gvr: Is it possible to set this camera to take a sequence of photos, for example for a time lapse? I looked through the manual pdf and didn't find anything.
It'd be nice if this was doable in the camera software - requiring an external cable/electric release for this when the camera already contains a computer is incredibly greedy by the manufacturers that do (for example Canon.) Aside from the cost and inconvenience factor, it's also very frustrating if you'd happen to forget or leave this piece of equipment at home while packing your camera bag and end up going *doh* in the field.
I take the point, but not all computers do the same thing. For instance, you have no problem buying a graphics card with a dedicated graphics computer on board, even though the computer already has a CPU. It would be nice to have this in-camera, but it's not unreasonable for it to be managed by a different chip. I also think modern cameras should include GPS and wi-fi - these should not be separate items, and certainly shouldn't cost as much as they do.
I love Leicas, but can't afford their digital offerings. If this really is a viable alternative to a digital Leica I'd buy one. Since Fujifilm were the manufacturers of the Hasselblad-badged XPan kit, they're clearly capable of producing quality lenses too. We'll see.
Sigh, sure miss my XPan...
evogt500: What ever happened to quality control? Fuji, canon and now nikon.
Digital technology happened. It's far easier to test a mechanical device, but once you have multiple chips and software involved, most of which does far more than you are aware of, it's just not possible to manage every possible interaction between these devices (which carry out millions of instructions whilst you snap away), in every weather, being held in every plane, with every brand of media and battery, shooting every type of subject in all lighting conditions, in all humidities, in all temperatures, at all altitudes, from all distances, etc. All these things affect how the camera works, and how the images are processed during and after shooting, and the number of combinations is astronomical.
When we all shot film, there were far fewer variables that had to be considered. The more complex cameras become, the less realistic to expect it to be perfect on release.
As a consumer, I find it really annoying that photographers are expected to buy a new camera that simply doesn't work. With near £20K invested in the tools necessary to take a good photos, and I find it frustrating in the extreme when I'm hampered by dodgy equipment.
However, having worked as a professional tester, I recognise that it's just impossible to conceive of testing scenarios that will predict every way in which your product might be used - and in fact, no testing even attempts to. If they did attempt to, you could expect to wait an extra year for a new camera release, and expect the prices to be considerably higher to cover the additional costs incurred pre-release, still with no guarantee that they will catch every fault that could occur under any circumstances.
I'm glad I have access to new technology sooner, but it'd be easier to swallow the problems if the first takers (often a brand's most loyal customers) weren't fleeced by the initially higher prices.
Tee1up: I am having trouble figuring out if this is best used as a studio, road warrior/sports or all of the above. I guess the kicker will be a few formal, in-depth reviews.
Yes, you can use any camera in a studio. But if you're shooting an image for a bill board, clearer, more detailed images are kinda nice to have. The studio version dropped features that weren't necessary in the studio, concentrated on features that were.
Initially I didn't like the idea of bringing them together, but the more I look at the product, the more impressive it seems.I'm still not completely sold on it. For a 1D user, prices have just soared for a camera that includes facilities they'll never need. For a 1Ds user, the price is more agreeable, but they are still paying for some features they'll never need, and some features have dropped. I think there may still be an argument in favour of two cameras from a user perspective - obviously it's better for Canon to do it this way - there are way more 1D owners than 1Ds owners, and they all now have to pay a lot more for their next camera. And I find that annoying.
amir_np: A large amount of money for these poor features in this monster body.... not worth at all
@amir_np It's a shame you don't make any useful or valid comments, anywhere.
@Henry Schobin and randellROWE photography - I'm not so sure about the fair price. It must seem like a good deal to someone expecting a typical 1Ds price, but for a 1D user like myself, it seems kinda expensive. Near double what I paid for my 1D IV, in fact. The more I look at it, the better this camera seems to me, but is it worth double the price of a 1D IV?
Also, saying it's less than previous 1Ds cameras is not really an expression of value - they've always been monstrously over-priced on release.
If someone offers me one as a gift, I'll be only too thrilled, but with this generation and for this money, I expected more. Key omissions for me are GPS and wireless as built-in functionality, and video AF, faster data transfer, a file management facility for a directly connected hard disk, and yes, more megapixels, would all have been pleasing additions, IMHO.
jesse2: Still no full-time AF for video shooting?
'There's no serious cinematographer that would ask for full-time AF on video' True. They're also less likely to choose a stills camera...
Much as Alfonsi Bresciani points out, most of us don't have the leisure to spend days setting up a scene, don't have a full crew to assist on the day, and are not shooting professional actors who are moving through the scene in a predicted manner, and just like they did in the previous X takes. We're talking about video facility on a stills camera that will probably be hand held most of the time, and used to capture unrehearsed moments as they occur, using lenses that are actually designed for stills not video. I think fast, accurate AF would be most helpful here.
Are there any pro news videographers here that could weigh in? I suspect that's a more realistic usage comparison.
@Canon16 - Canon wants to satisfy users of all levels, so supply a range of cameras. Why would you imagine your opinion more valid to them than jesse2's?
Zolotusca: My questiona are: 1. If I take a shot with an aperture between 1,4 and 2,8 I need to spot-focus with the 5 central cross-type focus points? 2. If I take the photo with an aperture between 2,8 and 5,6 I need to use for the spot focusing the 16 points aroud the 5 central ones? 3. If I take a shot with an aperture between 4 and 5,6 I need to spot-focus with the outer 10 + 10 lateral cross-type focus points? Is this correct?
The centre focus points with diagonal crosses in addition to vertical/horizontal crosses should be fantastic with fast glass.
No. It makes no difference which aperture I choose, only the lens's *max* aperture.
This relates only to the maximum aperture of the lens in use - how much light can be drawn through the lens for focusing before the aperture closes down to the selected setting when taking the photo (or using DoF preview).
I have five lenses - one with a max. aperture of f1.2, three with f2.8, one with f4. This means that I get to use all the cross-type sensitivity with all my lenses, but I lose the additional diagonal cross type sensitivity with my f4 lens.
The cross-type focus points still work outside these aperture ranges, but then they only function as horizontal focus points, not cross-type. You can choose any point you like for your spot focussing, but some will be better than others if your lens is bright.
It seems likely that most people buying this camera will own mostly fast glass, and get to use all these good things, regardless of what aperture they choose to use for a given shot.
Mike Fulton: With my 1DS Mk3, I shoot mainly at ISO 100 with studio flash.
The increased frame rate of the 1D X does nothing for me, because my lights don't recycle that fast. The improved ISO sensitivity does nothing for me, because I shoot at ISO 100. Wasn't having any focusing issues, so the improved autofocus isn't something I really need. Going from 21.7mp to 18mp is a drop of nearly 20%. Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.
The new camera sounds like an awesome step up for 1D Mk4 owners, but tell me again how this is an "upgrade" from my 1DS Mk3?
I think I'll stick with my 1DS Mk3 for now.
Heh, as a 1D IV owner, I would have thought the opposite more likely.
I shoot some studio work, but mostly outdoors. I was dubious initially about the one size fits all solution of the X, but I'm coming around to it, and I think the resultant image quality on the 1D X versus your 1Ds III might surprise you - I'd compare the two if I were you. I haven't handled a 1Ds III, but the 5D II's 21MP images simply don't compare to the 1D IV images, and the 1D X has improved resolution and processors - got to be worth a look. That's assuming you feel you need to improve, since you sound pretty happy with your 1Ds III.
Personally, I'm so happy with the 1D IV (image quality, speed, AF, felxivility) that I don't feel the need to upgrade yet - though I probably would have if the X's feature list included wireless and GPS built-in. I hate the stupid lumpy add ons, and find them to be unnecessarily expensive.
Montana500: Nice to see Canon admitting that too many pixels hurts IQ. The 40D had better IQ from ISO 100-800 than the 50D and 7D. The images were "smoother" and cleaner, which is why I bought a DSLR to begin with. The 7D is like those Panasonic consumer cameras (The FZ line) or my old venerable Canon s2 superzoom. If Canon came out with an 8D with 12mp I'd trade my 7D for it. It's all about IQ.
Overpacking a sensor with pixels certainly can hurt IQ. It's only worth having the extra pixels if the sensor technology is sufficiently improved to manage the pixel density.
Whether this is why Canon haven't gone for a higher pixel count here, or whether they found that the upgraded triple processors meant that it simply wasn't necessary to do it to improve IQ, who knows? Let's see the results when it's released.
Davidefoto: Canon knows how many photographers chosen Canon in alternative to MF? It understands this choice will make them change? I would have changed my DSMIII for a better 21 mp or a 30 mp. Instead I will continue to use mine until I could afford Hasselblad. I'm disappointed: Canon sensor is my favorite. They really think that those now use D Mark IV will spend $ 7000 for less Mp of the 5D Mark II ( which costs 1/3 )? Reporter ( those who need high frame rate and sensitivity ) are today the lowest paid photographers in the world; do you think can afford these investments? This camera will be inaccessible to those now use the D Mark 4, and inadequate to those now uses the DS Mark III. I hope a close release of a 30-32-36 mp, otherwise Canon will lose many professionals; therefore, will lose many amateur photographers, because amateur they want to have the camera they see in the hands of professionals. Unfortunately seems that photographic industry does not understand this concept
I'm a 1D IV user, and I won't be buying a 1D X. I see there are lots of changes for the better with this model, but it's not enough for me to justify changing - for my photography, I'm happy with the IQ and features from my 1D IV.
However, I find that 1D IV images are way nicer than the substantially higher resolution images from the 5D II - no comparison - whether this is due to improved sensor or processing technology I couldn't say, but both appear to have improved again on the 1D X, along with some extra resolution.
I certainly found the 1D IV kicked the pants of the 1D III in every department, but didn't have the opportunity to compare with the 1Ds III model, and it's a very different beast.
Perhaps compare IQ and handling between your 1Ds III and the 1D X - you may find that the 1D X could be a worthwhile purchase for you with the extra generation gap.
I remember when 'real photographers' were telling us that 5 MP was more than enough, and there was no point in getting a camera with higher resolution because blah, blah, bs, blah.
Even if the lens can't resolve higher resolutions, higher resolution sensors could produce better images. In the same way that a 300dpi image printed at 300dpi looks pretty unimpressive, but the same 300dpi image printed at 1400dpi looks smooth and delicious on a quality printer.
Nikon and Hasselblad both make cameras with much higher resolution sensors - perhaps you feel they don't make cameras for 'real photographers'.
But I'm assuming you consider yourself a 'real photographer' - what kit do you use?
bohoops: Does this camera have the 'Lens Calibration' feature built into it? Or is that standard on all new 'D' series cameras and they don't even list it in specifications anymore?
I can't imagine it would be missing.
I found that none of my lenses required any calibration on my 1D IV, but it's nice to know it's available if I need it rather than have to send body and lens to Canon for six weeks.
Eosman01: Well just to put my two cents in, GPS uses power it's good to have the option- if u want it then buy it!18mp FF RAW file, well if you can't use that for a bigger enough picture and enough picture quality - Then you don't know what you are doing!I had a Eos1N back in the day and this is the equiv Digital version!I know people who HAVE USED THIS ALREADY- And they LOVE IT!"yes all pro users and people in the trade".You want a built in multiplier? Buy a Bigger lens! if you can buy this camera then you can buy a nice 400mm f2.8L IS & a 2x, to go with it oh- 800mm isn't close enough- well get closer even if you are shooting lions feeding in africa, Than again with 18mp FF you could crop it, You know we used to" blow up" negs in the old film days with a enlarger to make something bigger, but people forget "a perfect picture can't be cropped"I'm lucky enough to be getting to try out this puppy really soon and my expectations are it's going to be Everything I could ever want!!!!
A switch to turn GPS on or off would be better than buying separate, expensive, awkward ugly lumps to add two features, both of which can be found in cheap Canon compacts.
Leaving these features out of the body was a marketing decision, and frankly a deplorable one.
I have a 1D IV - if the 1D X had GPS and wireless built-in, then it would tip the scales in favour of an upgrade for sure. As it is, I'll wait and see what comes in the next model.
Peter K Burian: What about more typical pro photographers, like those who shoot weddings? A friend who does so, has ordered a D800, although he is concerned about high ISO quality due to the smaller pixels. He loves the D700 at high ISO. (High ISO is essential when shooting a ceremony where he is not allowed to use flash.)
'Ive studied photography at Griffith University, QLD, Australia.The first day I walked into class, they said: "If you are here to learn how to be a wedding photographer, leave now".
These people are international professionals, who need to know their trade expertly. I value their opinions much more than your average wedding photographer.
You do not need super flash gear for a wedding, just knowledge and a keen composing eye.'
If you refer to those crap weekend warriors who lost their job as a carpet salesman and so decide to call themselves 'Pro Wedding Photographers', then I agree.
However, a wedding photographer who knows his business (checkout Jeff Ascough, for instance) is extremely talented, an experienced professional who produces fantastic results, and demands quality, speed and convenience - they push their kit hard, and I respect their opinions on what makes a good camera/lens.
Your teacher was clearly an ignorant fool. Try not to emulate him.
digilux: "What do the professionals think"..well I'm a pro but nobody asked me...........
I think eh no I wish: a digital F2!I don't need 36 megapix (I own a Hasselblad)I don't need video (I'm a photographer)I don't need 51 pt autofocus (I use Zeiss lenses)I don't need 10 fps, 125,000 iso GPS turbocharger, intercooler a manual of 75 pages etc I want to tahe pictures of high quality with a camera that works everywhere, anywhere under any circumstances.
Oh and I want a digital Mamiya 7II (Please!)
Confused... If you don't need any of this, why are you even here?
photocine: Nice camera from Canon of course, but video oriented shooters would be wise to keep on eye out on the Panasonic GH3. That one will do 1080p60.
You should spend money on glass before the body - always buy the best lenses you can afford.
And I think if a $1600 lens is an issue for you, a $6800 body is not a realistic solution, whatever spec it boasts.
sensibill: I must mortgage my house.
I'll buy you a couple of these in exchange for a running Bugatti. :)
(And no, not the kettle or coffee machine...)
Photomonkey: They kept an Apple-like lid on this news until the last couple of days.
Bold move on their part. I will be very interested in seeing the IQ
Um... Yeah... You do realise it's not actually in stores for another five months right?