Canon releases white papers detailing the still and video tech inside the 1D X Mark III

That worked!
Found the following:
Increased sensor read-out speed The read-out circuit is significantly faster at the sensor. This brings improvements in performance from burst shooting of still images (at up to 20 fps, in Live View) to 4K full-frame video. Rolling shutter, a potential gremlin during silent electronic shutter still-image shooting and video, is reduced, and the sensor’s read-out speed is a major reason.

... Sounds promising-ish

However it is still not fast enough to read 4K FF at 60fps with DPAF which is a major downside. So I guess to capture video at 60p sensor read speed needs to be 1/60s or faster, however to have DPAF it must need to capture the data maybe >2x as fast, since the crop mode in 4K60p offers DPAF and is reading ~ 1/2 the pixels as FF mode. If the 1DXIII does 1/60s read speed that's a massive improvement over the glacial 5D4/EOS R with their 1/8 second read speed from FF. Maybe Jim Kasson will have data soon.

Honest question: what other MILC hybrid does FF 4K 60 with AF?

I don’t think there are that many, if any others at all. Panasonic S1H does FF 4K30 and 4K60 in cropped Super 35. Sony doesn’t offer 4K60 at all. Fuji is APS-C.

So Canon having FF 4K60 is a big deal even without DPAF.

Many pro video shooters use manual focus anyway.

Why would a pro video shooter use the 1DXIII in the first place, there are better tools. There are times when you might want to use the video not for video per say but for a fast capture 60fps mode, having DPAF would actually make it useful for fast action. Yes you have the crop mode with DPAF, but the FF mode is superior in quality. Let's see what Nikon does with the D6 as it should be getting 4K60p and will have on-sensor PDAF. Also the S1H has DFD so would never consider it as a viable option. Anyway my point was about what the actual read speed is and what you'd need to get DPAF at 60fps in FF mode.

@TX..if you read the white paper proper, you'll find that the 1Dx III 's video is designed from the start as something which can be integrated into the production environment. Mostly as B & C cam. And, pros will use it as B & C cam, if not the primary.

@thx1138

Most cameras on the market don't even shoot 4k 60fps. So major downside is a little overstated.

@thx1138: You will see plenty of uses of this camera for video. The 1DXII has been used a lot for video and this 1DXIII has even more. Just because you cannot conceive of a use, or rather, don't want to admit it, since you love to denigrate non-Sony products, does not mean that others will not.

Canon has deep relationships with many working pro's fostered through years and years of developing cameras with them in mind. I love it how some people think Canon releases a camera like this without any forethought or input from the pro's they have served for decades. They know that these features will be used.

Perhaps you may want to ask people like Jimmy Chin or Peter McKinnon as to how they use their 1DX series gear for video.

I'm actually more interested in the readout speeds for photo, not video.

I've measured the sensor readout speed in electronic (silent) stills mode to be ~1/60s. Impressive, faster than a lot of competing cameras, but not as fast as the 1/160s readout rate of the a9. You'll probably still see some rolling shutter with fast action / pans compared to the mechanical shutter, and there will still be some risk of banding under artificial lighting with fast shutter speeds.

Flicker detection will not help avoid banding under artificial light. The only thing that helps that is a faster sensor readout speed, if you're shooting fully electronic (silent) shutter.

I am convinced that of the cameras really made for pro sports photography that the Canon will be superior, with only Nikon being able to equal. I am not convinced that the Sony could withstand the rigors of pro sports photography.

I am convinced that the Canon AF will do for all practical usage at least as good a job as the Sony. The Canon may do better.

Also good point about helmets. The Sony AF might fail if a player is wearing a helmet.

But of course the Sony AF will fail if the camera is broken which is likely under the run and gun work of shooting sports.

Thoughts R Us - have you tested any of the cameras you talk about? Have you seen any data to support your blatant Canon fanboyism?

Thoughts - I do agree that Sony a9 cameras look and feel awkward and quite fragile in comparison to pro Nikons and Canons.

The Sony devices haven't really been on the market long enough to give us comparative data on durability or reliability. But my gut feeling is that the 1Dxiii and D6 will still be working perfectly in 10 or more years time, while the Sony's won't survive the continued abuse that pro cameras regularly receive. Just a perception, of course.

Canon AF on the 1DXii is very good, but not as good as the Nikon D5, and I'll be very surprised if, when using the viewfinder, the 1Dxiii can match the Sony a9 in terms of acquisition or tracking, particularly as the area of AF coverage is far more limited.

Jim, first off let me remind you that this is a discussion of a Canon product. I didn't bring up the subject of Sony in the first place. That only happens because some feel compelled to bring up Sony in every single discussion of any brand of gear, and only to promote Sony and devalue the other brand.

So perhaps you should be asking the people who keep bringing up Sony in a Canon discussion if they've used the Canon gear.

As to me, I have used extensively the Canon 1DXII; it's exquisite. I have also tested the Sony a9, and while I was really impressed with the AF and silent shooting, the body still feels inferior to me. If I were a pro sports or action shooter, no way would I rely on the Sony. But boy would I feel comfortable relying on the Canon.

BTW, that Canon 1DXII has supplied me with many of my favorite images. The pro bodies are more than the sum of their specs and everything is so fine tuned to produce the results.

So the answers to my questions is basically no.

Jim, if you read properly, Thought's answer is Yes.

@entoman and @Jim Hully,

Nope... I have not tested the 1DXIII and I am guessing neither have @Thoughts R Us I am guessing.

But I have looked up some heads on reviews. One covering hockey players and the other motor sports (cars). Seems like the head detect works very well. I mean the camera picked up on a driver where the only thing you saw was the helmet. For hockey it would pick up on the head of a player with his back towards the camera without issue. Of course we need to wait for detailed reviews. But this is canon's top of the line sports cameras for pros. Since they seem to be very conservative they rarely claim features and functionalities directed to those pros that turns out to be a lemon. They wouldn't have bothered including if it were so.

And this is not canon fanboyism. I would confidently state that when it comes to eye AF sony's ability to do so is very very uncanny and good. And that is not sony fanboyism either.

lawny - Fair comment. Fortunately for me it's not an issue because I don't shoot sports, I'm a wildlife photographer.

For wildlife my experience is that the current 1Dxii is very good, but not as efficient at subject acquisition and tracking as a D850 or D5. This is based on side by side testing in the field.

The Nikons seem to have an uncanny and almost intelligent ability to recognise what you want them to focus on (e.g. a small bird half-hidden amongst foliage), while the 5DMkiv and 1Dxii both jump around between foreground and background, regardess of focus case or AF point size.

If the 1Dxiii could match the performance of the Nikons, I'd be very happy as the big Canons are superb in all other aspects.

IBIS is waaay more effective on short focal lengths, than IS/VR in lenses. And VR/IS is waaay more effectice on long focal lengths than IBIS.
That's why the long zoom lenses for ML bodies with IBIS still have IS/VR built-in.

Who says you can't have both OIS and IBIS? The previous posts are correct. The effectiveness of OIS v IBIS increases as the focal length increases. In either case, the physical displacement is about the same, but OIS is magnified by the lens. That said, OIS adds a disproportionate amount of size and weight to the lens as the focal length grows shorter.

myphotographic - Indeed it is highly unlikely that IBIS will ever be introduced on a Canon DSLR, due to technical issues that Canon have themselves expressed. As you note, it isn't possible to stabilise the image in an OVF viewfinder using only IBIS. However if OIS and IBIS were used in conjunction, the viewfinder image *would* be stabilised.

Canon make a point of repeating that they would only introduce IBIS on *any* camera, MILC or DSLR, if and when they are satisfied that they can develop it to the point where it at least equals OIS in performance. However, I think that regardless of that statement, market forces are dictating that Canon *must* introduce IBIS (in conjunction with OIS) in order to be competitive with Sony, Panasonic and Nikon.

First Nvidia NVENC and NVDEC don't support it.
https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk
https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-decode-gpu-support-matrix

They only support 4:2:0 and 4:4:4. This is by far the most important engine because Intels HEDT workstation, as well as AMD workstations, have no quick sync

It should also be noted that Ice Lake are their 10nm 15Watt mobile chips. Intel currently has no plans to bring those to the desktop. And older chips like Kaby Lake and Whisky Lake don't support 4:2:2
Even the not yet released Comet Lake processors (Intels next desktop and high power notebook line) doesn't support 4:2:2

@pahnson
No driver Update will fix this or add Hardware support. I think your only hope is that Nvidia implements support in their next series of video cards and you then just need to Upgrade your GPU

But maybe your Hardware ist fast enough for 24p playback, you will see and should test :)