# 1D X "Limitations" Fixable?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 8, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href=""></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href=""></a></div>
<p><strong>“Give me f/8!”

</strong>Apparently some of the “limitations” of Canon’s yet to be released EOS-1D X are repairable via firmware. The one limitation I can think of is f/8 autofocus, it would be nice if that was brought back in time for the final camera. I’ve heard about a 50/50 split from people on whether or not it’s a real world issue, I’m on the side that it is for a decent chunk of people that would buy the 1D X.</p>
<p>I’ve received no responses from Canon in regards to the issue, which is understandable.</p>
<p>What other perceived limitations are there?</p>
<p><strong>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1Dx.html">NL</a>]</strong></p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/656378-REG/Canon_3822B002_EOS_1D_Mark_IV.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/">Canon EOS-1D Mark IV @ B&H $4999</a></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Viggo (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

I've been asking for it for years, but it seems impossible, but here's what I like:

Aim the centerpoint at a grey area, lock with AF-ON button and, boom, whitebalance sampled. Instead of taking an actual picture , and then set and then turn to Custom WB, setting. 

An option to choose your most used AF-points and then be able to skip only between the chosen ones, instead of a set number of points at set positions.


----------



## lol (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

If they didn't consciously intend for f/8 AF to work when making the AF sensor, no amount of firmware tweaking is going to give it to you in a useful way.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



lol said:


> If they didn't consciously intend for f/8 AF to work when making the AF sensor, no amount of firmware tweaking is going to give it to you in a useful way.



mhm, you seem pretty sure but yet you give no explanation why.

it could be that the sensors could be used for f8 (like the old ones) but canon decided, for what reason ever, to not to use them for f8.


----------



## jabeling (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

I would like to see clean HDMI out.
(And offcourse a true headphone out, but that will be hard to fix with firmware)
The Nikon D4 has got that right I think.


----------



## AG (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



jabeling said:


> I would like to see clean HDMI out.
> (And offcourse a headphone out, but that will be hard to fix with firmware)



Think that will be more for the 5D3/Hybrid Cine DSLR than the 1DX but yes i agree.

HDMI could theoretically be fixed in firmware, would really depend if they wanted too.

As for the Headphone that could definitely be fixed in firmware (its been done on other cameras) but where would you plug the headphones into?


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Jan 8, 2012)

*Focus Peaking*



Canon Rumors said:


> I’ve heard about a 50/50 split from people on whether or not it’s a real world issue, I’m on the side that it is for a decent chunk of people that would buy the 1D X.



I can see that it'd be nice to slap a 1.4x teleconverter onto a 400 5.6 rather than pack the 500 or 600 'just in case', and slow auto-focusing is normally better than /hurried/ manual focusing at these focal lengths unless you've got aids like focus peaking. We know from the brilliant Magic Lantern (locks me into Canon as much as my lens collection does) that it is possible to add /that/ in firmware...


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Ok, I'm not really understanding this.(treat me like a n00b if you will) My knowledge of minor details and tech specs is pretty good but this completely escapes me. why would the 1D X not autofocus at f/8? Am I missing something here? It sounds extremely odd to me.

[edit]

Okay, I've just been informed that it won't AF if the lenses widest aperture is f/8. This makes alot more sense to me, gosh, I don't feel like such a n00b now. haha


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



AG said:


> As for the Headphone that could definitely be fixed in firmware (its been done on other cameras) but where would you plug the headphones into?



USB headphones? Does it have a USB port?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



lol said:


> If they didn't consciously intend for f/8 AF to work when making the AF sensor, no amount of firmware tweaking is going to give it to you in a useful way.



If true, then it would be impossible for an f/5.6-limited AF sensor to focus with an f/8 lens, right? Why, then, does the pin-taping trick allow AF with an f/5.6 lens and 1.4x TC? For that matter, how does a 3rd party zoom lens that's f/6.3 at the long end manage to AF using f/5.6 AF points?

The fact that the above do work indicate the possibility of a firmware change to address the f/8 AF. Now, a pin-taped f/8 AF is only partially effective, and fails sometimes. Canon included an f/8 line in the previous 1-series bodies for a reason, and they lock out the AF narrower than f/5.6 for a reason - likely because AF at f/8 with an f/5.6 sensor doesn't meet their standards. Still, they might be able to adjust the AF algorithms to deliver acceptable performance.


----------



## Lawliet (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



Orangutan said:


> USB headphones? Does it have a USB port?



Thats only half of the story. USB isn't peer to peer but host/device.
To connect to a computer the camera has to be a device, but to be used w. headphones it has to play the host role.
As there is no negotiation of who uses which mode thats asking for trouble.


----------



## Peer (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



Canon Rumors said:


> What other perceived limitations are there?



I can think of two issues with the 1DX video that ought to be addressed:

1) Lack of magnifying during video recording. Since it's easier to estimate the framing of a shot than to estimate its correct focus (especially with the shallow DOF of a full-frame camera), an implementation of 5x/10x magnification during recording would be a VERY welcomed feature. 

2) No clean HDMI. It's nice to see that Nikon decided to add a clean HDMI output on their D4. It would be embarrassing for Canon to not follow suit. 

-- peer


----------



## lol (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



neuroanatomist said:


> If true, then it would be impossible for an f/5.6-limited AF sensor to focus with an f/8 lens, right? Why, then, does the pin-taping trick allow AF with an f/5.6 lens and 1.4x TC? For that matter, how does a 3rd party zoom lens that's f/6.3 at the long end manage to AF using f/5.6 AF points?


There is some level of performance as the conditions change. So a nominal f/5.6 is what Canon generally claims their systems will work to, but you don't manufacture things right to the limit, and there will be some margin available. f/6.3 isn't that far beyond, and you will probably eat into any design margin but seems to be generally ok. But how far can you push it? f/8? I have tried the "tape trick" before on assorted crop sensor bodies and lenses, but never had any AF performance with a f/8 system that I would say was usable. That's why my original comment suggested a difference between having any f/8 AF, and one that works well.

Now, what we don't know is how much margin the new AF sensor has on offer. Canon have said it works at f/5.6. Might they have developed it with f/8 in mind but removed it due to performance issues? That might later be restored? We simply don't know. While it is ok to be optimistic, any major decisions should be made assuming it will not be available.


----------



## AlleyB (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Not sure if they've added this to the 1DX, but I'd like to see the following...

Allow the user to set aperture and shutter speeds in manual mode with auto-ISO selected...which can already be done with current models...but then also enable Exposure Compensation so the user can override what the camera thinks is "correct".


----------



## wtlloyd (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Canon must be extremely sensitive to AF complaints, after the 1D3 debacle. Perhaps the AF is not up to par on the 1DX above f/5.6.....I do know from experience that the super telephotos will attempt to AF with stacked extenders; I used to get "close" at f/11 and then dial it in. Granted, at around 2000mm effective focal length, the subject was so distant that it was merely documentation for later review, rather than a nice wildlife capture.

Bird photographers may buy the 1DX, but they will always consider it crippled if they can't get accurate AF with the 2X on it; why do you need "throw-away" pixels (crop) if you can't get good AF on a distant subject?


----------



## liv_img (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

I need my EOS-1D autofocus with f8 lenses. I used all my EOS-1 with the 500/4 +2X with good results. As a professional nature photographer sometimes I need this range for rare wildlife.

Also exposure compensation with Auto ISO. Fix a shutter and an aperture, and have the exposure compensation dial work.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



liv_img said:


> Also exposure compensation with Auto ISO. Fix a shutter and an aperture, and have the exposure compensation dial work.


+1 on that - we've only been asking for that for how long???


----------



## traveller (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Is anyone else a little bit suspicious about this? First Neuroanatomist speculates upon the subject: 

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2707.msg57623.html#msg57623

then NL gets fed a rumour that some of the 1D X's limitations are fixable in firmware (and the f/8 focusing issue is a big one for a lot of photographers, especially after the D4 announcement)... 

Granted it could be a coincidence, or someone at Canon could actually be watching these sorts of fora for feedback (yeah, right!), but it's also possible that some malevolent individual is simply stirring it based upon what they've read here.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



traveller said:


> Granted it could be a coincidence, or someone at Canon could actually be watching these sorts of fora for feedback (yeah, right!), but it's also possible that some malevolent individual is simply stirring it based upon what they've read here.




oh please come on.... all the world is complaining about the F5.6 limitation... canon does not need to read in this forum. :

they get that first hand from their pros.


----------



## zim (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

liv_img - _"Also exposure compensation with Auto ISO. Fix a shutter and an aperture, and have the exposure compensation dial work."_

Viggo - _"Aim the centerpoint at a grey area, lock with AF-ON button and, boom, whitebalance sampled. Instead of taking an actual picture , and then set and then turn to Custom WB, setting."_

Couldn’t agree more with these two wishes. It’s interesting that they should even be mentioned in a discussion about the new ‘state of the art’ Canon flagship! such basics should be available on an 1100D i.e. they entire DSLR range. I‘m not sure how important the additional mode would be for pros but setting whitebalance easily/quickly is just basic.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

You can likely attempt autofocus with the pins taped, and it will probably work on some lens / TC combinations just like the non 1 series bodies. They are slow to focus and often require a pre-focus and then loock-on, depending on the hardware.

I think its not available because it does not give fast and reliable AF at f/8, but will focus slowly most of the time with pins taped. It would be nice to have a firmware option to set attempted AF at any aperture, even f/11. I could sometimes AF my 1D MK III with pre-focus first at F/11 with pins taped. This is not good for moving objects, but still scenes were fine.


----------



## rossbeckernz (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Setting the custom white balance without taking a photo is already a standard feature of the 1D series.  I use it all the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



lol said:


> I have tried the "tape trick" before on assorted crop sensor bodies and lenses, but never had any AF performance with a f/8 system that I would say was usable. That's why my original comment suggested a difference between having any f/8 AF, and one that works well.



Of course, that's with an AF system programmed not to try to achieve AF narrower than f/5.6, rather than one which has been optimized to do so from a firmware standpoint. 

Look carefully at Nikon's D4 AF specs. With f/8, 11 points including 1 cross; between f/5.6 and f/8, 15 points including 9 crosses. Does that mean the center AF point is an f/8 cross? If so, the shorter baseline means Nikon traded away accuracy. What about the 8 other crosses that don't work at f/8, but do at, say, f/7.1? Are those f/7.1-sensitive sensors? Without seeing a schematic of the sensor or more details from Nikon, we won't know for sure, but I suspect the answers are no and no. I think they'd not choose to sacrifice accuracy, but maybe the sensor is just more complex, and where Canon chose to squeeze more AF points and make more of them crosses, Nikon chose to squeeze in some f/8 and f/7.1 lines. 

Still, I think it's possible that Nikon is using the same f/5.6 AF points, and just optimized the firmware to support narrower apertures. If so, it's possible for Canon to do the same (although there may be non-technical reasons that they won't).



dilbert said:


> I'm not so sure ... there's comments somewhere that Canon changed the sub-mirror responsible for autofocus from being elliptical to flat. If that's actually the case, then it may be that there's less "concentration" of light with the new AF mechanism and thus less ability for AF to work with less light.



I don't think that would matter at all. The aperture limitation isn't really about the amount of light, but rather about the baseline of the sensors. An f/5.6 lens won't activate f/2.8 sensors because the sensor lines are widely spaced, and the narrower aperture doesn't allow the light to be spread far enough. Consider - if it were the amount of light, AF would fail with a 3-stop ND filter on an f/5.6 lens, but instead it works fine, as long as the intensity exceeds the EV sensitivity of the sensor (-2 for the 1D X, -1 for previous 1-series, and -0.5 for other bodies).

Also, 'concentrating' the light implies the mirror was concave - I don't think that's what is meant by oblong. Rather, it was more oval rather than rectangular. Going from oblong to rectangular for the 1D X makes perfect sense - look at the shape of the AF point arrays - oblong on the 1DIV and 1DsIII, rectangular on the 1D X.


----------



## mememe (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

This is a bit like: "I have a Pentium 3! Where can i download the firmware update to make it a i7?"

No seriously... You cant update hardware limitations via Firmware...


----------



## motorhead (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

"Never had any AF performance that I would say was usable"

Thats a sad situation. I have regularly used my 30D at MotoGP events with my 100-400 & 1.4x in extremely bad weather (i well remember the pouring rain at Donnington) where I used f/8 with no problems at all obtaining good focus in AI Servo.


----------



## eaw213 (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



mememe said:


> This is a bit like: "I have a Pentium 3! Where can i download the firmware update to make it a i7?"
> 
> No seriously... You cant update hardware limitations via Firmware...



I'm an engineer at Intel, and this made me chuckle a bit, although I don't say that in a way to put you down. I chuckled because what you said about Intel chips sounds so logically true. I mean, you can't just magically upgrade to a new chip by unlocking features on your old chip... right? And yet it just so happens to be what Intel attempted in the past.

There were plans to release chips that contained a myriad of power levels already packaged within them, and when you bought a chip of a certain power level, all that meant was that you bought the same chip as everyone else, but your chip was unlocked up to the power level you purchased. In the future, when you decided you wanted more power, you simply paid to have more power from the same chip unlocked. There was of course a lot of kickback from consumers on this policy of selling intentionally limited products, so you don't see it in effect today, but the idea has always been there.

Of course, that's not entirely the same as this. In one case, Intel has pre-engineered the power into the product and is intentionally concealing perfectly usable computing power until you purchase and activate it. On the other hand, Canon would be concealing performance levels that don't live up to their standards, which wouldn't have anything to do with trying to intentionally hold back technology or sell additional product... unless the TC sales angle is a valid one. Still, I thought it was an interesting story worth telling given your comment.  Cheers.


----------



## mememe (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



eaw213 said:


> There were plans to release chips that contained a myriad of power levels already packaged within them, and when you bought a chip of a certain power level, all that meant was that you bought the same chip as everyone else, but your chip was unlocked up to the power level you purchased. In the future, when you decided you wanted more power, you simply paid to have more power from the same chip unlocked. There was of course a lot of kickback from consumers on this policy of selling intentionally limited products, so you don't see it in effect today, but the idea has always been there.



Oh yes, i remember... This was about the time i lost interest in PC-Hardware... Didnt knew that they dont really came out with that plan. My knowledge stopps at the core series... 

The abilties of the AF-Sensor have to do with size and placment (distance) of the phase-detection-sensors itself. So i dont think they built it for f8 and cut it out with firmware. I mean... possible at a 300D but not in a 1-Series Camera...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



mememe said:


> This is a bit like: "I have a Pentium 3! Where can i download the firmware update to make it a i7?"
> 
> No seriously... You cant update hardware limitations via Firmware...



No one is suggesting that (at least, I'm not). Point is, cameras limited to f/5.6 are limited _by_ the firmware, and as the statement from motorhead indicates, when you trick that firmware so an f/8 lens appears to be f/5.6, AF is attempted and can succeed. 

I'm not suggesting adding AF points or anything like that. To revise your rather off-base analogy to something better aligned to the current discussion, an i5 processor is limited to a given clock speed by firmware (in effect). While it cannot be turned into an i7, it's quite possible to change the 'firmware' and overclock the processor. That's pretty much what the pin taping trick does, and if Canon decided to officially support that, it would be a better implementation.


----------



## seanmcr6 (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

A) Make the price $5K
B) Clean HDMI output
C) Include peaking in camera
D) Built in wifi
E) Bring the MP back up to 24

I know it's not all about MP....but for studio/commercial work, I want more MP, not less...and I already have over 10K in Canon glass. I don't want to buy Medium format.

I don't know any commercial photographers that want or need to shoot 26000 ISO or above. Yeah, it's nice to see Canon advancing ISO performance, but it's now more of a marketing function that something pro photogs can actually use.

And a separate attachement for wifi? really? Still? If eyefi can put the guts for wifi inside an SD card...surely Canon can add this to the camera. While we're at it...make the new Canon EX flashes wifi enabled.


----------



## Kernuak (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



seanmcr6 said:


> I don't know any commercial photographers that want or need to shoot 26000 ISO or above. Yeah, it's nice to see Canon advancing ISO performance, but it's now more of a marketing function that something pro photogs can actually use.



If an ISO setting gives clean enough images, then a commercial wildlife photographer will welcome as much sensitivity they can get. Mostly, they prefer natural light over flash, so it would extend the period into which they can shoot. Imagine being able to photograph crepuscular wildlife after the sun has set or even into almost pitch black and still get detail. It isn't yet possible, but wildlife photographers would welcome the opportunity.
This shot for example was taken well after sunset at ISO 1600. At the moment, only silhouettes are possible (even with a D3 - I've seen similar results from that camera). It shows behaviour that only occurs after sunset and a flash is useless, but imagine a clean image that could capture detail instread of a silhouette.




Roding Woodcock by Kernuak, on Flickr


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



zim said:


> liv_img - _"Also exposure compensation with Auto ISO. Fix a shutter and an aperture, and have the exposure compensation dial work."_
> 
> Viggo - _"Aim the centerpoint at a grey area, lock with AF-ON button and, boom, whitebalance sampled. Instead of taking an actual picture , and then set and then turn to Custom WB, setting."_
> 
> Couldn’t agree more with these two wishes. It’s interesting that they should even be mentioned in a discussion about the new ‘state of the art’ Canon flagship! such basics should be available on an 1100D i.e. they entire DSLR range. I‘m not sure how important the additional mode would be for pros but setting whitebalance easily/quickly is just basic.


making the AF-on button a white balance would screw it up for those of us that use back button focus but if you ahd to hold the af-on and the * together to do that it would be very cool sort of like the original 1D had functions where you had to hold 2 buttons together to set AEB etc


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



wickidwombat said:


> making the AF-on button a white balance would screw it up for those of us that use back button focus but if you ahd to hold the af-on and the * together to do that it would be very cool sort of like the original 1D had functions where you had to hold 2 buttons together to set AEB etc


+1

Currently, I will either choose AWB if I'm in a rush or manually set the temperature for my WB. And I also use the AF-ON button 100% for focusing. So having the combined option that wickidwombat suggested would make me use custom WB much more often.


----------



## zim (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



wickidwombat said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > liv_img - _"Also exposure compensation with Auto ISO. Fix a shutter and an aperture, and have the exposure compensation dial work."_
> ...



+1 on that wickidwombat

How much R&D have you just saved them ;D

Anyway 1Dx is a stunning camera and I'm lovin all the speculation. Has CR ever been as active? Maybe they'll get everything right (just for me) on the 6D you know the 2K FF 9 cross point 5 fps high IQ beauty that will be out next month LOL ;D ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

going a little OT here but on the white balance topic, I use these
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/67mm-White-Balance-WB-filter-mount-Lens-Cap-DSLR-AU-/260866113858?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item3cbcd50142
keep one in your pocket and if you need a custom WB pop it on (they fit snug onto the filter rim)
really cheap and work increadably well. A quicker way to actually set the custom WB would be nice as discussed
maybe when you select the custom WB icon it would then enable the AF-ON and * button to set the WB from the next shot then it could prompt you for which slot to save it to on the screen, use the controller to select and set then bang you are good to go. (currently setting custom WB with Nikon isnt any easier though)


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



mememe said:


> This is a bit like: "I have a Pentium 3! Where can i download the firmware update to make it a i7?"
> 
> No seriously... You cant update hardware limitations via Firmware...



well you heard about AMD triple core chips where you can unlock a 4 core.
the core might be not 100% up to tolerances but it works.

the hardware is there it´s just not utilized.. and there are MANY MANY more examples where a firmware update can do miracles. just look on the panasonic GH2.

so no.. your example sucks....


----------



## pwp (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

If the f/8 AF limitation was a pragmatic compromise that enabled superior AF at faster apertures then I have no problem with it. Probably <1% of all shots taken worldwide would be taken with f/8 max aperture setups. That's definately unfortunate for the ultra telephoto shooters, but I guess the majority needs priority.

1DX limitations? How about the long complained about mirror lockup function being buried deep in the CF menus.

There is a downside to the demise of the SD slot: the EOS-1D X will not take an Eye-Fi wireless/memory SDHC combo card. I know the upcoming bolt-on Wireless Transmitter WFT-E6A should answer most of the critisisms of the older WFT series, but even a modest built in WiFi function would be extremely useful. I use the SD sized EyeFi to stream small JPEG files to iPad while the RAW files go to CF. I'll really miss this with the twin CF 1DX.

But for the most part the 1DX looks brilliant. There's always room for more refinement, and you'll never get a full set of functions that will 100% satisfy every photographer on the planet. But wow, the 1DX is going to check a lot of boxes for me.

Paul Wright


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 8, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



pwp said:


> There is a downside to the demise of the SD slot: the EOS-1D X will not take an Eye-Fi wireless/memory SDHC combo card.



they suck anyway.. no pro i know would use them.
i returned mine after 4 days.

for studio work you have ethernet with the 1D X and there sure will be better solutions then the eye-fi cards.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



Canon-F1 said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > There is a downside to the demise of the SD slot: the EOS-1D X will not take an Eye-Fi wireless/memory SDHC combo card.
> ...


Mine works fine thank you in a 1Ds MK 3 body, and it serves it's purpose (out in the field). Spending 400+ on a wifi transmitter is not something I think is reasonable, even if it gives me http & ftp capabilities and remote control.

PwP - Apparently some 5D and 7D users have purchased specific CF<-> SD cards which have some success in working - scan the eye-fi forums for details


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



> and it serves it's purpose (out in the field)



and that purpose is to transfer small JPG files for a preview i guess?

i had problems many photographer have reported with these cards.
20% of the photo are blank, black, or banded.. corrupted. 
constantly dropped the connection. even when the access point was only 5m away.

and given the bad user reviews im not alone.... 

sorry for OT.


----------



## lol (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



motorhead said:


> "Never had any AF performance that I would say was usable"
> 
> Thats a sad situation. I have regularly used my 30D at MotoGP events with my 100-400 & 1.4x in extremely bad weather (i well remember the pouring rain at Donnington) where I used f/8 with no problems at all obtaining good focus in AI Servo.


Could I ask which TC did you use? I've only ever tried the cheap(er) Kenko and also the current Sigma. Always did wonder if the Canon ones were much different but not enough to get one, yet, although I've been thinking about it again for other reasons. All I got when I tried most times is hunting but rarely a lock.


----------



## pwp (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



Canon-F1 said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > There is a downside to the demise of the SD slot: the EOS-1D X will not take an Eye-Fi wireless/memory SDHC combo card.
> ...



Sorry to hear you couldn't get EyeFi working for you. It's not an uncommon story. 

Yet there are plenty of professional photographers out there working smoothly with EyeFi. It is necessary to be aware of its limitations. I only use it to stream small jpegs to an iPad with the app Shuttersnitch which is handy for a client to watch the images roll in rather than peering over your shoulder. Attempting to stream RAW files with EyeFi is an exercise in futility.

Still, EyeFi does definately feel like a temporary technology. I feel pretty certain that built in WiFi will be a feature of many new cameras in the not too distant future. 

Paul Wright


----------



## Doodah (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

The Magic Lantern software has shown us many things are merely software limited... the question is whether Canon bothers to unlock some of those limitations or we need Magic Lantern to once again weave some of their magic...


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



pwp said:


> If the f/8 AF limitation was a pragmatic compromise that enabled superior AF at faster apertures then I have no problem with it. Probably <1% of all shots taken worldwide would be taken with f/8 max aperture setups. That's definately unfortunate for the ultra telephoto shooters, but I guess the majority needs priority.



if that were the case I am sure they could have a custom function to enable / disable the f8 sensitivity of the center point disable f8 and increase sensetivity and enable to make it more like that of a 1D4, I would guess this could all be done in firmware?


----------



## pwp (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



wickidwombat said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > If the f/8 AF limitation was a pragmatic compromise that enabled superior AF at faster apertures then I have no problem with it.
> ...



Yes, it quite possibly could be a firmware item. The number of Custom Functions has expanded like crazy already in the short history of Canon DSLR bodies and that's a good thing. If Canon gave us full potential choice in CF can you imagine getting your head around the bazillion settings choices? Could be fun. 

But the f/8 AF thing seems to have become THE pre-release hot potato for the 1DX. 

Paul Wright


----------



## K3nt (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Would somebody care to explain to me what this "f/8 AF limitation" is, please?

Does it mean autofocus won't work if you set your aperture smaller than f/8?

Forgive me for such a noobie question, but I haven't seen this really answered anywhere and I just don't get the controversy.


----------



## torger (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



K3nt said:


> Would somebody care to explain to me what this "f/8 AF limitation" is, please?
> 
> Does it mean autofocus won't work if you set your aperture smaller than f/8?



No, it just means that if your lens largest aperture is smaller than f/5.6 (next step is f/8 typically) it can't autofocus. Focusing is always made at largest aperture, the lens is stopped down to the target aperture when taking the picture.

Lenses don't have as small as f/8 natively, but with teleconverters you get it, 1.4x adds one stop, 2x two. So if your camera cannot do f/8 autofocus you cannot get autofocus with a 2x teleconverter on an f/4 lens or 1.4x on an f/5.6 lens, which can be a limitation for especially wildlife photography. 2x on 500/4 to get 1000/8 with autofocus can be a nice option to have. Or on the low end 400/5.6 => 560/8.


----------



## jbooba (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



Peer said:


> 1) Lack of magnifying during video recording.
> 
> 2) No clean HDMI.
> 
> -- peer



hi,
agree here HDMI out would be awesome (and D4 a nonstarter), and abit dissapointed 1dx has no 5x10x zoom - its the best feature for canons with manual lenses (even for photos). cmon canon stop slacking!

JB


----------



## motorhead (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

lol,

Re your query about what converter I use.

In fact I use the Kenko DG that you have. I've taped the pins to prevent the lens reporting anything back to the camera. It has made me totally convinced that the limitations in f/no auto-focus performance is an artificial situation entirely created by Canon for reasons only they know.


----------



## K3nt (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



torger said:


> K3nt said:
> 
> 
> > Would somebody care to explain to me what this "f/8 AF limitation" is, please?
> ...



Excellent explanation. Thank you! I know understand and see what the problem could be. My f/2.8 lens would not have an issue, but an f/5.6 lens with a 2x teleconverter would. Not being able to use AF at that point would rather suck.
Thanks, understood and filed. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



K3nt said:


> an f/5.6 lens with a 2x teleconverter would. Not being able to use AF at that point would rather suck.



Actually, an f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x or an f/4 lens with a 2x would be f/8. It's not as bad as it sounds for most people - if you put a TC on an 'affordable' long lens (2x on 300/4 IS, 1.4x on 400/5.6 or 100-400), the IQ takes a substantial hit, resulting in a pretty soft image. Those most affected are people using supertele lenses, e.g. the 500/4 or 600/4 + 2x, or the 800/5.6 + 1.4x (I've run into birders with the latter). Most people doing that are shooting 1D-series bodies, so they're taking a double hit - loss of 1.3x crop and loss of f/8 AF.


----------



## jhpeterson (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



torger said:


> No, it just means that if your lens largest aperture is smaller than f/5.6 (next step is f/8 typically) it can't autofocus. Focusing is always made at largest aperture, the lens is stopped down to the target aperture when taking the picture.
> 
> Lenses don't have as small as f/8 natively, but with teleconverters you get it, 1.4x adds one stop, 2x two. So if your camera cannot do f/8 autofocus you cannot get autofocus with a 2x teleconverter on an f/4 lens or 1.4x on an f/5.6 lens, which can be a limitation for especially wildlife photography. 2x on 500/4 to get 1000/8 with autofocus can be a nice option to have. Or on the low end 400/5.6 => 560/8.


It seems what torger implies really IS the point.
I should think there would be a good number of sports, wildlife, et c., professionals who have long, relatively-fast lenses, but occasionally find themselves in a situation where they need that extra reach. Putting a 2x converter on an f:4 lens brings one to that point and, with depth-of-field being so narrow at 800, 1000 or 1200mm, that autofucus is virtually essential, particularly given that the viewfinder image at f:8 is not going to be bright.
It seems there would be even more photographers who'd be likely buyers for this camera that possess lenses of modest apertures, but sometimes find themselves in situations where they'd like that 1.4 or 2x "boost", as well as those who don't always carry their big glass around. 
I certainly hope that Canon will fix the "Achilles heel" for what otherwise appears to be a stellar camera. Autofocusing at f:8, even if only in the center spot, has been a given for 1D series users for a decade now. Taking it back seems such a step in the wrong direction and gives us one less reason why these bodies are our first choice.


----------



## baldusi (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*

I can't believe nobody said the obvious ones:
-custom Low and High limits on Auto-ISO.
-More than 2EV for bracket shooting.
-More than three shots for bracket shooting.
-Prioritize Auto-ISO vs shutter in Av and Auto-ISO vs aperture in Tv (i.e. first play the iso within a range, then move the shutter speed or aperture depending on mode). In particular, variable light in sports could use this feature.
-Block delete of images.
-ExFAT support. May be even some other nice filesystems for the CF cards?
-When doing LiveView Zoom, focus to zoomed part.
-Voice notes for picture. Voice Notes and Tag notes for picture sets.
-Be able to program a straight button for mirror lock up, for example.
-Do time lapse with bracket shots.

All those, and everything that MagicLanter does could be very easily added in firmware. Let's not focus only on the f/8 issue (which might not be doable by firmware).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



jhpeterson said:


> I certainly hope that Canon will fix the "Achilles heel" for what otherwise appears to be a stellar camera. Autofocusing at f:8, even if only in the center spot, has been a given for 1D series users for a decade now. Taking it back seems such a step in the wrong direction and gives us one less reason why these bodies are our first choice.



Well, overall I think it is a stellar camera. I agree with the previous comment that the lack of f/8 AF is a real issue for only a very small percentage users. (Dare I say it, perhaps more people are complaining about this issue online than there are current 1-series users who would be directly impacted?) 

As discussed, they may not be able to 'fix it' for technical reasons. Consider - previous 1-series have a center point that's an f/4 line crossed with an f/8 line. The 1D X will have a dual f/2.8 and f/5.6 cross. It may be that Canon's lines differ from Nikon's - I know Canon uses 48-bit lines of all the same length, but different separation relative to the baseline (wider spacing for f/2.8 than f/5.6). The exception to that is the previous 1-series, where the lines for the center AF point are closer together (f/4 and f/8 spacing), but the lines are shorter so the higher pixel density regains the accuracy lost to the shorter baseline. That may not have been possible in the new sensor with its higher level of complexity. I don't know what the sensor lines for Nikon are like, but it may be that they have been using higher density AF Lines all along. Thus, Nikon's f/5.6 points might be more accurate than Canon's f/5.6 points, and that greater accuracy might allow them to work better at apertures narrower than f/5.6. 

It may also depend on exactly why Canon chose to eliminate the f/8 capability. If it was for marketing rather than technical reasons, they may be setting the stage for a future pro-level crop body, such as a 14-16 MP APS-C, with substantial IQ improvements, where they'll bring back an f/8 capability, expanded to multiple points.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



neuroanatomist said:


> ...they lock out the AF narrower than f/5.6 for a reason - likely because AF at f/8 with an f/5.6 sensor *doesn't meet their standards*. Still, they might be able to *adjust the AF algorithms to deliver acceptable performance*...



I buy this because of the bolded words above and below.

Now take a look of what Chuck Westfall said in another interview: "_...Canon felt that while it would have been nice to preserve AF at f/8, the *overall improvement in AF achieved with the 1D x took precedence*... The improved algorithm means that AF won’t jump to the background as quickly, won’t be tripped up as easily by obstacles in front of the subject, and will handle subjects that are small in the frame much better... There are a lot of *trade-offs* in life, and this is one of them. Essentially, Canon Inc. decided that the overall improvement of the new 61-point AF system compared to the older 45-point system *took precedence over the need for that particular feature*..._"

The AF sensor might not be able to provide enough data for the _current_ algorithm to achieve what Westfall emphasizes as better performance. But an algorithm can calculate (based on enough data) as well as predict / guess / project / calculate-with-AI (based on insufficient data).

Since Canon never _officially_ (right???) declares that 1D X is unable to AF with max f/8 or narrower lenses and there have been months for them to get feedback since last year's 1D X announcement, it's not hard to guess they are currently working on a better algorithm, especially if D4 can do it regardless of _how_.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*

Thanks for finding that quote.

Yes, I suppose that one of the upsides (aside from preserving speed and accuracy by limiting it to twice the light available at f/8) is that the slice of DOF used allowing more precision in the selection of targets - that seems to be the message here. Makes perfect sense.

However, I still think that this ought to be a user choice. Tweak it for performance at f/5.6 and above if wanted, but there ought to be a fall-back algorithm for f/8.


----------



## pwp (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



baldusi said:


> I can't believe nobody said the obvious ones:
> -custom Low and High limits on Auto-ISO.
> -More than 2EV for bracket shooting.
> -More than three shots for bracket shooting.
> ...



+1
Thanks for jolting us out of the f/8 thing. Your points are well observed, relevant ones.

Paul Wright


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*

umm the bracketing thing, 1 Series cameras have been able to shoot up to 7 brackets at +/-3 EV since forever
I am fairly sure that will remain on the 1Dx


----------



## jhpeterson (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X Limitations Fixable?*



Edwin Herdman said:


> Thanks for finding that quote.
> 
> Yes, I suppose that one of the upsides (aside from preserving speed and accuracy by limiting it to twice the light available at f/8) is that the slice of DOF used allowing more precision in the selection of targets - that seems to be the message here. Makes perfect sense.
> 
> However, I still think that this ought to be a user choice. Tweak it for performance at f/5.6 and above if wanted, but there ought to be a fall-back algorithm for f/8.


Thanks, too, to the earlier poster for finding that quote. It makes great sense, considering who would be the primary buyers for this camera.
However, I'm in Edwin Herdman's camp in thinking this is something that should be a choice, perhaps a Custom Function where the high performance focusing would be the default mode, with the f:8 algorithm a user selectable fall-back.


----------



## Michael7 (Jan 9, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*

It's a $6000 camera, not a Mars Rover. Make the damn thing focus at F8 and quit with the baby games.


----------



## rlp (Jan 10, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*

Why have a camera that does not auto focus with the new 2x EF Extender III and the new 500 & 600 f/4? As a life long Canon user I am extremely disappointed. I don't need or want video in my SLR, give me a GREAT SLR not some hybrid that does nothing well.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 10, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*

Why do people keep griping about the video features of the DSLRs as if they retard the photo abilities?


----------



## K3nt (Jan 12, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



Ryusui said:


> Why do people keep griping about the video features of the DSLRs as if they retard the photo abilities?



I don't think that's the issue. The issue is more of a trade-off nature. How much did they inhibit the photo abilities to make 'room' for the video features? 
For me, I'd get along with really basic video feature as long as the stills features are top-notch. If I want to make video, I'll get myself a dedicated videocamera. 
But I guess it's a matter of personal preference in the end, some people still gripe about the demise of film, even though the latest DSLRs outshine anything film could ever do, quality-wise. Oh boy, I just opened up a whole other can of works didn't I? ;D


----------



## dolina (Jan 12, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*

How about AF at f/8? The Nikon D4 has eleven f/8 compatible points.

The layout is shown below. Orange square is cross type while the black square is non-cross type.


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 15, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



K3nt said:


> Ryusui said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people keep griping about the video features of the DSLRs as if they retard the photo abilities?
> ...


But that's what I mean. What trade off? As far as I know (and someone please correct me if this is not the case) the video aspect of the DSLRs does nothing to retard the photo taking abilities. In otherwords, there is no trade-off.
I'm not a huge video user. I've only used it a couple of times so far, and plan to use it a few more times. But over the life of my 5D my use will probably end up being 90% photos 10% videos. So I don't have a major attachment or stake in it. I just feel like video has become the scapegoat for many. "Low-light auto focus sucks...the video is responsible." "Why isn't this a 36 megapixel camera? Must be the video."


----------



## K3nt (Jan 16, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



Ryusui said:


> K3nt said:
> 
> 
> > Ryusui said:
> ...



Your use seems to be the same as me. I'm not saying that there necessarily _has_ to be a trade-off, but if you took out all the video-features, it would make sense that there would be more 'room' in the firmware for cool stills features. Video-features do use part of the space available for firmware. 
I don't think they technically inhibit the stills features, like you mention the low-light etc gripes. Those capabilities would probably be the same, with or without video features.
What I'm looking at, if you remove the video-features, could I then have 7 bracket shots and HDR preview instead? Thos would require some serious bytes out of the firmware.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 16, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



K3nt said:


> Ryusui said:
> 
> 
> > K3nt said:
> ...


7 bracket AEB has been in the 1D line since forever i think only the mk1 didnt have it so the 1Dx will have it... and i definately wouldnt trust an in camera rendition of an HDR
just saying


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 17, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



wickidwombat said:


> i definately wouldnt trust an in camera rendition of an HDR
> just saying



Keep in mind that the multi-exposure function isn't just for HDR. For example, you can drop -5 EV then add 5 exposures of a bat being swung. Just sayin'...


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 17, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



wickidwombat said:


> K3nt said:
> 
> 
> > What I'm looking at, if you remove the video-features, could I then have 7 bracket shots and HDR preview instead? Thos would require some serious bytes out of the firmware.
> ...


Like wickidwombat says, 7 bracket AEB is there, and will be there for the 1D X. I think what trips up most people is they don't realize that they need to go to the custom functions to change it from 3 shots to 2, 5 or 7.


----------



## K3nt (Jan 17, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



Ryusui said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > K3nt said:
> ...



Yep, I admit, I didn't know the 1D-line already supported 7 shot bracketing. (I only have a 7D and that one doesn't). But my point here is: What features could I potentially have by not having video control take a chunk out of the available firmware? Your imagination is the limit here.
I wouldn't trust the camera preview for much of anything, but, a quick HDR preview could give you an idea if you quickly need to change anything. 
One shouldn't take these too literally, speculation is what it is, let your imagination soar!


----------



## PeterJ (Jan 17, 2012)

*Re: 1D X \*



K3nt said:


> But my point here is: What features could I potentially have by not having video control take a chunk out of the available firmware? Your imagination is the limit here.


According to the Margic Lantern page http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/7D_internals one processor has 1.7MB of firmware and the other 5.1MB giving a total of 6.8MB. I doubt dual ARM processors share the same program area so it's likely they are at a minimum of 8MB each. I'm not sure NAND FLASH that small is even widely available any more, so more likely they have 16MB+ considering they cost well under $2 in moderate volumes.

Either way I'd expect the extra still features like extra bracketing would take well under 1K of additional code space, so really just a marketing thing plus not having too many confusing options in the lower-level cameras. It's easy to forget in today's PC world how small things can be, I just took a look at a Linux kernel + filesystem + application I built for an embedded system recently and it's 3.8MB, so it's a 100% given a Canon camera which no doubt would have plenty of RAM could run Linux.

Anyway not to move too far OT I don't think you miss any still features because of video, it's just what they want to put in there. Not that I'm arguing too much, I hardly ever user video either just treat it as a bonus that's there for no significant cost


----------



## Ryusui (Jan 17, 2012)

*Re: 1D X "Limitations" Fixable?*

I didn't see it mentioned, but I wonder if a firmware change could add something like the D4's HTTP Mode. For that function, I would gladly buy the WFT-E6A at their $600 asking price. Although I would prefer if Canon came out with a dedicated iOS app version of their EOS Utility.


----------

