# A guy used 1DX yesterday in Germany!!



## simonxu11 (Feb 4, 2012)

It seems Canon is fixing the F8 issue!!
http://www.nikonuser.info/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1481&sid=fc1b93b823dc0fcd687f64f4f2003688


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 4, 2012)

That 1DX's are out there being used is not in doubt, just see the thread on sightings of 5D3, which also purportedly included a 1DX, what is different about this is a reason for a possible release date and delivery - that of the much maligned f8 issue.

If that is the case, it shows that Canon really did drop the ball on this issue, or expected it to be resolved with much more ease. Either way, it would be good for Canon to let the potential customers know and not some die hard Nikonian's.


----------



## JR (Feb 4, 2012)

I see this and I think ok this is good news they will fix the F8 thing, but then it also makes me realize it is strange how Canon seem to have been taken completely off guard with the Nikon D4 being able to focus at F8...if they fix this, as Canon users we should Nikon for keeping the pressure on Canon!


----------



## Flake (Feb 4, 2012)

Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?

Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 4, 2012)

I hate to be a pragmatist in a room full of brand loyalists, but I couldn't care less about the f/8 issue. At $6,800, I have no interest in purchasing a 1Dx, so why should I care? I wonder how many people complaining about the f/8 issue, crying about the delay of the 1Dx's release, or whining about why Canon hasn't released any sample pics taken by the 1Dx are actual ready to plop down the cash for a 1Dx? 

As a 1DsIII user, the 1Dx isn't the upgrade I was looking for. My next body will be a 5D3 or D800, so the specs of those two bodies are all that I care about. The 5D3 probably won't be released until after the 1Dx, so that's the only reason I care about when the latter hits the market.


----------



## aldvan (Feb 4, 2012)

Flake said:


> Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?
> 
> Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.



Lens+Extender...


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 4, 2012)

Flake said:


> Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?
> 
> Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.



Take any f4 lens, like the 300mm, 400mm DO, 500mm, 600mm add a 2X Extender, and you are at f8. f5.6 lenses + 1.4X extenders are f8. And of course off brand lenses and extenders can get there as well. How often do you need this? I don't know. But focusing at f8 has long been held as a "pro" feature. Nobody wants to loose it, especially when their long lenses are not so long on FF as there were on 1.3 Crop.


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> As a 1DsIII user, the 1Dx isn't the upgrade I was looking for. My next body will be a 5D3 or D800, so the specs of those two bodies are all that I care about. The 5D3 probably won't be released until after the 1Dx, so that's the only reason I care about when the latter hits the market.


To be sure, it wasn't the camera I was looking for either. I think combining the 1D line was a huge mistake. I mean, isn't one of the main reasons they kept the camera at 18MP was to be able to shoot so quickly? Wouldn't a lot of studio photographers been a lot happier if they could have shot at half the speed but with much bigger images?

I hate it when somebody tells me "you don't need anything more than 18MP." I have heard that a lot. How do they know what I need? When working with a model, I certainly need 27MP much more than double digit frames per second. I was kind of hoping the new 1D would rival medium format. When I'm shooting sports I don't want full frame. It's an impressive camera, but I really think they only people it's perfect for would be like National Geographic photographers and certain kinds of sports on smaller fields/courts. It's just the wrong camera for me and a lot of others, as well, even though it has a lot of really sexy features.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2012)

Flake said:


> Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?
> 
> Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.



I used extenders on my telephoto lenses frequently with my 1D MK II. This ended up being a f/8 combination and autofocus was great.

I also stacked 1.4 and 2X extenders so that I ended up at f/11. The 1D still autofocused, slowly. If I manually focused to the approximate correct position, than it instantly snapped to focus.

I'd be missing that f/8 capability, as would many wildlife photographers. Canon has some high profile wildlife photographers who they sponsor in a television series. If they jumped to Nikon over the F/8 thing, heads might roll at Canon.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 4, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > As a 1DsIII user, the 1Dx isn't the upgrade I was looking for. My next body will be a 5D3 or D800, so the specs of those two bodies are all that I care about. The 5D3 probably won't be released until after the 1Dx, so that's the only reason I care about when the latter hits the market.
> ...



Are was allowed to admit this?  Will Canon revoke my membership? 
I agree completely. I want more MP than my 5DII for studio and general photography. And the crop factor on my 7D is much appreciated when I shoot sports, or nature.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 4, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > As a 1DsIII user, the 1Dx isn't the upgrade I was looking for. My next body will be a 5D3 or D800, so the specs of those two bodies are all that I care about. The 5D3 probably won't be released until after the 1Dx, so that's the only reason I care about when the latter hits the market.
> ...



You are quite right to say you want more MP's - if that is what you need. As i've said elsewhere - it strikes me that the MP brigade can never have enough MP's. In that respect, the D800's alledged 36mp will be much more to our liking, as would MF if it weren't so expensive...


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 4, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> To be sure, it wasn't the camera I was looking for either. I think combining the 1D line was a huge mistake. I mean, isn't one of the main reasons they kept the camera at 18MP was to be able to shoot so quickly? Wouldn't a lot of studio photographers been a lot happier if they could have shot at half the speed but with much bigger images?
> 
> I hate it when somebody tells me "you don't need anything more than 18MP." I have heard that a lot. How do they know what I need? When working with a model, I certainly need 27MP much more than double digit frames per second. I was kind of hoping the new 1D would rival medium format. When I'm shooting sports I don't want full frame. It's an impressive camera, but I really think they only people it's perfect for would be like National Geographic photographers and certain kinds of sports on smaller fields/courts. It's just the wrong camera for me and a lot of others, as well, even though it has a lot of really sexy features.



While I'm painfully aware of all the MP addicts that equate overall image quality to MP count, there are certainly situations where the resolution is a necessity, not a "hey, I can't crop with only only 'x' megapixels" affair. My shooting needs prioritize dynamic range and high ISO performance over ultimate resolution, but that doesn't mean resolution isn't important. For instance, there are instances where I'll shoot shoot material for a brochure or editorial work, and later on down the road, the client wants to re-use some of those images for posters or banners at trade shows or other promotional material. 

Additionally, I'm not sure where the 300 dpi standard comes from, but even in a small image, say 3x5, print much better at 450- or 600 dpi vs. 300. Perhaps it has something to do with the poor paper, ink, and print quality my editorial clients use, but I can easily spot the difference between shots taken by my 5DI and 1DsIII when printed at the same size in the same magazine. 

In that regard, the 1Dx is an impressive machine, but I see it more as a 1DV than a 1DsIV. I really hope Canon has a high-res body in the works, because I'm not looking forward to selling all my Canon gear for a D800 if it indeed will have a 36 mp sensor.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Feb 4, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> I hate it when somebody tells me "you don't need anything more than 18MP." I have heard that a lot. How do they know what I need? When working with a model, I certainly need 27MP much more than double digit frames per second. I was kind of hoping the new 1D would rival medium format. When I'm shooting sports I don't want full frame. It's an impressive camera, but I really think they only people it's perfect for would be like National Geographic photographers and certain kinds of sports on smaller fields/courts. It's just the wrong camera for me and a lot of others, as well, even though it has a lot of really sexy features.



switch to nikon and give us some rest.  
you won´t get more MP with a 1D X so why talking about it over and over again?

and why not buying a pentax 645? 
it´s not that much more expensive and a great studio camera!

if you need MF .. buy MF... simple as that.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 4, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> you won´t get more MP with a 1D X so why talking about it over and over again?



I already feel the upgrade to my 1D4 will be the 1DX



Canon-F1 said:


> and why not buying a pentax 645?
> it´s not that much more expensive and a great studio camera!



The body isn't too bad - its the new lens that will cost. My 1Ds3 is safe for another year or so unless the 5D3 is a compelling alternative.

My 5D2 will be staying - even if only as a backup body ;D


----------



## funkboy (Feb 4, 2012)

Flake said:


> Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?



Clearly you've never used a teleconverter before...


----------



## gabriele (Feb 4, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> switch to nikon and give us some rest.
> you won´t get more MP with a 1D X so why talking about it over and over again?
> 
> and why not buying a pentax 645?
> ...



How couldn't I agree more with you!! Once in a while that Canon stopped the horrible megapixel war there are people complaining!! The 1DX is such an awesome camera, and the awesome thing is that it is an all rounder that is not mediocre but great at everything from sports/nature to studio photography.
I can't wait to see the high ISO full res pictures taken by a 1DX, and if there are still people looking for more megapixels they should do only one thing: switch to medium format cameras.
How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?
Astonishingly I sent out some pictures for a contest and they were low res (something like 1600x1200)...well surprisingly they printed them out for an advertisment...it was something like 3x2 meters and they came out good....now imagine a full res 18 or 22 mpixel image...do you want to print on a 10 stories building?


----------



## gmrza (Feb 4, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:
 

> I used extenders on my telephoto lenses frequently with my 1D MK II. This ended up being a f/8 combination and autofocus was great.
> 
> I also stacked 1.4 and 2X extenders so that I ended up at f/11. The 1D still autofocused, slowly. If I manually focused to the approximate correct position, than it instantly snapped to focus.
> 
> I'd be missing that f/8 capability, as would many wildlife photographers. Canon has some high profile wildlife photographers who they sponsor in a television series. If they jumped to Nikon over the F/8 thing, heads might roll at Canon.



That is the challenge for Canon - Canon stands to lose the wildlife photography market without the ability to autofocus at f/8. Now, a lot of wildlife photographers shoot landscapes.... it could be dangerous for Canon to lose the ability to service that niche.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> It seems Canon is fixing the F8 issue!!
> http://www.nikonuser.info/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1481&sid=fc1b93b823dc0fcd687f64f4f2003688



I'll be really curious to see if/how they fix the f/8 issue. I've read and watched a few things about the new 1D X AF that seems to indicate that would be difficult. Something about the size of the AF sensor that really pushes things to the limits like never before (spread of points across the frame area primarily), etc. I wasn't sure about the need for f/8 AF before either...given how it can be painfully slow. 

However after looking into it, its only slow on acquiring the lock...once locked, the thing that REALLY matters is the ability to maintain it and track subjects (i.e. birds and wildlife.) Tracking isn't really all that slow, as its not adjusting AF much and the point is to maintain lock. Losing AF AI Servo subject tracking at f/8 would probably cost Canon a lot of users to Nikon permanently, and also likely eat into sales of the 1D X...anyone who needs f/8 AF would either stick with the 1D IV or wait for the 1D X's successor and hope IT did f/8 AF.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2012)

The article is about a Nikon user who was apparently misled (or misunderstood) by a dealer, and drove through poor weather to see and get a hands on demo of a production 1DX. It was neither hands-on , nor was it a production model.

After reading all his misunderstandings and general confusion, I'd be suprised if he got the bit correct about the f/8. Take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 5, 2012)

No offense to those seriously yearning for a 1dx, but this is providing me with endless laughter.

Just the title of this post elevates this whole mythical camera to the level of the abominable snowman.

I hope the people in the world of photography, especially the business end, aren't seeing Canon as a laughingstock over all this.

With nothing invested myself, I will say I'm enjoying the whole comical show very much.

I predict the next sighting will be somewhere in the Azores.


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 5, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> smirkypants said:
> 
> 
> > V8Beast said:
> ...



Well-said! I love the 1.6 on the 7D. I couldn't imagine losing the reach.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 5, 2012)

gabriele said:


> How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?



It's _nothing_ to do with print size. Try shooting wildlife instead of easy, controlled studio stuff, then ask again how 18-22 mps might not be enough.

_More pixels means more ability to crop, in focal-length limited situations_.

Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.

Just because you don't understand the benefit of high pixel density, don't assume the benefit doesn't exist.


----------



## Astro (Feb 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> gabriele said:
> 
> 
> > How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?
> ...



why not using a bridge camera with a 35x zoom and 800mm on the long end when pixel size does not matter? you don´t have to crop that much. ;D


----------



## Ivar (Feb 5, 2012)

The fight for the MP is by far over. It is just an intermediary stop, even for Canon. The next whatever upgrade to the 1Dx will have more MP. It is not even a war, but rather just using the optimum for the 35mm - which is around 30-35MP (upscale todays APC-C technology and see yourself). Assuming efficiency goes better over time, nobody is going to loose high ISOs for a given print. 



gabriele said:


> How couldn't I agree more with you!! Once in a while that Canon stopped the horrible megapixel war there are people complaining!! The 1DX is such an awesome camera, and the awesome thing is that it is an all rounder that is not mediocre but great at everything from sports/nature to studio photography.
> I can't wait to see the high ISO full res pictures taken by a 1DX, and if there are still people looking for more megapixels they should do only one thing: switch to medium format cameras.
> How 18-22 Mpixel arent' going to be enough?? How big are the prints you will make?
> Astonishingly I sent out some pictures for a contest and they were low res (something like 1600x1200)...well surprisingly they printed them out for an advertisment...it was something like 3x2 meters and they came out good....now imagine a full res 18 or 22 mpixel image...do you want to print on a 10 stories building?


----------



## marinien (Feb 5, 2012)

Astro said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > gabriele said:
> ...



He's saying something like: "For wildlife, _given the same sensor size_, more pixels is better". Why do you counter him by taking another sensor size? It just doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size _and_ print size.


KeithR said:


> Oh, and more pixels does not - now, in the past, or in the future - mean more noise. Just to bury that notion before it comes up.


----------



## STPhotos (Feb 5, 2012)

I totally agree with the medium format switch. If MP is of utmost concern, then make that switch. Even if that 36 MP Nikon is true, you'll still get way better IQ from the lenses. Plus that beautiful big sensor. Even the smallest H4D kit will still produce better images than a high MP Nikon. I know that the lens investment is rather sizable, it's more beneficial in the long run if more resolution is the biggest concern. The formats serve different purposes as well IMO.
I do a bit of surf photography here in Hawaii and I would definitely trade in the extra length with a crop for a full frame sensor. Although the 5D II lacks a high fps rate as well as the AF issue, the images are second to none. If the 5D III has 22 MP, higher fps rate and a better AF system, I think that we will see a large jump to that, given the f8 issue doesn't carry over. There's a large amount of sports photographers who need to utilize TC's and that f8 is critical. Sometimes you need the length and that would kind of make the 600 useless with an extender. 
Just some thoughts.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2012)

I am one of those who are the most excited about the 1d X around, but now that we are coming up on release I'm sick of it already. Yes it looks like a fantastic camera, but seeing that it's not a single image to have a proper look at, all the writing about delay, battery issues, f8 af issues, and seeing that the D4 (which I can't use, it's too clumsy) samples all over that looks great, and the D4 is also ridicolously much lighter than the 1d X, I'm talking hUGE difference. 

Where's the weight number? Where are the samples? Where is the info? 

Where is the proof THIS is the ultimate camera to get? 

And the g0d d$$n availabillty?!?! It is REALLY annoying a lot of the journalists that have NO passion about photography get them first. It's only three weeks ago I spoke to a photo-journalist still using the 1d mkIII, and I asked him about the AF.issues and spoke genreally, he looked at me like I was speaking a different language and answererd :

"Huh? Af.what? I just use it in "P-mode" for the most, and it seems to do the job"

I smacked him and sat down with a tear in my eye, the week was ruined......


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 5, 2012)

There are people who are enamored with megapixels... and then there are people who whenever you mention megapixels, they roll their eyes, as if they had no meaning at all. Each is a wrongheaded as the other. More megapixels, all other things being equal, are simply better. You can do a lot more with a bigger image. It has more information and more information in an image mean greater flexibility in post-processing. 

Heck, a 36MP image on a full frame gets you to where many crop-sensors are today. 

36/1.6^2 = 14.1MP in the same area of an APS-C ... plus you get everything outside of that.

That's pretty handy if you ask me. Now somebody check my math.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 5, 2012)

I'm intrigued about the 3rd slide on the nikonuser.info forum. Can someone who can read German translate that slide for the rest of us? TIA. Is it something about the VF & AF pt. spread or sensor pixel size? ???


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 5, 2012)

marinien said:


> By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size _and_ print size.
> 
> 
> KeithR said:
> ...



Ok, I still need a bit of education on this one, so be gentle:

In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX? If pixel count is irrelevant to noise for a given sensor size, then why not jump to 30+ MPix? That would sure have pleased more people....

I have some difficulty believing it was just to get the frame-rate up.


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 5, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Where's the weight number? Where are the samples? Where is the info?
> 
> It's only three weeks ago I spoke to a photo-journalist still using the 1d mkIII, and I asked him about the AF.issues and spoke genreally, he looked at me like I was speaking a different language and answererd :
> 
> ...



HA HA HA!!! I actually laughed out loud at that. Nice one!


----------



## RobertG. (Feb 5, 2012)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> I'm intrigued about the 3rd slide on the nikonuser.info forum. Can someone who can read German translate that slide for the rest of us? TIA. Is it something about the VF & AF pt. spread or sensor pixel size? ???



Hi, 
the third slide with the title "Bewegungsunschärfe" translates as the following:

Motion blur
- because of the larger pixel motion blur is reduced compared to the EOS-1Ds Mark III
- What is motion blur?
- Faster shutter times are needed to freeze moving objects, the size of the pixel influences this
- smaller pixels need a faster shutter speed for sharp pictures without motion blur


----------



## weixing (Feb 5, 2012)

Hi,
Auto focus for F8 is actually quite importance especially for those who shoot birds. A lot of birds are quite small even using a 600mm and lots of birds won't let you go near. So many bird photographers who own a 500mm/600mm and 1D DSLR usually also owned a 2x extender, so they might not upgrade their DSLR. Also, if 1DX cannot AF at F8, the lens that can use the 2x extender will be limited to those f2.8 lenses. By looking at the 2x extender description in Canon website, it's obvious that the 2x extender is design to be used on super telephoto lenses which most of them are at F4... so I was quite surprise when I heard that 1DX cannot focus at F8.



Fleetie said:


> marinien said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, his next sentence is also important, again, given the same sensor size _and_ print size.
> ...


 Technically, 1DX is the replacement for 1D4, so the MP is actually increase, not decrease. 

Anyway, I think the frame rate might be one of the major limitation that limit the MP in 1DX. How big is 1DX 18MP RAW file going to be?? My 60D (also a 18MP DSLR) usually had a RAW file of around 22MB. So if I assume that 1DX RAW file is going to be around that size, at 12FPS, you'll need to store 264MB of data in one second. If 1DX using 36MP, the RAW files size should double and you'll need to store 528MB of data in one second. So let assume that 1DX had unlimited internal memory and we use a 100MB/s write speed CF card to shoot 12FPS for 1s and how long we need to wait for all the pictures in the internal memory to write to the CF cards:
1) @18MP: 
Total data = 12FPS x 1s x 22MB = 264MB.
Total time wait = (264MB / 100MB/s) = ~2.6s

2) @36MP:
Total data = 12FPS x 1s x 44MB = 528MB.
Total time wait = (528MB / 100MB/s) = ~5.2s

Just wonder how many people will wait for 5.2s in order to get the card out of the DSLR after shooting 1s(@12fps) of photo without curse and swear and how many people can afford the 100MB/s write speed CF card?? 

Just my $0.02.

Have a nice day.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 5, 2012)

Fleetie said:


> In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX?


By Canon's own reckoning, 18 mps is the optimum sensor "size" to allow the throughput of HQ video - it is nothing to do with "less pixels = better IQ".

But it's obvious that - given the constant clamour out there about this - Canon's marketing boys have allowed the connection to be made between "better high ISO" and "(relatively) low pixel density": not because it's _true_, but because people still _think_ it's true, and marketing being what it is...

*Don't take my word for it though: just try and find any compelling example in the last ten years of a newer, more densely-packed sensor body that has worse noise than the camera it superseded*.

And read this: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#8


----------



## Viggo (Feb 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, why did Canon reduce MPix to 18MPix for their ISO-demon, the 1DX?
> ...



40d vs 50d.... besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, and that is the processor, not sensor...


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 5, 2012)

weixing said:


> Technically, 1DX is the replacement for 1D4, so the MP is actually increase, not decrease.


If you're shooting something far away, you're only getting 10.6 megapixels in the same crop area as the 1D4. For people who do birding or sports it's a huge step down. This is one reason why the f8 issue is so important. To make up for the loss of the 1D4's crop, you could use a 1.4 adapter. Oh wait, maybe you can't depending on the lens.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 5, 2012)

Flake said:


> Auto focus at f/8, non of the current lens line up is less than f/5.6 and as far as I remember non of the EF range ever has been. Even the ultra rare 1200mm manages f/5.6, the only lenses which will fit are the old mirror lenses, but they don't autofocus anyway. Given a camera costing this much what lenses are there which need this feature?
> 
> Lenses like the Sigma 50 - 500mm which are f/6.3 work because they tell the body that its f/5.6 it can't be the aperture which is an issue, simply that the software is told only to work at values higher than f/5.6 if it's too dark AF gives up even on very fast primes.



Lenses + TCs or extension tubes.


----------



## KeithR (Feb 6, 2012)

Viggo said:


> 40d vs 50d...



It wasn't, _at the image level_. It had more of a tendency to high ISO banding than the 40D, but it wasn't noisier.



> besides, a lot of following models have the same noise but higher res, _and that is the processor, not sensor..._



Easy to say. Where's the proof?

The simple fact is this: more pixels _does not_ "guarantee" more noise, despite the insistence of some people that it does.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 6, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > 40d vs 50d...
> ...



If you use the the 1d3 side by side the 1d4 you have the same noise when shooting action , at least, because you need to double the shutterspeed of the mk4 to get no motion blur due to the smaller pixels. It's not just noise that becomes an issue when increasing the res.

And how much better do you think the noiselevels of a 5d3 would be compared to a 5d mk1 if it had the same sensor and a digic5+ processor? I say A LOT.


----------

