Canon 1DX and implications for MF

[tashley]

Amazing announcement today - that the 1D and 1DS ranges are to be consolidated into one and that the pixel count hasn't been averaged but shifted downwards in favour of speed. As the man at Canon says, "there's more to image quality than just resolution'... and it's clear that their market research has shown them that faster shooting and processing, better and faster AF, better high ISO performance and more advanced video modes are what their customers want.

Which leaves me plain wrong.

I thought they'd go for something in the 30-50mp range, with improved DR, in a 1DS replacement and they'd focus the speed fiends on the 1DS range. Hmmm.

This has direct implications for my IQ180/Phase 645DF ownership. I was selling up (had I found a buyer) in order to acknowledge that MF was no longer for me, given the strictures it imposes. However, I WAS placing a bet that Canon's next move would take it into S2 territory, which would have been 'enough' for my occasional higher resolution needs. But it's clearly not to be! Instead, I might even sell my Canon gear, since the Panny GH2 mostly covers my zoom and long lens needs and the M9 mostly covers my wide and FF needs.

What a difference a day makes! And thank you everyone for not buying the gear off me before Canon's announcement...

Tim

 

[Terry]

I'm sort of surprised because I thought the 1D folks that are wildlife shooters and want the fast focus and high frame rate also like the small 1.3 crop. Will be interesting to see the reactions in Canon Land. I haven't really looked at their forums.

 

[kdphotography]

There's a lot of face-paced banter and speculation on other boards. The 1Ds Mark III successor is long overdue and what I'm (was) waiting for. Even with this recent announcement, I find it hard to believe anything until the dust settles... if anything new (more info, another body) is announced shortly and when the first bodies start hitting the sales counter.

And so I wait.

 

[tashley]

I have looked at the forum chatter - pretty mixed, and the facts are being digested slowly but I'd say that most of the landscape and studio shooters that want more resolution and don't need the speed are shifting their hopes to a higher pixel count 5DIII...

 

[mvirtue]

It's funny. I have a mixed reaction to the announcement. Canon has finally announced something that I want to buy to replace my 1DIII. I don't think I'll miss the 3MP difference between it and my 1DsIII.

The biggest negative in my mind -- no 16bit processing. And unless they improved their 14bit work it's game over. The 1DsIII feels, to me, at ISO100 like a ZD back bit wise,

Summary, yes I will buy it. Will it be my main camera, no. My 645AF w/ leaf will be my good daylight walk about camera. The RZ will still be king in the studio. Other fill in work will be performed by my 1DsIII (lens selection issues). And come inline speedskating races and dance recital season, there will be the new X.

 

[Paratom]

Amazing announcement today - that the 1D and 1DS ranges are to be consolidated into one and that the pixel count hasn't been averaged but shifted downwards in favour of speed. As the man at Canon says, "there's more to image quality than just resolution'... and it's clear that their market research has shown them that faster shooting and processing, better and faster AF, better high ISO performance and more advanced video modes are what their customers want.

Which leaves me plain wrong.

I thought they'd go for something in the 30-50mp range, with improved DR, in a 1DS replacement and they'd focus the speed fiends on the 1DS range. Hmmm.

This has direct implications for my IQ180/Phase 645DF ownership. I was selling up (had I found a buyer) in order to acknowledge that MF was no longer for me, given the strictures it imposes. However, I WAS placing a bet that Canon's next move would take it into S2 territory, which would have been 'enough' for my occasional higher resolution needs. But it's clearly not to be! Instead, I might even sell my Canon gear, since the Panny GH2 mostly covers my zoom and long lens needs and the M9 mostly covers my wide and FF needs.

What a difference a day makes! And thank you everyone for not buying the gear off me before Canon's announcement...

Tim

Hi Tim,
Honestly I never believed that either the new Canon (or Nikon D800/D4, or Sony A99) will deliever the same IQ as a MF camera.
Otherwise I woud not have spent that much money for a S2 beginning of this year.
MP is one thing, color/tonality another, and then all this information also has to "fit" through the lens.

 

[Shashin]

Just imagine if photographers found out the pixel resolution is not a limit to print size and that sensor size is more important than the pixel count.

I think Canon has made a really nice product. I think folks who really are invested in their photography understand there are somethings a 35mm sensor cannot do. This is not a case of being better or worse, but the characteristics that are imparted to the image--I certainly wouldn't complain if I could have Canon's ISO performance, but I would have to trade off on other things more important to me.

 

[yaya]

Any bets on what the 5D replacement is going to be like, resolution and price wise?

 

[Lars]

Well, rumors pin Nikon's next "D800" at 36 Mpx and maybe $3500. Presumably Nikon wants to meet specs of next 5D?

It's another five months until availability of the 1D X (six months if you believe the Swedish Canon branch), a lot of water will run under the bridges before then. Makes you wonder why the early announcement? My guess is it's a defensive move, D3s has been a sore point with Canon for two years.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Bottom line Canon is after market share and needs to sell many many cameras to support its organization and going against or being in MF land is simply not it. This announcement does not surprise me in the slightest. They basically own market share in 35mm in this price bracket and going to 40 mpx is not the answer for them. End of day folks this is about business and selling cameras. If the market for 40 mpx sensors was the greatest out there Hassy, Phase and Leica would be in heaven. Canon is not going to lose market share period.

 

[dougpeterson]

Any bets on what the 5D replacement is going to be like, resolution and price wise?

The most striking part of this announcement to me is that if the 5DIII is going to be their higher-resolution camera (which is only rumor/assumptions) at a presumably lower price you wonder how likely they are to ship it within several months of the 1Dx shipping. Or even announce it before all the initial orders of the 1Dx are made. One oft-used strategy is to pre-announce a flagship, wait for all the big-$$ orders to be made, and only announce the little-sister product after that; this is done to prevent the buyers of the flagship from being tempted by the lower-end product (see also: Phase One P65+ and 40+). Of course life/business is complicated and this is only one of several strategies; also, the 1Dx is no longer such a clear "flagship" since it seems squarely pointed at the market previously filled by the 1D (non s), ceeding the 1Ds market to the 5D line.

The 1Dx is scheduled for March 2012 and will likely be in short supply for several months (based on historical shipments of new flagships complicated by the recent manufacturing difficulties in Japan). So my guess is no 5DIII announcement until April for shipment in summer of 2012. Much later than I would have speculated prior to today.

Just shows you that rumor sites are sometimes reliable leaks, sometimes purposeful misinformation, and sometimes just incorrect speculation.

 

[Jack]

My guess is Canon realized the majority of their lenses can't go much further, maybe weren't even up to the 1Ds3, so wisely decided to go forward on the fronts it can compete directly on -- full-frame capture speed and high ISO.

If the 5D3 has better color (16-bit ADC) even with the associated slower processing, then that would make a lot of sense; plus more pixels can add tonality even if the lenses can't utilize it for real added detail.

 

[shlomi]

One important thing that Canon said in their press release:

"The images produced with the EOS-1D X camera’s new sensor are so clean that files can easily be up-sized if necessary for even the most demanding high-resolution commercial applications."

Having been a Canon customer for years in the past, they do not lie, and based on that the 1DX files would print better than 1Ds3.

I think we should have a look at some X-files before we can write Canon off the high quality niche forever.

 

[dougpeterson]

My guess is Canon realized the majority of their lenses can't go much further, maybe weren't even up to the 1Ds3, so wisely decided to go forward on the fronts it can compete directly on -- full-frame capture speed and high ISO.

If the 5D3 has better color (16-bit ADC) even with the associated slower processing, then that would make a lot of sense; plus more pixels can add tonality even if the lenses can't utilize it for real added detail.

I use a 5DII for about half of the wedding shots I take, so I'm all about a much better 5DIII!

But I'll eat my hat if they use a high quality 16 bit A/D convertor in a $2.5k body. You'll see saphire LCD coverings on a Canon Rebel before you see the 5D add signifcant cost (in both components and processing horsepower requirements) to go after that last little bit of quality.

 

[Jack]

Doug,

Who said the new 5D would be a $2.5K body? Canon may be parting the waters in both directions here based on the environment it's going to be used in -- the 1 series sports and journalism shooters need the robust body, fast framerates and AF that can keep up; the 5DX wedding and studio shooters want image quality, image quality and more image quality, accurate AF and decent high ISO performance. But there is NOTHING preventing Canon from adopting the same pricepoints for each line especially if they are that different functionally... I have no crystal ball, but it's certainly a possibility.

 

[Terry]

Doug,

Who said the new 5D would be a $2.5K body? Canon may be parting the waters in both directions here based on the environment it's going to be used in -- the 1 series sports and journalism shooters need the robust body, fast framerates and AF that can keep up; the 5DX wedding and studio shooters want image quality, image quality and more image quality, accurate AF and decent high ISO performance. But there is NOTHING preventing Canon from adopting the same pricepoints for each line especially if they are that different functionally... I have no crystal ball, but it's certainly a possibility.

The 5DII is used for a lot of video applications. I'm not so sure lots more resolution would be helpful or not.

 

[dougpeterson]

Doug,

Who said the new 5D would be a $2.5K body? Canon may be parting the waters in both directions here based on the environment it's going to be used in -- the 1 series sports and journalism shooters need the robust body, fast framerates and AF that can keep up; the 5DX wedding and studio shooters want image quality, image quality and more image quality, accurate AF and decent high ISO performance. But there is NOTHING preventing Canon from adopting the same pricepoints for each line especially if they are that different functionally... I have no crystal ball, but it's certainly a possibility.

True enough! :salute:

 

[Shashin]

The 16-bit RAW file is not going to contain any useful information--no one can really use the 16,000 luminance levels in each color channel right now, adding another 50,000 levels is not really going to do much. I doubt the camera companies are going to bother going with it unless they use it as a marketing point, but they already use the last two bits for other things.

 

[Lars]

The 16-bit RAW file is not going to contain any useful information--no one can really use the 16,000 luminance levels in each color channel right now, adding another 50,000 levels is not really going to do much. I doubt the camera companies are going to bother going with it unless they use it as a marketing point, but they already use the last two bits for other things.

I beg to differ - shoot any scene outdoors with scattered clouds and sun behind a cloud and you'll quite possibly use 16 stops in latitude if you want to capture deep shadow detail as well as not blow highlights in clouds. This is why people research HDR merge technology.

Perhaps you mean that the sensor cannot give 16 bits of useful information, doesnt have the DR?

 

[Shashin]

I beg to differ - shoot any scene outdoors with scattered clouds and sun behind a cloud and you'll quite possibly use 16 stops in latitude if you want to capture deep shadow detail as well as not blow highlights in clouds. This is why people research HDR merge technology.

Perhaps you mean that the sensor cannot give 16 bits of useful information, doesnt have the DR?

Bit-depth refers to the number of luminance levels an image is binned into. It has nothing to do with dynamic range which is related to how much signal can a photo site absorb. So a 16-bit image does not automatically give you more dynamic range. It just means your signal will be divided into 65,000 luminance levels rather than 16,000 luminance levels (for 14 bit), but the dynamic range is not determined by this. If you can't get what you want out of 16,000 levels, then you are going to need something more than extra bit depth.