# Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 17, 2015)

```
<p>We received the following information about the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, this comes from a new source and we are unable to confirm the information at this time.</p>
<p>Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features:</p>
<ul>
<li>Meant to replace both the EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C</li>
<li>Max video frame rate: 4K @ 60fps, 120fps @ 1080p</li>
<li>Touch panel for AF point selection (We’re not sure if this means touchscreen or something else)</li>
<li>Much talked about new sensor technology</li>
<li>A “learning mode” for AI Servo (This wasn’t explained)</li>
<li>Completely new autofocus system</li>
<li>GPS built-in (no mention of Wifi)</li>
<li>New LCD screen type/technology</li>
</ul>
<p>Until we receive some confirmation and explanation of the information above, please treat this information accordingly.</p>
```


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Meant to replace both 1dx and 1dc is MUSIC to my ears. 

The rest sounds great too.... 
NEW LCD screen. Nice. 
New sensor tech. WOW
New autofocus system. WOW wow WOW.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

if the video specs are true then awesome.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

From non-landscape POV, any extra improvement to current 1dx is huge plus. My number one wish is weight reduction.


----------



## gsealy (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Chaitanya said:


> if the video specs are true then awesome.



It's my understanding that the C300 II cannot shoot 4K at 60 FPS. People have complained about it, so maybe it gets a firmware release. It will be interesting to see the color depth on the 1Dx II video, and if it supports clean HDMI for external recording. 

This new 1Dx II is going to be a beast and a compelling buy for a lot of people. Maybe me.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Replacing the 1DX and 1DC as the next logical step is something I've said for almost a year now. It's the only thing that makes sense for them in that price range, and there is little reason not to now. With so many great offerings in 4k cameras now under 10K and even under 5k, I can't see how having a dedicated model at $10k again is fiscally viable. But having the best DSLR that also does excellent video opens up both markets of users to the same product. I would think with a dual Digic 7 chip set in there, Canon could perhaps incorporate BOTH excellent stills processing and the capability of the cinema chipset from the 1DC?


----------



## CanonGuy (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Canon Rumors said:


> We received the following information about the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II, this comes from a new source and we are unable to confirm the information at this time.</p>
> <p>Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features:</p>
> <ul>
> <li>Meant to replace both the EOS-1D X and EOS-1D C</li>
> ...



Now you are talking! Hope you deliver something at least in line with the competitors. Bring it on.


----------



## gsealy (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

This 'thing' might be priced as high as $9K given its position as a 1Dx/Dc 'super' camera.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Amen. The 1DX2 at 24MP with excellent video capabilities (and everything else it will have) would be a far more attractive buy for me too rather than a 5D4 at 28MP since I still consider doing some video and buying an A7s



gsealy said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > if the video specs are true then awesome.
> ...


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



gsealy said:


> This 'thing' might be priced as high as $9K given its position as a 1Dx/Dc 'super' camera.



Don't think so. It is a tool for still photographers first. Hope!


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Mr1Dx said:


> From non-landscape POV, any extra improvement to current 1dx is huge plus. My number one wish is weight reduction.



Don't think that will happen...


----------



## sanj (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



gsealy said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > if the video specs are true then awesome.
> ...



Color depth is extremely important. They must up that. 1dc 4k video falls short badly because of its bit rate.


----------



## gsealy (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



sanj said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > This 'thing' might be priced as high as $9K given its position as a 1Dx/Dc 'super' camera.
> ...



I hope it is not $9K. Incidentally, there is a flood of 1Dcs on Ebay right now. Many are asking in the $8K range. This new 1Dx II is going to kill those guys holding them for sale.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

With the current dollar to yen ratio, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the 1DX2 arrives within 10% of the previous model if not 5%. Think $6999 - $7500. Just look at all the L glass that has been price droped



gsealy said:


> This 'thing' might be priced as high as $9K given its position as a 1Dx/Dc 'super' camera.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

At least now you can say that the rumor mill is starts rolling. Nothing more.


----------



## Meatcurry (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

I dont think the price is going to be that high, its doesn't really make any sense, as the 1DC didn't appear to sell in great numbers. The 1DX2 has to primarily appeal to stills photographers.


----------



## JimActuary (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Any word of it including the anti-flicker feature that's in the 7DmII?


----------



## Tiderace (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

As a Photography Camera looks promising, if these differences are VISIBLE to the consumer, which I am not as yet convinced they will be in the wedding business. Perhaps there are fashion and other high end markets it will serve. 

As for video, I do not see its utility. At 9000 dollars or more one can get amazing cinema cameras that are dedicated on the shoulder shooters or run and gun shooters. This camera would be a joke, No internal high bit rate recording, variable neutral density filters, broadcast audio connections, on and on. The world is changing Frodo and the ring is powerful.


----------



## EduPortas (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



JimActuary said:


> Any word of it including the anti-flicker feature that's in the 7DmII?



Most probable it will, just as the aforementioned HDMI out another poster asked about.

This is great news. Most of these improvements will eventually cascade to lower models,

following Canon convention.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Tiderace said:


> As a Photography Camera looks promising, if these differences are VISIBLE to the consumer, which I am not as yet convinced they will be in the wedding business. Perhaps there are fashion and other high end markets it will serve.



I thought the 5D series was the wedding photographers' go-to model, with the 1Dx aimed at wildlife, sports, and messy environments (like warzones)?


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Maximilian said:


> At least now you can say that the rumor mill is starts rolling. Nothing more.



I wonder how much the revenue from Ads goes up on these sites, ok, just the user traffic.

Can we have a graph please Admin, which shows the traffic and proximity to camera annoucements  ? It's ok, only joking...

More seriously, yes, the industry is now all about significant updates in the next 3-4 months. Just as Canon are updating the 1Dx & 5D, so Nikon will probably release an 8xx successor (based on the 42MP Sony) and the D5 as already shown.

Combined with the big shows in Q1, there will be a lot to digest and all the photography web sites will see an increase in traffic / revenue.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



scyrene said:


> Tiderace said:
> 
> 
> > As a Photography Camera looks promising, if these differences are VISIBLE to the consumer, which I am not as yet convinced they will be in the wedding business. Perhaps there are fashion and other high end markets it will serve.
> ...



Doesnt it depend on how many weddings you shoot and how many pictures? The 1Dx will last longer (more durable shutter etc), it has slightly better low & high ISO I believe and for some, it looks more prestigous. I'm sure for the majority, the 5D III is indeed the preferred choice - especially if you can buy 2 for the price of the 1Dx but I'm equally sure there are some who will prefer and use the 1D series.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



gsealy said:


> This 'thing' might be priced as high as $9K given its position as a 1Dx/Dc 'super' camera.



Not that high. Maybe $8999. 

On Canonwatch, I also read the 5Ds will get an update based on the new sensor tech that 1dx2 and 5d4 will get, not very Canon like, but makes a lot of sense, and makes me very excited. I thought, the 5ds was a stop gap, but if they announce an update based on a high DR model with 16 bit files... I will be very happy.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

The Specs are driven by what Canon knows Nikon will release in the D5. This is why they might both end up with 4K 60fps video. While in 2016 it would be ridicilous for a 7000 buck camera not to offer that, without competition Canon probably would release new DSLRs with their 2008 Full HD video technology until the year 2040. In the end we can be thankful to the free market and any new feature that Sony, Nikon etc do release in their products, which puts pressure to Canon to compete.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



K-amps said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > This 'thing' might be priced as high as $9K given its position as a 1Dx/Dc 'super' camera.
> ...



$6999, and I would still be stunned if the offer an updated 5Ds without a trade-in... I can see them releasing it in 2017 without a trade-in, otherwise what else will Canon be releasing next year other than the entry level refreshes which dont get the same buzz ?

Wouldnt suprise me if the 6D II slipped into 2017 also...

Back to the crux, it will be interesting to see what the MK II gets exclusively (new AF aside), or whether it is indeed just "enhanced" features over the 5D4


----------



## scyrene (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Stu_bert said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Tiderace said:
> ...



Well sure. I'm sure there are people using all sorts of equipment for all sorts of uses. But the implication I read there was that weddings were a main target of this model, which they are not (from what I have read, I have no direct experience of that field).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



scyrene said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Yes, the 5D Mark III is a very, very popular model for professional wedding photographers. I would also have to believe that was one of its main intended uses. The only real advantages a 1Dx offers is higher flash sync speed and durability but at twice the cost (2012).


----------



## tpatana (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



sanj said:


> Meant to replace both 1dx and 1dc is MUSIC to my ears.



Not for my wallet...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



PureClassA said:


> Replacing the 1DX and 1DC as the next logical step is something I've said for almost a year now. It's the only thing that makes sense for them in that price range, and there is little reason not to now. With so many great offerings in 4k cameras now under 10K and even under 5k, I can't see how having a dedicated model at $10k again is fiscally viable. But having the best DSLR that also does excellent video opens up both markets of users to the same product. I would think with a dual Digic 7 chip set in there, Canon could perhaps incorporate BOTH excellent stills processing and the capability of the cinema chipset from the 1DC?



It's still kinda weird though as the huge fps and expensive mirror box and all the other stuff is maybe over the top for some video people, 5D class stills were enough (and even more than for some), so making them pay for a big brick with all that seems weird. Making 5D class tops for video would be a lot more sensible.


----------



## K (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



scyrene said:


> Tiderace said:
> 
> 
> > As a Photography Camera looks promising, if these differences are VISIBLE to the consumer, which I am not as yet convinced they will be in the wedding business. Perhaps there are fashion and other high end markets it will serve.
> ...




Of the many wedding photographers I know,

Megapixels isn't even on their radar of importance at all. No album size they print is large enough to exceed the resolution.

The 5D3 is king because they get all the performance they need, for 1/3 - 1/2 the price of the 1DX.

Sure, the 1DX you don't need battery grip, it has the higher flash sync speed which is very nice for weddings, and the selective spot metering, which isn't that critical for weddings. 

It has the downside of being large and heavy for long 8+ hour days and there are a lot of women wedding photographers who don't want to sling that beast.

The high FPS are not much use except for catching the bouquet / garter toss shots.

The low light capability is a plus, but not game changing over the 5D3. The AF is similar enough.

These are business people. Not just photographers. At least the successful ones.

A camera is a business tool. A piece of equipment. They want to keep equipment costs down as much as possible, while getting the results they need. 5D3 is very durable and lasts long. Thus it is a superior value. A business minded photographer needs to be able to prove that a 1DX's $3,000 - $4,000 higher cost will bring that money back in and then some.

The ones that I know cannot find any feature worth that, nor a feature that would make that money back.

It is very different from Nikon. A lot of Nikon wedding pros use the flagship D4S ...because in the Nikon world, they do not have an equivalent wedding workhorse camera like Canon does in the 5D series. 

Most of the Canon wedding shooters I've seen are using cameras like the 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 60D, 40D or a combination of them main vs backup or secondary. Of those, the 5D3 is the rarest, even after it has been out all these years.

At the end of the day, if the camera has sufficient speed, durability, AF and image quality to deliver quality results to the customer, why upgrade? Not a single customer says "oh good thing you got that 5DS for the bridal party shot" ..."it makes a huge difference on my 12" album" ... We're talking printed photos or albums no larger than 16". For digital, no more than 4-5MB JPG's so they can easily share, print and post on the web and elsewhere. There's also DVD/Bluray slideshows. 

Not a single customer says "oh wow, love the dynamic range on these pictures, I appreciate the cleanliness of the shadow areas cause that's where I look when I view my wedding photos" not that it shows up in print anyway!

The wedding pros that I know are all more interested in glass. There they will buy good glass and don't mind doing so as they hold value within reason. That and, only with certain lenses can one get a certain perspective and look. No getting around that. And even with that, several do not upgrade anytime soon. Now, on workhorse glass - the majority I know run 1st generation 24-70, along with the 70-200. No hurry to update. For what? Is it i even a possibility for a client to see the difference between the I and the II ? They're not viewing these in Lightroom at 1:1. A couple wedding pros don't even bother with the 2.8, they go with the F4 70-200, and save a lot of money and get great shots. The 85mm 1.2 and lenses like that, different story. You just can't find a cheap way to get that look.

But I digress, so back to the camera.


What business sense does a 1DX make for a wedding pro? Not much at all.

1DX will always make more sense for the serious sports, news, and some wildlife pros.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



K said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Tiderace said:
> ...



Silent mode on the 5D mkIII is much quieter than the 1DX and makes shooting in churches during the ceremony possible. I have never had a minister say I couldn't shoot with the 5D MkIII during a service, I have had them say that about 1 series cameras.


----------



## MrToes (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

*LESS SHADOW NOISE and better HIGH ISO is all we need! I would be happy if they lost the banding like they did in the 5DS R series bodies*


----------



## Talley (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Hobbyist spend by far much more money on camera equipment than pro's do. 

I know alot of pro's who use mediocre stuff.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Talley said:


> Hobbyist spend by far much more money on camera equipment than pro's do.
> 
> I know alot of pro's who use mediocre stuff.



Pros don't need the help. I do. That's why 1DX2.


----------



## RGF (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Built in GPS would be nice but not sure that there is much truth to these specs.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

If it is going to be a 1DX and 1DC combo then I just hope:

a) The price is around what the 1DX was when it launched; and that

b) Canon creates a viewfinder (or as an option / extra) like on the C100 Mark II and C300/500 etc. That would be very useful when shooting video in bright light etc.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Talley said:


> Hobbyist spend by far much more money on camera equipment than pro's do.
> 
> I know alot of pro's who use mediocre stuff.



That is a too broad generalisation without actual data. For instance I live in Florida and it isn't difficult to find enthusiastic birders with 1DX and EF600mm packages, but there are many more with 7D MkII's and Sigma 150-600, but on the sidelines of any college football game, or many other sports, there will be working pros with those 1D MkIV's and 1DX's and 400 2.8's. I don' personally know one single amateur with a medium format digital camera yet I know several pros with them. 

I have also seen 'pros' shooting weddings with Rebels.......


----------



## RGF (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



privatebydesign said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > Hobbyist spend by far much more money on camera equipment than pro's do.
> ...



I agree it is highly variable. BUT there are several reasons that amateurs might have better equipment.

1. They do not need to justify the cost in business terms. They justify the cost in emotional enjoyment (or the flip avoid angst of having the toys the want).

2. They do not make money with photography. They make money elsewhere and spending on photography for enjoyment. Being a pro is not easy and often financially challenging. Enjoyment does not matter if you do not food on the table.


----------



## CanonGuy (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Canon Rumors said:


> *Much talked about new sensor technology*



I hope they can at least play the 'catch up game' right this time! About time!


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Boy isn't it getting interesting. The new RED Scarlet-W cine body - 5k at 60fps 14 megapixel at 60 fps. oooooof
at the 10k price point.... double oooooof.


oh wait they also advertise 16.5 stops of DR.

oh it so much... I am getting dizzy.

they still haven't solved the primary nut problem - you know the one behind the wheel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



CanonGuy said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > *Much talked about new sensor technology*
> ...



Yes, we heard you the first time(s). Maybe Canon will put DPAF in the sensor to catch up with the competitors who've had it for years. Oh, wait... :


----------



## gsealy (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Busted Knuckles said:


> Boy isn't it getting interesting. The new RED Scarlet-W cine body - 5k at 60fps 14 megapixel at 60 fps. oooooof
> at the 10k price point.... double oooooof.
> 
> 
> ...



Not to mention the BMD Ursa Mini 4.6, which is due out at anytime. Another alternative is to get a used C500, which can capture Raw among other alternatives. I have seen it go for as low as $7500 on Ebay. I am thinking it might be in $5K area by the end of 2016.


----------



## Tugela (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



privatebydesign said:


> Talley said:
> 
> 
> > Hobbyist spend by far much more money on camera equipment than pro's do.
> ...



For a pro a camera is a tool. As long as it is reliable and gets the job done, they are not going to be too picky about the label on the faceplate. That is something high end amateurs worry more about.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



RGF said:


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



Kind of sad but I seriously scrimped for most of your life being too busy working hard, falling back into a holiday only mode with my old F1. Always regretted that a love born years ago was neglected but when a friend showed me what he was getting with his Nikon DSLR the flame reignited and off I went to purchase an "expensive" - like $1000 Nikon camera and lens. One year of that and wow this is amazing and furthermore look what others are getting with better lenses and ...... Can't fully justify it but it's now about $16000 in Canon gear and rising. And, it's a blast, especially being retired. I'll do without other luxuries!  I'm sure my story is similar to many others. Now that I've tried the 1D IV for a few months I'm ready for a 1DX II - can't justify this!!

Jack


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Jack Douglas said:


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



+1

I'm in nearly the same boat. Retirement is 2 years and 2 weeks away! This is the one hobby I can enjoy most every day of the year. I'm still shooting with a 5D2 and a 7D2. I may as well keep with the theme and get the 1Dx2.

Joe


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



privatebydesign said:


> Silent mode on the 5D mkIII is much quieter than the 1DX and makes shooting in churches during the ceremony possible. I have never had a minister say I couldn't shoot with the 5D MkIII during a service, I have had them say that about 1 series cameras.


+1

I just shot two school concerts with a pair 5D3's -- one with a 24-70, the other with a 70-200. The silent shutter is the main reason that I'm keeping these bodies. I have a great deal of freedom to shoot in a church or school auditorium without fear that my shooting is disrupting to members of the audience.

Don't get me wrong. The 5D3 is a great body. I'm very pleased with the IQ, the high ISO performance, and the ergonomics. It feels second nature for me to shoot with it. But, the 1Dx is a notch above it all the way around -- save for pixel count. Frame rate, focus performance, and high ISO get's most of the accolades. But, the ergonomics of the 1Dx makes it much easier to operate during fast paced events. While I enjoy shooting with the 5D3, the 1Dx puts more fun into the process for me. I would love to trade in a 5D3 (or two) for a second 1Dx, but I NEED the silent shutter for many of the events that I shoot.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Joe and Jack, isn't it a giggle fest to see what the new stuff can do. Just a load of fun making images, time lapses, HDRs, B&W with different color filter effects, change ISO radically, "motor drive", zillion spot metering, HD home movies, exposure/etc image preview, etc, etc. at the touch of a couple of buttons compared to when we had to use film to get any image - snap shot or otherwise. I did a time lapse on a t3i about 3 years ago and compared it the cost of doing the same in 1976 - when I did it with a 35mm movie camera. ooooofffff. 

It seems we have a similar perspective. Lots of people making world class images sharing with those who simply won't ever get to those locals at the speed of the internet. What a wonderful time to be alive.... unless you are trying to make a living at this photo business. Long weekends suck as there are 2 more steps of technology you are supposed to acquired and show your clients that hold up their i-phone pic to you......

I am happy tra lala lala lala


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> I wonder if the quick follow on of the 5D camera updates will represent Canon doing a very quick trickle down of the new sensor technology into that line of cameras?



That would make sense wouldn't it? In business, if you have an advantage you run with it before anyone else can react. Canon's advantages are great optics design and AF technologies, but those are held back slightly by less than state of the art sensor performance. Cure the latter and sales should increase over the full range of DSLRs in which the sensors are improved. It seems obvious, but then again I am not a Japanese business executive. We can only hope they chose the right path.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Busted Knuckles said:


> Joe and Jack, isn't it a giggle fest to see what the new stuff can do. Just a load of fun making images, time lapses, HDRs, B&W with different color filter effects, change ISO radically, "motor drive", zillion spot metering, HD home movies, exposure/etc image preview, etc, etc. at the touch of a couple of buttons compared to when we had to use film to get any image - snap shot or otherwise. I did a time lapse on a t3i about 3 years ago and compared it the cost of doing the same in 1976 - when I did it with a 35mm movie camera. ooooofffff.



Totally OT but ...:
Funny thing, I did a ~3 hour time lapse with my 7D2 to capture the storm tide expected to invade the neighborhood. In about 5 minutes of work with the right SW I had a 0:56 video from the 1670 individual frames. The real problem was that all of the (free) online sharing sites compressed the heck out of my ProRes 422 vid. I understand why since the 56 seconds of video was a 1GB file even at only 1080p.

The file I uploaded is here (don't view either on a phone)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2249936/ProRes%20422%201080p.mov
and the online version is here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmzawodny/21351779763/in/dateposted-public/

No comparison at all. So while the internet gets us to places we can't personally go to, the experience is still lacking. I do have to wonder what our fellow forum members, who are so adamant about the next gen bodies having 4K capabilities, do with that video once they take it. Are they all pros that feed the film industry? Seems unlikely. Where can we share HQ vids on line? Likely an existing thread, any pointers to it?

Back to our regularly scheduled forum discussion ...

Joe


----------



## Talley (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Silent shutter on the 5D3 sucks compared to the regular shutter on 7D2.

I look forward to all future canon cameras having a wow silent mode like the 7D2 does.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



Talley said:


> Silent shutter on the 5D3 sucks compared to the regular shutter on 7D2.
> 
> I look forward to all future canon cameras having a wow silent mode like the 7D2 does.



Of course everything is smaller on crop, so it makes it easier.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

I'm ok if 1DX2 doesn't have any video.

I'd like it to have, for those just in case -moments when I need video and don't have anything else, but even then 99% of the time I'd just get cell phone out. I can't imagine being somewhere and me or anyone around not having a cell phone.

I hope they don't compromise anything on photo-side for that, and that they don't increase price to match 1DC for that. Make cameras to take stills, and concentrate on those strong point. Pretty please.


----------



## Stu_bert (Dec 20, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



JMZawodny said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > Joe and Jack, isn't it a giggle fest to see what the new stuff can do. Just a load of fun making images, time lapses, HDRs, B&W with different color filter effects, change ISO radically, "motor drive", zillion spot metering, HD home movies, exposure/etc image preview, etc, etc. at the touch of a couple of buttons compared to when we had to use film to get any image - snap shot or otherwise. I did a time lapse on a t3i about 3 years ago and compared it the cost of doing the same in 1976 - when I did it with a 35mm movie camera. ooooofffff.
> ...



I guess that's one of the drivers behind x.265 - if it can live up to the claims and become prevalent. But tech is always "sold" before the supporting infra catches up. 4K TVs but ironically only 4K available throught streaming services (using x.265 I believe).

4K allows more flexibility editing. Want to reduce blur from "handholding" video footage and it typically reduces your overall frame size. 4K improves that. Even cropping in to focus attention. 4K gives you more flexibility.

I still edit raw images taken on a Eos 10D and bemoan the fact that I only took a portable 20GB drive with me at the time - so some of the pictures I took were in jpeg when I started to run out of space and couldn't delete from the portable drive. LR 5 produces better processing of my 10D Raw than LR 1 and what I used before that (Rawshooter)

I'd be happy to shoot in 4K with the expectation that in the next few years, the infra will catch up - but then I probably only do 2 or 3 significant photography trips a year if I'm lucky, so volume isnt an issue for me...


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 21, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*



tpatana said:


> I'm ok if 1DX2 doesn't have any video. I hope they don't compromise anything on photo-side for that, and that they don't increase price to match 1DC for that. Make cameras to take stills, and concentrate on those strong point. Pretty please.



THIS X 1,000,000,000 8)


----------



## tpatana (Dec 22, 2015)

Also another (easy) SW feature they should implement, picture count with more than 4 digits. How about 5 or 6. Or unlimited. The 8 digit file names are so 80s, Canon could come to this century.

It'd be much easier and faster when looking for old pictures from the drive, since running number would be unique to each picture, and if I'm looking for certain number, when checking a folder I would immediately know if the one I'm looking is at older or newer folder, depending if the running count is smaller or higher than the pics in the folder.

No HW changes needed, just small piece of SW.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 22, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Also another (easy) SW feature they should implement, picture count with more than 4 digits. How about 5 or 6. Or unlimited. The 8 digit file names are so 80s, Canon could come to this century.
> 
> It'd be much easier and faster when looking for old pictures from the drive, since running number would be unique to each picture, and if I'm looking for certain number, when checking a folder I would immediately know if the one I'm looking is at older or newer folder, depending if the running count is smaller or higher than the pics in the folder.
> 
> No HW changes needed, just small piece of SW.



Holy cow tpatana, you're my new favorite poster. I've said this since day one, "why the hell can't the camera's first picture be #1 and the 20,000th picture be #20000?" Is that too much to ask? Totally lame that a $6K camera resets the count at 9999. Lame. 

And just think, like an odometer in a car you'd always know the camera actuation count (unless you choose to reset the camera counter--which I would NEVER do). Heck, I never reset the statistics on my phones . . .


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 22, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Also another (easy) SW feature they should implement, picture count with more than 4 digits. How about 5 or 6. Or unlimited. The 8 digit file names are so 80s, Canon could come to this century.
> 
> It'd be much easier and faster when looking for old pictures from the drive, since running number would be unique to each picture, and if I'm looking for certain number, when checking a folder I would immediately know if the one I'm looking is at older or newer folder, depending if the running count is smaller or higher than the pics in the folder.
> 
> No HW changes needed, just small piece of SW.




This is a no brainer for sure!! It's hard to believe it's never been done.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Also another (easy) SW feature they should implement, picture count with more than 4 digits. How about 5 or 6. Or unlimited. The 8 digit file names are so 80s, Canon could come to this century.
> ...



That isn't Canons fault, it is the international standard for image file formats.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Dec 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



In this situation, the acronym is the ISSIFF. The International STUPID Standard for Image File Formats.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



Yes, for MSDOS 6.22. Although for most part the PC operating systems have been downhill ever since, at least the file names can be longer now. Can't remember what's the current restriction, maybe 256 characters?


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 23, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Yup a big +1 on that. If the shutters are good for more than 100,000 shots then the numbering for images should be 6 digits.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



So is there an explanation why pressure has never been put on them to change?

Jack


----------



## tpatana (Dec 24, 2015)

Lol, that's the attitude. If there's something that would be trivial easy for Canon to improve, but it's also possible to do manually yourself, you're pro only if you don't want Canon to make the improvement


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 25, 2015)

Personally, I've stuck with keeping the original number with my own unique naming ahead of that number. I find it very easy to go back since any mod will still have that number but unfortunately it's been a pain taking the number above 10 000. The date is already in the file but I save dually by date and subject and I'm totally happy with my system except that I have to manually update the numbers that have passed 10 000.

Think if we had to redo our chronology every 1000 years what a mess we'd have in this world. What if you car's odometer rolled over at 10 000 miles.

This is not a knock on whatever the pros choose to do (will it negatively impact them if the count goes to 100000?), it's just plain simple common sense to have consecutive numbering.  IMHO

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Personally, I've stuck with keeping the original number with my own unique naming ahead of that number.
> 
> I'm totally happy with my system except that I have to manually update the numbers that have passed 10 000.
> 
> This is not a knock on whatever the pros choose to do (will it negatively impact them if the count goes to 100000?), it's just plain simple common sense to have consecutive numbering.  IMHO



I also prefer consecutive numbering. Since the first four characters of the file name can be customized on my camera, I initially set them to my initials (two letters), leaving two digits to increment up – that's good to a million images. I just need to remember to increment up the custom filename prefix every 10,000 shots.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I've stuck with keeping the original number with my own unique naming ahead of that number.
> ...



My (now sold) 5D3 had TEROXXXX for file names, my 1DX has T1D_XXXX

Good idea using part of that for the file name, problem is I'd forgot it quite often.

So far biggest event I shot over 3 day, I took around 15k clicks. Typical big days are 2-4k each, so that was exceptional event. But I'd really welcome the added digits, especially since there's no more reason not to add those. Canon can stay in the 80s if they want, but it'd be good to check occasionally what all has been improved since.


----------



## Neutral (Dec 25, 2015)

Never had an issue with 1dx file numbering.
Keep it as default and rename files automatically when importing into LR.
Using the following naming scheme for me:
YYYY-MM-DD_CustomName_CameraFileName.
Folder is the same YYYY--MM-DD_ShootingSessionName
So as result I have date at the beginning of the file, then name of shooting session and finally original camera name.
So from the imported file name and from folder name I know the date and what I was shooting.
Then it is easy to browse files structure using C1 or DXO Pro.
I usually start using Lr for first edits and the if i see that what I need could be done better in DXO Pro (e.g. high ISO noise reduction) or in C1 (better IQ at low-mid range ISO) then I use C1 or DXO.
File naming scheme which I am using makes it easy to find and selected files outside LR catalog structue, even from windows browser as from the first glance I know what is where.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2015)

In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.


----------



## Neutral (Dec 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.



Definitely this has nothing related to any century.
This is just matter of personal taste.
Some people prefer to use abstract UID for each image file name and then to rely on computer search engine to find required, some other people prefer self documenting file names so that everything could be clear at first glance when looking at the the file structure in ANY file browser (just using internal search engine residing in a person brain and person memory)))


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2015)

Neutral said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.
> ...



Agree it's personal taste. I can't recall the last time I looked for an image 'the old fashioned way', digging through the file hierarchy in an OS-level browser. It was probably sometime just after I stopped looking for library books in a card catalog. I prefer the ability to add keywords, geotags, and faces for accessing and relevant set of images I desire.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2015)

Neutral said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.
> ...



But having sequential numbering already on the camera doesn't take anything away from the people who want to add their own tags on the name. But not having sequential hurts the people who don't change the file names (and/or use other method to uniquely identify pics). So why not do the nice thing and add feature that'll benefit many people, and no negative impact for the other people?


----------



## Neutral (Dec 26, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Fully agree here.
If there is no limitations of camera OS, why not to provide more flexibility for in-camera file naming options and make more users happy. Should not be very difficult.


----------



## Neutral (Dec 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Neutral said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Having self-documenting file structure for image files and using keywords, faces marks and additional metadata just provides a bit more flexibility, especialy when using several different image editors. I find that using keywords and other metadata is very convinient in LR catalog for image selection but sometimes there is need to look at the whole file structure outside LR catalog - e.g. when swiching to C1 or just in window file browser.
I am using C1 or DXO Pro quite frequenty instead of LR.
Again, this all is just matter of personal taste and habits.

As for 1dxII have some hopes that it will have some significant advantages over 1dx .
For myself I need at least 1 stop better high ISO and wider AF coverage area.
Also more AF point when using 100-400 II with 1.4x III extender.
Currently both Sony a7s and a7rII provide better high ISO IQ than 1dx for general night time photography.
Also a7rII with latest camera and adapter FW allows to use reliably almost all sensor PDAF points when using 100-400 with 1.4x III at maximum focal length of 560mm and resulting aperture of F/8 and this in many cases provides more flexibility than 1dx in normal light conditions.
Hope that 1dxII would provides significant leap forward and will surpass anticipated Sony A9 pro level body.
Also getting used to a7r,a7s and finally to a7rII my wish is that 1dxII would be a bit more compact and noticably lighter.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 26, 2015)

Live and let live is what life is about. It's like diversity of opinion is troubling to some. We have this with the French language police in Quebec up here in Canada. They are losers ultimately, narrow minded; like arguing over how PK has to be pronounced on hockey broadcasts - truly laughable. 

Every shot I've taken with the 6D with whatever alternate file names I choose all have the unique original file number appended, now surpassing 30 000 and that is not harmful to any CR member and it would not interfere with Canon's objectives going forward to provide that option. This is ridiculous - why not suggest they go back to say 1000 or 100 or 30 like a roll of film. I remain hopeful. 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> So you want Canon to not be lazy so that people who buy Canon cameras can continue to be lazy?
> 
> Because that's what it amounts to. Anyone that is serious about DAM already renames their files on import.
> 
> ...



If an image file is in a folder labeled 'Aunty June and Uncle Joe's visit' inside a folder labeled '2012 - 04 (Apr)', it really doesn't matter whether the image file is named 'IMG_6386.CR2', 'DB056386.CR2', '16Apr2012_June-Joe-Easter-Visit.CR2' or 'Dilbert's_favorite_pic_ever.JPG', it can easily be found. When that image file is in an image library management app, tagged with keywords, names, a location, and possibly even recognized faces, the file name is even more irrelevant (there's a reason image management apps allow you to toggle visibility of the filenames). 

If someone chooses to add the extra step to their workflow of batch renaming at import, well...it's their time to use however they choose (hopefully for reasons other sounding 'serious about DAM').

Personally, I can find an event in no longer than it takes to type the first part of the name into a search field, find all images with a specific person from a shot taken yesterday to a scanned negative from a picture taken 30 years ago, or all images from a particular location. Despite my laziness in not wasting my time renaming files at import, my digital assets are quite well managed.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 26, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> Every shot I've taken with the 6D with whatever alternate file names I choose all have the unique original file number appended, now surpassing 30 000 and that is not harmful to any CR member and it would not interfere with Canon's objectives going forward to provide that option. This is ridiculous - why not suggest they go back to say 1000 or 100 or 30 like a roll of film. I remain hopeful.
> 
> Jack


Exactly!

Pick a system that works for you, your workload, the number of shots you take, and how much time you wish to spend.

Personally, my system is to set the first four characters of the filename (in camera settings) to "D" (for Don) "15" (because it is 2015) and "A"..... after the first 10,000 pictures I change it to "D15B"..... and after another 10,000 pictures to "D15C".... In a few days it gets changed to "D16A"....

That way all my pictures have a unique filename.

When I load them onto the computer I put the day's shooting into one or more folders.... it looks something like:
photos/2015/2015-06-09/Barron River/
photos/2015/2015-06-09/Achray/
photos/2015/2015-06-10/Achray/
photos/2015/2015-06-11/High-Falls/

It gives me a system where I can find things easily enough...... and this is before tagging images to make searching easier.....


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Lol, again you're diminishing people who don't act like you think pros act. I'm sure you're world best photographer, but why take away something from the average Joe that would be super easy to add from Canon?

Numbering is great for review process too. One gal reviews my shots quite often. So she'll send me email "2554 sucks, delete, 3190 crop tighter, 6811 looks good but too bright, bring down and add vignetting" etc. Having unique numbers help plenty, no need to guess which pic she refers to. Granted, basically never I have more than 10k shots, so there's no chance for mistake. But still, I don't understand why you wouldn't like a feature that takes nothing away from you, but would help lot of people. You like people to suffer? Doesn't anyone think about the kids?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> That said, you don't need to be a pro to benefit from renaming files on import.



Indeed, amateurs can waste their time doing so, too...unless they'd rather be lazy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the 21st century, the file name doesn't really matter. I can sort images into folders named for events and nested in chronological (month/year) folders, search using Spotlight for all .CR2 files created on a given date, etc. The only real purpose a filename serves is as a UID for each image, and sequential numbering works fine for that purpose.



This ^

I have never understood people taking the time and effort to rename file names, whatever it is they claim to be able to do 'faster' or more 'logically' can be done with any DAM software without their intervention, even if you are lazy with keywords and ratings, finding a specific image amongst 10's or 100's of thousands of files is easy and instant if you put the most basic of logic into how and where you store your images.

If you are reasonably good with your keywords and ratings that same DAM program will beat the pants off any custom file name many fold.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 27, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



So... I'm really trying to think how renaming would help me more than sequential numbers (with at least 6 digits).

Like if I know I did shoot with Jane around September 2012 and I have pic I want to edit again. The file name is Tero1234.jpg. So I'd go folder 2012, then 09, then look through the folders for the thumbnails to see which one is correct. If not 09, check 08 and 10. Usually find the correct folder in <1 minute, and then search for the Tero1234.CR2 in that folder.

Some pros have the tags on LR, so they just search "Jane" and it'd come. Great. Doesn't need the file name at all.

So in your naming system, can you please tell me how/why changing the name makes it easier to locate the correct file?

Especially if Canon added that 6+ digit numbering system, with me going through the folders, I'd immediately know if I need to look earlier or later folders, making it even faster.

With your system, I'm not sure where I should be looking at.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 27, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



tpatana said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



I rename in import to what I want the files in my commercial website to be named. I sell sets of photos with sequential numbering (SETNAME_1ofXXX thru SETNAME_XXXofXXX), and having the files stored in my system match the names of my product (versus say 3528 in my system being 23of101 on my website) makes maintenance much easier.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 27, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



3kramd5 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Great, that sounds good system for your use. And I'm not planning to take away your ability to do that in the future either. But I'm not sure why dilbert doesn't want for me to be able to use the system I'd prefer. Wouldn't it be nice if we both were able to use the system each of us prefers?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> What I infer from your preference is that you don't actually want to make a choice (or are somehow scared of renaming the files), so you just want to use what comes out of the camera and for that to be unambiguous for the entire time that you own it. You may also be thinking "but I've started out this way, I don't want to change over half way through." - which is akin to "I'm 50, no point in giving up cigarettes now."



What I conclude from your statement is that you lack the mental capacity to comprehend that consecutive numbering is valid as part of an organizational scheme, and that you're too scared or too ignorant to acknowledge that someone else's DAM strategy might work better for them than the one you've chosen for yourself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



3kramd5 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I do that on Export, the trouble with doing it on Import is that every image is numbered and it looks odd if the numbers in the final gallery are not sequential because of the edits and repeats you don't want to show. 

Collections, Smart Collections, Ratings and Flags are way smarter and faster than we are and you can group them in folders, so every gallery I ever uploaded is accessible at the touch of a button with no searching. 

Makes maintenance much easier.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 27, 2015)

^^ Forgive my holiday-addled brain. I don't rename on import, I rename on computer (using lightroom) after I've culled etc. 
My export presets don't rename, but until I've completed work on a given set the names are straight out of camera.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 27, 2015)

Are we really arguing file naming? Wow. Who cares what the camera calls it. You do a shoot, come home, import the files, name them whatever you want in whatever sequence you want.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Are we really arguing file naming? Wow. Who cares what the camera calls it. You do a shoot, come home, import the files, name them whatever you want in whatever sequence you want.



Or you don't, you leave them alone and use far more advanced and smart search tools to find whatever you want whenever you want whilst saving the time and energy trying to enforce your own short sighted file naming structure.

Yep, that is what today's contretemps is about.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > What I infer from your preference is that you don't actually want to make a choice (or are somehow scared of renaming the files), so you just want to use what comes out of the camera and for that to be unambiguous for the entire time that you own it. You may also be thinking "but I've started out this way, I don't want to change over half way through." - which is akin to "I'm 50, no point in giving up cigarettes now."
> ...




I read CR for the humour or am I allowed my spelling? However, it's time to find an alternate funny page.

When is this 1DX II coming anyway, I'm getting impatient. Then we can really have some fun arguing about all its shortcomings! 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> I read CR for the humour or am I allowed my spelling? However, it's time to find an alternate funny page.
> 
> When is this 1DX II coming anyway, I'm getting impatient. Then we can really have some fun arguing about all its shortcomings!
> 
> Jack


We certainly have a lot of funny people here, and some are humorous too.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


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



True, LR is a very useful and efficient DAM. Having said that I rarely delete even my rubbish, you never know when you are going to need to add in eyes, or a person, from another shot, or a bit of background for a composite, I find the deletes too useful too often to actually delete them!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The trouble with doing that is you are changing your image file names from an international standard format to one that isn't, potentially causing issues for current or future image viewing programs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


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



My apologies, I misread your earlier comment.

I thought you were renaming your images to something like 5D3/2012/09/24/Tero1234.jpg, this breaks date protocols and I am sure other stuff. 

Though the truth is image files are so ubiquitous I doubt any program would have any issue reading any file name just so long as it has the correct extension.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


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


I thing it's the file name is opened up to everything..... so long as the extension is right.

On the 7D2 you can set the first 4 characters to anything you want.... I have an old Olympus 300 that let me do the same thing 10 years ago, and I have never had a problem with software recognizing the images....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Thus, you've demonstrated that the file can be easily located with the default filename, demonstrating that the effort taken to batch rename files is a waste of time. 

A heirarchy such as 2012 > 09 > Jane's Photoshoot would also enable the image to be located with an OS-level search for 'Jane', which would find the folder even if the shoot was in August or October. 

The point of consecutive numbering is that a file search for Tero1234.CR2 might pull up 20+ images, but TE271234.CR2 would pull up only one. 

Do you actually sort your images by the camera used to take them?? If so, you giving advice on DAM is even more ludicrous that I thought.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



neuroanatomist said:


> Do you actually sort your images by the camera used to take them??



Camera/Lens/FL/Aperture/Exposure Time/Weekday/Month/Year/XXX_YYYY.

For example I just shot the sunrise, and filed it as:
Sony ILCE-7RM2/Canon EF16-35f4LIS/0.787in/f5.6/0.2min/Monday/December/MMXV/Sunrise_0001.arw

Super useful!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



3kramd5 said:


> Camera/Lens/FL/Aperture/Exposure Time/Weekday/Month/Year/XXX_YYYY.
> 
> For example I just shot the sunrise, and filed it as:
> Sony ILCE-7RM2/Canon EF16-35f4LIS/0.787in/f5.6/0.2min/Monday/December/MMXV/Sunrise_0001.arw
> ...



2015 in Roman numerals nested _within_ the month, nested _within_ the day of the week? Or are the slashes part of your filename, rendering it incompatible with many OS? Focal length in imperial measures?

If that's useful to you, great. Sounds about as convenient and fun as bamboo shoots under the fingernails.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



neuroanatomist said:


> Sounds about as convenient and fun as bamboo shoots under the fingernails.



Actually probably less so. I guess I went a little overboard piling on there. 

In actuality, my naming structure is [type]/{series}/YYYY-MM-DD/filesgohere, where [type] may be travel or people or landscape or wildlife, etc., and series is a descriptive term.


----------



## kaihp (Dec 28, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOSfik-1D X Mark II Rumored Features [CR1]*



3kramd5 said:


> In actuality, my naming structure is [type]/{series}/YYYY-MM-DD/filesgohere, where [type] may be travel or people or landscape or wildlife, etc., and series is a descriptive term.



My naming structure is YYYY/YYYY-MM-DD_<description>
That is, I have a directory for each year, and within that shoots are sorted by shooting year/month/date and then description. No tagging as I don't use anything beyond DPP and ICE once in a while.

Simple, but rugged and - most importantly - works for *me*


----------



## tpatana (Dec 29, 2015)

Give me one popular modern file system which doesn't allow more than 8+3 naming convention.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 29, 2015)

*Re: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Features [CR1]*

Rationalize the 1DXII
This is a huge step up for you. It will take a long time to master and be what limits your creativity. It may be your last camera, who knows. Now don't you deserve the 1DXII? I submit that you owe it to yourself to get that camera. At least that is how I am thinking about it.

sek



Jack Douglas said:


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


----------



## winglet (Dec 31, 2015)

I fall into the camp of - as part of the Import/Sort workflow - batch renaming photos with something slightly descriptive, the date of capture from EXIF, and a sequence number. This is denigrated by the likes of Neuro for being a waste of time, with the powerful indexing available on PC's.

I'm trying to understand how this is more time-consuming than tagging everything with keywords and the like? Is renaming not just another word for tagging? I certainly don't sit there typing up names one at a time. I tried using tags, but then I ended up curating a massive cloud of descriptors - they're not much use for filtering if you have several tags for the same thing. So not exactly a time-saver.

I don't rename them to help find them, I rename them to give a hint as to what the event was, much like one would write a caption on the back of a print back in the day. It's enormously helpful when trying to recall the subject content a single image contains, without having to put it into software just to see how its "tagged".

I also keep them roughly organized in a plain old hierarchical file/folder structure with some logic. Again, not so I can navigate to a file by drilling down into a file structure - but that IS a backup method. If you just allow your files to place by the whim of your OS, where do you start to look if Spotlight can't find something? 

Operating systems change, file formats are rendered obsolete, search algorithms are constantly tweaked, and I don't have total faith in any machine logic. But then, I fly airplanes for a living and simplest is invariably best for anything remotely mission-critical.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2015)

winglet said:


> I fall into the camp of - as part of the Import/Sort workflow - batch renaming photos with something slightly descriptive, the date of capture from EXIF, and a sequence number. This is denigrated by the likes of Neuro for being a waste of time, with the powerful indexing available on PC's.



They can be placed in a folder with a descriptive name (you're putting them in a heirarchical folder anyway), the creation date is displayed by the OS in a column, and the files already have a sequence number. What does renaming each file add, except time to the workflow?




winglet said:


> I'm trying to understand how this is more time-consuming than tagging everything with keywords and the like?



A batch rename is probably no more time consuming than keyword tagging. In fact, I do neither – I do geotag, and let the face recognition do its thing. 




winglet said:


> I don't rename them to help find them, I rename them to give a hint as to what the event was, much like one would write a caption on the back of a print back in the day. It's enormously helpful when trying to recall the subject content a single image contains, without having to put it into software just to see how its "tagged".



The content hint is the enclosing folder – Ice Skating, Christmas Portraits, etc. Do you really find it faster to browse through / look for images in the OS-level browser vs. an image library manager? I certainly don't. 




winglet said:


> I also keep them roughly organized in a plain old hierarchical file/folder structure with some logic. Again, not so I can navigate to a file by drilling down into a file structure - but that IS a backup method. If you just allow your files to place by the whim of your OS, where do you start to look if Spotlight can't find something?



Of course they're organized hierarchically, not by the 'whim of the OS'. Images are stored as referenced files in the manager. That's just common sense, the benefit is obvious (e.g. Apple has stopped supporting Aperture (although it still runs under El Cap, it'll break at some point).


----------



## tpatana (Dec 31, 2015)

Never could have imagined that my suggestion for Canon to add couple extra digits on the file name would become multi-page argument, and especially how many people are against it.

Still not sure why people oppose the idea, since it doesn't take anything away from any other method. It's zero negative effect on anyone who doesn't care about the numbers. But it's good help for many people who like to have sequential numbering. So why be against it? Just because you're supposed to be against change?


----------



## tpatana (Jan 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Never could have imagined that my suggestion for Canon to add couple extra digits on the file name would become multi-page argument, and especially how many people are against it.
> ...



Lol, aren't you keen on finding ways why it wouldn't work in some extreme cases.

And to comment your last chapter, again I'm not telling you to stop renaming your files. I'm not taking anything away from you, you can keep doing your stuff regardless. Why you want other people not have their thing they might like?


----------



## kaihp (Jan 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If you don't rename and store your images hierarchically by date, then what do you do if your camera gets sent to Canon for servicing/repair and rather than repair your camera, they send you back a new one that has shot fewer images than you have, so that the next picture you take has a filename that you've already got?
> 
> Or what about when you drop your camera in the ocean, buy a new camera and now you're faced with completely overlapping number sequences? Or even just upgrade your camera...



It's going to be exactly like today, with four digts.

To take your argument down the Reducto ad absurdium route: why not just have a single fixed filename? you can always rename it later.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> winglet said:
> 
> 
> > I fall into the camp of - as part of the Import/Sort workflow - batch renaming photos with something slightly descriptive, the date of capture from EXIF, and a sequence number. This is denigrated by the likes of Neuro for being a waste of time, with the powerful indexing available on PC's.
> ...



Not really directed at you Nero, but I wanted to add my 2 cents.

I rename my files with this command:
exiftool -r '-FileName<CreateDate' -d %Y-%m-%d-%H%M%S_%%f.%%e IMG*.CR2

This makes sorting in chronological order of pictures taken with multiple cameras very easy, this way I have a unique name for each photo from any camera taken on any card.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2016)

We went on a family trip to Switzerland and France last year. There were five of us, with four of us taking pictures using a total of nine cameras (1D X, EOS M, two P&S, various iDevices). Several different default naming schemes, EXIF-based chronological re-naming wouldn't have helped (at least, not without first batch-adjusting the date/time for some camera sets). 

Putting them all in an event-named folder in a chronological folder hierarchy means that at the OS level I can easily find all the photos from the trip. In Aperture, I can find them the same way, or by clicking on a map if, for example, I wanted all the pics from Paris. I can display by faces within the folder to see all pics _of_ my older daughter, or search by camera within the folder to find all pics taken _by_ my older daughter. If I choose, I could keyword-tag the pics, but I don't see the need as a touchpad-swipe through the thumbnails makes it easy to spot all the pics of the Eiffel Tower. 

The point, as I stated previously, is that with the tools available today, the names of individual files really don't matter.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You're really something, aren't you. Simple reason: It's trivial easy for Canon to add, it helps X% of the people who use Canon, it it has 0% negative impact on people who don't need it.

Can you please already answer the one simple question there:

What negative impact would be for you if Canon had 6 (or 8) numbers instead of 4? Give me one reason why anyone should object on this change?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You're as right as you usually are. The first four characters in the default name – IMG_ – are absolutely inviolate and cannot ever be altered. Ever. Somehow I managed to change them on my 1D X, I guess my camera is defective.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



_FAT/FAT32
Max. filename length
8.3 filename with OEM characters,
255 UCS-2 characters when using LFN_

Other stuff you think you know but we should correct?


----------



## tpatana (Jan 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



When was the last time you used computer that supports only 8+3 file names?

Hello, dilbert, 80s is calling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Hello, dilbert, 80s is calling.



Lol. Things work differently in dilbertland.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



They still can support long file names, for some reason they don't use the option.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So you know for a fact that the feature would cost extra? Do you also know how much?

I also demand that the LAN-port must be removed from 1DX2, since I'm not using it. I refuse to pay for a feature I don't need.


----------



## tpatana (Jan 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Did you read that? For one, the article was 12 years old. And it says camera manufacturers need to pay 25 cent per camera for up to 250k per manufacturer (I guess Canon sells more than that). It didn't say anything about needing to pay extra for long file names, but even if it were double, I'd be ok to chip in that extra on my cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2016)

tpatana said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'll leave it to you to work out the meaning of that.
> ...



Yes, but he didn't understand it, which why he wanted your help to work out the meaning.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Does anyone know of a camera that does not use 8 character file names? Every one that I have ever had or used (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Apple, GoPro, Panasonic, and even Kodak), from 1994 to present, has had 8 character file names....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



Ah, the beauty of standards.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jan 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> This is a perfect case of that - either the camera would be more expensive or Canon's profit per camera would drop or some other feature would be excluded to cover the cost of including this for many people that don't use it or don't care.



This reply reeks of desperation . . . ??? :-\ :-[


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 3, 2016)

Well, after a few day's break I decide to take a peek. 

I really shouldn't say this but I think I've figured it out finally. This, after driving my son at high speed to the airport at 4:30 AM (late) because ............ There are certain people you might as well not try to reason with, at least at certain times, _cause it gets you no where and is simply a waste of time_. 

Jack


----------



## kaihp (Jan 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Does anyone know of a camera that does not use 8 character file names? Every one that I have ever had or used (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Apple, GoPro, Panasonic, and even Kodak), from 1994 to present, has had 8 character file names....



Yup, plenty of cameras! All my Android phone have - as far as I remember - used more than 8 characters.
In fact, the image files are named "IMG_<YYYY><MM><DD>_<HH><MM><SS>.jpg"
So 3 chars for "IMG", 8 chars for YMD, 2 chars for underscores, 6 chars for time-of-date and 4 characters for ".jpg" = 23 characters.

There are a more than one billion Android devices out there, BTW.


----------



## Warrenl (Jan 5, 2016)

Changing the subject, whats the chances of Canon matching the D5 on price or specs. The D5 looks pretty good to me. Anybody want 2 very used 1dx's....... (Obviously waiting to see what Canon comes up with)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2370616853/nikon-fills-in-the-blanks-on-professional-grade-d5-dslr#specs


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2016)

Warrenl said:


> Changing the subject, whats the chances of Cann matching the D5 on price or specs. The D5 looks pretty good to me. Anybody want 2 very used 1dx's....... (Obviously waiting to see what Canon comes up with)
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2370616853/nikon-fills-in-the-blanks-on-professional-grade-d5-dslr#specs



Yes, but the real question is "does the D5 use more than 8 character file names"


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 5, 2016)

Warrenl said:


> Changing the subject, whats the chances of Cann matching the D5 on price or specs. The D5 looks pretty good to me. Anybody want 2 very used 1dx's....... (Obviously waiting to see what Canon comes up with)
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/2370616853/nikon-fills-in-the-blanks-on-professional-grade-d5-dslr#specs



I doubt Canon will be satisfied if they are not matching or beating most/many of these specs. So Nikon now has 12 FPS and an RF flash. This is getting exciting cause except for a price that's totally crazy this is going to be my first and only new pro camera purchase.

Jack


----------



## Proscribo (Jan 5, 2016)

But 1Dx already matches those specs pretty much (only major thing missing is 4K). ???


----------



## Warrenl (Jan 5, 2016)

Most specs yes, but not the sensor.

DR and higher ISO. Lets see what Canon can offer


----------



## john1970 (Jan 5, 2016)

And the Canon 1D X still manages to duplicate the DOF preview button and multi-function button 2 on both the horizontal and vertical grip while Nikon still cannot figure out why this is important even on their new D5? Sometimes ergonomics and layout are equally as important as the latest electronic advancements.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

john1970 said:


> Sometimes ergonomics and layout are equally as important as the latest electronic advancements.



To some, nothing is more important than low ISO DR. :


----------



## tpatana (Jan 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> john1970 said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes ergonomics and layout are equally as important as the latest electronic advancements.
> ...



And I want to best possible DR and low noise at exactly ISO6400, since that's my most used ISO. Jedem das saine.


----------

