# Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Autofocus Talk



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2016)

```
We got this from <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1406985/4#13379076" target="_blank">Fred Miranda</a>, which is a forum I frequently read.</p>
<blockquote><p>For me, the obvious feature of the 1DX Mk2 is its AF and tracking capabilities over the 1DX. Not only is the AF faster, when using a 2X TC on a 500/600mm f4 lens, the new camera will allow all focusing points to be active even when the effective aperture is f8. On the 1DX, only the centre AF point and 4 surrounding points (with AF area expansion) are effective. I understand there will also be a multi-frame silent shooting mode instead of the single shooting silent mode on the 1DX.</p></blockquote>
<p>If we go by other things we’ve been told about the EOS-1D X Mark II, there are some similarities, though the exact information may not match up perfectly.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 24, 2016)

would be impressive if all af points remain active on f8 apertures.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 24, 2016)

Well, that sounds like pure speculation.

Also don't need multi-frame silent, but I'd love to have 5D3 silent shutter. Week ago I was shooting a show, during one flute scene, the actual music was quite quiet so I tried not to shoot much. I was as far from stage as possible, against the back wall. At one point I clicked one frame (1DX in silent mode), and continued waiting for bit louder scene so I could shoot more.

Woman closest from me, leans over and asks if I'm working for the venue (there were plenty signs about no photography). I said yes. She continues telling that the camera noise is very annoying and disturbing. I said sorry, and moved to another spot. Funnily her talking disturber her and other more than my one click, but regardless I wish the 1DX silent was same level as 5D3 is. Used to have one, sold it already while waiting for 1DX2.


----------



## applecider (Jan 24, 2016)

CR read the thread on fred Miranda and that post looks like wild asped speculation. Sooner or later speculators are going to be right about, or are these known bets testers?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 24, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Well, that sounds like pure speculation.
> 
> Also don't need multi-frame silent, but I'd love to have 5D3 silent shutter. Week ago I was shooting a show, during one flute scene, the actual music was quite quiet so I tried not to shoot much. I was as far from stage as possible, against the back wall. At one point I clicked one frame (1DX in silent mode), and continued waiting for bit louder scene so I could shoot more.
> 
> Woman closest from me, leans over and asks if I'm working for the venue (there were plenty signs about no photography). I said yes. She continues telling that the camera noise is very annoying and disturbing. I said sorry, and moved to another spot. Funnily her talking disturber her and other more than my one click, but regardless I wish the 1DX silent was same level as 5D3 is. Used to have one, sold it already while waiting for 1DX2.



SLRs ought offer a fully electronic shutter in live view mode. Silent mode could actually be silent!


----------



## tpatana (Jan 24, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that sounds like pure speculation.
> ...



Yea, I've thought about same.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 24, 2016)

Can we assume this means Fred got his hands on a test model? This sounds entirely plausible for the 1DX2 either way


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2016)

The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:

[quote author=Zorro2016 on FM]
The new 1DX Mk2 will indeed have two CF card slots. Slot 2 is for CFast card while slot 1 is for normal CF card.
[/quote]

If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...


----------



## Machaon (Jan 24, 2016)

[CR0]
This is a re-post from a new Fred Miranda forum member who registered only a week ago.

It may be wild speculation but the poster writes in some detail about 1Dx II features. The poster claims to have had a brief inspection of the camera some time ago, not extensive exposure in beta testing.

Then again, it could all be playful rubbish...

Other posts:


> the physical aspect of this new camera should be more or less firm. The camera does look very much like the 1DX but perhaps with a higher prism head and 2 bigger toggle switches behind (good with gloves).
> 
> I am hoping that the final production model will have better low light focusing and better tracking capabilities. This together with better ISO performance (than the 1DX) is what most photographers are looking for in a pro-body.
> 
> As I stated earlier, it is a really nice feature to have all the AF points active even with a 2X TC attached. This shows the potential AF capability of the new camera.





> I believe the raw buffer on the new camera will not be able to match the new Nikon D5. Not unless Canon decides to play catchup in the final production unit. I hope they do.





> I believe the shutter noise is still quite noticeable. Just slightly different sounding.





> Honesty, I cannot remember anything outstanding regarding the viewfinder other than it look similar to the 7D Mk2 with more AF points. I could be wrong so please don't bash me regarding this. The camera was briefly in my hands so I did not have the time to scrutinize every part of the system. I am not surprised the menu is similar to the 1DX with a few additions. But I did feel that the AF tracking was slightly faster with the 2X TC on a 600mm f4. Please understand that I did not do any side by side comparison with the 1DX so take what I have mentioned here with a pinch of salt.
> 
> I believe the camera is more or less in the final stages of production and a public announcement should be anytime soon.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 24, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Why doesn't Canon just announce the camera rather than keep orchestrating leaks?



Because the orchestrated leaks (whether they turn out to be true or not) generates hype that buys more awareness than a standard marketing campaign can.


----------



## expatinasia (Jan 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:
> 
> [quote author=Zorro2016 on FM]
> The new 1DX Mk2 will indeed have two CF card slots. Slot 2 is for CFast card while slot 1 is for normal CF card.



If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...
[/quote]

+1


----------



## GuyF (Jan 24, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...
> ...



Just because Zorro has either misunderstood or misreported the CF/CFast issue, doesn't mean everything they said about the 1DX2 is nonsense. Is every statement you've ever made true? (Hint: no, you're probably human and therefore not infallible. )

I've no evidence to back up what Zorro says regarding the other features but I'm not going to dismiss everything they said over a single possible slip.

Anyway, just a week or two to go and we'll know if our piggy banks will be oinking for mercy.


----------



## tr573 (Jan 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:
> 
> [quote author=Zorro2016 on FM]
> The new 1DX Mk2 will indeed have two CF card slots. Slot 2 is for CFast card while slot 1 is for normal CF card.



If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...
[/quote]

Compact flash, Cfast and XQD are all CFA standards so they are all in the same 'family' so to speak. They are closer to each other than they are to SD or Memory Stick or what have you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2016)

tr573 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:
> ...



Compact flash, Cfast and XQD are all CFA standards so they are all in the same 'family' so to speak. They are closer to each other than they are to SD or Memory Stick or what have you. 
[/quote]

Fine, but the statement 'two CF slots, one CFast and one CF' is still oxymoronic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2016)

dilbert said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Perhaps when they come from a source that at least sounds somewhat credible.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 24, 2016)

There's never been a silent shutter on a Canon DSLR.

There's little likelihood the 1DX2 will have one either unless there's a global shutter and DPAF on it.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 24, 2016)

wockawocka said:


> There's never been a silent shutter on a Canon DSLR.


Please define what you mean by "silent shutter" then. Many people, myself included, find the 5D3 silent shutter quiet enough for their uses


----------



## RGF (Jan 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...


----------



## RGF (Jan 24, 2016)

kaihp said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > There's never been a silent shutter on a Canon DSLR.
> ...



Agree. what decibel level measured 1 foot away from the camera is "silent"? all camera make some noise. How much is acceptable to be silent?


----------



## Etienne (Jan 24, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Well, that sounds like pure speculation.
> 
> Also don't need multi-frame silent, but I'd love to have 5D3 silent shutter. Week ago I was shooting a show, during one flute scene, the actual music was quite quiet so I tried not to shoot much. I was as far from stage as possible, against the back wall. At one point I clicked one frame (1DX in silent mode), and continued waiting for bit louder scene so I could shoot more.
> 
> Woman closest from me, leans over and asks if I'm working for the venue (there were plenty signs about no photography). I said yes. She continues telling that the camera noise is very annoying and disturbing. I said sorry, and moved to another spot. Funnily her talking disturber her and other more than my one click, but regardless I wish the 1DX silent was same level as 5D3 is. Used to have one, sold it already while waiting for 1DX2.


You could shoot 4K video on the 1Dx II and grab the frame you want ... total silence and the resolution should be fine for most uses


----------



## takesome1 (Jan 24, 2016)

RGF said:


> kaihp said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...



In this case silent is something similar to a sewing machine as it sews,
vs
Something that uses gunpowder and is automatic.


----------



## wockawocka (Jan 24, 2016)

kaihp said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > There's never been a silent shutter on a Canon DSLR.
> ...



I think Canon are the ones who need to define the meaning of the word silent, they don't have the dictionary definition anyway. The 1DS3, 1D4 and 1DX all had S for silent shutter mode. But it wasn't silent, not by a LONG way.

The 5D3 is quieter, but still quite noticeable at a wedding when total silence would be required.

At least Nikon designate the mode with a Q for quiet and the Sony A7s and A7rii are totally silent. The 5DSr normal shutter is so well dampened it's almost the same level as the 5D3 in silent.

Unless they can cancel out the mirror box from moving (i.e. mirror up, EVF drops down and DPAF handles the AF) then we won't see trully silent shutter through the OVF.

Calling it a silent shutter is a real bug bear of mine and is almost insulting. I was totally disappointed in the 1DX when I found the only difference between the 'silent shutter' was that it was just as loud as the normal one, but with a more elongated clunk and a tinny resonance at the end.

It's a great camera but the lack of a proper dampened (quiet) shutter was the main reason I sold it and moved to 5D3's and further on, to 5DSr's. It was far too intrusive for weddings.

We'll get there in the end with each generation I'm sure.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 24, 2016)

I'm getting a feeling the 1DX MKII is going to be underwhelming. 



Canon Rumors said:


> We got this from <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1406985/4#13379076" target="_blank">Fred Miranda</a>, which is a forum I frequently read.</p>
> <blockquote><p>For me, the obvious feature of the 1DX Mk2 is its AF and tracking capabilities over the 1DX. Not only is the AF faster, when using a 2X TC on a 500/600mm f4 lens, the new camera will allow all focusing points to be active even when the effective aperture is f8. On the 1DX, only the centre AF point and 4 surrounding points (with AF area expansion) are effective. I understand there will also be a multi-frame silent shooting mode instead of the single shooting silent mode on the 1DX.</p></blockquote>
> <p>If we go by other things we’ve been told about the EOS-1D X Mark II, there are some similarities, though the exact information may not match up perfectly.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


----------



## gunship01 (Jan 24, 2016)

Feeding the goldfish.

Stay tuned, it will be lighter than the D5. That the topic for next week. Next Oprah!!


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 24, 2016)

kaihp said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Why doesn't Canon just announce the camera rather than keep orchestrating leaks?
> ...



a 1DXII doesn't require that .. and most leaks are effectively plugged up by Canon. thus the decreasing amount of product leaks until literally 48 hours before release.


----------



## arbitrage (Jan 24, 2016)

As an active member on FM, I viewed his posts from the beginning. At first I had zero faith in them but as he continued to post his experiences it seemed to be an honest account of a very brief visit with the 1DXII a while back in some prototype stage. Granted it still could be just a trolling post but the only thing he has ever posted at FM was about his 1DX2 experience.

The claim that all points will be f/8 available is the hardest to believe...remember the 1DX had zero f/8 points when it was first released. Of course if that claim is actually true (it was listed in a previous spec list here on CR) that would be very impressive and a huge feature for those using the f/4 supertelephotos with 2xTCs and all the people now using 100-400II with 1.4TC (seems like almost everyone).

Anyways, on another post on FM, an Australian member let slip that his invitation is for Feb 2nd for the press event. He edited his post a day later but on FM you can always view the original post if you are a member. Hopefully that was a legit date as it means we have very little time to wait for the full truth from Canon!!


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2016)

Is this really what it has come down to: re-posting snippets from another discussion thread and treating it as though the writer somehow has better insight or knowledge than anyone else?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 24, 2016)

dilbert said:


> things have gone back to leaks are a marketing tool rather than being leaks.



Except you are misrepresenting what RRC Photo said:



rrcphoto said:


> a 1DXII doesn't require that.



Yes, leaks can be a marketing tool. But only if there is a competitive advantage to leaking information. In the case of the 1DXII, the target audience is not that susceptible to marketing campaigns. Most are already heavily invested in the Canon system and won't be considering any other brand. There may be some small advantage to building "buzz" about the new model (to boost pent-up demand and increase pre-sales) but that's not a huge factor since 1D products are not spur-of-the-moment purchases.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 24, 2016)

unfocused said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > things have gone back to leaks are a marketing tool rather than being leaks.
> ...



Ahh, but 1D marketing also generates excitement for many other Canon bodies, especially 5Dx and 7Dx and even xxD and rebels. Same with flagship cars and their ''lesser siblings.''

Besides, not all 1D shooters are as savvy as yourself.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 24, 2016)

*I'm a sports photographer*, I don't care about noise. 
I'm a sports photographer, I don't need a video camera
I'm a sports photographer, I need two card slots that are the same
I'm a sports photographer, My camera gets knocked around - No moving screens or touch pads
I'm a sports photographer, My camera gets wet - No moving screens or touch pads
I'm a sports photographer, I shoot in the worst lighting - More DR for blacks & Shadows - Please
I'm a sports photographer, My batteries work, don't change them
I'm a sports photographer, I need less oil and debris in my mirror box I shoot 5,000 10,000 shots a sitting
I'm a sports photographer, I'd like better low light focus for strobes so I don't have to use modeling lights
I'm a sports photographer, I'd like to control my radio flashes from my camera not another flash or ext trigger
I'm a sports photographer, I'd like AUTO MA of Canon A lenses
I'm a sports photographer, I'd like to bracket from SPOT, EVAL and CENTER WEIGHTED metering
I'm a sports photographer, I'd like AUTO Multi-Point AWB
I'm a sports photographer, I shoot RAW - I don't want to see a JPEG in my screen
I'm a sports photographer, I travel with 3 1DX bodies in the worst weather and conditions. 300 pound athletes, racing cars, sports equipment, drunk fans, scaffolding and BEER seem to find me and attack my 1DX's and lenses every chance they get.

*I'M A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER*




Canon Rumors said:


> We got this from <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1406985/4#13379076" target="_blank">Fred Miranda</a>, which is a forum I frequently read.</p>
> <blockquote><p>For me, the obvious feature of the 1DX Mk2 is its AF and tracking capabilities over the 1DX. Not only is the AF faster, when using a 2X TC on a 500/600mm f4 lens, the new camera will allow all focusing points to be active even when the effective aperture is f8. On the 1DX, only the centre AF point and 4 surrounding points (with AF area expansion) are effective. I understand there will also be a multi-frame silent shooting mode instead of the single shooting silent mode on the 1DX.</p></blockquote>
> <p>If we go by other things we’ve been told about the EOS-1D X Mark II, there are some similarities, though the exact information may not match up perfectly.</p>
> <p><em>More to come…</em></p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>


----------



## Nininini (Jan 24, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Not only is the AF faster, when using a 2X TC on a 500/600mm f4 lens



Sounds like wild speculation. A 2X TC on a 500/600mm is always going to have issues with AF, phase, but especially contrast detection needs ample light to not only focus fast, but also accurately. Nothing short of bending the laws of physics will change that. It just reads like he is making stuff up.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 24, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Why doesn't Canon just announce the camera rather than keep orchestrating leaks?



Pretty sure Canon has other things to do than to orchestrate leaks on obscure forums.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 24, 2016)

I'm with GoldWing on most clauses.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 24, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> *I'm a sports photographer*, I don't care about noise.
> ...
> I'm a sports photographer, I shoot in the worst lighting - More DR for blacks & Shadows - Please
> ...



It sounds like you're confused about your equipment.


----------



## Nininini (Jan 24, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> I shoot 10,000 shots a sitting
> I travel with 3 1DX bodies



he probably needs 3 because his 1DX lasts about a week when he takes 10,000 shots / day


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2016)

9VIII said:


> GoldWing said:
> 
> 
> > *I'm a sports photographer*, I don't care about noise.
> ...



It sounds like you don't understand the difference between a noisy shutter mechanism (as in sound) and a noisy image.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> *I'M A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER*


And nowhere near do all 1DX owners and future 1DX MkII purchasers share your criteria, or profession.


----------



## candc (Jan 25, 2016)

There is going to be a blurry picture of the 1dxii from infodigicame any day now.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 25, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > GoldWing said:
> ...



Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 25, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> GoldWing said:
> 
> 
> > *I'M A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER*
> ...



Amen. I want a 1DX2 to shoot sports. I want a 1DX2 to shoot beautiful portraits. I want a 1DX2 to replace my 6D, 7D, and 5D3. There's so much a top flight 1 body should be regardless of it being the best sports camera


----------



## tpatana (Jan 25, 2016)

I'm sort of torn actually. I have Mk1, but I also want studio body. So I'm almost half-hoping the Mk2 is only incremental improvement, and I'll keep Mk1 for sports, and I'll buy some another one for studio.

Then again, Mk2 might be so awesome in everything that it'll do both crazy good for sports, AND awesome studio body.


----------



## Diltiazem (Jan 25, 2016)

candc said:


> There is going to be a blurry picture of the 1dxii from infodigicame any day now.




It's Digicame-info, btw.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 25, 2016)

If you read this topic you'll see another poster was complaining about shutter noise as in "sound". * It seems you're the one confused. *



9VIII said:


> GoldWing said:
> 
> 
> > *I'm a sports photographer*, I don't care about noise.
> ...


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 25, 2016)

I travel with 3 1DX bodies and wear (2) two on the field or location. One with a f/2.8 70-200, the other to a f/4 200-400 1.4 TC on a monopod and switch that with a f/2.8 400mm IS USM II at times. The third body is a back up. Tha't why I travel with 3 1DX's. I di try and rotate to keep the shutter use the same. On all 3 I have about 250,000 each. These are the 6th 1DX's Ive owned.



Nininini said:


> GoldWing said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot 10,000 shots a sitting
> ...


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 25, 2016)

The 1DX is the best sports camera in the world. Sports professionals like me who make a living shooting sports use it as a tool to make a living. There are much better choices for studio work, landscapes and taking pictures of the family dog. They have 100's of choices. I have ONE. Most people buy the wrong equipment based on their needs. 



privatebydesign said:


> GoldWing said:
> 
> 
> > *I'M A SPORTS PHOTOGRAPHER*
> ...


----------



## tpatana (Jan 25, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> I travel with 3 1DX bodies and wear (2) two on the field or location. One with a f/2.8 70-200, the other to a f/4 200-400 1.4 TC on a monopod and switch that with a f/2.8 400mm IS USM II at times. The third body is a back up. Tha't why I travel with 3 1DX's. I di try and rotate to keep the shutter use the same. On all 3 I have about 250,000 each. These are the 6th 1DX's Ive owned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which sport(s) you shoot? And I think I shouldn't complain about the days I carried 1DX + 70-200/2.8 and 5D3 w/grip + 24-70 for full day. Your gear is 'bit' heavier.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:
> 
> [quote author=Zorro2016 on FM]
> The new 1DX Mk2 will indeed have two CF card slots. Slot 2 is for CFast card while slot 1 is for normal CF card.



If anyone wants to trust statements about camera features made by someone who doesn't understand that CF and CFast are different card formats, be my guest...
[/quote]

I think you are right that one ought to be cautious.. However, all the rumors I have seen so far leaves me underwhelmed. The all seem so incrimental


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 25, 2016)

Quasimodo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The 'information' was posted by Zorro2016, apparently new to FM forums with all of 6 posts so far. In addition to the AF blurb copied onto CR above, the same poster made this pithy comment:
> ...



I think you are right that one ought to be cautious.. However, all the rumors I have seen so far leaves me underwhelmed. The all seem so incrimental 
[/quote]

Most updates _are_ incremental. A few more MP, a bit better AF and/or metering, a small bump in fps. The only time you usually see a big change is with a new line – the 5Ds, the 7D, and to some extent the 1D X which merged two lines.


----------



## Memdroid (Jan 25, 2016)

Correct me if I am wrong. But based on the rumors, these incremental changes are exactly what people were rooting for the next 1D body.

More DR - check 
More Resolution - check
More fps - check 
More AF options - check 
4K video - check
CF Fast - check 

Until it is officially announced, it seems to me Canon is going to deliver on these points, so why the complaints?


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 25, 2016)

Nininini said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Not only is the AF faster, when using a 2X TC on a 500/600mm f4 lens
> ...



I would agree it is probably speculation, but why do you need to 'bend the laws of physics' to improve AF ability?
As I understand it the latest incarnations of lenses and bodies do have a greater synergy than when mixing generations of gear.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Jan 25, 2016)

@Incremental or not: Other than the pro sports photog with the latest gear, it has always seemed to be very reasonable advice to "update your digital bodies not one new generation, but two generations from your own" (in the Canon cycle). I am a very excited boy holding both a 1DsIII and a 5DII, ready to move to the next 1-series and the next 5-series! Both the 1DX and the 5DIII were incremental from my perspective (although certainly arguable that the 5DIII's AF was HUGE, but still they were not enough of a change to make a compelling argument).

What do you guys and gals expect: Should the 1DXII make the 1DX obsolete overnight? ...Did Nikon manage that with the D5?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > kaihp said:
> ...



the 1DX does nto need "marketting leaks" and nor is there any "proof" that canon is leaking the information. a leak can come from any source in the chain. 100's of people at times touch / see the marketting information, especially when for a global company.

what nikon does or did with the D5 is immaterial. it's obvious that canon is NOT saying much about the 1DxII. 

canon has effectively plugged all the leaks over the last 5+ years. I'd bet you the reason canon is announcing on Feb 1 is that the Superbowl is in a week and canon wants the 1DX II's there.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 25, 2016)

@GoldWing,

I can see your point of view. I no longer earn entire living from photography, but I make a significant income shooting Division I college sports as a part-time deal. However, I have two 1Dx's (used to use 2 x 1Dx and a 5D3 but dropped the 3rd body) and this is what I really was hoping for:

1. 24 MP sensor. You know how it is cropping in post with 18 MP. Sometimes not so easy.
2. I'm okay with the current fps. It would be nice to get the full 12 fps in RAW stopped down, however, and not have the buffer fill up so I'm okay with CFast I guess in that regard, but see point 3:
3. However, I too want the SAME two cards. I do not want to mix CFast and CF. I just don't like that at all. Any sports shooter would understand how that could severely hinder workflow when photos are demanded so quickly and cards must be switched so quickly.
4. I would like a little more DR at higher ISO's, maybe over 10 stops and that would be good enough. In high-sun situations it could be nice to use more DR at low ISO, such as golf tournaments where everyone is wearing a hat and you need to lift shadows on the faces. That's really difficult to do sometimes, but not critical.

All that said, I'm not likely going to upgrade if the specs come to be 100% true. I know that camera upgrades are always going to be incremental, so I'll probably just wait until 2020 for the next iteration. If I were a full-time sports photographer I would want to upgrade but be slightly disappointed in my 4 points listed above, but the camera still looks very good and I would not complain too much. I just wanted to mention that I totally get your POV.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> ...
> 2. I'm okay with the current fps. It would be nice to get the full 12 fps in RAW stopped down, however, and not have the buffer fill up so I'm okay with CFast I guess in that regard, but see point 3:
> ...



As i pro sports photographer.
I have a serious advice for both you and Goldwing.
If you get a buffer full shooting RAW only with the 1Dx. Or shoot 10.000 images a day. You should work on your timing,
II do love the fact that the 1Dx has 12 FPS.
Still, it cant never, never, never, ewer replace that the photographer having the right timing.
I use to remind myself, and others. That not so many years ago.
Sports photographers worked with manual focus and film cameras without motor drives. They still got great action images.
In August 2014 i challenged myself. With shooting soccer in "single shoot mode". And ended up with more "keepers" than i use to do otherwise. You can read abut it. And see the images here:
http://blogg.photo-it.net/2014/08/challenging-myself-soccer-in-single.html
With that said, i love the 12 FPS on the 1Dx, and i also hope that my link will help you and Goldwing to become better sports photographers.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 25, 2016)

I don't fill the buffer ever. But do you seriously think Canon is going to introduce higher fps with a smaller theoretical buffer? That would be a marketing nightmare.

Higher fps mathematically ALWAYS increases your chances of getting the right shot. I try to time it and use high fps and I rarely miss. It's also about probability. Maybe you have different techniques but mine is working quite fine.

Lastly, I never said I shoot 10,000 shots at an event. I shoot an average of 400-450 per event, including football and basketball, which in my opinion is quite low compared to other sports photogs I know. 

But thanks anyways.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 25, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> I don't fill the buffer ever.
> ...
> Higher fps mathematically ALWAYS increases your chances of getting the right shot.
> ...
> ...



Ok!
I misunderstood you. Sorry for that.

When it comes to soccer, and "head to head" duels.
If i try to get a image with the ball in it. Only relying on the 12 FPS.
I usually miss it. If i do care about timing. I almost never miss to get the ball in the image.

This thing about 10.000 images was for Goldwing.
Who wrote about 10.000 images a sitting earlier in this thread.



GoldWing said:


> ...
> I'm a sports photographer, I need less oil and debris in my mirror box I shoot 5,000 10,000 shots a sitting
> ...



For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 25, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.



I'm not a pro, but when I do sport competitions (competing myself I mean), I typically take ~3500-4500 pics on my friends. Last summer shooting bigger event, I took ~14k-15k in 3 days.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 25, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Since I mentioned tennis before in another thread and it is Australian Open season...
> 
> Lets say an average tennis set is 10 games (6-4) and each game is 6 points. Some are longer, some are shorter.
> 
> ...



That has to be the most ridiculous analysis of something you have clearly never done, ever. But you have much more time and inclination to run with this nonsense than me so have at it.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 26, 2016)

My craziest weekend (and I'm not a full time pro-photographer) is every year in May when I rent a 1DX from LensRentals. I have a huge dance school I do all the work for, and that is their recital weekend. From Friday to Sunday is four recitals. Each recital is about 3+ hours. Each 3+ hours is about an average of 45 dance routines. That's a 14,000 frame weekend for me. It's only THAT many because we're talking 400+ dancers on stage in various numbers and costumes. I can't speak for true pro shooters doing major sporting events but I have to assume just one NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, etc... games could yield at least 1000 frames if not way, way more. I can see easily how you can blast through a shutter life of a 1DX if you did this full time.

That being said, how much is it to have a shutter replaced? I'd doubt it's more than $1000. In that case, assuming the rest of the camera is still in good shape, simply hitting 400k frames (the rated shutter life on a 1DX) doesn't mean you need a new camera. Plus, hitting 400k frames over the course of year is different than hitting that over the course of several. The wear and tear isn't the same. It's like putting milage on a car in stop-and-go traffic vs. all highway.



tpatana said:


> sportskjutaren said:
> 
> 
> > For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.
> ...


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 26, 2016)

500 shots a game??

My day starts at the stadium before game covering press announcements, team announcements. Then we get assignments to cover locker room and color for pre-game. Then we get on field for warm-up and also sponsor and phianthropic. Next we get assignments for celebrity coverage at the games to tie in with sponsors. We then have charts of the top players and staff to cover during the game we need multiple great shots of each. Then we have to cover the game and make sure we're getting shots of each player and every play while grabbing cheerleader and fan shots. The we go to half time and have to cover everything. Then we cover the 2nd half get a lot more of staff on the sidelines. After the gamer were back to lockers and press anouncements. FOR anyone to think 5000 to 10000 shots is not the norm to cover game day has never worked for for a major media sports organization as a chief photographer. 500 shots could be just multiple long downs when the action is good. I need 20 frames at times at 12fps to get the progression of movement to have multiple options for an editor. 500 shots for complete profile game coverage is a ridiculously low number. Good way to get fired.

[



quote author=sportskjutaren link=topic=28903.msg573007#msg573007 date=1453754991]


bdunbar79 said:


> I don't fill the buffer ever.
> ...
> Higher fps mathematically ALWAYS increases your chances of getting the right shot.
> ...
> ...



Ok!
I misunderstood you. Sorry for that.

When it comes to soccer, and "head to head" duels.
If i try to get a image with the ball in it. Only relying on the 12 FPS.
I usually miss it. If i do care about timing. I almost never miss to get the ball in the image.

This thing about 10.000 images was for Goldwing.
Who wrote about 10.000 images a sitting earlier in this thread.



GoldWing said:


> ...
> I'm a sports photographer, I need less oil and debris in my mirror box I shoot 5,000 10,000 shots a sitting
> ...



For most sports, i consider about 500 images a game to be normal for a pro.
[/quote]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Lets assume that you're a pleb, up in the stands somewhere...



Good assumption about yourself. For those actually covering a match, let's assume they have sufficient experience with the sport to anticipate the action, and sufficient experience with their own capabilities to time shots appropriately.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 26, 2016)

Well after reading all this I must say it's entertaining. My guess is that more shots get fired than most of us non-sports photographers would imagine. It is easy to be trigger happy when the adrenaline flows. 

Not my idea of fun sorting through thousands of shots but for some it's work, their job and income. 

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Professionals get much better hit rates than your guestimates. Of the two of us I know which one has shot ATP Grand Slam tournaments, and been paid for doing it. Before DSLR's we used to shoot with 36 exposure film cartridges, I never shot more than 20 rolls a day even shooting low keeper rate sports.

Wimbledon No1 Court.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Wimbledon No1 Court.



What is that green thing in the lower right of your shot? Nobody would want a distraction like that in the picture. 
—Dogbert


----------



## rang (Jan 26, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Also don't need multi-frame silent, but I'd love to have 5D3 silent shutter. but regardless I wish the 1DX silent was same level as 5D3 is. Used to have one, sold it already while waiting for 1DX2.



This is exactly why for weddings etc. I picked up a nearly virgin (5k clicks) 1DC. While I love my 1DX's (ended up with 2 production rigs and 2 backups); they sound like a train on the tracks in "silent mode". And typically where they are stellar performers (really crappy but aesthetically pleasing old church light) is when I end up with the demand for quiet ceremony shooting.
My solution was to just shoot those times in 4k and utter silence and then for stills - pick out frames.

With the recent price drop for the 1DC; it became "affordable".
While I'm sure the 1DX mkII will do the same at about or slightly more cost than the current street price of nearly virgin 1DC's; I did not want to invest in bigger drives for bigger files and additional faster and way more expensive CFast cards. 20x30 still slice prints are very nice and the solution works for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Wimbledon No1 Court.
> ...



I wonder that myself sometimes, the darn thing always seems to be getting in the way!

Also Wimbledon No1 Court.


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 26, 2016)

Shooting NCAA basketball I've often walked away with about 2,000 shots for one entire game, and I'm rather picky about what action I shoot and time my shots.

My hope for the 1D X Mark II is that it can completely replace my 5D mark III for everything. 22 or 24 megapixels is perfect for me since I am very happy with the 5D3's 22. The 5D3's silent shooting would be fantastic, and I find the silent shooting to be perfect for when I'm covering news and want to capture truly candid shots without catching my subject's attention. I also really appreciated silent shooting when I photographed a memorial for a fallen firefighter recently, which would have made my mirror-slapping very inconsiderate in the quiet environment that it was-- silent shooting saved the day.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> Shooting NCAA basketball I've often walked away with about 2,000 shots for one entire game, and I'm rather picky about what action I shoot and time my shots.
> 
> My hope for the 1D X Mark II is that it can completely replace my 5D mark III for everything. 22 or 24 megapixels is perfect for me since I am very happy with the 5D3's 22. The 5D3's silent shooting would be fantastic, and I find the silent shooting to be perfect for when I'm covering news and want to capture truly candid shots without catching my subject's attention. I also really appreciated silent shooting when I photographed a memorial for a fallen firefighter recently, which would have made my mirror-slapping very inconsiderate in the quiet environment that it was-- silent shooting saved the day.



Yes I think my biggest hope for the 1DX MkII, apart from the MP, is a truthfully silent shutter. I shoot about six symphony orchestra and philharmonic concerts a year and have to be very careful with my timing with the 1 series, I actually use the EOS-M as well at these events just for the quieter shutter.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 26, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> If you read this topic you'll see another poster was complaining about shutter noise as in "sound". * It seems you're the one confused. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very much so on that particular subject.

Though I should still ask, have you ever broken an articulating screen?

I've broken buttons before, but the fully articulated screen that closes facing the body seems like the best kind if you want to keep the LCD in good condition (consider that if the screen is housed in aluminum it would give you a metal surface on the back when the screen is closed).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 26, 2016)

GoldWing and H. Jones are right. If you are shooting for a sports organization, there is a lot more to just the actual game to photographing the event. I simply am shooting for individual schools now and do not have such a large photo demand. They request to have sent in about 80-100 photos per event. I can typically do that in 400-500 shots per event, since they only really need a few of each type of photo. Much different if you are for a larger organization. I use burst mode for peak action shots and start just a tad before the action and burst all the way through. But for me, the star player for instance, getting 3-4 great shots of them in peak action is all that is required for that player. Then you get them celebrating a few times, I use my 300mm lens to get them on the sidelines talking to the coach, slapping players' hands, etc. So it's a little easier.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 26, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> 500 shots a game??
> 
> My day starts at the stadium before game covering press announcements, team announcements. Then we get assignments to cover locker room and color for pre-game. Then we get on field for warm-up and also sponsor and phianthropic. Next we get assignments for celebrity coverage at the games to tie in with sponsors. We then have charts of the top players and staff to cover during the game we need multiple great shots of each. Then we have to cover the game and make sure we're getting shots of each player and every play while grabbing cheerleader and fan shots.
> ...
> 500 shots for complete profile game coverage is a ridiculously low number. Good way to get fired.



*With all that work before and after a game, i can totally understand that you need to shoot a lot more than i do.*
Still, i do know a lot of pro sports photographers.
Mostly here in Sweden, but also in USA.
Most of them are either working directly for a paper, or as i do, for a wired agency. We do not have people editing our photos.
Nobody really cares about how many exposures we make.
*The thing that actually counts att the end of the day.
Is the quality of the images that we deliver. And that we deliver enough of high quality photos.*
I can only talk for myself. If I'm "sloppy", i use the get the work done. But i end up with at a max of 1500 image. And "enough" of images that are "good enough" to keep my clients happy.
If focus well enough on doing my best, and care about timing. I get less than 700 exposures, and more good images.

Would be nice to see your portfolio.
(Mine is found here: http://jkpg-sports.photo/ ).


----------



## iaind (Jan 26, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> GoldWing and H. Jones are right. If you are shooting for a sports organization, there is a lot more to just the actual game to photographing the event. I simply am shooting for individual schools now and do not have such a large photo demand. They request to have sent in about 80-100 photos per event. I can typically do that in 400-500 shots per event, since they only really need a few of each type of photo. Much different if you are for a larger organization. I use burst mode for peak action shots and start just a tad before the action and burst all the way through. But for me, the star player for instance, getting 3-4 great shots of them in peak action is all that is required for that player. Then you get them celebrating a few times, I use my 300mm lens to get them on the sidelines talking to the coach, slapping players' hands, etc. So it's a little easier.



Most media sports photographers don't have a chance to review their shots as they are sent to sports editor via wft


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 27, 2016)

Hmm. I never had to do that. And to this day none of the NFL shooters I know do that. I got to and they get to review and sort photos. I used to rate them in camera on the sidelines, upload to laptop, and send or do an edit. Some organizations might be different though.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 27, 2016)

iaind said:


> Most media sports photographers don't have a chance to review their shots as they are sent to sports editor via wft





bdunbar79 said:


> Hmm. I never had to do that. And to this day none of the NFL shooters I know do that. I got to and they get to review and sort photos. I used to rate them in camera on the sidelines, upload to laptop, and send or do an edit. Some organizations might be different though.



I would like to say that it does happen.
But it´s pretty unusual.
On some really big sports events. Like the Olympics.
Getty set up enormous, wired networks. 
And their photographer send all their RAW files directly to their photo editors. (The don´t use WiFi, they use the Ethernet connectors that are available on the latest cameras).

On the Super bowl it´s most likely that some photographers will work like this.

But in the very most instances. It´s usually just photographers working for agencies that are transmitting images straight from the camera. Using WiFi.
Then, they are selecting the most important images. And transmit them as Pegs. Usually that's just a few images.
They also ingest all of their exposures to their laptops.
Select, caption and edit them. Before transmitting them thru FTP.


----------



## GoldWing (Jan 27, 2016)

It depends on who and the event and the venue, you can soot the following ways:

1. Tethered: Your shots go straight to "The Editor" or an "Editor" - "crushed" for time.
2. Cards: I shoot two both redundant if allowed. At times we're not allowed to. One goes to me the others I keep handing to an assistant who uploads during the game. Another reason I hope Canon keeps the new 1DX MKII with two of the same slots. I don't care what they are... just make them both the same.
3. Premiums: The card I keep, "I" get to edit in my freetime and spend time on a "quality edit". This does not happen during the game. Most of the time, they take the money shots and make few adjustments just to get them to press or on-line. The really good stuff is hanging on my walls  This comes back to the JPEG vs. RAW fight. Some editors just want the shots and don't even have time to edit <ROFL> So we shoot in JPEG, I don't like this as stadium lighting can be a killer with shadows and blacks.
4. Off season - pre-season. All cards, press area setup with laptops, no rush we upload our shots and can take a little time to adjust. Most only need some shadows, dehaze, highlights or WB based on lighting.




bdunbar79 said:


> Hmm. I never had to do that. And to this day none of the NFL shooters I know do that. I got to and they get to review and sort photos. I used to rate them in camera on the sidelines, upload to laptop, and send or do an edit. Some organizations might be different though.


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 27, 2016)

I've almost always gotten time to edit during halftime/post game and transmit wirelessly from a laptop, but it sure is crazy running to a laptop and having a few minutes to organize your best shots, pick out the best of the best, figure out which players are in the shot, then caption them, and ultimately transmit them. You get used to it though, and I'm thankful it keeps me able to edit RAWs and not have to transmit unedited JPEGs.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 27, 2016)

Boy, this has been enlightening! You guys have to be "quick thinkers". Impressive! 

Jack


----------



## Diltiazem (Jan 27, 2016)

No blurry pic from Digicame Info yet? That's disappointing.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 27, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> No blurry pic from Digicame Info yet? That's disappointing.



I have picture of 1DX2 w/ Sigma 150-600. Too bad I framed it really poorly, sorry about that. But I love the features, kick-ass camera.


----------



## localhost (Jan 27, 2016)

Looks like its good for wildlife ... or pets. ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 27, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> I've almost always gotten time to edit during halftime/post game and transmit wirelessly from a laptop, but it sure is crazy running to a laptop and having a few minutes to organize your best shots, pick out the best of the best, figure out which players are in the shot, then caption them, and ultimately transmit them. You get used to it though, and I'm thankful it keeps me able to edit RAWs and not have to transmit unedited JPEGs.



Totally agree. I am required to stop several times during a game or match and upload photos to an FTP site. They prefer 12-15 each time. I agree it is very hectic because you have to sort quickly. Like you said though, once you get used to it and get a workflow down, it isn't as bad.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 27, 2016)

I've done big shoots like that but never had to sort and upload at an intermission. I'm curious, do you guys shoot tethered in tandem with cards? Just cards? Just tethered? I have to imagine offloading those images from CF to laptop is several precious minutes alone, forget sort, edit, export and upload to FTP... That sort of thing amazes me



bdunbar79 said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > I've almost always gotten time to edit during halftime/post game and transmit wirelessly from a laptop, but it sure is crazy running to a laptop and having a few minutes to organize your best shots, pick out the best of the best, figure out which players are in the shot, then caption them, and ultimately transmit them. You get used to it though, and I'm thankful it keeps me able to edit RAWs and not have to transmit unedited JPEGs.
> ...


----------



## sportskjutaren (Jan 27, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I've done big shoots like that but never had to sort and upload at an intermission. I'm curious, do you guys shoot tethered in tandem with cards? Just cards? Just tethered? I have to imagine offloading those images from CF to laptop is several precious minutes alone, forget sort, edit, export and upload to FTP... That sort of thing amazes me



It´s a lot about experience and workflow.
(Experience is about what images that are the most important).

When i shoot a game. I always "tag", I.E. write protect the most important images during the game.
Then i "ingest" all images. I.E. Download them to my computer, using card readers. And a special software. More exactly Photo Mechanic (PM).
http://www.camerabits.com/

When ingesting with PM, it always starts with the "taged" images (the ones that are write protected). 
And also, with a keyboard shortcut, it allows me to only see those images that are "taged".
PM are also extremely quick for viewing RAW-files. And have some great tools for sorting, chosing and writing captions and keywords.

Therefore i do all sorting, and metadata work (I.E. writing captions and keywords) in PM.

PM has a awesome tool. That allows you to use short codes, using the players number, to get their correct names into the caption.
It's called "code replacement".
And you can read more about it here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1951

When that's done. I import those images that are "captioned" into Lightroom. Using presets for developing. Which means that inside LR, i only have to do some small adjustments, and cropping.
When done, i do export directly from LR, using a plugin that's supports uploading thru FTP.
Usually, unless i encounter some unexpected problems. (Which happens very rarely). I can select, edit and transmit at least 10 images in 10 minutes sitting at my laptop.

I hope that this can be useful to somebody reading this.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 27, 2016)

sportskjutaren said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I've done big shoots like that but never had to sort and upload at an intermission. I'm curious, do you guys shoot tethered in tandem with cards? Just cards? Just tethered? I have to imagine offloading those images from CF to laptop is several precious minutes alone, forget sort, edit, export and upload to FTP... That sort of thing amazes me
> ...



That's actually a very, very good workflow. Mine is very similar.


----------



## H. Jones (Jan 28, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I've done big shoots like that but never had to sort and upload at an intermission. I'm curious, do you guys shoot tethered in tandem with cards? Just cards? Just tethered? I have to imagine offloading those images from CF to laptop is several precious minutes alone, forget sort, edit, export and upload to FTP... That sort of thing amazes me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I shoot just cards for my work. I use a 500 mb/s CF reader with a 160 mb/s CF card and a very fast laptop, so normally there's no issue loading the files extremely quickly and I tag the key shots in camera, like Sportskjutaren. I use Canon's Digital Photo Professional to quickly grab the shots I need and then I throw them into Lightroom and edit/caption/export from there. 

When I think about it, it is a lot of work, and I could probably do it better using different programs(like Photomechanic--sounds like a great program), but I'm so accustomed to my workflow that it happens extremely quickly and lets me get shots out over intermissions. 

The worst thing though is going to football stadiums where the press box is a million miles(not literally!) away from the field and has a bunch of barriers to go through. That wastes so much of my time. Basketball is nice, on the otherhand, since I can typically keep my laptop very close to the court.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 28, 2016)

Once again, very enjoyable to hear how all this happens - wow!

Jack


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 28, 2016)

Thanks for the feedback on my question everyone! Very fascinating


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 28, 2016)

I shoot strictly cards for my work as well. It takes time away, but every so often if I have some good shots, I'll upload the card to my laptop. Then with the other card I'll continue shooting but only under the following circumstances: I keep my cell on me and the individual from whatever school or organization will text me when they need/want photos. I'll stop, upload and sort them out by rating (best to worst) and give them 10-20 total through an FTP site. It does take time away from shooting, but you just have to do it as quickly as possible and get back to shooting as quickly as possible. Usually I just go by the flow with text messages of when and what. For instance, shooting for Ohio State once a player drilled a critical 3-pointer and my cell phone goes crazy that they want that shot if I have it. I stop immediately and upload, sort, crop to their specified dimensions (usually 3x2 or 4x3 is ok) and send. It's on-demand and you don't go in planning to cover everything and get every single shot. You get what you can and what they want. Sometimes the Big Ten rep will text or email wanting a certain player or shot. You have to get it then and forget the game.

Football/soccer is annoying yes, because you have to go way up to the press box. I hate that. There's no work-around for that and you can lose critical minutes going there.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 28, 2016)

Im surprised they wouldnt want an ethernet hub right on the field/court you could tap into with a laptop


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 28, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Im surprised they wouldnt want an ethernet hub right on the field/court you could tap into with a laptop



All you can really do on the sidelines is delete and rate photos in your camera outside. For basketball, you can keep your laptop with you and use the Wifi. For outdoor sports you have to use the pressbox.


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 28, 2016)

Seems like they could set up a tent station or something for field journalists to use. Can't be all that hard to do



bdunbar79 said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Im surprised they wouldnt want an ethernet hub right on the field/court you could tap into with a laptop
> ...


----------



## Cthulhu (Aug 10, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> Shooting NCAA basketball I've often walked away with about 2,000 shots for one entire game, and I'm rather picky about what action I shoot and time my shots.
> 
> My hope for the 1D X Mark II is that it can completely replace my 5D mark III for everything. 22 or 24 megapixels is perfect for me since I am very happy with the 5D3's 22. The 5D3's silent shooting would be fantastic, and I find the silent shooting to be perfect for when I'm covering news and want to capture truly candid shots without catching my subject's attention. I also really appreciated silent shooting when I photographed a memorial for a fallen firefighter recently, which would have made my mirror-slapping very inconsiderate in the quiet environment that it was-- silent shooting saved the day.



It is not silent like the 5d3, it's actually louder than the regular mode on the 7d mk2, but it's pretty quiet compared to the original 1dx.

As far as mps are concerned, I'd still use the 5d3 for when I want detail, there's a bump from the 1dx in that area but it's very modest


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 11, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Im surprised they wouldnt want an ethernet hub right on the field/court you could tap into with a laptop



Old thread i know.
But during the EURO 2016 all photographers att the pitch had access to one electrical socket and one Ethernet cable.
Sadly this is really unusual.
Also, during the EURO 2016, most games there was more than 100 photographer on the pitch. During the opening game and the final game we were 160 photographer att the pitch.


----------

