Canon 1Dx anyone?

[Adam]

It's gone already. Was it anyone on here...?

[mrfinster]

I'm going to blend it

[rjd]

Dont worry he'll never find the kitchen.

[mrfinster]

Not true, I'll just listen for the nagging and follow the noise.

[riley989]

I'd say there are a lot more then four, Jonathan's Photo and Video Warehouse down here in Dunedin as two, one was on display (there going to have to clean the glass now), and I saw Ken's has them in stock too.

[mesodan]

1DX + 40mm pancake!



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7807.0

[peedee]

Whilst no doubt any of us Canon shooters would love this camera - what real world benefits will it offer those of us who are not looking for massive FPS rates? I never run on high speed, normally relying on the 3fps settings. I did used to love my 1Ds2, but for twice the price more or less of a 5D3 and 6 times the price of a 7D, well, the law of diminishing returns becomes very obvious. Could buy a whole lotta glass for that!.

That being said, I very nearly ordered the 1Dx as opposed to the 5D3!. But then sense overtook my decision making ineptitude and the 5D3 arrived.

[rjd]

You can buy two 5d3's for a 1dx...

If you dont need the fps or the better focus tracking then consider the build quality and sealing, the gigabit Ethernet and the improved high ISO noise etc.

Its not a toy meant for everyone, its a top end pro body targeted at sports.

[peedee]

It was not supposed to be a rhetorical question there RJD, more a musing. We all want the best on offer, but the reality is that most of us would not suffer immensely shooting with a 600D apart from frame rates and the crop factor, which is mitigated with lens choice. I never require massive frame rates anymore, lost interest in that sort of work ages ago.

Yes, high ISO performance will be better - although how much is yet to really be quantified. If the 7D replacement turns out to be a 1.3 crop factor, that could start to come to the party on noise too maybe? Build quality is a definite difference - my 1Ds2 was a pretty well built unit. Still, I am happy I went to the 5D3 as opposed to spending twice as much on the 1Dx. I really doubt I would have seen any real benefit for what I am wanting, and that leaves me plenty of money to upgrade in a couple of generations should I feel the urge to.

[JED]

Yes, high ISO performance will be better - although how much is yet to really be quantified.

Early indications are that it may have the best high ISO performance in the market. The Nikon D4 is slightly worse than the D3S as Nikon deliberately used a more selective colour filter array to improve colour accuracy at the expense of efficiency. Canon continue to use less selective colour filters so its likely to be a fraction of a stop better than the D3S.

[mesodan]

Canon continue to use less selective colour filters so its likely to be a fraction of a stop better than the D3S.

So finally a sensor canon guys get to have bragging rights over!

I never considered a 1DX. Apart from the eye-watering price, I prefer the smaller body size of the 5D3.

[rjd]

Nikon will still have the best low ISO dynamic range and better shadow noise etc.

1Dx will be a fantastic sports camera.

You have to wonder how many people with 1Ds's will want to buy it though, and how many people with 1dmk4's/1dmk3's want to spend a lot more for the same 'level' of body .

[peedee]

There is a big question here, and one that most people forget about when looking at different cameras - will the differences have significant, if any, effect in the real world? Review sites often are the most guilty of this. A fraction of a stop better noise control? Might be easy enough to see when deliberately trying to show this, however, in the real world? Same can be said of Nikons lower iso performance gains. Sure, they are there, and able to be demonstrated in testing. But what about real world use? And what differences are actually important? Back in the film days, my EOS 1V and 3 never produced anything like my Pentax 645 did. But, that was a dramatically different system. Will the differences between full frame sensor cameras really be that distinct, or one really noticeable to the anorak wearing brigade who know all the technical details, and discuss these at length whilst never actually taking good shots, or enjoying the result of their photography?

[rjd]

Someone , somewhere is sitting at a news desk picking the back page main image.

At the other end of the internet are 3 dozen photogs all shooting the same thing.

That gigabit Ethernet is probably more important..

..but we move things on incrementally, the 1dx isnt that much better than the d3s, which isnt that much better than the 1dsmkIII... etc

But over the last 5-10 years things have moved on a huge amount , could you even think about shooting film over ASA1000?

[JED]

Will the differences between full frame sensor cameras really be that distinct, or one really noticeable to the anorak wearing brigade who know all the technical details, and discuss these at length whilst never actually taking good shots, or enjoying the result of their photography?

Why do people always think these things are mutually exclusive?????

[rjd]

No one in the history of art, music or creativity ever made a quality contribution using 'good gear'. Did they?

The entire art world has been driven by new paints, techniques,processes, the photographic world has had the same in its much briefer history.

[riley989]

Because people who no nothing about the technical side of cameras need an argument against those who do.

[Adam]

There is a big question here, and one that most people forget about when looking at different cameras - will the differences have significant, if any, effect in the real world? Review sites often are the most guilty of this. A fraction of a stop better noise control? Might be easy enough to see when deliberately trying to show this, however, in the real world? Same can be said of Nikons lower iso performance gains. Sure, they are there, and able to be demonstrated in testing. But what about real world use? And what differences are actually important? Back in the film days, my EOS 1V and 3 never produced anything like my Pentax 645 did. But, that was a dramatically different system. Will the differences between full frame sensor cameras really be that distinct, or one really noticeable to the anorak wearing brigade who know all the technical details, and discuss these at length whilst never actually taking good shots, or enjoying the result of their photography?

You can't apply the same thinking and logic to everyone, or the world would be a dull place. I couldn't imagine wanting to go out and shoot with an old film camera, but I don't for one minute think that people who do are Luddites clinging to the past.

[mesodan]

People who are pro photog's earn a living because they take great photos, not because they have a couple of 1D bodies and a big collection 'L' lenses (although it helps).

[Mark Vuleta]

People who are pro photog's earn a living by taking photos, not because they have a couple of 1D bodies and a big collection 'L' lenses (although it helps).

Edited for accuracy

[rjd]

You know you're a pro tog for real when you dont own any cameras yourself...

[mesodan]

Edited for accuracy

Touche.

You know you're a pro tog for real when you dont own any cameras yourself...

And you don't take a camera on vacation.

[SteveB]

Why do people always think these things are mutually exclusive?????

Indeed. Stupid people wear anoraks too.

[JED]

Indeed. Stupid people wear anoraks too.

But they call them 'Macs'

[Mark Vuleta]

But they call them 'Macs'

Now don't go starting that old Windows vs Apple thing again