Hands-on with the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III

Thoughts - Although Mariano is making another of his regular attempts at trolling, on this occasion he does have a valid point. I think most potential 1Dxiii buyers/renters were hoping for, and expecting 24MP.

These pro machines are intended primarily for sports/ wildlife and photojournalism - all genres with fast and erratic movement, which make accurate composition in-camera a major challenge, even for top pros. Cropping and rotating in post is often very necessary, and any increase in resolution is highly desirable.

Given that Canon have had 4 years to develop the 1DXiii, that they have been unable in increase resolution (while maintaining dynamic range and high ISO performance) is rather disappointing.

@entoman
I think Canon tried to offset a relatively low resolution with a better low pass filter that should allow to gain some of the MP count handicap in favour or better ISO and DR performance. I still think that 20MP sits at the low end and somewhat disappointing, but I will wait to se the performance charts before really commenting on this.

@entoman

//I think most potential 1Dxiii buyers/renters were hoping for, and expecting 24MP.//

If you look at the rolling shutter coming off this sensor it's obvious the readout speed is fairly low.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDGq9oETIjg see 18:08 and 18:29

So Canon kept it at 20mp to give them a fighting chance in electronic shutter mode.

//These pro machines are intended primarily for sports/ wildlife and photojournalism//

It's clear that Canon is targeting this at sports shooters and filmmakers rather than wildlife photographers. Raw video is a cinema feature, that will never be used by a PJ.

This is just good business as Canon is not going to sell many of these to existing 1DXII owners who will shortly have to pony up for new RF sports lenses.

This is a camera they probably didn't want to make, hence the obvious marketing film-flam about 'Pros referring DSLRs'. Who did they make the RF lenses for then?

armandido - Don't get me wrong, Canon limiting the camera to 20MP wouldn't stop me from buying it although I can't justify the cost as I only need a body like this for specific shoots.

It's a dream machine and undoubtedly I'll be hiring a 1Dxiii occasionally when I need the high burst speed and low light performance. I hired a 1Dxii with 200-400mm F4 a weeks ago for photographing tigers in India, and it's damn near perfect, but the extra performance of the 1Dxiii will be my choice next time.

RubberDials - Yes, of course the 1Dxiii is an interim model before Canon bring out an RF mount equivalent. Just as the a9ii is an interim camera before Sony hopefully develops a camera with better ergonomics (which is about overall design, not just about light weight). And just as the S1 is an interim camera before Panasonic sorts out its AF. No camera of any brand is beyond improvement.

You may be right that Canon won't sell many of these to 1DXii owners, because the latter is already near-perfect for its purpose. However you can bet your life that they'll sell in vast quantities to rental houses and agencies, and that they'll become the standard pro camera for the next 4 years.

Beyond that period Canon will have a full pro RF mount camera and will have a whole new series of lighter and faster-focusing sports/wildlife lenses, and possibly an EVF that will finally feel as natural as an OVF. Then indeed the game will change.

RubberDials - The ergonomics of this camera have been perfected over two decades with feedback from pros. Yes, some of the controls require 2 hands to change - this prevents accidental mode changes. Many controls can be changed with one hand only also, and many buttons are customizable.

@entoman

//Yes, of course the 1Dxiii is an interim model before Canon bring out an RF mount equivalent. Just as the a9ii is an interim camera before Sony hopefully develops a camera with better ergonomics//

This is a false comparison. The 1DXIII is genuinely an interim model - in fact it's technically a throwback, as it uses a mount and technology that canon has already deprecated. If the A9II were a Canon Product and the 1DXIII a Sony one, people would be laughing that Sony was unable to make a pro mirrorless and had to 'step back in time' to use DSLR technology. The fact that no-one has mentioned the obvious anomaly of Canon and Nikon creating a new mount to offer better imaging quality (The stated primary reason for doing so) but not employing it on their flagship cameras, is a textbook example of the double standard that is employed discussing Sony.

@entoman, TunicaAdventitia, Angry DSLR users

Once upon a time

Sony used to make DSLRs and nobody complained about their ergonomics. Then they designed a completely new FF camera with the capacity to adapt non-Sony manual-focus lenses and modelled it on the 1960-70s manual film cameras right down to the angular metal body with no LCD and shutter release on the top plate with a locking collar.

DSLR users complained that it had 'bad ergonomics' because it wasn't the heavily anatomical design they were used to and many of them were too young to recognise or care about the retro design language being used.

Sony listened to their whingeing and over time moved the design away from the film-camera look they had chosen and made it more reminiscent of the cameras the angry DSLR users were used to using and some of the complaints died down.

Contd.

But by now, some of the DSLR users were so angry they had developed amnesia and forgot that Sony had ever made DSLRs and decided that Sony actually didn't know how to design cameras properly because they were 'a playstation company'.

They talked about non-Sony designers 'perfecting' their designs 'over decades' completely misunderstanding that all designers go to the same design schools and learn the same set of principles and rely on the same user prototyping feedback.

They resolved not to buy Sony cameras until Sony learned what they already knew.

They didn't live happily ever after.

:)

RubberDials - You are talking to someone who owned 2 Sony DSLRs. True, once upon a time Sony made cameras with great ergonomics. The a700 was such a camera. It inherited its DNA from Minolta. In its time it was a great camera, but Sony had problems selling it, because it was too similar to Canon and Nikon DSLRs.

They realised that if they were to have an impact on the market, they'd have to offer something *different*, otherwise people would just stay with Canikon. They experimented with SLTs, but again they sold poorly.

So they created the a7 series and marketed them on the basis of being small and light. Unfortunately in doing so they lost track of that Minolta DNA and ended up producing cameras that had small fiddly and badly positioned controls.

Now, as you note, they are finally learning the lesson and are attempting with quite good success to emulate DSLR ergonomics. They have in fact almost caught up with Canikon in ergonomics, and about time too.

While Sony and Canon (and maybe Nikon) are fighting over the top sports camera, you all did not notice that Leica has overtaken all of them. With a camera (SL2) that offers 20 fps and 47 Mp. That makes it much more flexible than just a dedicated sports camera. And it is very robust (fully metal body and a sealing of IP54).
Still it is a pound lighter. Has IBIS and can use Canon EF lenses (with IS). (the most popular lenses for sports)
The AF is a bit slower (I usually use 7 fps or 11 fps) but still fast enough for most sports (e.g. football/soccer).
The high res gives an additional flexibility in that you can also use APS-C with 20 Mp and fast e-shutter of less than 1/100 s (very close to the a9 II). Either cropping in 47 MP or cropping the sensor (by 1.5) to APS-C can help you to "enlarge" your lenses.
Short: It is great at many topics (not only sports), and price-wise actually 500$ less than the CaNikon. An interesting "newcomer" (though Leica produces cameras since 100 years).

@Steppenw0lf
It is really nice to see Leica moving toward a practical direction and the SL2 is quite the surprise indeed. I am sure that some will be thrilled to use it for sports. However, I think that "Leica has overtaken all of them" is unrealistic. Some of your arguments might hold against Canikon, but definitely not against Sony.
Anyway we are really taking about sport masters here and the Leica does not really belong here, as much as it can be used for sports.

Have you used it ? If not, how credible is what you say ? (Of course it’s your opinion, no problem.)
If a “sports master” needs to be low res and bulky, then you are right. If I remember correctly, then highres and IBIS are quite useful for wildlife, why not for sports ? Maybe there is more than one way to get a sports foto done. If you insist on low res you can use the SL2 in APS-C mode. (Still 20 Mp). E-shutter is then even faster and the lenses “longer”.
About Sony, what was the progress from the a9 to the a9 II ? Ah, yes, the awfully slow mechanical shutter was improved. An impressive step forward. And is the Sony robust or well sealed ? Anything close to IP 54 ?
Today SW is important. How judge a camera (computer) without trying it and knowing the sw ? I’m quite sure you never tried to use the SL2 for taking sports fotos. Some (football league) photographers use it for sports (not exclusively). Should I now believe you, or rather my own eyes (when I see their fotos) ?

@Steppenw0lf
I am not going to go in much of details here but AF is key in a sport camera, and the SL2 AF is not up there.
About "About Sony, what was the progress from the a9 to the a9 II"
how relevant is that? What matters is absolute performance compared to its peers. The A9 performance was at least one generation ahead of the competition, so the A9II is still a very competent camera, and IMO, and at least for my own use, superior to the 1DXIII and pretty sure superior to the D6 when it comes out. The new Sony bodies are very improved in sealing and they have been robust for a while actually. I really do not think the AF on the SL2 needs to be personally tested out to know the outcome. I doubt the the SL2 AF is any good with, to say a Canon FE 400/2.8.

@Steppenwolf

//what was the progress from the a9 to the a9 II ?//

"A ten times increase in data transfer speed over LAN, the addition of 5GHz wireless connectivity, and the option to wirelessly send files from the camera when it's turned off "

"the ability to save up to 10 sets of FTP settings to an SD card, or add 60s voice memos to photographs, which can then be converted to text and appended automatically to EXIF using an app."

"new Bionz X processor: autofocus speed and precision have been improved, likewise face detection, and EVF responsiveness. A new mechanical shutter with a rated lifespan of 500,000 cycles (..) and the a9 II benefits from the ergonomic tweaks and improved weather-sealing introduced in the a7R IV. Image stabilization performance has also been slightly increased, from 5EV in the a9 to 5.5EV, and battery life has increased by around 6% (CIPA)."

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/5179774637/the-a9-ii-is-a-camera-sony-had-to-make-but-they-didn-t-make-it-for-you

@Steppenwolf

//Ah, yes, the awfully slow mechanical shutter was improved. An impressive step forward.//

The A9II shutter is electronic and is on by default when you buy the camera. The mechanical shutter is there for redundancy or flash. You are comparing the primary shutter of other cameras with the secondary shutter of the A9II.

The A9 had wireless connectivity. The A9II added 5Ghz wireless. Canon is only adding wireless to their 1DX range now. Similarly the 1DXIII is the first Canon camera with a shutter tested to 500,000 cycles. Sony has released 4 models with such a shutter.

People criticise Sony without knowing anything about the products.

Sorry Armandino,
But what you tell is just hot air. Not a single fact, not a single experience with the SL2. Just guesses and prefetched opinions. It is not possible to get a reasonable discussion going that way.
Maybe it would help, if you widen your horizon a bit and watch in the SL forum what users do with EF teles on the SL2. But you are obviously not interested in facts. Strange, maybe even absurd.

Rubberdials.
Still the changes from model to model are not impressive. I regard that mainly as details and not very important. I am not so sure if all a9 users are really so happy about these marginal improvements. (I had the impression, that many had expected more. But maybe this impression is wrong.)
And your style of “discussion” is poor and rather unfriendly (ridiculing people will not change any facts). No simple listing of facts for a person not familiar with details, but rather a try to crush the “enemy” that dared to put doubt upon Sony products. Sorry, very irritating, and somehow out of place.

And one thing is strange. Why is a reliable mechanical shutter of importance, if it is never used (always e-shutter). Was there something mixed up ?

@Middleman316
If you enjoy toxic discussions you should join some of the Sony forums and see some of what Canikion fanboys have to say there. All in all universe seems fairly balanced.

@entoman
Maybe you have seen posts I did not, but I do not see much of a differentiation. It seems more objective the fact that if you are a Canon user you are mostly on a Canon forums or looking up Canon products and you see mostly trolling on Canon. It is true the viceversa too (Sony users complaining on Sony forums trolling). Owning both systems I feel not much of a difference. There are a few nasty trollers on Sony forums that feel more irritating than much of what I see here (look up users like Kandid or StoneJack).
On the other hand Sony users are imo very vocal and that might be interpreted as "special" but not necessarily the nastiest. The fact that Sony users are vocal and often biased seem quite intuitive: as Sony community is growing and new, is gathering a lot of users that were dissatisfied (and with some resentment) with previous systems (many from Canon). I am definitely one of them, I do not deny that.

@entoman

//But Sony fanboyz are definitely "special".//

Yeah, unsporting of us not to let you just throw s*** on our system.

Take a trip through the Nikon and Canon forums and try to find the phrase 'Sony user'. You'll never see it. Only 'Sony troll' or 'Sony fanb0y'.

You don't even know you're doing it...

@entoman

I wasn't targeting you personally with my comments, anymore than I assumed you were including me in your 'fanboyz' remark.

Alleging that it's down to 'evangelical and irritating behaviour' is just more of the same, essentially saying it's our fault that you're forced to insult us.

Most of it comes from a subconscious perception of Sony as an upstart company getting 'above itself' by taking on the 'big boys'. This perception in itself is a millennial hobby-horse as the Canon-Nikon duopoly is a only product of the mid 90s.

Sony users' problem is that they don't know their place. We'll grudgingly admit that they make the best cameras but they must thank us for doing so, because obviously we've got the heritage as proper camera companies behind us and they need to respect that.

It's a bit like a Crewe Alexandra striker scoring at Anfield. He can put it in the net but he better not celebrate.

@Thoughts R Us

//Sony knows they cannot compete for the pro sports and action market and so they didn’t even try.//

I'm not sure where you get this idea from. Sony's offering remains the camera to beat in this field and if the pre-production sample is anything to go by, Canon hasn't managed it:

"I would say that it’s very good focussing. I mean I would say this is probably the best OVF focussing I’ve seen out of a Canon SLR, but it’s still not perfect. We’re still getting some mis-focussed shots. It doesn’t seem miles ahead beyond the 1DXmkII and this’ll take more testing to really find it out, despite the fact that we do have those deep learning techniques. At least it is a step in the right direction."
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/5667963327/dpreview-tv-canon-1d-x-mark-iii-hands-on-first-look 9:57 in.

The Sony fails to have sufficient build quality to even qualify as a pro body. That alone disqualifies it.

As to AF, the Canon is magnificent and more than good enough for pro usage. For all practical use the Canon AF and Sony AF are equal. The Canon AF is actually better when using mechanical shutter.
Then there’s ergonomics. Again the Sony falls so short as to be disqualified.

Then there’s the fact that most pros prefer OVF.

Sony does not make a true pro body for sports and action shooters.

More advantages for Canon over Sony:
Virtually limitless buffer on the Canon. The Sony has much smaller buffer, and once filled, does not allow you to do anything; you just have to wait and lose precious time as the buffer clears.

Much better battery life. Again, with the Canon it can seem limitless.

Both of those, BTW, are features where Canon has a real world practical advantage over Sony.

That's why the vast majority of the best pro photographers use Canon. Most of the rest use Nikon. Very few use Sony. There are reasons why, and the heads of major press agencies and pro photogs are not stupid.

Don't rule Sony out yet - they might have two more updates (a9iii and a9iv) before the olympics start :-)

@Thoughts R Us

Even by your standards, you're posting absolute drivel.

//The Sony fails to have sufficient build quality to even qualify as a pro body. That alone disqualifies it.//

The cameras are both made out of the same injected magnesium alloy. Please explain to us how Sony's mag alloy is somehow inferior to Canon's.

//As to AF, the Canon is magnificent and more than good enough for pro usage. For all practical use the Canon AF and Sony AF are equal.//

DPR has posted a video showing the non-LV AF failing to achieve focus in a burst, and we're told it 'doesn't seem miles ahead of the 1DxII'. Unless you've got information to the contrary from Canon's HQ, that's what we know.

//Then there’s ergonomics. Again the Sony falls so short as to be disqualified.//

The Canon weighs 1.4kg, takes two hands to turn on and has mostly modal switches which also require two hands to use.

//Then there’s the fact that most pros prefer OVF.//
Oh yeah? Source?

@Thoughts R us

//More advantages for Canon over Sony: Virtually limitless buffer on the Canon.//

The Camera has to use CF express because of the RAW video. (It does double-duty as a cinema cam). It's not a practical choice for stills shooting.

The 300 shot buffer of the A9II is good enough for a all sports scenarios.

//Much better battery life.//

The Canon only has better battery life when shooting through the OVF. The Canon can't be charged from USB. The A9II can run and charge over USB at the same time.

//That's why the vast majority of the best pro photographers use Canon.//

The reason Canon and Nikon historically dominate this market is because they were the only companies that made the long telephotos needed, no other reason.

A few advantages of the A9II over the 1DXIII:

Better AF
24mp
Full Time blackout-free silent shooting through VF @ 20FPS
IBIS
Tilt screen
USB charging and operation
Less rolling shutter
Lighter
Cheaper

Sony made the right choice, overkilling would not have helped and realistically would have been non-sensical to have a massive update only 2 years after the first model. The A9II is very competent, it will be interesting to see it pitched against the 1DXIII and D6. They will all have their strengths and weaknesses. I am sure that not clear winner will come out of the shootout. But we do know which models are at the end of their road, and which just started to come to life.

...and every football, soccer, basketball, baseball, surfing, skiing, formula 1, rugby etc etc etc.

The Sony's (silent shutter) would come in handy for golf, but besides Trumpy...who follows golf? :P

This is a camera for a certain type of pro. The ones who will shoot the Super Bowl, the World Cup, the Olympics. The ones for National Geographic and Nature Planet. Someone like Ben Thouard capturing surf action. The best of the best will use this camera.

Getty Images and AP probably already have orders in. Someone like Jimmy Chin, who won an academy award for Free Solo, probably already is using a few. Peter McKinnon will probably order a few.

Of course some amateurs will buy it. If someone is an avid wildlife photog or birder then this will work for them quite nicely.

But in general this is a very specific pro tool, carefully crafted based on Canon's decades long relationship with some of the best photographers in the world. For certain types of work, there is nothing better than the Canon and Nikon pro bodies.

The majority of people using this won't own one; businesses will get them knowing they won't have to replace it in a week of abuse and will have somewhere to get it fixed pronto when it does break. Anyone would be lying if they said these machines didn't hold a special place in their heart, but they're just too niche for most

@Noogy
which brings it to my point:
So, is Canon 1D series the only Canon with competent and reliable AF? Why Canon cannot make a small camera with top specifications? I want a camera 1/2 the size with same performance. Canon pyramidal marketing structure is infuriating for me.

@Noogy
That is the key reason I shoot Sony now. Canon wil come up eventually with very competent mirrorless (No offense, R is a great camera for a first, but I need sport level focusing and framerates); however I am more concerned with their marketing strategy rather than the quality of their products. I like how Sony expands their product line up vertically and transversally, while for Canon is strictly pyramidal.

Razor - My heavily used 3 year old Canon 5DMkiv and 5 year old Canon 5DS have both already exceeded 200,000 shutter actuations. I don't consider that to be "poor durability".

The vast majority of purchasers shoot considerably less than 10,000 frames per year, so in their hands these cameras would last at least 20 years before needing replacement shutters.

Most people upgrade cameras at least every 4-5 years, so I doubt if anyone is likely to keep a camera long enough that it will ever be necessary to replace a shutter through normal wear.

Razor512, nothing lasts forever. Only on this site would someone make such a ridiculous statement. If you think it's possible to better whet Canon and Nikon are doing, why don't you show us how it's done?

Razor - You are addressing a wildlife and BIF photographer who does exactly what you describe.

The reason I shoot 50-60,000 images a year is that I shoot bursts of animals, birds and insects in order to ensure that wings and legs are "in the perfect position".

And as stated, my cameras have both exceeded 200,000 actuations. A full day of shooting for me often equates to 500-600 frames in short bursts.

Can you provide examples where your own shutters have failed? If so, how many actuations did they attain? And what brand and models were you using?

I strongly suspect that you are theorising, rather than speaking from experience.

"Try using a 400mm F2.8 or a 600mm F4 on a MILC, and you'll soon discover that a pro DSLR handles much better"

if you hand hold, you holding the 400 with your left hand and the body with your right hand. If on Monopod or tripod, it still does not matter whether you have a smaller/lighter or larger heavier body. I used to have a Nikon 800 f5.6 with a Niko 8008 body on a tripod I could care less how big the body was. Pros have have lots of bodies to carry around and/or setup at events, trust me it is easier if they're smaller and lighter. This dinosaur technology is about to be extinct, see the new Canon 70-200 RF and DO lenses, the goal is smaller.

Imagine carrying around a small dainty camera unlike this one all day and having it fail because it couldn't withstand the stresses of the job.

Sports shooters don't pamper their bodies; as they move around they might bang into something, even a second body being carried by the same pro. Sometimes even a pro gets hit by a player. A pro body has to function in extreme heat, cold, and snow and rain. Sometimes it is used on a beach or on the water, and gets very wet from splashes. Sometimes nature and wildlife shooters will use it in the rain forest, the desert, the arctic and Antarctic, get sand and mud all over it, etc.

The worst thing for a pro is to have the camera fail. This is a tank and is the stuff of legend.

Pro's get paid to do the hard stuff, including carry heavy equipment. Look at what video pro's carry around.

There is no mirrorless competition that comes close to the ruggedness and durability of the Canon and Nikon pro bodies.

Imagine carrying a tiny, unbalanced camera where your fingers don't fit well all day. I did when I started with photography. My joints hurt terribly bad after a year at young age - and I was well trained, doing lots of sports.
So after the 24-70 and 70-200 the first thing I bought was a Pro Body, and it fells so good to have this big camera in the hand, can carry it all day without problems can shoot landscape or portrait with joy instead of pain.
Many years later I still love these cameras for that - and of course all the other features they offer. Even in the studio I prefer to work with them because they are so much better to work with.

That said you probably are not going to buy a Mercedes Unimog or F1 car for your daily commuting and then complain about how bad they are for racing or going trough the woods because they burn so much fuel.

some photographers who are delicate, and fragile, should stick to Iphones , lightweight, good looking

@ SmilerGrogan
If they get back problems they handle them wrong. 10 to 15 years ago the situation was different but today there are many solutions to carry the camera in a way that puts no or not too much stress on your shoulders.

The main problem also is that photographers grab the cameras wrong and then get all kind of problems: you first need to tighten the muscles, not only on the arm but also on the torso so that the muscles support the weight and not the bones and joints. Then grab the camera and keep the muscles tight as long as you hold it. Many just grab the camera quick without having ever learned that and that is what causes stiff muscles all over the body.

Same when carrying the cameras on the belt, yes it is more exhausting carrying 2 the whole day but your body gets used to it, like it gets used to running daily.

And news media are being criticised rightfully for so many things. I have worked long enough in that field, it's a brutal world not many can handle it well.

See slide #10. This camera has to be carried around with two hands. That is how heavy it is.

Mariano - You just don't get it. I'm nearly 70 and I'm certainly not superman, but I recently used 1Dxii, handheld with Canon's 200-400mm F4 monster zoom, while photographing tigers in India. It's a fantastic combination, perfectly balanced and produces absolutely stunning results. Sure it's heavy, but when working with such long lenses you are generally either using a tripod, or working from a safari vehicle, so you just don't notice the weight.

I've also used a 1Dx with 300mm F2.8 and with 100mm macro, and it feels absolutely perfect in my average size hands. Controls are incredibly easy to reach and operate. These Canons, like the Nikon D5, aren't intended for weekend snapshooters or gearheads, they are intended for tough professional use in extreme environments, and currently nothing else, and that includes the Sony a9, comes remotely close to the usability, durability or performance.

While I strongly disagree with "ugly camera", as the 1DXIII is a beautiful as a camera can possibly be, I think that honking big does not make it better and more balanced. The 1D series is optimized for its lenses and vice-versa, so, surprise surprise, it feels good and balanced.
You can also make a system that feels balanced as well while being smaller, lighter, and far more svelte.
In the world of action photography you cannot underestimate the relevance of the weight and moment of inertia of a camera+lens if you wand to effectively track fast moving objects. New Sony superteles have the center of gravity much closer to the camera, to provide not only better balance, but also far reduced moment of inertia, so you can spin around the system with far more agility. For who gets it, moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the distance from the center of gravity, as that is where you balance your camera. 1.4Kg camera far from the center of gravity? Nope.

So, continuing on....
to use TRU beloved analogy, who likes to compare something like the 1DX to a truck and the A9 to a sports car....
Your common sense recommends you to chase something fast with a truck or a quick car?
TRU will argue that the 1DX is much tougher, that is why you need a truck... well I will take 2 A9s with me then, after all will not cost that much more and will weight exactly the same.

EOS-M has been outselling ALL Sony camera on its own for 4 years now.
EOS-M has the #1 mirrorless camera on Amazon US and BCN.

The last year BCN reported EOS-M by itself (no DSLRs, no FF) outsold ALL Sony cameras by 50%. That means 1.5 EOS-M cameras were sold for every Sony APSC, FF, and all A mount cameras.

T3 is going to cry about value, but no idiot on earth would say EOS-M is "dead".

@Mac Daddy - If Canon came out with an APS-C RF body that sold for as little as an EOS M50, and Canon canceled EF-M, then people would simply buy the cheap APS-C RF camera instead. After all, the main reason why EOS M sells well (at least in Japan) is because Canon prices it so darn cheap...just like their Canon Rebels...super low pricing. Canon would just do that with an entry-level APS-C RF, and there would be no need for EOS M. EOS M is actually a detriment because EOS M does not feed users into the RF ecosystem like Rebels fed users into the EF ecosystem. Canon needs that for the future health of the RF system...they need a low end APS-C Rebel for the RF ecosystem. EOS M doesn't do that for them. But a cheap APS-C Rebel RF would.

Buy two or three generations back. The original 1DX is less than $2000 USD and the 1DS mark III is less than $1000:

@Ilia Snopchenko
Low light sensor performance is quite poor, current 1.5 crop sensors do better even at higher megapixel count, never mind a FF. Because of 1.3 crop, wide lens are not as wide, and the OVF is not as bright and big as the 1DS or 1DX. I always felt that when shooting action the images were rarely tack sharp, with any lens I used. Images felt "about sharp". I did use good optics with it, like the EF 70-200/2.8 or the EF300/2.8.
I am not sure what you shoot and if you need the speed of a 1D series. I am pretty sure that 5DIV will start flooding the market soon if you do not need 10fps. Given the current technology I am not sure if I would recommend a 1DX. I had one for a long time and the DR is just not up to today standard. Also, the 5DIV has almost twice the resolution. I assume that the 5DIV is as good as they say. I stopped buying Canon before the 5DIV and 1DXII generation. interesting how I loved my 1DsIII and I did not really like much the 1DIV.

Sony knows their a9 series is not really competitive as a true pro body. They try to market it as such to generate sales among consumers who want to think of themselves as having pro equipment.

I remember when the a9ii launched one of their brand ambassadors, called an "Artisan"...came out with an article of course praising the body, but it was using it to shoot a high school football game. Nothing wrong with that but kind of revealing as to the target market.

Canon OTOH showed off this video by the world's greatest underwater surf photographer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNXPMoN7iOM&feature=emb_title

It's obvious that Canon has designed a camera for the world's most elite and demanding pro's, while Sony knows it cannot compete there. I mean with the Sony they just added a bit of weather sealing on the small fragile battery door. That shows you how behind they are in weather proofing their equipment for top level pro work.

Talk about hyperbole! About the ONLY thing the 1D series brings to the table the A9II doesn't is battery life. As far as tracking and shooting speeds the A9II easily exceeds the 1D series. Not sure how or why you come up with this stuff about the far superiority of the 1D. I'm not against the 1D believe me. I owned one years ago. And in all probability may well go Canon once they have a Pro R. But with all due respect the 1D series today isn't leagues beyond a A9II.

Ironically, people used the "battery life" argument to argue for why film SLRs had a big advantage over DSLRs in the early days of digital. That argument didn't age well. And battery life clearly hasn't hurt the rise of smartphones either. Like it or not, we're in a battery-powered world. And there are ways to deal with battery requirements (powerbanks, battery packs, etc.) Also keep in mind that a 1DX III weighs 1440g (with battery and memory). A Sony A9II weighs 678g (with battery and memory). That means you can put that 762g weight differential into additional batteries or a powerbank, etc, if needed.

Expect the next version will have a flip down EVF so you can change between OVF and EVF. Could the not do a hotshoe mounted EVF similar to the M6 mk2?

How big will the market be for a 1DX IV in four years? Probably not big enough to justify a new model. By then, mirrorless cameras will be the dominant cameras, and who knows what kind of extended battery life they will be capable of by then? People who need EXTREMELY long battery life will either just use a powerbank or battery pack with their mirrorless body, or they'll just pick up a 1DX III that is still in production.

For extended battery life, Sony for example sells a quad battery pack:

https://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Sony-NPA-MQZ1K-Multi-Battery-Adapter-Kit.jpg

That will give you quite a lot of battery life!

@simjn - "I doubt this will be the last 1D with a OVF as they have many advantages over mirrorless cameras,"

ovf only has disadvantages, no advantages.

@simjn - "expect a hybrid flip down LCD in the OVF next time"

that will never happen, there isn't any market for it.

@simjn - "Just as I'd swapped the sample and was positioning it the LCD screen would go to sleep."

you could have easily changed the time-to-sleep setting on the camera.

@simjn - "mirrorless are still behind."

mirrorless is far more advanced, see the a9 stacked sensor for example, plus real wysiwyg, no af fine-tuning necessary, smaller and lighter, cheaper to manufacture and support, etc.

Even the very best EVFs have a perceptible lag and can produce eye strain if used alot.

They will undoubtedly get better but for now an EVF is a pale version of reality, which is what you get with an OVF.

@T3 I’m not sure why you keep using the film analogy for your argument against the DSLR, it’s the same tech. The main difference being the EVF, which is actually the Achilles heal for the types of scenarios you would be shooting one of these bodies.

The EVF in its current state cannot compete with the OVF for the applications that’s these Single digit pro bodies are designed for. The EVF cannot handle rapid movement of the camera like and OVF does. Live preview through the EVF is a moot point vs lag which is an actual issue when shooting action.

For a good majority of consumers and professionals the EVF is not an issue, however these are the same photographers that never shot Single digit pro bodies in the first place. They are your 5d d800 professionals or consumers. Pro don’t care about focus points extending the the extremes of the frame or AF fine tune (which is auto these days) the rest is the same except mirrorless doesn’t have an OVF!

@T3 A more accurate film analogy would be comparing the SLR vs the rangefinder. The SLR provides a through the lens experience, however as much the SLR dominated it never replaced the rangefinder. The reason that rangefinders survived and still do today is that the photographer feels more connected to the scene and have a natural view of that scene. This is especially the case with applications such as street photography and is more suited to zone focusing.(no af lag)

The same reason that many still prefer OVFs is that they have a more natural view of the scene. Metering systems are so competent now that nothing is a distraction. The EVF is not the same.

It’s common knowledge of the camera makers themselves that the EVF and lag is the biggest challenge in replacing the DSLR for single digit pro bodies. Mirrorless is good for applications that do not require split second timing. Unless they can provide a zero lag finder then The OVF will have a place.

@Milkman: OVF only disadvantages???

😂😂😂

No milk today! (Herman and the Hermits)

@Lobbamobba
do you realize that the best the 1DXIII has to offer is when it is operating in LV, while when you are working with the OVF it is hardly noticeably better than the 1DXII.....

well, Nokia fought back and re-issued an upgraded Nokia 3310 in 2017 ;)

Meanwhile, people will buy this camera and continue taking stellar shots with it while the people that see the photos will not care in the least what camera was used.

I think one of few advantages of the Canon is extreem low light. Luckely most Olympic sports have more than enough light for the Olympus. The Olympus has a lot of advantages over this Canon. For exple 60 fps instead of just 20 fps.

In many games lights aren’t bright for cameras.

"20mp is more than enough for most people, even pro's." Nah, people need 50+ MP for their Instagram selfies!

I've just written a piece on this and the Nikon 120-300 2.8. A Nikon D5, 24-70, 70-200 and 120-300 2.8's weigh 7kg and costs over £19,000 An Olympus E-M1X with 12-40 pro and 40-150 pro gives 24-300 ffe at 2.8, weighs 2 kg and costs £15,000 less!

A 400mm or 600mm FF lens is basically the same size for any FF camera.
So micro four thirds is better, right?

Weeding lol

yeah, i'd definitely hang this camera with the rest of my gardening weeding tools!!!!

Intended users are exactly the same pros who've been using 1D series bodies all these years.

@Strannik2011
yes, but you are not accounting for the fact that technology is changing. You are not using a blackberry anymore for your corporate calls I assume? Yes indeed the 1D series is pretty much the same as it was then.

@Strannik2011 - "Intended users are exactly the same pros who've been using 1D series bodies all these years."

You're talking about an era that preceded the current state-of-the-art mirrorless cameras such as the A9II that can shoot faster, at higher resolution, with no viewfinder blackout, can shoot in total silence, with face/eye AF that covers nearly 100% of the viewfinder. Times have changed. Technology has changed. For example, a lot of press photogs are now switching to mirrorless for these various features and capabilities:

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a9-shooter-spotted-at-the-historical-trump-and-kim-jong-meeting/

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2018/02/14/sony-is-changing-the-game-at-the-white-house/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/26/doug-mills-trump-favorite-photographer-226745

A few years ago, photos like Doug MIlls were using Canon 1DX bodies. Now they use mirrorless bodies such as Sony A9. So much for "using 1D series bodies all these years."

Sony said they backup their money truck to a few photographer's homes and got them to switch. Just a few though as you've found.
Meanwhile I was at an NFL playoff game Saturday evening and saw well over 100 Canon's in action and not a single Sony. Same for the NCAA game I was at a few weeks ago. Same for the all the MLB and NBA games I went to this year.
Not 1 Sony.

With camer'a better controls and superior video there is not good reason to switch. AF is great and it is easier to change subjects. Pros have been nailing focus decades so the "AF for newbies" is not helpful.

@tkbasic - Nikonians said the same thing about Canon EOS in the early days. "No one is using Canon! We don't need Canon's gimmicky AF technology. Pros have been nailing focus for decades before Canon's 'AF for newbies.'" Well, that didn't last too long. By the late 1990s, Canon EOS had overtaken the market. Canon did it with superior technology, faster update cycles, and more aggressive pricing, all of which were enough to steadily erode Nikon's extremely loyal usership over many years. The change didn't happen overnight. It happened by steady erosion and attrition-- something that diehard users thought would never happen. Canon and Nikon should be cautious about their sense of entitlement to the market and notion that users will never change. It's the same mistake that Nikon made.

You also have to remember that the 1DXIII is a camera that needs to be competitive for the next several years. Canon needed to future-proof it against the A9III coming out in a year or two.

Of course they are using Canon at NFL because they have not recoup their investments. ***Correction: "wedding". ***

I'd love to see a comparison of an E-M1x with 300/4 against the FF dual-gripped competition with 600/4 lenses. I'm pretty certain the E-M1x can't keep up compared to the 1DXiii and D6 - IQ, AF, mechanical frame rate, etc - but I'd like to see how close it could come. This is coming from someone who shoots two Oly bodies.

If Oly could actually come up with an E-M1x that could keep up in everything but ISO, then that might be very interesting for outdoor sports - I imagine the 40-150/2.8, 300/4, and upcoming 150-450/4.5 are much lighter/cheaper than FF options with similar reach.

T3 said, "the A9III coming out in a year or two."

Exactly.
Sony has nothing today that overall works as well and is built as well. The A9ii was a dud. It will be a year or two before their next try.
Of course the list of A9 native sports lenses is too short to be taken seriously now too.

The A9iii, the A7000, the A7Siii. Funny how Sony owners keep getting let down and left hoping for future cameras that may never come.

@tkbasic - You're talking non-sense, obviously. And it also highlights the challenge that Canon/Nikon face: a competitor that has a much faster iteration cycle. This is one thing that killed Nikon against Canon EOS. Canon iterated faster and more aggressively. Nikon was too slow and conservative, counting too heavily on their loyal users to stay with Nikon. And we all know how that played out.

T3
Your rant about "wait until the A9iii in a couple years!" is nonsense.
Like I said, I've been to over a dozen major sporting events this year, and didn't see a single Sony. Not one.
And now this camera is more compelling with its superior native lenses, superior ability to select subjects and Canon's superior professional support. That puts a dagger in the A9 until as you say "the A9III coming out in a year or two."

@tkbasic - Let's wait to see how well the actual sales are of the 1DXIII. You have to face the fact that the 1DXIII comes at an inflection point in DSLR history where users have to decide whether to invest an additional $6500 in DSLR technology or hold off on their investment so they can invest in mirrorless technology. It's like buying the latest film SLR versus opting to move to a digital SLR instead. The analogy isn't perfect, but the point is that we are in a transitional phase, and the 1DXIII comes at that exactly at that transition point. You may not think we are in a transitional point, but a few years from now it will be much more apparent and clear.

Risky to jump into a forum fight, but I'm gonna say the 1DX3 will do just fine, and Sony will have to keep working at it for a couple more generations. I imagine most people who will buy 1DX3 will be upgrading from 1DX2, and won't really consider anything else.

Not only are photographers' own personal lens libraries likely tied to Canon, but so are their corporate libraries for whomever they shoot for. And if neither they nor their companies have the lenses, then the rental libraries that they call are more likely to have Canon, as well.

Additionally, does Sony have the same scale in terms of professional repair/replacement/rental services at large events? If one loses/breaks their Canon or Nikon equipment in Tokyo, there's a pretty solid chance they can get a quick replacement same-day. Does Sony have that level of commitment, and if they do, will enough pros and sports publications sign on to make it economically viable in the long term?

Here we go again... Sony supporters that where so convinced that Sony made dSLR cameras "obsolete" are now chiming "just wait in a couple years..."

@Gmon750 - Have you seen DSLR sales stats recently? Sony FF mirrorless sales (alone) now exceed Canon and Nikon FF sales (DSLR + mirrorless).

https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/27/sony-full-frame-camera-domination/

https://www.techradar.com/news/sony-conquers-canon-and-nixes-nikon-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-market

Is the 1DXIII really going to move the needle? Probably not, since 1DXIII will sell in relatively small quantities to a very niche segment of the market. And I think a good number of potential 1DXIII buyers will likely just hold off on the 1DXIII, opting instead to see what Canon/Nikon offer in their high-end sports FF MILCs (probably in 2021) as well as what Sony will offer in their A9III (probably also around 2021). So it's not just a Sony thing. We're at an inflection point where a lot of users have to seriously consider whether to continue investing thousands of dollars into end-of-life DSLR technology, or begin the migration to mirrorless.

@T3 - yes, I'm fully aware of the YoY declining dSLR sales. Anyone following the photography world knows what's going on. This 1DX may be Canon's last push with the pro dSLR's as it preps to release a mirrorless Pro camera. I myself have put off purchase of the 5DM4 simply because I want to see what Canon does with a pro Mirrorless body.

That being said, Canon's 1DX simply proved that there is still room for innovation and features that will continue to keep the pro/prosumer dSLR crowd happy. While it's inevitable that mirrorless cameras will eventually take over and dSLR cameras will be archived as another footnote in camera styles, that time is not now and it still is a serious (if not superior) competitor to Sony's offerings.

Canon has an armyof dedicated, loyal pro-dSLR customers invested heavily in lenses. This camera will keep them happy for many years to come. Who knows, like vinyl LP's, it may have a loyal and possibly profitable following many years down the road.

As an A9 user i am enjoying this limbo we are at now. It is a bit like owning a Tesla at this time. You feel special as you invested in an innovative product that most have not discovered yet, or have not been brave or financially placed to make the jump.
Coming from a 1DX shooting sports with the A9 feels like cheating for its blazing speed and intelligent AF covering the full frame and no blackout.
Soon this experience will be trivially commonplace so I am enjoying it while I have it. Showing up at sporting events where the majority of the other photographers are clueless about the horsepower inside my tiny and non-assuming camera as they look down to it is just too much fun.

@Gmon750 - "Canon has an army of dedicated, loyal pro-dSLR customers invested heavily in lenses."

So did Nikon in the film SLR era. Then Canon introduced their EOS system in the late 1980s, and by the mid-to-late 1990s Canon had taken over the pro SLR market. Nikon's "army of dedicated, loyal pro-SLR customers invested heavily in lenses" was not enough to stop Canon from massively eroding Nikon's usership and overtaking Nikon, even after Nikon had caught up with a lot of Canon's technologies (USM/AF-S, IS/VR, etc). I think people overplay the loyalty card.

@ armandino - that may be a great example. A Tesla is fast, comfortable, quiet and efficient, but in some scenarios - ie, having to drive more than 250 miles in a day, for example - they aren't yet the best solution. Eventually they will be and there will be very few use cases where they wouldn't be adequate, but I don't think that day is today.

@aliasfox
I agree with your parallel, however the A9II is no A9 and realistically it does not have the same limitations the Tesla has in any practical application (thing that the original A9 instead had). Keeping the parallel the A9II is a new Tesla, with similar specs but with a double capacity battery. The 1DXIII will definitely win in some cases, but I would call these pretty specialized applications, and you are still paying a lot more for it. For most users the A9II makes a lot more sense than the the 1DXIII but again it would not if someone is invested in Canon or Nikon systems.

@armandino
instead of car battery = camera battery, think of car battery = lens availability, or recharge points = lens availability. You're in a random town, you can definitely find a gas station; not necessarily a supercharger. Likewise, you're a pro at an event and you have an issue with your body or lenses - Canon and Nikon are more likely to be able to provide immediate support than Sony. And for someone who has to produce for a living, reliability and support will often outweigh ultimate performance.

Not saying Sony won't overcome these limitations, just saying that given these considerations, it probably isn't overcoming them by Tokyo.

"Weeding" photography - so, that's what Sonyusers are about. That explains pretty much everything ;)

I have never seen other than canon and Nikon at sporting events, looks like the high value low volume model Sony has been so successful with continues to work with can ikon.

@aliasfox
Are you up to date with current Sony pro support? It does not seem like it. I think the analogy resides more in the fact that if you get and expensive BMW vs a Tesla, you do get that feel of a very refined product vs a more mass market product. That is definitely the feel you get by holding a 1DX vs an A9. But at the end of the day to me is what gets me what I want, and the A9 delivers that for me far more than a 1DX.

@T3 ,etc, I don't understand the relevance of this debate which brand or camera is better. This can be debated to death, but really whats the point? The questions was who is this camera for and I gave the answer. There is a ton of great gear out there but in this case just look at the line up of gear MOST sports pro photogs are using and there is your answer. Not all of them. Not always. But a lot. As simple as that. This is not a mass product. Personally, the most two recent bodies I purchased were MLs (after years of dSLRs). I will not buy a 1D body as I don't need this particular camera model. Am I going to the Olympics and try to convince all sports photogs with 1D bodies that they are fools? No. But I suppose you can if you feel the need. Some day they might switch to something else. But we are not there yet, at least this is not what I see at sporting events.

@Strannik2011
Mariano Pacifico made a pretty valid point. Some have been supporting it, some are against and each is justifying why.
I do agree with him that for most of us we are past these massive bodies. It is really too bad imo that Canon offers their ultimate performance only in a 1D. I think many would love that technology in a different form factor. Who knows, maybe in a couple of years?
The "who cares big lenses are heavy anyway" used to work but not anymore. Brands are going above and beyond to shave every gram off them, and we can now handhold a 400/2.8. I would happily lose 1/2 kg off this camera! I can handhold my A9+200-600 or A9+400/2.8, but not a 1DX with an equivalent lens.

@armandino I agree - a lot of us (I dunno about "most") are past these heavy massive bodies, but most of us are not professional sports photographers. I'm sure once they start switching to Sony or whatever else, Canon will change the form factor/platform of this model and I have no problem with that. Again, I'm not debating what is better - I'm just saying who will be using these bodies, thats all. And I will be wrong once we see Sony bodies dominating sports events. And that will be perfectly fine. Just not now.

The usual disadvantages from those "heavy" pro-bodies is an advantage in the field. With a 600mm on it, the weight is negligible because you use a monopod. The whole weight is in balance and steady. Would I use it on climbing a mountain? No! On pro sports events? Hell yeah. That's what quite a few people don't understand. Plus cipa 2500++ that's what counts.

@Strannik2011
I am sport photographer and I speak in behalf of the majority of sport photographers crossing my path.
@vscd
Sony new 400/2.8 and 600/4 are designed to account for a small and light body. The center or gravity moved much closer to the camera itself, which also means that the moment of inertia is far more reduced (that is a square law and not linear like weight). So at the end of the day the A9 coupled with a Sony pro super tele is far more agile. If you are a sport photog you understand the value of that when tracking sports. So you are victim of a urban legend.

@armandino
I understand what you mean, but you will also understand that most people on the business either have already their lenses and won't pay another 20k on them just for 2-3 lbs and the rest rents the equipment from their agencies. So they maybe don't have the choice. Apart from that, you have to live with the Sony. New menus, new workflows, no interchange of optics with colleagues.... And even a reversed zoom direction. If you start with Sony as a new user, you may be right, as existing user is a pain for a few gramm less weight.

@vscd - Back on the 1990s, a ton of Nikon users switched from Nikon to Canon which allowed Canon to overtake Nikon in the pro market. So it's not as if pros haven't switched systems before. Also, during the DSLR era when only Canon had FF DSLR (starting in 2002) and Nikon didn't (not until 2007), a lot of pros switched then too.

@vscd
my argument is not about why people have good reason for sticking with the established systems. I completely get that, but that a heavy camera is the best solution for the above reasoning.

@armandino again, you are missing the point I'm making. I am not debating which camera or brand is better. I'm saying that Canon 1D bodies dominate this particular segment (at least compared to Sony's presence). I already said that not everyone and not always uses 1D line. However a lot of pros do. Again, a lot of them will upgrade to the familiar tool rather than change everything in their setup. As simple as that. Once you can show me that statistically Sony bodies dominate this segment I will be happy to stand corrected. I personally have no problem if pros will start switching to Sony or whatever - I personally could care less. I'm just saying that right now the new 1D still has its target audience/market segment (even though there might be better tools for the job).

@T3
The mainreason to switch over to Canon was the magic drainpipe (80-200L) and the external AF-Drive in the lens, while Nikon could not deliver that with the old F-mount. Moving a 600mm with a motor on the bayonett is nuts. But that was a lot more difference than today where some mirrorless users claim they have advantages. They have, admitted, but they are not as large as you may think... I, for example don't miss anything except of some very few minor things. And nothing is from the mirrorless technology. No Lie.

@vscd - I think the move from AF points only in the center of the viewfinder (as is the case with FF DSLRs) to focus points that cover the entire viewfinder, with face and eye AF (as is the case with mirrorless cameras)...that difference alone is huge. I can't stand the focus coverage of DSLRs. It's really quite pathetic once you get used to the AF coverage of mirrorless cameras. Full frame AF coverage with better (on-sensor) AI is a big difference over DSLRs. The younger generation of photogs already know the significant advantages of mirrorless:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqtkFzuUdAs&feature=emb_logo

It's the older generation that is still clinging to DSLRs. But even old-timers are seeing the light:
https://petapixel.com/2018/01/23/photographer-david-burnett-switches-sony-40-years-shooting-canon/

@T3
In my personal experience 99% of the time nothing in the border is of my concern. You write like we have a split prism in the center, but that's wrong. The mainarea is covered by cross type arrays, hundreds of them (depending on the cam). It's just amazing how people could live with a D5 or 1DX in the sportgame without eye-AF. Yes, it's not 100% into the deepest corner, but it's correct, not pumping and even if your claims are true, you buy into different problems with the mirrorless cams. But to start another ML vs. DSLR thread for this is useless, you won't get it anyway.

...and quoting some random people who switched is nonsense, I like to follow Michael Kenna f.e., he's using film. Questions? Are influencers important for your livestyle?

Canon 1DXII and Nikon D5 focus points:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Nikon-D5-vs-Canon-1D-X-Mark-II-Viewfinder.png

Nikon Z6/Z7 focus points:
https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Autofocus-Points-Nikon-Mirrorless-650x423.jpg

It's a huge difference!

Old-timers like you will probably stick with DSLR until you die. But there's a whole new, younger generation of photographers who aren't so stuck on old DSLR tech. They're all in with mirrorless.

I started with film SLRs. Went on to DSLRs. Now I shoot mirrorless. I could never go back to DSLRs.

T3 "Old-timers like you will probably stick with DSLR until you die. But there's a whole new, younger generation of photographers who aren't so stuck on old DSLR tech. They're all in with mirrorless."

Please supply your evidence to support this rather obvious generalisation. You are always applying pseudo science to support your own and bias, you know plenty about you and of course your clip and paste well worn evidence that favours your point of view.
Be nice if you had the guts to look for contrary evidence and publish that.

There's nothing wrong with you being a Sony prig, enjoy but at the same time accept your views are valid for you but not that you are right, or that others are wrong.

@George1958 - The reality is that people who grew up with DSLRs are far more likely to have an emotional attachment to DSLRs. Why is that so hard to believe? It's just human nature. And the younger generation is generally more likely to adopt newer technology, are more open to it, see the advantages of it, and are willing to explore its possibilities.

T3 "The reality is that people who grew up with DSLRs are far more likely to have an emotional attachment to DSLRs."

Its an interesting claim, but without a data source, its not possible to substantiate such a claim. So its your opinion and only that.

PS I grew up with coal fires, petrol cars, an abacus, a black and white TV that was analogue, I used SW/MW/LW radio. While I will not repeat your error of over generalising to others, you wont find any of these items in my life, that is other than DSLRs alongside my mirrorless cameras.
On the latter point, I wonder if being so polemic is a good argument? I certainly use both and find both equal to the task.

@George1958 - So look at yourself as a case study. What are your feelings towards DSLR vs mirrorless cameras? And which did you grow up with? See?

It's just human nature. As for your "coal fires, petrol cars, an abacus, a black and white TV that was analogue", it really depends on what kind of emotional attachment you developed towards these things. And people do build emotional attachments towards cameras, which they took up as a hobby, for enjoyment, for enrichment, etc. Are you denying that such things happen? Then you're just being naïve.

T3 - your gross assumptions about me and the entirety of the photography community are just your very particular view points. The truth is you don’t know why you know that, and can’t support your argument with data.
I may be wrong but you talk like a salesman , or a clumsy politician and show no awareness that such flimsy arguments and spurious claims imply your have some superior perception that makes you all seeing. I hope not , that would make you a very arrogant person.
Further more what do you mean by emotional attachment. I personally reserve my feelings for the significant other people in my life. Surely it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that using a DSLR is some form of emotional attachment? If so why not SLRs, and earlier camera iterations, ones like my grandfather used when I was a boy. Also how does your theory explain ( it can’t) why “emotionally” attaches folk also buy and use both DSLR and Mirrorless?

To George1958,

"you talk like a salesman"

He really does sound like a bad car salesman. They kind you know who are just making everything up on the fly.

Sound familiar?
Back on the 1990s, a ton of Ford users switched from Ford to Chevy which allowed Chevy to overtake Ford in the SUV market. So it's not as if drivers haven't switched makers before. And now those same people are switching to Fiat because SUVs are too big and heavy.
Old-timers like you will probably stick with SUVs until you die. But there's a whole new, younger generation of drivers who aren't so stuck on old SUVs. They're all in with mini-cars.

I bet he works at a Fiat dealership.

@George1958
For people like T3 I suggest watching "Humanity" from Ricky Gervais. It explains pretty much everything. Summarized: "What I think is what others have to think, or I block or insult them."

@vscd - Are you guys denying that people who grew up with OVFs and flapping mirrors will have a greater affinity and attachment to OVFs and flapping mirrors? Yes, it's a generalization, but I think it's a fairly accurate one.

Killers eat bread in the evening before. 99% of all killers! The bread is the cause of killing. Yes, it's a generalization, but I think it's a fairly accurate one.

P.S. I grew up with a rangefinder from my father, a mirrorless Smena SL 20 and later a Canon Ixus (first analog, then digital). Any other questions to your mystic story?

vscd, its really quite easy to spew nonsense like T3,

Back on the 1990s, a ton of killers switched from bread to pasta which allowed pasta to overtake as the carb of choice for killers So it's not as if killers haven't switched before. Also, during the bread era when only some killers ate pasta the evening before, a lot of killers switched then too.

also. I am sure he cuts and pastes everything from his nonsense archive.

@vscd and tkbasic - Let's make it really easy: let's see which type of camera is in dominant use in the 2024 Olympics: DSLRs or mirrorless cameras. By then, mirrorless cameras and their system (from all manufacturers) will be quite mature and advanced. A lot of mirrorless users who are starting today will be tomorrow's pros. And there will be that many more DSLR shooters who will have retired from the game.

@vscd
"In my personal experience 99% of the time nothing in the border is of my concern."
Your comment is only valid if you are ALSO familiar with having AF on the entire frame. Odds are that you are not, so, basically you do not know what you are missing out. Also, you should state if you shoot sport photography, because if you do not you are likely less interested in having AF covering the full frame. FF coverage is extremely useful in sports and birding, especially if you have an intelligent AF like on the A9, simply because the AF will stick with erratic motion even if it is well on the edge of the frame. Fact are that the A9 will not shift the focus to the background even if the subject leaves the frame entirely for a brief moment. This is EXTREMELY valuable in action photography, because you can maintain your lock on the subject far more reliably. The fact that you might not want to shoot the subject when on the edge of the frame, it is just as important to keep it locked on.

@vscd
Conventionally, sport photogs use only the center point to focus in sports, because it is the only reliable way to get the shot. The point might be moved around if you need to frame differently, which is less than ideal. Additionally, in sports you what to follow the subject around locked on and then shoot when the moment is right. You obviously do not try locking on just before the moment. That is also why back af button is so commonly used among sport photogs. Therefore it is hard to follow the subject with a small af area because 1) you might end up focusing the background on an erratic moving subject 2) you have to frequently re-lock because you cannot follow the subject everywhere in the frame missing shots opportunities 3) the framing might not be ideal.
With the intelligent full time Af covering the full frame on the A9 it is almost trivial locking on a subject and follow it around not needing continuous precise camera movements to follow the action.

" Let's make it really easy: let's see which type of camera is in dominant use in the 2024 Olympics"
Let's start with the 2020 Olympics. it will be a 98:2 ratio. Maybe 60:40 by 2024. It depends what Canon does. Because Sony lacks reliable support they do not matter.

@tkbasic - No, the changeover will be quite rapid. By the 2024 Olympics, the 1DX III and D6 will be ancient. DSLR technology, in general, will be ancient. Mirrorless bodies will probably have global shutters, all shooting with zero viewfinder blackout, all shooting with near 100% AF viewfinder coverage, all shooting with very advanced artificial intelligence auto focus that is subject-aware. There will be no 1DX IV or D7 DSLR bodies, The days of the flapping mirrors, viewfinder blackout, and primitive optical viewfinders with limited focus point coverage will be a thing of the past, quaint remnants of a bygone era.

IMO Olympics 2024 will see a big penetration of mirrorless. Most of it will not be Sony but Canon. Canon will certainly release a pro sport mirrorless for that, actually most likely it will be out in 2 years because:
1) in 2 years mirrorless technology will be so much more ahead
2) A9III will be released and that will me a MAJOR update.
3) World cup will be here.

Canon sent a clear message that the 1DX is a mirrorless under a DSLR shell and mirrorless is if you want to unleash it. If you use it via OVF, you may just stick with the 1DXII.

@t3
You pray that for years now, isn't it getting boring? Global shutters don't have anything to do with dslr or mirrorless, it's only more important for milcs.
You seem to convince people to drink water instead of beer. Yes, water had advatages... But does it give you something to pray water all the day? Just drink it and know you're healthy...

T3 "No, the changeover will be quite rapid. By the 2024 Olympics, the 1DX III and D6 will be ancient."
Another hugely speculative and insupportable point of view that totally takes for granted that Canon and Nikon, and perhaps others will not have other offers by then.

It is true that at the present Sony refreshes its products more often than some change their socks and Canon and Nikon have been slower to upgrade. That said most of Sonys line up bar the latest iterations are yesterdays news and lack the outstanding they had a few years ago.
"near 100% AF viewfinder coverage, all shooting with very advanced artificial intelligence auto focus that is subject-aware. " and are totally unnecessary
but nice to have.
The evidence is out there in the millions of images shot on Canon and Nikon.

Sonys best trick is to convince people they can buy success via tech. However they have never been able to explain why people succeed without it.

@vscd
"Global shutters don't have anything to do with dslr or mirrorless, it's only more important for milcs."
That is indeed true. But I would like to focus on the second part of it "it's only more important for milcs." As Mirrorless is proving superior already, the gap will widen far more at the time we will have global shutter in them. So, yes global shutter will definitely mark the end of DSLRs if it will not have happened already and it will represent a major leap in camera technology as we will have no moving parts anymore, eliminating lighting and motion artifacts while simplifying flash photography.
I really hope that global shutter will be here with the new A7s or the A9III, that is the one thing I have been really waiting for.

"T3 "The reality is that people who grew up with DSLRs are far more likely to have an emotional attachment to DSLRs."

Its an interesting claim, but without a data source, its not possible to substantiate such a claim. So its your opinion and only that. "

It is certainly interesting claim. I have observed this at least on DPR, for example the reviewers who used canon and nikon all their life complain that sony does not operate as their past cameras.
One of the reviewers , i think last year end, posted how he found everything in nikon ff mirrorless and how he was waiting for. So i wondered all the things he wanted were there in sony FF so how come he discovered them only when nikon released.

Someone pointed out that his dislike for sony is well known.

So yaa, interesting claim that and looks like quite valid too. I re-bought sony R1 very recently and thats a cam from 2005. We have attachments.

ZXAAR - "T3 "The reality is that people who grew up with DSLRs are far more likely to have an emotional attachment to DSLRs."
Surely you see that your argument is a thinking error?
You can state your case based on your own experiences and its fine to say and own your own claim that you have an attachment to a camera.
However your analysis of one reviewer may or may not be accurate. You don't know that as a fact, you have just made that assumption based on your interpretation of that persons narrative.
You might as well say a dog bit me, therefore all dogs bite. Once you decide that you then spend all your time looking for dogs?

@armandino
"As Mirrorless is proving superior already"

This is no common sense, this is only an opinion of you. It may be true in your filterbubble but nothing in reality. You cannot make a "discussion" with this attitude. Both systems have merits. If you need eyeAF you can go mirrorless, if you need near endless Batterytime you may go dslr, it depends. And the 1/8s flash sync of electronic shutters is a no go for some. But if you didn't get this by now you're not getting it today or tomorrow, too.

@vscd
1) Battery life is a joke of an argument. We are passed that
2) When one product is deemed superior than another it does not mean that it is in EVERY regard. Based on your logic someone might argue that film is still superior than digital because of the highlight rolloff. Clearly DSLRs still have few undeniable benefits in some areas; however OVERALL a mirrorless with current cutting edge technology is superior than current DSLR cutting edge technology. If you argue against it you are not up to date. As simple as that.

Classic case of delusion hope.
" the changeover will be quite rapid"
Notice no evidence or support for this desperate dream.
In fact all the facts say otherwise. 98% of pro sports cameras are still DSLRS. Sports Professionals tend to keep their cameras for more than 5-7 years.
It takes many years to build a reliable and complete sports lens lineup. (Sony owners rely on EF lenses and Sony still only has 4 or less good sports lenses)

@tkbasic
To me the day we have a global shutter or a readout speed matching or exceeding a mechanical shutter will mark a very rapid switch to Mirrorless. My guess that day is not too far out.

@armandino - Who's "we" you refer to? Everything you preach is an opinion. Nothing more. mirrorless may be perfect for you, but many of us have not yet made the leap for the many reasons that you preach everyone else has "passed".

Making assumptions (because that's what you're doing) about what the market is like, and passing it off as fact just makes you lose credibility.

@Gmon750
I am not sure at what point I used the "we" you are referring to. If it is in regard of my very early comment, I clarified after "I am sport photographer and I speak on behalf of the majority of sport photographers crossing my path". Also, i am not sure at what point i made assumptions on the market and passed as a fact, I doubt I did that at any point. On the other hand, I sustain the factual evidence that mirrorless, for the most part, already today offers a better opportunity to get the job done than a DSLRs. And the gap will keep on widening. If people decide to stick with DSLRs for whatever reason, I cannot care less and it is not my problem. It is not worth arguing over personal choice , because that is a SUBJECTIVE matter. Nevertheless, OBJECTIVELY, DSLRs are destined to fall back performance wise, the 1DXIII is the living proof (and that Canon announced of basically stopping developing EF lenses).

@armandino
You have an opinion, not any truth. Other people have other opinions and you have to live with that. That you're not willing to accept other people's opinions is well known. There is no common sense that mirrorless are overall better, only on *your * world. And nobody is past battery problems only because you don't like to hear it. And it was only one example. If thats an important feature for someone it's still counting... You have to live with it. The market will decide, not you.
Others see no merit in eye focus because they shot landscapes... So quite a few of your mirrorless advantages have no point for us either. Enough said. You won't get it anyway...

@vscd
"That you're not willing to accept other people's opinions is well known". I accept any opinion if present as opinion. Everyone is entitled to them. However, If they think it is a fact I expect to present an opinion with factual evidence associated with it. Evidence is quantifying to what extent one thing is better than another. It is also relevant expressing the extent of personal experience in the field, not necessary but help in putting ourselves in other's shoes. That is why I have a relatively extensive list of gear I own in this site, and also included my website. Not to show off, but to give the opportunity to others to understand my background before responding to me. I look up everyone's profile before responding to them, because I like to see, if possible where they are coming from. THESE are premises to LISTEN to other's opinion. You have one more example of expressing myself and giving evidence of why.

@vscd
"Others see no merit in eye focus because they shot landscapes..."
I am tired of hearing people justifying a point cheering picking a case. Why do you even bother bringing this up in a forum dealing with sports cameras with a resolution of 20 MP. Someone would argue that film is better than digital because they shoot landscapes in large formats and digital does not come that way at all...
There will always be areas where some technologies work better than others, because, in general you have diverse applications that require diverse optimal design solutions. However, there is clear evidence, that for sports, portraits, weddings, animal photography, street photography, travel photography, Mirrorless is the futures. Wait long enough and that will be true for landscapes too (it might be true already, I do not know, that is not what I do).

@vscd
As I mentioned in many opportunities I extensively used Canon pro bodies, and I shoot ALOT. Especially sports. Also, as a sport photographer, I know many others and the majority are clueless about using an A9. Few might have tried it and trying it does not mean knowing how to use it effectively. The majority of the ones that did so ended up switching. So, yes I am biased against the majority of the self calling sport photographers that say did not like the A9 because after digging a bit in their experience with it it was clear that they did not spend enough time with it and did not care to really learn using it. Or simply for personal preference, not objective preference. It is shocking to me that people have so little curiosity about others opinions. Given my extensive experience in using both i have had so few genuine questions about why and what, to expand their horizons, or confronting personal experience talking about specific circumstances and learning from each other.

@amandino - No one is disputing the evolution of Mirorless and the eventual demise of dSLR's. What is being discussed here is your "opinion" trying to be passed off as fact with little to no data to back up your beliefs.

dSLR's may one day be completely gone, or maybe it will become something for purists. Why EF lens development may have slowed, manufacturing of current EF lenses has not stopped. As spectacular the RF lenses are, people are still buying brand-new EF lenses for systems you deemed "dead".

What you deem as irrelevant are still important for many. For me, battery-life is a priority. I'm an underwater photographer and opening a sealed-case to change a battery out in the field can compromise a sealed system. My Sony RX requires a new battery after one day of shooting. My dSLR never ran a battery empty after 7-10 days of shooting. An entire trip.. Safe and sealed. It's important. Not to you, but many others share my sentiment on that one item alone.

@Gmon750
1) Just like vscd you are generalizing the need of a specialized use. I cannot believe you guys are so childish
2) Are you comparing battery life of an RX to an A9? Seriously? If you are using your camera underwater you are using the monitor in the back in either cases, so I do not see a battery advantage in DSLR.
Have you heard of a weighted objective chart? Make one up for a GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY use, not a single specific specialized use. Compare Mirrorless to DSLR. As a design engineer I do such thing for living. Quantify and optimize technology for specific objectives. See what you come up with for yourself.

@armandino
The life of a photographer *IS* a special use. And if your car is at every aspect good or medium it's maybe useless for special sport, hillclimbing, transportation or whatever you make as "pro" with it. For normal people it's ok, but most of us have special needs on their cam and if we think it's batterylife on a diving tour or a high flash sync the DSLR may be better.
There is no *common sense* pro mirrorless. I have both systems and my main system is still a DSLR (2x). I think it will remain a DSLR for some time, because I hate viewing TV on the EVF. I hope sometimes in the future they (CANON!?!?!?) will mix the OVF with a EVF-Layer but Canon seems not to invent anymore, only react. That's sad.

The summary of advantages/disadvantages is still pro DSLR for me. And Sony is a no-go, for multiple reasons (I had Sonycams).

@vscd
"I think it will remain a DSLR for some time, because I hate viewing TV on the EVF"
Thank you for finally giving us your subjective opinion (btw you have still not told us what is your mirrorless system, I assume not your Fiji or Sigma...). Do you see what I mean about quantify and specifics? You did not tell us what mirrorless you have experience with and what are the pros and cons for you and how you use your camera and what for.
Then you complain that I do not accept people opinions.... let's see a substantiated solid argument first. So far the only clear and obvious statements of yours is that you HATE who knows what sort of EVF you experienced. So much for objective statements and validations. Is it that hard to elaborate on specific hard evidence?
You better be specific on your experience on gear too, because if you are stating all of that based on what you have listed on your profile.... well sorry you have no idea of what I am talking about.

Do I need to specify the hardware for you to talk about the systems? I use more hardware than I own, but if you like to know:
Fuji GFX50S, Fuji XT-2, Sigma FP and Sony A7 III were my cams. I had them for several wekks and decided that the time is not right to make any changes to my equipment. All cams had their good and bad sides... after all I kept my FoveOn mirrorless Sigma for the nice Sensor and my Canon 5D Series with the lenses.

And yes, my opinion is subjective. An opinion is *ALWAYS* subjectiv. That's whats make it an opinion and no fact. That's why you have no idea of what we're talking about. You cannot say mirrorless is better if we don't need the specs which are indeed better. Got it?

If you need to know what every body was failing at I could give you the answer. But in short:
- Fuji GFX: AF
- Sony: Ergonomics and menus
- Sigma: unfinished feel to it, Workflow
- FUJI XT3: RAW Workflow not my taste, and APS-C is good, but a drawback

@tkbasic

The A9 also has a 500K shutter so I guess not.

Sony has 4 cameras with a 500K shutter rating (A7rIII/IV, A9/A9II)

Canon has one. This camera.

The body of the Sony cams fail before 500.000 shutter counts, so what the heck ;)

Neither the mighty FX9 nor S1H have full-sensor 4K/60p at all with or without AF. So, the 1DXiii has more impressive features than these other two in this regard.

Is dual pixel AF available in 4K/24p or 4K/30p? I hope, it is.

Yeah, 1DXiii has a 20M sensor with 5472 x 3648 pixels, the 5472 is downscaled to 4096 DCI. The EOS R sensor width is 6741. I hope Canon will be able to downconvert that width, too in a forthcoming EOS R mark II later this year, or whatever.

@tkbasic

//It has better ergonomics, a better grip and better controls than the mirrorless competition//

The trouble with this statement is it's not based on any evidence or analysis - it's literally your prejudice speaking.

The mirrorless competition is the A9II which is an extremely well designed camera with outstanding ergonomics. Did you know that the bottom grip controls on the A9II are exactly mirrored so that if you rotate it to portrait orientation (while the lens is on a tripod, say) your hand assumes exactly the same position? Not approximately, but EXACTLY. That's how well thought out the ergonomics are. The video with Chris Nicholls shows how different the Canon is in portrait orientation.

The Canon has near 100 percent modal switches across it's body - ie, you hold down a button and turn a wheel. Such a system is versatile but ergonomically inefficient since it requires two hands to change these settings.

Contd.

The A9II has direct dials for almost all of the modal controls on the Canon top plate. Direct controls are always more efficient and are generally considered better design practice.

Everyone talks about design and ergonomics on here and hardly anyone understands a single design principle. That's not surprising, they're not designers and design is not generally well understood outside of studios or companies.

And what most people mean by good ergonomics is the camera fits their hand and they are happy they own it.

You could record them taking longer and using more energy to make a change using a system they favour and they will still tell you that it's better designed than one they operated more easily from a brand they don't favour. People have very low awareness of their prior learning biases.

As for your other points - you haven't got any evidence for them either. It's just what you suppose or wish to be the case.

The Canon has a larger and more comfortable grip than the A9II

"The trouble with this statement is it's not based on any evidence "

Actually from the measurements it does have a larger grip, and many have spoke out about how Sony's relatively tiny grips are uncomfortable.

It is the same with video, native lenses, and everything else that makes this camera superior.
Are next going to say that Sony's cr@p video specs and paltry native sports lens selection are just as good? :D

@tkbasic

The video specs of the Canon are vastly superior to the A9II. (although there are odd failings such as no zebras).

If I was choosing a camera for video there would be no contest.

When it comes to stills it's a different matter. The Canon trails the Sony. Many of the AF features of the Canon are not available shooting through the eyepiece. The AF is inferior to the A9II (according to the DPR video with a pre-production body) and inferior to the camera's own LV performance, which is impractical given the weight of the camera and a fixed screen.

AF is the single most important aspect of this camera so it needs to be as good as the Sony at least. The Sony native sports lens selection is hardly paltry. A 500/4 seems likely before the summer to go with the 400/2.8 and 600/4. These are linear motor lenses that can operate at 20fps. We don't know but I suspect the EF lenses may not be able to achieve 20fps.

@tkbasic

//Actually from the measurements it does have a larger grip, and many have spoke out about how Sony's relatively tiny grips are uncomfortable.//

You're referring to the grips of previous bodies.

The A9II has a larger body with a different shaped grip, a larger screw-on grip and a differently angled control wheel.

It really is excellent.

I've handled the A7RIV and the grip felt great. I've handled the 1DX and D5 and the weight alone completely put me off.

So yeah, ergonomics is a bit of a subjective thing here.

Yup, hate Canon so much now I'm shooting on the EOS R and own 2 L lenses.

Or maybe some people have experience with multiple systems, grew up and stop wasting time hating on brands? ;)

GrapeJam

Its very weird how your history shows you hate Canon. Ow well.

We grew up with time and eventually realize that life is too short to hate on cameras brand ;)

@RubberDials
The reason for modal dials is because direct dials don't work well with user modes.

When you change user mode, changes can affect everything from file type, white balance, a multitude of AF settings, shutter and aperture settings, drive mode.... you name it.

So you're switching from your sport setting to a stadium shot with fireworks, then back to sports... You will want to use user modes to be able to get all the settings right fast enough, not direct dials.

1D bodies have been this way since i can remember, there might be a reason for that.

This is indeed a great camera that is unsurpassed in its niche role... that happens once every four years :/

@RubberDials The dials/controls on this camera have been perfected over two decades with feedback from pros. The 2 handed modal switches prevent accidental switching of modes. Other modes can be switched with just one hand and many are customizable.

" the 1DXIII is far from perfect in LV mode"

That was funny. They added some nice stuff to LV, but 99% it won't be used.
This is a camera for Pros who will use the superb OVF.

@tkbasic
Classic, you get destroyed on numbers evidence, you got to find your way back in the game by some other means. I love it!
1) "only a few paid photographers use the A9". Yes, but that does not prove any correlation with the core argument
2) "The biggest problem withe A9 is terrible banding when used in the latest stadiums with LED lighting. " I have about 1.5M pictures in e-shutter and about 25K in mechanical. That is 97% of the time e-shutter, you might what to re-evaluate how big of a deal that actually is. A9 is not prone to banding the same way as all other cameras in e-shutter mode.
3) "At every professional event I've been to this year, not one A9 was in sight." And this means what? you are clearly making conclusions based on biased assumptions.
4) "Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but the fact is pros do not trust Sony". I am actually enjoying the fact that, because most competitions have not jumped ship, and I am ahead of the game :-)

@tkbasic
one of the things I find really amusing, is to have such discussions with individuals like you or, to say TRU, that can never be specific about the facts via personal experience. Because you obviously do not have relevant experience in the matter, so you think that generic statements or evidence taken out of context but somehow resonating with your opinion can hold your case. Sure then, whatever you say.

It will either work great, poorly, or something in-between.

The clue is in its name, "smart"!!!

I'll test that for the final review. Canon has said it works fine with gloves, so I'd wager it'll work fine in inclement weather.

Carey please try it with wet fingers. Water film on the sensor might be a problem. It is for a lot of optical based movement sensors.

Chris @ the camera store has a mixed bag review if it. Easy to shift focus point inadvertently if you use the back af button for af.

@MikeRan

Canon just (last year) updated most of their big tele lenses in EF mount. Historically there have been years between iterations of these so I don't think a mirrorless RF camera is on the horizon.

The read-out speed of this sensor is slower than the A9II's, lower resolution and possibly (or not) lower in DR. An A9III when it debuts is likely to have an improved sensor, so I think it will be quite a few years before Canon is competitive here.

Canon has said they will have no preference to DSLR or mirrorless and that they will listen to their customers and follow what they want.

I think that the target photographer for this camera absolutely wants a DSLR. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon made a R version of this camera in a year or so and let them fight it out for customers's dollars. The market will decide.

Readout speed is fast enough. Canon developed a 20FPS mechanical shutter so they don’t need readout speed faster than 20FPS. They just can’t offer silent shooting, which many sports photogs don’t care about.

I agree the A9III will have an improved sensor. I do suspect the A9III will solve the current limitations with electronic shutter (I.e. occasional banding and flash sync) and I suspect will not ship with a mechanical shutter at all. (Totally my speculation. I haven’t heard any rumor about that.) But we will see.

MikeRan, what you say is what I've been theorisng ever since they pre-announced the mkIII - shove an incognito mirrorless into a DSLR; put it in the hands of the pros and hopefully it'll have the desired influence. The masses love to hear what the pros use and like. It sounds too good and smart to be true, but possible nevertheless. Will see.