Canon Shooters Might Be Interested...

[MajaMolly]

Canon's newest...

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_cano...01e024803b812e

[Dizzy]

Anyone want to take a guess at what Colin will be getting for Christmas?...

[Colin Southern]

anyone want to take a guess at what colin will be getting for christmas?...

brb

[Ken MT]

Canon announces EOS-1D X: full-frame 18MP sensor, 14 fps, 204,800 top ISO, $6,800 price tag (US$)

[hoffstriker]

I now know where my tax refund is going... Trying to convince my wife, that'll be another story...

[rpcrowe]

It certainly seems like a wonderful camera but, at a price-tag of close to seven thousand U.S. Dollars, I think that its use will be restricted to photographers making very good money from their cameras and to VERY-VERY AFFLUENT amateurs.

This might set Canon ahead of Nikon again and I wonder how soon before some of the improvements begin to filter down to the less pricey Canon cameras.

[Colin Southern]

Got mine odered, although it's going to be a LONG wait to Mar / Apr / May / Jun next year

[MajaMolly]

Got mine odered, although it's going to be a LONG wait to Mar / Apr / May / Jun next year

Well... it's always good to have exciting things to look forward to!

[russellsnr]

Well being British as it does not seem to make a cuppa tea I think I will give it a pass and spend the money on a couple trips to photographic places along with the 1Ds Mk II.
Russ

[herbert]

Got mine odered, although it's going to be a LONG wait to Mar / Apr / May / Jun next year

Hi Colin,

I would be interested in your thoughts on this new camera given your experience using the 1D mk3. Looking at the specs it should offer higher dynamic range, better high ISO and smarter auto-focus with enough pixels to satisfy most image output destinations. It seems to me that Canon have decided to target the 1D camera at the job of a camera that never makes a mistake for those "Can't miss" opportunities.

The much wanted (by some) high mega pixel camera will probably come in the future. For your work in the studio and on landscapes would you be interested in more mega pixels? Or do you think that the benefits of bigger pixels outweigh the cons of not being able to crop tight into an image? I know you print big so you have the experience to know what you can do with so many pixels.

I wish you well with your new camera (when it arrives). I'll have to wait for some of that technology to trickle down into something I can afford.

Alex

[Colin Southern]

Hi Colin,

I would be interested in your thoughts on this new camera given your experience using the 1D mk3. Looking at the specs it should offer higher dynamic range, better high ISO and smarter auto-focus with enough pixels to satisfy most image output destinations. It seems to me that Canon have decided to target the 1D camera at the job of a camera that never makes a mistake for those "Can't miss" opportunities.

The much wanted (by some) high mega pixel camera will probably come in the future. For your work in the studio and on landscapes would you be interested in more mega pixels? Or do you think that the benefits of bigger pixels outweigh the cons of not being able to crop tight into an image? I know you print big so you have the experience to know what you can do with so many pixels.

I wish you well with your new camera (when it arrives). I'll have to wait for some of that technology to trickle down into something I can afford.

Alex

Hi Alex,

It'll be interesting to find out

Dynamic Range isn't really an issue for studio portraiture, apart from perhaps being able to recover the occasional "grab shot" where the subject does something that looks good, but is the opposite to what the lights are set up for. In terms of landscape though (where I'm typically shooting into the light), it can only be a good thing. I don't have any real issue with noise now, but it is an area where "the cleaner the better" none-the-less.

The higher ISO modes are possible due to the increased dynamic range, and that's something potentially with a handy up-side (and no down-side), so as Jack Nickolson said in Mars Attacks "we'll take it"!

The new AF will be great if it works as advertised; When shooting at F2.8 I get quite a few shots where the eyes just aren't as shart as they should be - mostly it's my fault for not getting an AF point right on them, but it definitely doesn't help when there isn't an AF point where I need one to be, and I think the 1Dx will go a long way to fixing that.

In terms of pixels, for landscape I've yet to see a convincing argument for more than about 8MP, and for portraiture, more than about 12MP - so 18 -v- 21 is "about the same" as far as I'm concerned. It would have been nice to keep it at 21, but that would probably have compromised the frame rate and DR - so if that's the compromise they had to make then "so be it" - no biggie. Just a little bizarre having the pro-sumer 5D2 with a higher pixel count than their all-singing, all-dancing, cup-of-tea-making flagship model.

Will probably be a long wait for it - I'm #2 on the 2nd biggest dealers list in NZ - so I'll probably get one of the first 1/2 dozen in the country (), but Canon are notorioous for NZ being the "tail of the dog", so I'm not expecting to see it until April next year at the earliest.

[Harpo]

Im curious about what seems like a trend… combining the camera part and the video part. I dont take videos, so I feel Im wasting my money when I pay for that in my camera. It seems to make sense to me that the enhanced technology in both areas in one camera could also be split- an excellent camera for photography, and an excellent one for videography. Are more semi/pro photographers really using video which warrants cannon to include this? Seems like more bells than necessary for some. Like others have said, Id wait for the new technology to trickle down and not necessarily have both photo and video bundled in one. Anyone thinking along those lines or have a good explanation for this combination?

[arith]

Mmm looks alright; but I would have to buy a studio first so I will stick with what I got

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/514...-1d-x-overview

I know it's a stupid question; but is it made out of metal?

[herbert]

Hi Colin,

Thanks for the insights.

The new AF will be great if it works as advertised; When shooting at F2.8 I get quite a few shots where the eyes just aren't as sharp as they should be ...

So it's not just me then. When I first used a fast lens I though I was doing something wrong to get such a low hit rate. I am now finding out that this is the same for most people (except it seems the marketing departments of camera manufacturers). The solution seems to be to take more photos (and know roughly how many you need to take).

Im curious about what seems like a trend… combining the camera part and the video part. I dont take videos, so I feel Im wasting my money when I pay for that in my camera. It seems to make sense to me that the enhanced technology in both areas in one camera could also be split- an excellent camera for photography, and an excellent one for videography. Are more semi/pro photographers really using video which warrants cannon to include this? Seems like more bells than necessary for some. Like others have said, Id wait for the new technology to trickle down and not necessarily have both photo and video bundled in one. Anyone thinking along those lines or have a good explanation for this combination?

Hi Harpo,

As I understand it the two things do overlap quite a lot. This enables the manufacturer to build a camera that does both without much extra cost. In fact it may be that having one camera do both things is overall cheaper since the economies of scale mean more cameras being sold brings the overheads down. It is also a fact that camera companies are in a war between themselves. If one make of camera has features that the others do not then they will have to copy-implement them to keep up in the race.

The reason why it is nice to have video in a DSLR cameras is that they have very big sensors compared to dedicated video cameras. Here is one comparison:



Taken from http://dlsrvideo.blogspot.com/

As the sensor size increases the depth of field gets smaller. This means that you can shoot images on a DSLR using a nice manual focus prime lens for a few thousand pounds that will look the same (shallow depth of field wise) as a 100,000 pound 35mm film cinema camera. Note the tiny size of $48,000 Panasonic and $100,000 Sony cameras that are probably used by television production companies. This is why people are screaming for better video support in DSLRs. Because they are incredibly cheap relative to serious video cameras.

However the problem with the big sensor is that there are too many pixels, e.g. HD video only needs 1080 lines but a 7D has 3456. The solution to this is that lines are skipped when reading the sensor at 30 frames a second. The lines that are read are then down sized to the needed resolution. What people want from a DSLR is the raw output from the sensor so they can process the pixels themselves. However this is something that would cost a lot of money due to the high data rate and why you need to spend 6,000+ pounds on a dedicated video camera that can do this, e.g. the Panasonic AG-AF101 with micro 4/3 mount:

http://www.panasonic-broadcast.eu/en...AG-AF101E.html

Also note that the 1Dx is still limited to 29min 59 seconds of video even though it can do it all in one continuous shot with a new file splitting feature. This is because the licensing laws in Europe would add about 30% tax to any true video camera.

I think DLSR video is here to stay but will always miss the bells-and-whistles features of a true video camera.

Alex

[herbert]

I know it's a stupid question; but is it made out of metal?

For the price I would hope it was made out of Adamantium.

But it is a magnesium body like all the other canon heavy duty bodies.

[Glenn NK]

It certainly seems like a wonderful camera but, at a price-tag of close to seven thousand U.S. Dollars, I think that its use will be restricted to photographers making very good money from their cameras and to VERY-VERY AFFLUENT amateurs.

This might set Canon ahead of Nikon again and I wonder how soon before some of the improvements begin to filter down to the less pricey Canon cameras.

This thought immediately crossed my mind - 5DIII anyone?

Glenn

[Harpo]

Thanks Alex for the explanation. Makes sense when you take overlapping into consideration and the cost is not a big factor. The last wedding I went to, the video guy was using a FF camera on a handheld "tripod" to take video of the wedding. It was interesting to watch.

[Colin Southern]

It seems to make sense to me that the enhanced technology in both areas in one camera could also be split- an excellent camera for photography, and an excellent one for videography. Are more semi/pro photographers really using video which warrants Canon to include this?

Personally, if I want to shoot video then I just use my iPhone - I have a flash HDD-based video camera that I don't think I've looked at in the past year. Interestingly though, I believe that the season finale for House was shot entirely with one of more Canon 5D2's a few seasons ago; I watched it just to see what it was like, and it was just fine -- so I guess it's true to say that it's capable of broadcast quality recording.

[rosapearl]

So......I'll just sit in the corner and pout since my budget is too slim for something like that.

[Colin Southern]

So......I'll just sit in the corner and pout since my budget is too slim for something like that.

Buy first, justify later ... works every time for me