Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 18, 2011 at 3:28 AM
The Canon 1DX was just announced, not all of the price and specs were given yet, but I did manage to find this so far from the Canon site:
18.1 Megapixel Full-Frame CMOS and Dual "DIGIC 5+" Image Processors
New 61-Point High Density Reticular AF including 41 cross-type AF Points
EOS Full HD Video with Manual Exposure Control and Multiple Frame Rates
Shutter durability to 400,000 cycles, Exclusive Dust- and Weather-Resistance, new Ultrasonic Wave Motion Cleaning
Posted by David Bostedo on October 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM
Thanks David! Wow, did you read the SPECS on that thing?? Besides the built-in wireless and the dual processors and seamless restarting of video after it hits the 4Ggb limit, the most impressive feature are the cells on the sensor: they're a half-micron bigger than the 5D2 which means seriously cleaner low-light image capture. This ought to be the best from Canon yet, for both us landscape nature shooters and for Hollywood that has gone viral shooting low-light footage with the 5D2. And, ISO 205,000! That's looney. I'm sure it's not usable for quality images, but if you need a news shot and the only light in the room is somebody's cigarette, it just might be doable.
Fortunately, the street price has been set at a mere $6800 U.S., so everyone will be able to pick up a pair of bodies to ensure having a backup in case anything goes wrong (like a worldwide economic slump or something).
I'll actually be selling my 1ds3 and a lens to buy this thing I think.
Few features that really make this camera interesting:
twin CF cards! - you can duplicate or use second card as overflow...timelapses anyone??
ethernet port! - i'm a cable monkey at heart...and you can run cat 5 some 300+ feet for remote camera stuff...again...timelapses anyone? Would be nice hanging out in the jeep while the dolly is running out in the distance..and still keep an eye on what it's doing.
multiple exposure in camera blends - going to have to see how this works, but if it does, it will really simplify things for landscape photography. they say there are 4 methods, so as long as it does not look like a photomatix nightmare, it could be useful.
the amazing noise claims and huge pixels - nightscapes...and nightscape timelapses!
Then there is the in camera lens profile lens distortion and CA correction, improved sensor cleaning mechanism...crazy stuff.
If this thing does what they are claiming, it's going to revolutionize night landscapes. The amount of effort it takes to build a proper nightscape these days is extremely time consuming. This camera might just be the fix.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 18, 2011 at 12:16 PM
A few points :
-- ISOs above 51,200 are done by increasing exposure after capture (that's why their "H" modes) and not as a real ISO on the read circuitry in the sensor. So they'll likely be pretty close to what you could get by underexposing at ISO 51,200 and then boosting it yourself after the fact.
-- The fact that they went full-frame and less resolution than the 5D/1Ds line is pretty clearly a shot at the 12 MP Nikon D3 series. I'm willing to bet the low light performance is comparable, if not better, than the Nikon.
-- The D3s is currently $5200 for 12MP, and the D3X is $8000 for 24.5 MP. So $6800 doesn't sound too out of line for something that specs right in between, resolution wise, that's also newer.
-- I'm not sure "gone viral" means what you think it means Paul
Posted by Jim Bullard on October 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM
"Fortunately, the street price has been set at a mere $6800 U.S., so everyone will be able to pick up a pair of bodies to ensure having a backup in case anything goes wrong (like a worldwide economic slump or something)."
ROTFL - You forgot the full compliment of "L" lenses.
I suppose there are those who are 'in business' and can justify these as a business cost. I'm retired and sell prints to people to hang on their walls in a rural area. I am unlikely to live long enough to amortize equipment in that category but it would be great to have for my landscapes. Any rich patrons out there?
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 18, 2011 at 1:08 PM
LOL! OK David, maybe "viral" wasn't the right adjective, let's just say really REALLY popular.
Replies sure have been entertaining so far! It's a premium body for the pro with income, no doubt, but it's going to be the best high-end value per dollar offered so far for that pro. Canon kind of stuck it to those who spent $6900 on the 1DsMKIII and then followed behind with the 5D2 for $4K less with the same sensor. Granted the 1Ds3 has superior focusing and FPS and build/weather sealing, but for a landscape image manually focused on a tripod, only the weather sealing is a plus. Point is, this new camera is worth the price in many ways especially as a killer low light image machine. I know someone who gets $7,500 to shoot a wedding, to that person this body is a no-brainer for low light action shots at ceremonies and receptions. OK, not totally relevant to nature work, but defintely a potential consumer who can afford it. To the DP in a video/movie production house, this Canon will be a shining star, the next nearest camera that can provide what the 1D X will feature for them is probably an ARRI D21, in the $75,000 range.
Image-making capability is getting amazing these days.
Posted by Kah Kit Yoong on October 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM
Cool. It's actually not far off the price I sold my 1DsMkIII for a couple of years back, thinking that its replacement was imminent.
The D3s is currently $5200 for 12MP, and the D3X is $8000 for 24.5 MP. So $6800 doesn't sound too out of line for something that specs right in between, resolution wise, that's also newer.
"Out of line" is a relative term. If you want to make the case that this 1DX price isn't any more unreasonable than what Nikon is charging for its pro cameras, I won't argue with you. But from where I sit, particularly in light of the world economic climate, these prices--all of them--are awfully, awfully high...particularly for a product with a built-in, industry-standard obsolescence of approximately three years.
The 1DX may be a phenomenal camera. The specs are exciting (though I'd suggest that recent history suggests waiting and making certain that the proof is indeed in the pudding), particularly for certain uses. For those who can justify spending this kind of cash on a camera--and there undoubtedly are people who can--more power to them, I suppose. I'm simply not one of those people.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 18, 2011 at 4:54 PM
But from where I sit, particularly in light of the world economic climate, these prices--all of them--are awfully, awfully high...particularly for a product with a built-in, industry-standard obsolescence of approximately three years.
That's probably a tough one for the camera companies to analyze Kerry. Overall buying power is down, so do you make more money by lowering prices to keep the sales volume up? Or raising prices and trying to make more per camera? (Of course, it's more complicated than that in actuality.)
What I mean is, a bad economic climate could result in higher prices, as
1) average users won't buy it regardless of price and
2) the companies count on those that really need the camera buying it even at the higher price.
In this case, I guess Canon and Nikon are both counting on the high end customers paying a premium to keep up to date, even if it means less cameras sold. This is a similar situation to the when the D3X came out and people were stunned at the price. But I guess those have been selling OK.
Posted by Ed Cordes on October 18, 2011 at 10:41 PM
The new "X" body will not AF at F8. This means any F4 lens and 2 X TC will not AF! For a pro body this is terrible!!! This is a deal killer for me. I'll keep my 1D MK4 thank you!!
Posted by RL Potts on October 19, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Why? For the same price, you can get the new Sigma with better IQ. Then there is much talk about Nikon with a 36mp sensor sans a.a. filter that may be better than the Sigma. Fuji thinks they are about to introduce a mirrorless that is better than any FX. Be patient for things to sort out. I don't know who needs the new Canon besides pro sport shooters. This is probably for the Olympic games.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 19, 2011 at 1:22 AM
With 7um cells capturing enormous amount of light, this baby is designed for wide angle tripod mounted hugeness at f11 or f13 and run-n-gun low-light madness. If the AF thing is true, yep, it's probably best to stay with a MK4, Ed. Look at all the bucks you get to keep! Speaking of, the economy and the price is of zero affect, those who would buy this pro machine are buying this pro machine regardless. Remember the economic crash of Nov 2008, the very same week that 5D Mark II's started shipping. For months they were nearly impossible to find on a shelf, even B&H had to ration between filling pre orders and spewing a few out on the web which would sell out in under an hour. The economy got UGLY yet Canon was selling a $2500 camera like hotcakes. The demand barely let up, and three years later it's still a list-price item. Granted, the new 1D X (btw, that space bothers me from a marketing standpoint, it just should have been 1DX or even 1Dx) is aimed at a more premium market, but IMO this body is quite well-packed for the money. I bet it dethrones the 5D2 in the wedding market which is pretty hoppin' right now. But aside from the landscape shooters who will go for this for the image quality, this thing will sell HUGE amongst the indie film world, for what it offers cinematically is incredible. I know, I know, that doesn't apply here, but there is a big market out there for this camera. That's where Nikon doesn't get it, the video world, and maybe they don't want to, that's their choice. Canon clearly is leveraging that arena. Please don't write and say "but Nikon has video support"... that's one area where they aren't even on the same zip code as Canon, not even a full frame Nikon body shooting 1080p yet, incredible. They are missing a huge marketshare. BUT, again, I'm just talking target market for the 1D X, I know that video is not a major NPN focus. Nikon shooters, hold your fire, for stills you have phenomenal fire power, no question!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 19, 2011 at 8:14 AM
It looks like an amazing camera, no doubt! As others have stated, it's priced accordingly for the intended market (which isn't me because I use my Canon G11 more than my DSLR!).
As far as the economy, no doubt it's a lot tougher now, especially for those who do not qualify as "millionaires" (where ever you believe that fiscal boundary exists). Those who have the resources and can justify the expenditure will no doubt make the jump - and I bet Canon will struggle to fill the demand.
Eventually, the technology makes its way down to the more affordable models, which is good news for the rest of us.
Posted by David Prichard on October 21, 2011 at 12:06 AM
At the price, the closest I'll get to this camera is wishful thinking.
Changing the topic slightly, if you could afford the camera, would you buy it? The reason I ask is that when visiting a friend's studio a while back I learned he was shooting a television commercial on his Canon. From what I have read we may soon see the merging of the still and video camera; photographic quality images that can be pulled out of video.
For that sort of money it is tempting to hang tough to see what is around the technological corner.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 21, 2011 at 12:47 AM
Great question Dave, and the answer is that RAW video is not around the corner for DSLRs like many think. There's still a ways to go for that. Right now my 5D2 takes a 5616x3744 image and compresses it down to 1920x1080 using H.264 (the JPEG of video), and what's worse, the 5D2 squishes it down to a 4:2:0 color space which is only 8-bit. Canon had to do that to make the video thing work. This remains the same with the other Canon DSLRs shooting video. That means your photo you pull from video is a squashed down 1920x1080 8-bit jpeg essentially, not optimal at all. When we see the day that the full vertical resolution of DSLR video is 3.7K (on a 21mp sensor), that'll mean RAW video and then the image you pull will be worth it. BTW, if you hear the term 4K video, that's what it means.
But there's still another problem: for 24fps video to look smooth you must shoot at double the frame rate, so your shutter speed will always be 1/50 (unless Canon gets smart and does a 1/48 shutter speed), and often the video will be shot at wide apertures to compensate for light needed for exposure. Would you be happy with only having a 1/50-sec shutter speed for all of your images and no control over the f-stop you really want? If I may be so bold, the idea that many are talking about regarding pulling images from video is a limited workflow and a bad idea, being the images are locked into the video's settings for exposure and aperture. To a video guy it's a neat notion; to a serious nature photographer it's a waste of time. And this is if we even get a DSLR that can shoot RAW video which is farther out then we think due to heat, processing power requirements, FAT32 CF cards that max at 4GB and a need for serious battery power. I think that the idea needs to go away for now, ain't gonna happen any time soon. Video guys don't understand what we still shooters require. I would say, however, that it's fine for journalists that only post web-based images for news stories. In that scenario, pulling images from video at this point in history is doable.
There is one other reason that this is worth buying: Canon and Nikon have their flagship pro cameras, yet Canon's full frame 1D flagship is the 1Ds MKIII, nice body, no video. I know, the V word gets irritating, but it's here to stay. So Canon was seriously hurthing for a blockbuster Pro-Level camera, and by jove, that camera had better have video and it had better have it on a higher feature level than the 5D MK2 by a longshot... and it does with continual shooting, dual processor, CLEAN imagery and the huge one, built-in wireless.
So there you go!
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM
Eventually, the technology makes its way down to the more affordable models, which is good news for the rest of us.
Exactly, Jim!
Posted by David Bostedo on October 21, 2011 at 9:14 AM
...built-in wireless.
Actually it requires an additional module to be attached to do wireless. From the press release :
Pricing and Availability
The Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR camera is scheduled for March 2012 availability and will be sold in a body-only configuration at an estimated retail price of $6,800.00. The compact, lightweight WFT-E6A Wireless File Transmitter is scheduled to be available in March 2012 and have an estimated retail price of $600. Availability for the GP-E1 GPS receiver is expected in April 2012 with an estimated retail price of $300.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on October 21, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Availability for the GP-E1 GPS receiver is expected in April 2012 with an estimated retail price of $300.
ACK!!! I didn't read the entire press release, I read about the features from an article, I should know better than that. Good catch, David...
OK, time to summarize this whole thread:
Hey Folks, Canon has a new pro body announced with all the bells and whistles and MAN, is it expensive!!
Discussion
19 replies/sarcasm
Few features that really make this camera interesting:
twin CF cards! - you can duplicate or use second card as overflow...timelapses anyone??
ethernet port! - i'm a cable monkey at heart...and you can run cat 5 some 300+ feet for remote camera stuff...again...timelapses anyone? Would be nice hanging out in the jeep while the dolly is running out in the distance..and still keep an eye on what it's doing.
multiple exposure in camera blends - going to have to see how this works, but if it does, it will really simplify things for landscape photography. they say there are 4 methods, so as long as it does not look like a photomatix nightmare, it could be useful.
the amazing noise claims and huge pixels - nightscapes...and nightscape timelapses!
Then there is the in camera lens profile lens distortion and CA correction, improved sensor cleaning mechanism...crazy stuff.
If this thing does what they are claiming, it's going to revolutionize night landscapes. The amount of effort it takes to build a proper nightscape these days is extremely time consuming. This camera might just be the fix.
-- ISOs above 51,200 are done by increasing exposure after capture (that's why their "H" modes) and not as a real ISO on the read circuitry in the sensor. So they'll likely be pretty close to what you could get by underexposing at ISO 51,200 and then boosting it yourself after the fact.
-- The fact that they went full-frame and less resolution than the 5D/1Ds line is pretty clearly a shot at the 12 MP Nikon D3 series. I'm willing to bet the low light performance is comparable, if not better, than the Nikon.
-- The D3s is currently $5200 for 12MP, and the D3X is $8000 for 24.5 MP. So $6800 doesn't sound too out of line for something that specs right in between, resolution wise, that's also newer.
-- I'm not sure "gone viral" means what you think it means Paul
ROTFL - You forgot the full compliment of "L" lenses.
I suppose there are those who are 'in business' and can justify these as a business cost. I'm retired and sell prints to people to hang on their walls in a rural area. I am unlikely to live long enough to amortize equipment in that category but it would be great to have for my landscapes. Any rich patrons out there?
Replies sure have been entertaining so far! It's a premium body for the pro with income, no doubt, but it's going to be the best high-end value per dollar offered so far for that pro. Canon kind of stuck it to those who spent $6900 on the 1DsMKIII and then followed behind with the 5D2 for $4K less with the same sensor. Granted the 1Ds3 has superior focusing and FPS and build/weather sealing, but for a landscape image manually focused on a tripod, only the weather sealing is a plus. Point is, this new camera is worth the price in many ways especially as a killer low light image machine. I know someone who gets $7,500 to shoot a wedding, to that person this body is a no-brainer for low light action shots at ceremonies and receptions. OK, not totally relevant to nature work, but defintely a potential consumer who can afford it. To the DP in a video/movie production house, this Canon will be a shining star, the next nearest camera that can provide what the 1D X will feature for them is probably an ARRI D21, in the $75,000 range.
Image-making capability is getting amazing these days.
"Out of line" is a relative term. If you want to make the case that this 1DX price isn't any more unreasonable than what Nikon is charging for its pro cameras, I won't argue with you. But from where I sit, particularly in light of the world economic climate, these prices--all of them--are awfully, awfully high...particularly for a product with a built-in, industry-standard obsolescence of approximately three years.
The 1DX may be a phenomenal camera. The specs are exciting (though I'd suggest that recent history suggests waiting and making certain that the proof is indeed in the pudding), particularly for certain uses. For those who can justify spending this kind of cash on a camera--and there undoubtedly are people who can--more power to them, I suppose. I'm simply not one of those people.
That's probably a tough one for the camera companies to analyze Kerry. Overall buying power is down, so do you make more money by lowering prices to keep the sales volume up? Or raising prices and trying to make more per camera? (Of course, it's more complicated than that in actuality.)
What I mean is, a bad economic climate could result in higher prices, as
1) average users won't buy it regardless of price and
2) the companies count on those that really need the camera buying it even at the higher price.
In this case, I guess Canon and Nikon are both counting on the high end customers paying a premium to keep up to date, even if it means less cameras sold. This is a similar situation to the when the D3X came out and people were stunned at the price. But I guess those have been selling OK.
As far as the economy, no doubt it's a lot tougher now, especially for those who do not qualify as "millionaires" (where ever you believe that fiscal boundary exists). Those who have the resources and can justify the expenditure will no doubt make the jump - and I bet Canon will struggle to fill the demand.
Eventually, the technology makes its way down to the more affordable models, which is good news for the rest of us.
Changing the topic slightly, if you could afford the camera, would you buy it? The reason I ask is that when visiting a friend's studio a while back I learned he was shooting a television commercial on his Canon. From what I have read we may soon see the merging of the still and video camera; photographic quality images that can be pulled out of video.
For that sort of money it is tempting to hang tough to see what is around the technological corner.
But there's still another problem: for 24fps video to look smooth you must shoot at double the frame rate, so your shutter speed will always be 1/50 (unless Canon gets smart and does a 1/48 shutter speed), and often the video will be shot at wide apertures to compensate for light needed for exposure. Would you be happy with only having a 1/50-sec shutter speed for all of your images and no control over the f-stop you really want? If I may be so bold, the idea that many are talking about regarding pulling images from video is a limited workflow and a bad idea, being the images are locked into the video's settings for exposure and aperture. To a video guy it's a neat notion; to a serious nature photographer it's a waste of time. And this is if we even get a DSLR that can shoot RAW video which is farther out then we think due to heat, processing power requirements, FAT32 CF cards that max at 4GB and a need for serious battery power. I think that the idea needs to go away for now, ain't gonna happen any time soon. Video guys don't understand what we still shooters require. I would say, however, that it's fine for journalists that only post web-based images for news stories. In that scenario, pulling images from video at this point in history is doable.
There is one other reason that this is worth buying: Canon and Nikon have their flagship pro cameras, yet Canon's full frame 1D flagship is the 1Ds MKIII, nice body, no video. I know, the V word gets irritating, but it's here to stay. So Canon was seriously hurthing for a blockbuster Pro-Level camera, and by jove, that camera had better have video and it had better have it on a higher feature level than the 5D MK2 by a longshot... and it does with continual shooting, dual processor, CLEAN imagery and the huge one, built-in wireless.
So there you go!
Exactly, Jim!
Actually it requires an additional module to be attached to do wireless. From the press release :
ACK!!! I didn't read the entire press release, I read about the features from an article, I should know better than that. Good catch, David...
OK, time to summarize this whole thread: