a couple of years ago with shooting soccer in "single action mode":
And had more keepers than i use to do otherwise.

https://blog.jkpg-sports.photo/2014/08/challenging-myself-soccer-in-shoot-mode.html



Josh Leavitt said:


> It's probably a reasonable expectation that Canon would release a 1DX3 prior to the 2020 Olympic games. If dual DIGIC 8+ processors can yield 50% more throughput than the dual DIGIC 6+ processors in the 1DX2 (I'm assuming that's not a stretch), then it's possible for the 1DX3 to sport a 30MP sensor at the same 16fps of the 1DX2 - I think the bump in resolution and improved noise management at high ISO would be welcome additions in the wake of an increasingly competitive full-frame market.
> 
> My personal wishlist for some new features on such a camera would be:
> 
> ...



I agree on most of the above. Expect XLR, it would make the camera even bigger due to the big contact needed.
And i really don't like the idea of an articulation screen. It would defiantly increase the risk for the camera to break.
Actually the screen of the 1D-series is built in to the body in way that you can't replace it without replacing the whole back cover.
And that is for a good reason. It improves the strength of the body.

When it comes to "touch screen". Real buttons is preferred by pro photographers.
The reason for that is that we use muscle memory when we work.
Usually with one eye looking thru the OWF, So the feedback from the buttons is important. And actually makes things work a lot faster.

When it comes to memory cards, i really don't like the CF-card slot on the 1Dx mkII.
The major reason is that the read speed on the card slows down the transfer speed when you are transferring images direct from the camera thru FTP.
Someting i done several times. In order to publish images "live" on internet during sports events.
And while the images are transferring, You can't "write protect" the images.

Another thing i truly wish for is the ability to get "live transfered images" to become automatically write protected, (This is possible with the Nikon D5) . Or "tagged", so that i will be able to find them fast when i ingest the memory cards to the computer. I do use software in which i can sort images from whatever they are write protected or not. It also ingest "tagged"/write protected first, and the other images after that.
So this would actually be much useful to me.
Again, read speed on the memory cards make big difference, here as well.

Also i would like FTP transfer straight from the camera to become a bit more stable.

Another thing that would be useful to me would be an updated GPS-module. That acquires GPS-signals faster.
The reason for that is when you are working for the major agencies. Time stamps in the images truly need to be exact to the second.
And sadly, iv´e found the built in GPS to not really be that stable when i travelled all over Russia earlier this year.
(I worked in three different time zones, so this was actually a real issue to me).

I do also miss the possibility to straighten images directly in the camera.



melgross said:


> Professionals rarely crop more than to adjust minor framing mishaps. Zoom lenses are made for those needs.. I’m not saying it NEVER happens, but there’s a very good reason why the top pro models have remained at about the same resolution for a long time,maven moving down.



Pro sports photographers do crop, & straighten, images, a lot. More than 99% i would like to say.
That said, for a "double header"/full coverage image, in a tabloid newspaper. You will be just fine with 1500 Pixels on the long side.
I.E. about 1,5 MP.
The image above is both straightened and heavily cropped.
(Shoot with 1Dx mkII and 400/2,8L IS II USM).

/Daniel.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 26, 2018)

It's a pleasure to hear from a real pro!
Thanks, Daniel.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 26, 2018)

The 1DX2 is good for semi-incompetent photographers like me so that we can occasionally get some "hard to time" action shots. Culling after shoots like this is tedious!

Jack


----------



## Click (Dec 26, 2018)

Very nice shot, Jack.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 26, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> FYI, i write this with 10 years of experience shooting sports.
> That includes the EURO2016 and the recent FIFA WC in Russia.
> (Some sample images and tear sheet from the recent WC can be found here:
> https://agency.jkpg-sports.photo/index/G0000FrucfpGrwrQ )
> ...


I crop and crop and crop. Shooting with primes you have to. Perfectly good and would rather have full image of my choice. We all try and fill our frames to optimize resolution.


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 26, 2018)

dba101 said:


> One thing is for sure here and kitesurfing is lame. It’s repetitive aswell so you could shoot on anything.
> You make yourself sound like a photo god rolling into town on your gold wing meat loaf blaring.
> Times change you’d be best advised to catch up a bit.
> You are arguing with yourself.



Traveling from Hawaii, to Bora Bora, to Aruba and the U.S. to shoot kitesurfing I can assure you it's not lame. The athletes, sports magazines, fans and equipment manufacturers would disagree. Kitesurfing will now be an Olympic Sport. There are 5 top kitesurfing photographers in the world 3 of them also shoot fashion. And two are just as well known in Paris, London or New York for Vogue, Fashion Week as well as Sports Illustrated and Extreme Sports. Having worked with CPS very closely anyone will say I'm not a fanboy. Mirrorless is not ready and the 1DXMKII will out shoot the D5 in equally capable hands. Start looking at the Aruba Kitesurfing community then move to Hawaii. I hope you'll see some amazing work by talented photographers who are dedicated to capturing shots that evoke emotion. Good luck to you!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 26, 2018)

All of us tend to form opinions based sometimes on too limited information. In that case they may have some validity or be quite in error so it's safer not to express them. Personally, I think it's stated well in a nursery rime about a wise owl who sat in an oak.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Wise_Old_Owl You guessed it, my kids tend to hate my advice.

I'll be very surprised if the 1DX2 is the last DSLR version but beyond that I won't venture a prediction.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 26, 2018)

Thanks click and others - didn't post it for likes but that's OK.

Jack


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 27, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I spent a couple decades in publishing and I could count on one hand the number of times I published an uncropped image. That's an internet myth. In fact, the better photographers I published intentionally shot "loose" so that art directors and layout artists wouldn't have problems with composition. I've seen far more artwork discarded for being shot too tight than for having to be excessively cropped. We may have different definitions of who are and are not "professionals".
> 
> edit: Sorry if that makes me sound like a jerk. Amazon has been telling me for the last six hours that they are only two stops away with my delivery.



Every Editor, wants space for copy or the crop they want. Rarely is a photo not cropped.... with the exception of portraits.... Don't mess with my portraits


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 27, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> The 1DX2 is good for semi-incompetent photographers like me so that we can occasionally get some "hard to time" action shots. Culling after shoots like this is tedious!
> 
> Jack
> View attachment 182287


Cool photo. Interesting crop. Looks like 16:9.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Cool photo. Interesting crop. Looks like 16:9.



Thanks. Just cropped for my computer friends viewing

Jack


----------



## reef58 (Dec 27, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> The 1DX2 is good for semi-incompetent photographers like me so that we can occasionally get some "hard to time" action shots. Culling after shoots like this is tedious!
> 
> Jack
> View attachment 182287



Nice


----------



## melgross (Dec 27, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> iPhones are <$1,000 fashion items, just like clothes. High end cameras are >$2,000 work tools. Therefore, no - not alike.


Fashion items that major motion picture producers are using for movie releases, and that some Tv shows have incorporated into their regular production. In addition I’m seeing fashion shoots and even some product photography being done with these.


----------



## melgross (Dec 27, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> No pro golf is very serious and very quiet, photographers have to be silent especially on the back swing which is when many of the most dynamic images are taken. Having a silent shutter allows you to use a wide angle lens rather than a telephoto to get a much more dynamic image. It was the silent shooting for golf that was the biggie. I've shot some pro-am stuff and even then they take noise from photographers or spectators very seriously.
> 
> Pro tennis is more about the fps as they are not as touchy about camera shutters, but it doesn't hurt...


I doubt if anyone cares about shutter slap on the golf course. You’re standing at least a couple of dozen feet away, at the closest. You’re outdoors too.

It’s interesting that it’s mainly the USA and Canada that’s concerned about noise on the golf course. Go to Asia, for example, and people are screaming while the swing is in progress.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Thanks. Just cropped for my computer friends viewing
> 
> Jack


Jack I saw some of your bird photos. They are fantastic.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 27, 2018)

Tron, thanks for the complement. The reality is that anyone who is persistent can get what I do because other than having reasonable understanding of camera controls they are just plan, wait and shoot or even just a lucky break (talking mainly wildlife here). Hopefully, this true comment is an encouragement to those who are tempted to dive in as I did a few years ago. It is of course important to investigate the basics of composition as suggested to me by others on CR such as PBD. CR is great for motivation and ideas and GAS.

Those who have bad mouthed CR on occasion are off track as far as I'm concerned and probably too thin skinned... or don't have a sense of humour. 

Jack


----------



## sportskjutaren (Dec 27, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Every Editor, wants space for copy or the crop they want. Rarely is a photo not cropped.... with the exception of portraits.... Don't mess with my portraits


True!
Still, i crop most of my work. In a way so it can be even more cropped


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2018)

melgross said:


> I doubt if anyone cares about shutter slap on the golf course. You’re standing at least a couple of dozen feet away, at the closest. You’re outdoors too.
> 
> It’s interesting that it’s mainly the USA and Canada that’s concerned about noise on the golf course. Go to Asia, for example, and people are screaming while the swing is in progress.


I don't shoot golf professionally, but I know a couple who do at the highest level, their main reason for swapping from a full professional Canon kit to Sony was the A9's silent shutter. What else do you want me to say? They are liars, they swapped because DPR told them to?

Get a grip everybody, Canon is not the answer to every shooters question, neither is Nikon or Sony. I know a couple of high end sports pros who swapped, so what? Sony and Nikon have features Canon don't and some shooters prioritize those features over ones Canon has.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 28, 2018)

sportskjutaren said:


> Professional sports photographers generally knows how to time the photos well enough to be just fine without 20 FPS.
> I actually challenged myself a couple of years ago with shooting soccer in "single action mode":
> And had more keepers than i use to do otherwise.
> /Daniel.



Interesting comments. I liked most of your text, although for my sports shooting it's difficult to say what fps would be optimal.

I shoot Japanese sword fighting a.k.a. kendo. The fighters try to make their attacks surprises to the opponent, so that means I also need to figure out when they might attack or they might surprise me too. I can't just hold down shutter for the whole match or my card would be full in no time. Also the actual contact (which makes usually for best picture) is very short duration. I think if I waited when I know they attack, and use single shot trying to capture the contact, I would almost never get it.

Instead, usually I keep tracking the players with half-press, and when I feel they might attack I already press down, hoping they actually do attack. Otherwise I'm never early enough to capture the contact. Especially on higher level where people are crazy fast. Then the fps count helps "getting lucky" by capturing the actual contact. I'd say roughly 10% of all attacks I shoot I get the contact timing correctly. (shooting with 1DX 12fps, around 1/400).

So for me higher FPS would help "getting lucky" with the strike, but naturally it would add more culling too. Sometimes I toy with the idea of shooting video and capturing the frames. If I could shoot 1080p240 with shutter at 1/480, that would be interesting experiment.

One from recent competition:






One of my best shots at the world championships:





He's so blazingly fast I don't think without the method I mention above, I could have caught the strike.

If there was camera that had variable fps setting (with high enough limit), I'd probably be using around 16-20fps for my shooting. I'm really curious to see what the 1DX3 can do.

Also here's example of "video" I made from 1DX frames (not sure how to insert here, so post link instead (link seems to work... interesting...)):




__ https://www.facebook.com/KendoPhotography/posts/1226144280885941


----------



## GoldWing (Dec 28, 2018)

tpatana said:


> Interesting comments. I liked most of your text, although for my sports shooting it's difficult to say what fps would be optimal.
> 
> I shoot Japanese sword fighting a.k.a. kendo. The fighters try to make their attacks surprises to the opponent, so that means I also need to figure out when they might attack or they might surprise me too. I can't just hold down shutter for the whole match or my card would be full in no time. Also the actual contact (which makes usually for best picture) is very short duration. I think if I waited when I know they attack, and use single shot trying to capture the contact, I would almost never get it.
> 
> ...


Great stuff! Amazed you're getting this at 1/400. Nice work!


----------



## tpatana (Dec 28, 2018)

GoldWing said:


> Great stuff! Amazed you're getting this at 1/400. Nice work!



Thanks. Most places are too dim to go any faster than that. 99% shooting with 70-200 @ 2.8 and ISO6400. I recently bought Sigma 85/1.4, so I might use that on second body. Probably shooting @ F2.0 to give bit more depth, so then I can relax ISO by one stop or go one stop faster shutter. At Tokyo world champs they increased lights for semi-finals and finals by about 1 stop. This summer in Korea it was ~0.5 stops brighter than usually. Most gyms it's 1/400 F2.8 ISO6400 all day.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 29, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Sony says a successor to the A9 is coming. Look out! Canon is certainly facing a lot of pressure from Sony and Nikon.



As I read these posts, I wonder why so many people feel pressured to make a purchase right now? Is this GAS, or a real need?

I am fascinated by the new R but it isn't quite what I would like to own for a few years (maybe the next iteration), and certainly, the lenses will be a huge investment. 

All told, though I really WANT the new system, I don't NEED it, so I don't fee the same urgency. I am not a professional, but rather an avid enthusiast.

So, for all the people with an itchy trigger finger who feel that they MUST buy NOW a mirrorless that meet their needs (including "jumping ship"), why is that?

I'm not intending a flame war here, just curious.

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 29, 2018)

ethanz said:


> You must be crazy and delusional to be happy with them. Sorry to break it to you.


Wow, I surely would like to see your work. Can you please post a link?

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 29, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> That's how I do it as well. Much appreciation to Grant Atkinson and whoever posted the link to that video on CR.


Will you post that link please?

Thanks.

Scott


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2018)

djack41 said:


> Sony says a successor to the A9 is coming. Look out! Canon is certainly facing a lot of pressure from Sony and Nikon.


Look out – reality is tapping you on the shoulder because you're ignoring it. Yeah, selling more ILCs than Sony and Nikon every year and leading the market by a very large margin does indeed put pressure on Canon.


----------



## ethanz (Dec 29, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> Wow, I surely would like to see your work. Can you please post a link?
> 
> Scott



It was sarcasm. I have one of those cameras and love it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > You must be crazy and delusional to be happy with them. Sorry to break it to you.
> ...


Scott, meet Humorous Sarcasm. Humorous Sarcasm, this is Scott. Seems you two haven't met.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Dec 29, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> Will you post that link please?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Scott


I did put up a link to Grant's youtube video a few posts later. Post #88. Middle of page 5. A couple of posts after the one you commented on.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 29, 2018)

Scott, the need is minimal but I've thought of getting an R as a backup so I'd have more MP for non-action shots. I sold my 6D anticipating a 6D2 for my backup but couldn't elevate the GAS. Now I'm having the same issue with the R. 

From day one buying the 1DX2 I was torn by it not having more resolution than my 6D but since I bought more reach at the same time, I've managed to be happy. Video swayed me away from the 5D4, since that was a close second choice.

I was nearly ready to commit suicide when neuro predicted the 1DX2 couldn't/wouldn't have illuminated focus points!

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2018)

Jack, TDP’s Bryan uses a 5DSR along with his 1DXII for wildlife as he is addicted to the stunning quality of its images https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Cameras/Canon-Wildlife-Camera-Recommendations.aspx
It’s not just me! I’m hanging in until there is an R equivalent of the 5DSR.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 30, 2018)

Alan, I concur but I'd never go for the older technology at this point so maybe a higher level R version or cheap used could be an option. We both know the benefits of cropping in many of our situations. I think I'll just follow you.

BTW I finally actually sold my 300 lens, lost a little but nothing to complain about.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Alan, I concur but I'd never go for the older technology at this point so maybe a higher level R version or cheap used could be an option. We both know the benefits of cropping in many of our situations. I think I'll just follow you.
> 
> BTW I finally actually sold my 300 lens, lost a little but nothing to complain about.
> 
> Jack


IMHO, the 5DSR is still the best FF on the market for IQ in reasonable light unless you are in to pushing shadows through 4 ev at 100 iso or going down coalmines, and I don't mean just Canon FF - it's better than N and S. Even DPR says its AF is good for birds in flight against clear backgrounds as it was the first Canon with iTR, which puts it ahead of the 7DII for AF as well as IQ.
Some members of CR have positive views of the R for bird photography. I have no direct experience and just read reviews. Here is one that highlights some problems https://www.holgercremer.org/single...the-EOS-R-is-useless-for-Wildlife-Photography


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 30, 2018)

Alan I'm depending on you, keep me informed! Unless the price is right I shy away from older cameras but I may start looking at a used 5DSR.

Slightly different topic, but I did a 4K 60 video of a piano performance of my son the other day and the touch focus initially just grabbed his face and held on before I even tapped. It was reassuring.

Jack


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 31, 2018)

AlanF said:


> IMHO, the 5DSR is still the best FF on the market for IQ in reasonable light unless you are in to pushing shadows through 4 ev at 100 iso or going down coalmines, and I don't mean just Canon FF - it's better than N and S. Even DPR says its AF is good for birds in flight against clear backgrounds as it was the first Canon with iTR, which puts it ahead of the 7DII for AF as well as IQ.
> Some members of CR have positive views of the R for bird photography. I have no direct experience and just read reviews. Here is one that highlights some problems https://www.holgercremer.org/single...the-EOS-R-is-useless-for-Wildlife-Photography




Coincidentally, I just bought at 5DSR super cheap beater for a deal I couldn't pass up. Was going to sell it to just make a margin on it, but I stuck it on my 500mm II, and wow, I really appreciate the additional reach and detail for BIF. Sure the frame rate isn't the best, but then again my 5D4s aren't too zippy either. For the moment, I have it on my long lens and am using the 5D4s for everything else. 

Would sell everything for an R series with 8+ FPS and 40+ mp on a sensor as good per pixel as the 5D4's. Wondering if Canon's chips could give that throughput. A "flagship" R with less than those two criteria would be harder to justify the expense of switching over.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2018)

When a new high resolution Canon comes out without an AA-filter, it will be my 5DIV that goes and my 5DSR stays!


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 31, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I did put up a link to Grant's youtube video a few posts later. Post #88. Middle of page 5. A couple of posts after the one you commented on.[/QUOTE
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Scott, meet Humorous Sarcasm. Humorous Sarcasm, this is Scott. Seems you two haven't met.



Always happy to make a new friend..

Happy New Year John.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2019)

scottkinfw said:


> Always happy to make a new friend..
> 
> Happy New Year John.


Happy New Year to you, as well!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 1, 2019)

tpatana said:


> Thanks. Most places are too dim to go any faster than that. 99% shooting with 70-200 @ 2.8 and ISO6400. I recently bought Sigma 85/1.4, so I might use that on second body. Probably shooting @ F2.0 to give bit more depth, so then I can relax ISO by one stop or go one stop faster shutter. At Tokyo world champs they increased lights for semi-finals and finals by about 1 stop. This summer in Korea it was ~0.5 stops brighter than usually. Most gyms it's 1/400 F2.8 ISO6400 all day.



Focus Speed:
Sigma 85 Art - 0.7 sec infinity to 1.35m.
Sigma 105 Art - 0.6 sec from infinity to 1.35m.
Sigma 135 Art - 0.5 Sec from infinity to 1.35m.

Source: 
https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-review/

I would give the Sigma 135 F1.4 Art a long look instead. That's only if 135mm isn't too long for you. It seems, that you do need a fast focusing lens for your assignments.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 1, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Focus Speed:
> Sigma 85 Art - 0.7 sec infinity to 1.35m.
> Sigma 105 Art - 0.6 sec from infinity to 1.35m.
> Sigma 135 Art - 0.5 Sec from infinity to 1.35m.
> ...



I don't need fast end-to-end, I just need reliable follow while half-pressed. 99% of shooting I already follow for 2-10 seconds before pushing down. I'm pretty sure any of those Sigma lenses would do fine for that (and isn't 135 F1.8, not 1.4?). 85 gives bit more room for cropping, 135 might be too tight at times and you can't make it wider in post.

Edit: Now thinking for a second, I think 99% of bit too much. Probably around 95%. The other 5% I lift up the camera and shoot, but usually the focus is about there, so again no need for end-to-end.


----------



## peters (Jan 1, 2019)

briansquibb said:


> I have had both the 5D IV and the 1DX2 and in my opinion the 1DX2 wins hands down for picture quality


Realy? In what areas exactly? Do you talk about video or photo? (4k video on the 5D IV is an embarassing piece of crap, so I will assume, you mean photo.)
Where exactly do you say the 1D is better? I own both and use both daily in my professional work. I pick the 5d IV for pretty much everything that is photo-related. The 1DX II is of course much better for video. The ONLY photo work where I pick the 1D is anything with action or sport.
In general the 5d VI got a much better image quality, higher pixel count, better JPEG correction in my opinion... the useablitiy not to mention...


----------



## Jonben99 (Jan 2, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> It's probably a reasonable expectation that Canon would release a 1DX3 prior to the 2020 Olympic games. If dual DIGIC 8+ processors can yield 50% more throughput than the dual DIGIC 6+ processors in the 1DX2 (I'm assuming that's not a stretch), then it's possible for the 1DX3 to sport a 30MP sensor at the same 16fps of the 1DX2 - I think the bump in resolution and improved noise management at high ISO would be welcome additions in the wake of an increasingly competitive full-frame market.
> 
> My personal wishlist for some new features on such a camera would be:
> 
> ...



I would add wifi (clients increasingly want to post to social media) to your list. I own the 1DX2 with the WFT and it is way too cumbersome to use for social media.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 2, 2019)

The 1DX2 RAW files respond very well to sharpening and I love the high ISO capability as a poor light shooter, but wouldn't guess it could beat the 30 MP of the 5D4 in decent light.

"4k video on the 5D IV is an embarassing piece of crap"; when I hear something like this I'm afraid I don't consider it too seriously.

I love my 1DX2 video capability and the 11-24 gives me more than enough wide angle FOV. I presently have two cheap (around $100 USD) CFast 256GB cards that surprisingly handle 4K60 so far without problem, so that's been a great find. Weight is my only complaint.

Jack


----------



## melgross (Jan 2, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't shoot golf professionally, but I know a couple who do at the highest level, their main reason for swapping from a full professional Canon kit to Sony was the A9's silent shutter. What else do you want me to say? They are liars, they swapped because DPR told them to?
> 
> Get a grip everybody, Canon is not the answer to every shooters question, neither is Nikon or Sony. I know a couple of high end sports pros who swapped, so what? Sony and Nikon have features Canon don't and some shooters prioritize those features over ones Canon has.



Since Canon has a silent shutter mode that works very well, it’s odd. Sony has problems with the first curtain slap. It’s a well known problem, and results in soft, smeary photos. It’s Sony a solution? Maybe for a few.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> Since Canon has a silent shutter mode that works very well, it’s odd. Sony has problems with the first curtain slap. It’s a well known problem, and results in soft, smeary photos. It’s Sony a solution? Maybe for a few.


Canon's silent shutter mode for 1DXII https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Sounds/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-Silent.mp3


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 2, 2019)

melgross said:


> Since Canon has a silent shutter mode that works very well, it’s odd. Sony has problems with the first curtain slap. It’s a well known problem, and results in soft, smeary photos. It’s Sony a solution? Maybe for a few.


No Canon has a 'solution' that sounds like somebody throwing a can full of nails! I do agree that compared to the older 1 series the 1DX MkII is pretty quiet, compared to the Sony it is a joke. Yet again, don't get me wrong, I don't care one way or the other and I need the Sony silence so much I own 2 1DX MkII's, but for situations where silence is demanded and enforced the A9 is incomparable for a sports shooter.

As for issues, as I said they haven't seen any and are very happy with the swap, but I am just the messenger so stop trying to shoot me, I am still shooting Canon even though I have missed wedding shots in churches because my cameras are too loud. For me the silence is not so critical, for them it is, for them it has opened up new shooting possibilities as they can use much shorter focal lengths giving new perspectives and more dynamic and intimate images. A small thing? Yes. Critical for only a few? Yes. But just a simple real world example of top end sports shooters finding alternative brands have compelling enough features to enable them to get images they previously couldn't.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 2, 2019)

If you're like me, loosing hearing, the 1DX2 sounds quieter every year (I) hardly notice it.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 2, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Canon's silent shutter mode for 1DXII https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Sounds/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II-Silent.mp3


That is not even close to the noise it makes in Continuous H 'Silent', but I can't attach an MP3 or M4a


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 3, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No Canon has a 'solution' that sounds like somebody throwing a can full of nails! I do agree that compared to the older 1 series the 1DX MkII is pretty quiet, compared to the Sony it is a joke. Yet again, don't get me wrong, I don't care one way or the other and I need the Sony silence so much I own 2 1DX MkII's, but for situations where silence is demanded and enforced the A9 is incomparable for a sports shooter.
> 
> As for issues, as I said they haven't seen any and are very happy with the swap, but I am just the messenger so stop trying to shoot me, I am still shooting Canon even though I have missed wedding shots in churches because my cameras are too loud. For me the silence is not so critical, for them it is, for them it has opened up new shooting possibilities as they can use much shorter focal lengths giving new perspectives and more dynamic and intimate images. A small thing? Yes. Critical for only a few? Yes. But just a simple real world example of top end sports shooters finding alternative brands have compelling enough features to enable them to get images they previously couldn't.



The biggest difference is when a video team is working in parallel with a stills team. For many events, it isn't critical, but for some, like weddings among others, it can be distracting to hear the constant shutter actuation noise of a dslr. Those noises are preserved in perpetuity if the audio track is used in the edit. Canon's silent shutter simply slows down the mirror assembly, but it is misleading because it is not "silent" at all. You can somewhat mitigate that by putting the entire camera in live view, but that transition makes noise and you also lose the operation of the OVF forcing yourself to shoot in tourist mode.


----------



## beachcolonist (Jan 3, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Does any manufacturer have in-body automated AFMA? Or in the works? Put a lens on, point at a target and let the camera do the rest? That would be a great feature until mirrorless actually is fast enough to take on the work of a 1D X level of performance.


Huh? See Sony AR9.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 4, 2019)

According to spec the Sony outperforms the 1DX2 for FPS but does it really? Anyone shooting both of these who can give an honest evaluation??

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> According to spec the Sony outperforms the 1DX2 for FPS but does it really? Anyone shooting both of these who can give an honest evaluation??
> 
> Jack


Oh, Jack. Jack, Jack, Jack. Nobody cares about stuff like that. Only specs matter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> According to spec the Sony outperforms the 1DX2 for FPS but does it really? Anyone shooting both of these who can give an honest evaluation??
> 
> Jack


No first hand experience but the couple that I have mentioned that swapped from 1DX MkII's to the A9 say they are getting more shots in both golf and tennis. Who knows how well that would translate to other users and disciplines, I certainly don't...

I might be seeing them next month (to buy their 5DSr if they still have it) and might get to play with the A9 then.


----------



## tron (Jan 4, 2019)

But since someone usually wants to use Canon lenses with Sony Cameras even with firmware update the metabones adapter drops the fps to 10 (staying at 20 only for manual focus).


----------



## kaihp (Jan 4, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> According to spec the Sony outperforms the 1DX2 for FPS but does it really? Anyone shooting both of these who can give an honest evaluation??
> 
> Jack


Hit up Ryan McCormac on instagram (@cormacgp) or Alex Farinelli (falex79) - both switched to Sony last year and shoot MotoGP racing professionally. Their photos look tack sharp to me.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 5, 2019)

kaihp said:


> Hit up Ryan McCormac on instagram (@cormacgp) or Alex Farinelli (falex79) - both switched to Sony last year and shoot MotoGP racing professionally. Their photos look tack sharp to me.



I will, although it would be highly unlikely I'd switch, for the typical reasons, preferring to stay with Canon. Thanks. Can you post the actual links since I'm not getting what I think I should. Edit: https://www.instagram.com/falex79/

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I might be seeing them next month (to buy their 5DSr if they still have it) and might get to play with the A9 then.



You'll love the 5DSR. Well, I do and so do many more!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2019)

AlanF said:


> You'll love the 5DSR. Well, I do and so do many more!


Thanks Alan, I'm sure I would I'm just torn. The 5DSr is such incredible value now on the used market but the idea of a high resolution RF body that would enable me to cheaply filter the EF 11-24 and TS-E17 via the filter adapter makes more sense, not from the DSLR vs MILC point of view, just the filter utility aspect. But I know the new body will be at a premium though with the rumor the 5DSr II development was stopped it makes the probability of that high resolution RF body more likely and imminent.

Decisions decisions


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks Alan, I'm sure I would I'm just torn. The 5DSr is such incredible value now on the used market but the idea of a high resolution RF body that would enable me to cheaply filter the EF 11-24 and TS-E17 via the filter adapter makes more sense, not from the DSLR vs MILC point of view, just the filter utility aspect. But I know the new body will be at a premium though with the rumor the 5DSr II development was stopped it makes the probability of that high resolution RF body more likely and imminent.
> 
> Decisions decisions


As I have written elsewhere, when the hi-res R comes out, I will get one, keep the 5DSR and sell the 5DIV. The 5DSR is Bryan Carnathan's of TDP go-to camera.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 5, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> I will, although it would be highly unlikely I'd switch, for the typical reasons, preferring to stay with Canon. Thanks. Can you post the actual links since I'm not getting what I think I should. Edit: https://www.instagram.com/falex79/
> 
> Jack



Oh, I absolutely understand you about not switching. But if you wanted to get information from real people who've used both systems in anger, then those guys would be worth following/contacting.

You found Alex yourself - Ryan McCormac is https://www.instagram.com/cormacgp/ (hence my "@cormacgp" reference)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 5, 2019)

kaihp said:


> Oh, I absolutely understand you about not switching. But if you wanted to get information from real people who've used both systems in anger, then those guys would be worth following/contacting.
> 
> You found Alex yourself - Ryan McCormac is https://www.instagram.com/cormacgp/ (hence my "@cormacgp" reference)



Thanks. As a motorcyclist of nearly 20 years in the long ago, I find both to be very interesting. Of course being a Sony Ambassador means being positive about the gear but photos speak for themselves. One has to admire the determination of Sony and the advances they have made.

Jack


----------



## Nelu (Jan 7, 2019)

kaihp said:


> Oh, I absolutely understand you about not switching. But if you wanted to get information from real people who've used both systems in anger, then those guys would be worth following/contacting.
> 
> You found Alex yourself - Ryan McCormac is https://www.instagram.com/cormacgp/ (hence my "@cormacgp" reference)


Nice pics but I'm wondering which of them could not have been taken with a Canon?
Here's a set of shots from Lake Louise World Cup a few weeks ago; I took them all with my 1DX (the original, not the newest one):
2018_11_25-Lake Louise Men's World Cup
I've never been dissappointed in this camera and I'm still amazed how good the autofocus can be; I heard 1DX Mark II is even better so what's the problem actually? They still have a mirror so now they just stopped working because of that?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2019)

Nelu said:


> Nice pics but I'm wondering which of them could not have been taken with a Canon?


I don’t believe kaihp’s lost was intended to show photos which can not be taken with a canon camera, but rather to show photos which can be taken with a Sony a9 camera. Those are not mutually exclusive.

The initial question was about whether the spec sheet frame rate of the a9 is legitimate. A single photo can not substantiate that.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 7, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I don’t believe kaihp’s lost was intended to show photos which can not be taken with a canon camera, but rather to show photos which can be taken with a Sony a9 camera. Those are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> The initial question was about whether the spec sheet frame rate of the a9 is legitimate. A single photo can not substantiate that.



I shoot with an A9, and although I haven't done my own tests regarding its performance, imaging resource has done comprehensive tests with both cameras.

The A9 can hit 20fps. But there are caveats as certain older Sony lenses are limited to 15fps and uncompressed RAW drops to 12fps or so. The mechanical shutter is limited to 5fps so that would include any flash related work. The buffer is deep, but buffer clearing is slow for JPEGS.

The 1DX2 OTOH can reach 14fps consistently in all modes. Canon advertises 16fps in LV with af/ae locked, but it seems they were only able to reach 14.3fps. Flash sync is available at the 14fps. The buffer also clears faster and is deeper than the Sony.

Yet this is only 1 comparison metric, and there are a ton of other differences between the two including a fairly large price differential between these two cameras ($2400 difference CAD in my local area). You have to weigh those differences in its entirety and decide its relevance to your work. I don't think the A9 can entirely replace a 1DX2, especially if you consider Canon's lens ecosystem, but Canon has been in the sports flagship game for a VERY long time, and I wouldn't be surprised to see remaining gaps to narrow substantially given how much was progress was made with the A9.


----------



## gzroxas (Jan 10, 2019)

scottkinfw said:


> I am excited about mirrorless but the cost of the lenses isn't cheap. The thought of having my glass collection being instantly obsolete is gut wrenching.
> 
> Scott


I’m sure it must be tough! I don’t have a lot of expensive lenses yet but I’d avoid having to sell them anyway
The good thing is the EF-R adapter works perfectly, so I think you won’t have a huge problem with it!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

ethanz said:


> The 1dx2 is a great camera. Image quality is excellent, maybe better than 5d4. Video is great. Not sure how it feels "really ancient."



Those who have never used the 1D X Mark II don't understand this:

The straight out of camera JPEG image quality and color is superior to any other stills camera Canon has on the market. The same is true of video compared to other "stills" cameras.

Those who use the 1D X Mark II are the type of shooters who need to shoot JPEGs in order to move them _fast_ almost as soon as the image was taken.

Those who used the 1-series cameras years ago in studios, or as landscape cameras, etc. have moved on a long time ago, either to something like the 5D Mark III or IV, 5Ds R, or to another brand.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> When the 1DX2 came out, it was an improvement, but an incremental one, where the 5D3 to the 5D4 move was much more radical.



Where do you consider the radical differences between the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV to be? It seems to me that the really radical jump in the 5-series was between the 5D Mark II to the 5D Mark III. To my eyes the 5D3 → 5D4 was about as much of an incremental upgrade as the 1D X → 1D X II was.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Those who have never used the 1D X Mark II don't understand this:
> 
> The straight out of camera JPEG image quality and color is superior to any other stills camera Canon has on the market. The same is true of video compared to other "stills" cameras.
> 
> ...


Not too sure I agree with the generalization. I shoot exclusively with 1DX MkIIs and very rarely shoot jpegs, I am all about the RAW files.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Not too sure I agree with the generalization. I shoot exclusively with 1DX MkIIs and very rarely shoot jpegs, I am all about the RAW files.



Then you are one of the few exceptions to the rule. Working photojournalists and sports shooters are the primary users of the 1D X Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

AlanF said:


> IMHO, the 5DSR is still the best FF on the market for IQ in reasonable light unless you are in to pushing shadows through 4 ev at 100 iso or going down coalmines, and I don't mean just Canon FF - it's better than N and S. Even DPR says its AF is good for birds in flight against clear backgrounds as it was the first Canon with iTR, which puts it ahead of the 7DII for AF as well as IQ.
> Some members of CR have positive views of the R for bird photography. I have no direct experience and just read reviews. Here is one that highlights some problems https://www.holgercremer.org/single...the-EOS-R-is-useless-for-Wildlife-Photography



The 7D Mark II, released in Q4 of 2014, also has iTR. Of course the AF system is limited by the narrower baseline of an APS-C sized mirror and (as it relates to the RGB+IR light meter that assists iFR) focusing screen.

*But the original camera with iTR was the 1D X back in 2012.*


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2019)

Hmm, I know three other 1DX MkII users and all three of them capture RAW, two do a mix of processed RAW and jpegs for 'on the spot' uploads, one shoots RAW exclusively. 

Yes that is still a very small, insignificant, sample size but I don't think we are that unusual. All these shooters know that sometimes their best shot will need work and the on chip ADC gives a lot more latitude to do that, the 1DX MkII's most noticeable upgrade from the 1DX was that post processing latitude which is only usable when you shoot RAW.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

sportskjutaren said:


> True!
> Still, i crop most of my work. In a way so it can be even more cropped



But don't even think about cropping your best shots really tight the way you want to see them published, or the editor will just skip them for another shot that they can crop to fit their space!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

GoldWing said:


> Traveling from Hawaii, to Bora Bora, to Aruba and the U.S. to shoot kitesurfing I can assure you it's not lame. The athletes, sports magazines, fans and equipment manufacturers would disagree. Kitesurfing will now be an Olympic Sport. There are 5 top kitesurfing photographers in the world 3 of them also shoot fashion. And two are just as well known in Paris, London or New York for Vogue, Fashion Week as well as Sports Illustrated and Extreme Sports. Having worked with CPS very closely anyone will say I'm not a fanboy. Mirrorless is not ready and the 1DXMKII will out shoot the D5 in equally capable hands. Start looking at the Aruba Kitesurfing community then move to Hawaii. I hope you'll see some amazing work by talented photographers who are dedicated to capturing shots that evoke emotion. Good luck to you!



How well the 1D X Mark III compares to the Nikon D5 is totally irrelevant. How well it compares to the Nikon D6, also due out soon, will be slightly more relevant.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

unfocused said:


> If I am still shooting sports when the 1DxIII comes out, the deciding factor for me will be autofocus. That's the one area where significant improvements remain possible. I dream of a reliable face/eye detection system that actually locks on the subject and follows it around the frame while the shutter button is engaged.
> 
> For me, everything else is quibbling.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, how many professional sports shooters are left who actually make a living from it? Frames that would earn $250-500 a decade and a half ago now pay $2.50-5.00.

The true professional sports shooter has been replaced in many markets by the wealthy photo enthusiast "fan" who can afford to buy top level gear in exchange for access far better than similarly priced season tickets can provide. Ironically, the better the gear gets, the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The state of journalism in general means that even most editors at fairly high profile publications can't see the difference between 'usable' shots and 'masterful' images. The bean counters certainly can't.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

AdamBotond said:


> I would be surprised if that rumor would turn out to be true! With cycles constantly increasing between generations of high-end DSLRs in Canon in recent years, now with the market (and their focus) shifting towards MILC, it would be somewhat unexpected to see a flagship 1D successor in 3 years, when it took almost 5 years to replace the 1D-X. Not that I would mind it, I just don't think it is likely to happen.




The 1D X was introduced in Q2 of 2012. The first copies were available in time for the 2012 Summer Olympics, which ran from July 27-August 12.

The 1D X Mark II was introduced in Q1 of 2016, in time for the 2016 Summer Games, which ran from August 5-21.

That's just less than four years, not almost five.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The 7D Mark II, released in Q4 of 2014, also has iTR. Of course the AF system is limited by the narrower baseline of an APS-C sized mirror and (as it relates to the RGB+IR light meter that assists iFR) focusing screen.
> 
> *But the original camera with iTR was the 1D X back in 2012.*


You are correct, but why do you use such a huge font in bold?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2019)

Michael, you make many good points. 

Certainly I can not dispute the accuracy of the comments about Journalists and news shooters. 

I have no idea how many clueless people like me shoot with a 1DX2 but I can tell you as I've advanced in photography in recent years since going digital it didn't take very long until it hit me like a 2X4 that I absolutely would never shoot only jpeg. I can recall oh so clearly going back to adjust a cool shot only to find it wasn't RAW - WHAT! - how could I have been so dumb. 

Jack


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

ethanz said:


> I know a pro sports shooter who tried out the R (normally he has the 1dx2) and I asked him about the AF on the R for sports. He said it was fantastic.



I know more than a few "pro" sports shooters who use the 1D X II and have no idea what AFMA is. They just gripe all of the time about how their camera misses focus too much.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I know more than a few "pro" sports shooters who use the 1D X II and have no idea what AFMA is. They just gripe all of the time about how their camera misses focus too much.



Ouch. Wouldn't "pro" have to include knowing at least the basics of operating a camera! Who would hire a "pro" like that? Surely we are talking a small sample size here. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Ouch. Wouldn't "pro" have to include knowing at least the basics of operating a camera! Who would hire a "pro" like that? Surely we are talking a small sample size here.
> 
> Jack


Unfortunately in my experience Jack the answer to that is 'No'! Staggering I know but these cameras have become so complex that many users never get deep into the options they just work around what they perceive as 'issues'. A large portion of photographers are simply not gear heads, they are sports fans or lighting geeks, they just haven't kept up with camera menu options.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Michael, you make many good points.
> 
> Certainly I can not dispute the accuracy of the comments about Journalists and news shooters.
> 
> ...



The difference between what PJs and sports specialists do and what you do is that the first image, not the best image, usually wins in spot news and especially with major pro sports.

It's gotten to the point with major college football and the NFL that in some cases, if you're freelancing, you better move an image before the next snap of the football or someone else has already beaten you to it. Nobody wants to buy a 'better' version of something that hits the wires five minutes after they've already published someone else's shot.

If the event is high profile enough, there might be a small team or two from the heavy rollers on site for their shooter to feed raw images via wired FTP from camera to their servers in the media room or a production truck. But if the editing team is off-site, raw files aren't as practical as jpegs due to file sizes. Even though most major sports facilities provide private wifi to credentialed media, it can still be a struggle when everyone there is trying to use it at the same time.

When shooting in major sports venues the lighting is generally fairly consistent in each of them from one event to the next and those who care to can set custom profiles or dial in known color temperature/white balance corrections in their camera ahead of time.

I even do that with high school and mid-level college stadiums in which I shoot. I keep a "cheat sheet" of color temperature/WB correction that I use in each facility that I frequent often. In such instances, though, I'm not competing with anyone on a hot time frame and I still shoot raw. Having the CT/WB dialed in in-camera just puts me that much further ahead of the game when I start my workflow.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Unfortunately in my experience Jack the answer to that is 'No'! Staggering I know but these cameras have become so complex that many users never get deep into the options they just work around what they perceive as 'issues'. A large portion of photographers are simply not gear heads, they are sports fans or lighting geeks, they just haven't kept up with camera menu options.



Or they've been doing it so long AFMA did not exist the last time they read a camera manual. Even the 1-series did not get AFMA until 2007 when the 1Ds Mark III and the 1D Mark III introduced it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 25, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Ouch. Wouldn't "pro" have to include knowing at least the basics of operating a camera! Who would hire a "pro" like that? Surely we are talking a small sample size here.
> 
> Jack



I probably should have said photo journalists who shoot sports as a significant portion of their work. There are still newspapers with staff photographers and those are the guys I'm talking about. Most of the ones left have been shooting for newspapers since the 1980s or 1990s.


----------



## Nelu (Jan 25, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Hmm, I know three other 1DX MkII users and all three of them capture RAW, two do a mix of processed RAW and jpegs for 'on the spot' uploads, one shoots RAW exclusively.
> 
> Yes that is still a very small, insignificant, sample size but I don't think we are that unusual. All these shooters know that sometimes their best shot will need work and the on chip ADC gives a lot more latitude to do that, the 1DX MkII's most noticeable upgrade from the 1DX was that post processing latitude which is only usable when you shoot RAW.


Make it four because I also shoot a 1DX and I never took a jpeg with it in my life


----------



## unfocused (Jan 25, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> On the other hand, how many professional sports shooters are left who actually make a living from it? Frames that would earn $250-500 a decade and a half ago now pay $2.50-5.00.
> 
> The true professional sports shooter has been replaced in many markets by the wealthy photo enthusiast "fan" who can afford to buy top level gear in exchange for access far better than similarly priced season tickets can provide. Ironically, the better the gear gets, the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The state of journalism in general means that even most editors at fairly high profile publications can't see the difference between 'usable' shots and 'masterful' images. The bean counters certainly can't.



Not sure I agree. Don't confuse professional shooters who shoot sports with shooters who shoot professional sports. As an employee of a small college I shoot sports professionally, but I don't shoot professional sports. It's dangerous to predict that something will "always" exist, but I don't see anything on the horizon that would indicate that the need for high quality sports shooters for specific markets (such as education) are going away anytime soon. In fact, given how competitive the college market has become, a college or university would be foolish to use second-rate photos in their marketing materials. (Although many certainly do).

Not sure I agree either with the statement that the better the gear gets the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The expectations go up as the gear improves, so it becomes harder and harder to get the shots that stand out from crowd. Plus, from my personal perspective, it's still hard as hell to get a decent shot (player's face visible and in focus, action stopped, ball in the scene), especially when you are talking about gym lighting that puts ISO 6400, f2.8 and 1/800th of a second at the very edge of what you can use). 

One thing I do agree with, though, is that the market way undervalues the worth and cost of getting quality images, but honestly, that's been the case in most markets for 50 years or more.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 26, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Not sure I agree. Don't confuse professional shooters who shoot sports with shooters who shoot professional sports. As an employee of a small college I shoot sports professionally, but I don't shoot professional sports. It's dangerous to predict that something will "always" exist, but I don't see anything on the horizon that would indicate that the need for high quality sports shooters for specific markets (such as education) are going away anytime soon. In fact, given how competitive the college market has become, a college or university would be foolish to use second-rate photos in their marketing materials. (Although many certainly do).
> 
> Not sure I agree either with the statement that the better the gear gets the easier it is for a less capable shooter to get usable shots. The expectations go up as the gear improves, so it becomes harder and harder to get the shots that stand out from crowd. Plus, from my personal perspective, it's still hard as hell to get a decent shot (player's face visible and in focus, action stopped, ball in the scene), especially when you are talking about gym lighting that puts ISO 6400, f2.8 and 1/800th of a second at the very edge of what you can use).
> 
> One thing I do agree with, though, is that the market way undervalues the worth and cost of getting quality images, but honestly, that's been the case in most markets for 50 years or more.



I think that is what you just did when reading my previous comment. I'm talking specifically about _those who shoot professional sports_, not professionals who shoot non-professional league sports.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Where do you consider the radical differences between the 5D Mark III and the 5D Mark IV to be? It seems to me that the really radical jump in the 5-series was between the 5D Mark II to the 5D Mark III. To my eyes the 5D3 → 5D4 was about as much of an incremental upgrade as the 1D X → 1D X II was.



Yup, exactly like you say.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 28, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Not too sure I agree with the generalization. I shoot exclusively with 1DX MkIIs and very rarely shoot jpegs, I am all about the RAW files.
> 
> 
> Michael Clark said:
> ...



I shoot kendo (sports) with 1DX (Mk1). I shoot only RAW. I think shutter count around 250k at this point. For me the raw quality improvement, as slight it might be, is more important than the process speed and disk space. I understand that many sports when they want the picture out literally in minutes, they prefer jpeg.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 30, 2019)

tpatana said:


> I shoot kendo (sports) with 1DX (Mk1). I shoot only RAW. I think shutter count around 250k at this point. For me the raw quality improvement, as slight it might be, is more important than the process speed and disk space. I understand that many sports when they want the picture out literally in minutes, they prefer jpeg.



I shoot a lot of sports and I always shoot raw. Frankly, I've been processing raw for so long, it's faster for me to edit a raw file than it is a jpg file. I'm a one-man band. I shoot raw, go through the frames after a play (time allowing), during halftime and right after the game, rating the images and then download them back in the office. I can usually get 20-30 shots processed and posted to the school's website and uploaded to Dropbox for sharing with local media in a couple of hours. 

One key advantage for me is color balance. Canon's auto white balance is pretty good, but there are always a fair number of shots that need adjustment. Raw also affords me the opportunity to double-process the layers so that I can easily process one layer to optimize the face and another layer to bring down highlights in white uniforms and make other exposure adjustments. I can't imagine trying to work with a jpeg file when you are dealing with a broad range of skin tones and less than ideal lighting.


----------



## dolina (Jan 30, 2019)

A 1D X mark 2 replacement will be out before July 2020.

It will have dual CFast card slots


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

dolina said:


> A 1D X mark 2 replacement will be out before July 2020.
> 
> It will have dual CFast card slots



That's an exceedingly modest prediction. Can't you do better than that! 

It bugs me that there wasn't even a modest attempt to update the camera. For example, why it would default to CF after having removed/inserted cards when the best performance is with CFast (CF=1, CFAST=2). I tried to get them to modify photo review so you coud go back over a sequence without first having to hit the shutter (you otherwise can only view the last shot). I somehow don't think the 1DX2 is very high prioritity and doubt if an new version will have much added.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

unfocused, it's pretty clear to me that anyone shooting jpg is simply using the photos as they are shot with perhaps cropping and that's it. In that scenario speed to market is really all they care about, and that understandable. There would be no pride in any of the usual areas that constitute a great photo because it's just a wow sports photo for sports fans.

Surely anyone who cares would shoot RAW and as you say basic adjustments are quick anyway.

Jack


----------



## Pape (Jan 30, 2019)

it isnt modest prediction. if next pro model got phone they may think second card slot is waste. I think they should keep two slot or even add more just cause more cards writes faster than one.
WEird fact that R camera got just one ,may predict something like that. 
they may just runned out time to finish R camera like it was meaned.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

I guess we'll never know but I don't think the R was rushed, I think they simply didn't want it to have some things we might have wished for and 2 card slots is one of them.

Jack


----------



## Pape (Jan 30, 2019)

Yes we never know if it was rushed ,but i could imagine scenario.
Last spring nikon spys figured out ,superior canon R5R is near to be finished.
Their stradegists told if we release z6 and z7 after canon ,nobody buys them. they arent yet better than sony camera but if we release them now we get some good profit.
So they did . And now Canon was forced to released their new camera too ,to show peoples they are coming to mirrorless .
But new sensor and computers and phone wasnt finished and tested enough to be reliable.
so they just used old parts to new body.
maybe i got just too much imagination 
Yep Its also possible that they didnt wanted put all profeccional camera things to it cause too near their real pro camera release .
Peoples might just been happy about excellent R camera.
what ever it is ,something good is happening soon cause canon wouldnt leave best model without 2nd card slot without good reason.

I think message they want give with R is . Look what we can do,we are serious with mirrorless.
But leaving important things off is warning . Dont buy this camera ,cause you feel cheated when lot better camera comes half year later .
Or rather dont waste money now,cause bit later you need LOT of it


----------



## dolina (Jan 30, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> That's an exceedingly modest prediction. Can't you do better than that!
> 
> It bugs me that there wasn't even a modest attempt to update the camera. For example, why it would default to CF after having removed/inserted cards when the best performance is with CFast (CF=1, CFAST=2). I tried to get them to modify photo review so you coud go back over a sequence without first having to hit the shutter (you otherwise can only view the last shot). I somehow don't think the 1DX2 is very high prioritity and doubt if an new version will have much added.
> 
> Jack


I said dual CFast. It is implicit that it lacks CF slots.

Other things to expect is a better & more complicated AF system with more zones and focusing points. Hopefully it will be spread out to touch the edge of the image sensor frame.

A deeper buffer and more shots per second

Honestly, you cant improve the thing any further than what it is today.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jan 30, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> unfocused, it's pretty clear to me that anyone shooting jpg is simply using the photos as they are shot with perhaps cropping and that's it. In that scenario speed to market is really all they care about, and that understandable. There would be no pride in any of the usual areas that constitute a great photo because it's just a wow sports photo for sports fans.
> 
> Surely anyone who cares would shoot RAW and as you say basic adjustments are quick anyway.
> 
> Jack



Or they are submitting to one of the wire services that _require_ images be shot as jpegs in-camera. Reuters, for instance.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 30, 2019)

Michael, of course one can not argue against that scenario. The thing is, many of us are ignorant of the reality of the world that some people live in.

Pape, I think from our outside vantage point these things seem to make sense but honestly I doubt they are true, although I would allow for an element of what you describe to exist. Competition does force some adjustments, we just don't know to what extent.

dolina, I'd also bet on dual CFast. My comments were in the realm of why we never got any modest firmware updates to improve on anything in the 1DX2, illustrated by two of my peeves. 

You have to be careful in predicting things that are physically impossible such as a mirror camera having focus points similar to mirrorless. Unless there is some major breakthrough it isn't going to happen. Much like the trend to smaller integration - at some point there aren't enough electrons at the atomic level to allow further decreases and a different physical digital format not based on a transistor would be required. The law of diminishing returns takes over - think 8086 -> 486 computers and then Pentium, the pace had to slow and the focus had to shift.

I agree that there could/should be improvements in general in 1DX2 AF performance as computing speed and software/firmware implementation changes. I have this gut feeling that they are/will be abandoning anything exceedingly impressive as far as the 1DX is concerned, leaving it to simply become an historic museum piece. IOW, I don't expect a 1DX3 to be all that compelling for 1DX2 owners. Maybe a flippy screen ... nope. Lots more MP ... nope. Typical users don't want what some of us might want. That's my guess.

A very frustrating reality is that Canon won't put 1 level features into other cameras. It no longer makes sense to define a single pro 1 level camera. For example, there should be 1 level for high resolution and 1level for speed, both having illuminated focus points. Alternately, design the camera so it has large MP with a versatile crop mode so you have both speed and resolution available.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 30, 2019)

I'm not so gloomy on the prospect of the 1DX MkIII, I feel they could throw everything at it as a last hurrah.

I'd like:-

30MP
Illuminated buttons
Full touch screen
Tilt/swivel screen
Built in intavalometer
Built in wireless
240fps 1080
Same stills fps
C-Log
.CR3
Much fuller wireless control
Uncropped 4k
Built in RT flash controller
Dual pixel sub image RAW option
Dual CFast
Don't know what we'll get but none of those are unachievable...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 31, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> I'm not so gloomy on the prospect of the 1DX MkIII, I feel they could throw everything at it as a last hurrah.
> 
> I'd like:-
> 
> ...



Well in that case poor old me would revise my plans and buy one! It really disappointed me to have had 20 MP and then move to a new 1DX2 with 20 MP. Of course I wasn't alone on that I know. My compensation was coupling it with the 400 DO II X2 III and that breathed in knew life since AF has been good and 14 FPS has been great and 800mm is fine for birds.

Jack


----------



## ethanz (Jan 31, 2019)

Jack Douglas said:


> Well in that case poor old me would revise my plans and buy one! It really disappointed me to have had 20 MP and then move to a new 1DX2 with 20 MP. Of course I wasn't alone on that I know. My compensation was coupling it with the 400 DO II X2 III and that breathed in knew life since AF has been good and 14 FPS has been great and 800mm is fine for birds.
> 
> Jack



I would be ok with 30MP as long as it is not the 5d4 type sensor. I felt as if I was able to get more range in my edits from my 1dx2 than I was from a 5d4.


----------



## AdamBotond (Feb 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The 1D X was introduced in Q2 of 2012. The first copies were available in time for the 2012 Summer Olympics, which ran from July 27-August 12.
> 
> The 1D-X Mark II was introduced in Q1 of 2016, in time for the 2016 Summer Games, which ran from August 5-21.
> 
> That's just less than four years, not almost five.


1D X was announced in October 2011, so specs were pretty much given by then, no matter when it became commercially available. So from October 2011 till Feburary 2016 (announcement of the 1D-X II) its a 4 and a half years long time span. Is that correct?


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 8, 2019)

AdamBotond said:


> 1D X was announced in October 2011, so specs were pretty much given by then, no matter when it became commercially available. So from October 2011 till Feburary 2016 (announcement of the 1D-X II) its a 4 and a half years long time span. Is that correct?



Whatever the cause of the delay between the announcement in late 2011 and the first availability of camera bodies in Q2 of 2012, development of the 1D X Mark II probably did not start in earnest until the issues holding up the production of the 1D X were resolved.

Part of it was Canon's tendency back in 2011-12 to announce new products several months before anticipated availability. By 2016, Canon had a adopted much shorter lead times between official new product announcements and release dates.


----------



## cpsico (Jul 29, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Does any manufacturer have in-body automated AFMA? Or in the works? Put a lens on, point at a target and let the camera do the rest? That would be a great feature until mirrorless actually is fast enough to take on the work of a 1D X level of performance.


It would be awesome but I feel like this won’t be something we get since the Dslr is being abandoned for mirror less cameras that don’t need AFMA


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 29, 2019)

cpsico said:


> It would be awesome but I feel like this won’t be something we get since the Dslr is being abandoned for mirror less cameras that don’t need AFMA


That’s not entirely true, several mirrorless cameras have AFMA.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> That’s not entirely true, several mirrorless cameras have AFMA.



Canon doesn’t need it at least


----------



## puffo25 (Aug 6, 2019)

Hi all, I am not so interested (yet) in the EOS R as I think Canon technology is not yet so mature. I am more interest in a replacement of the EOS 5D Mark IV possible.
I am wondering if anything think that by April 2020 anything concrete will appear in shops (I mean ready to buy, NOT just rumors or announcement for later release).
Thanks in advance.
Andrea


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 6, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Canon really has communication problems. They just told us « look at this amazing lense system it’s the future » and got us excited about it, just to say right after « oh by the way forget about getting a pro camera before next cycle - which is around 4 years ». Sure. I’m happy now.


Canon didn't say anything right after. You read it on an unverified rumor site.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 6, 2019)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all, I am not so interested (yet) in the EOS R as I think Canon technology is not yet so mature. I am more interest in a replacement of the EOS 5D Mark IV possible.
> I am wondering if anything think that by April 2020 anything concrete will appear in shops (I mean ready to buy, NOT just rumors or announcement for later release).
> Thanks in advance.
> Andrea


OK , so where are the clairvoyants in our group when we need them?!  I can recall one who makes great claims but they never materialize. 

Jack


----------

