They cannot, most of the Sony users used a cellphone before or a Canon Rebel, at best. They are not photographers. They care about the camera technical aspects only, no art... very sad...

Remark on sony users in bad taste, you have to buy a truck to carry this camera ! Or get a fitness certificate from your doctor to carry it on your back and airlines may charge extra for this luggage!! Take it lightly, I do respect canon.

@ravi I like that one! On another side you can save on gym membership! Also it can save your life if you do well-aimed throw to attacker head.

I've said this elsewhere, but big and heavy is a con when the camera's best performance comes in live view, and you must hold it out in front of you for that. I'm not saying you can't do it, but I'd love to not have to hold it at arm's length to get eye detect in stills and video.

I've just edited the cons list to make this clearer.

I know we're getting to the point of maybe splitting hairs, but in reality then the complaint is not so much the size/weight but that it's not a mirrorless camera with an EVF?

Big need not be a con, but heavy nearly always is.

Heavy can help you stabilize the device and can also be a better balance with long heavy super telephoto lenses.

No, it actually can’t. It’s just something people have made up that makes no actual sense. You would never hold a camera at a point where it would act as a counter weight to the lens. In fact, you are holding both, so it just makes it heavier.

Theoretically, I guess, a heavier mass would make small vibrations less likely, but this is more than offset by the excess strain on your muscles - which again cause vibrations.

Hence, no, no advantagrs

@Carey
The camera is a DSLR, designed primarily to be used with an OVF.
Why would you want to hold it at arms length for stills for any length of time?
I really don't see that as a con for anyone buying it. You would have to presume that they know its a DSLR and they are buying it because of the OVF, not in spite of it.
For video, I would presume it would be used with a rig or as a stationary camera either fixed in place or with a monopod or tripod and not handheld. Its certainly not designed as a vlogging camera.
I get that some people would prefer if it was mirrorless, but it isn't and for those that prefer an OVF it will be a great camera.

Really wish Canon would implement a hotshoe mounted EVF (with its own hotshoe for strobes) that could be added to its DSLRs. This really could provide the best of both worlds.

I don't what you are talking about, but CR3 replaced CR2 files in newer Canon cameras. It's a 14-bit RAW file.

In specifications page it's written:
File format
JPEG (Exif v2.31)
HEIF (10-bit)
Raw / C-Raw (CR3)

And C-Raw means lossy compression

The 1D X III shoots both Raw and C-Raw files, both of which are CR3s. We tested the full Raws, not the C-Raw files. There is no CR2 option on the camera.

Good point. To list big and heavy as a negative is to make the mistake of judging this like any other consumer camera. It's not. It is a high precision device built very well for some very specific purposes.

It would be like criticizing a Caterpillar tractor for being too big/heavy compared to a family sedan. It's not too big for the type of work it will do.

Indeed. I do not understand why Canon made this not mirrorless. Lighter and smaller and can mount premium RF lenses as well. This 6 grand monster can't.

I'd argue 'big and heavy' is a con when this camera is at the peak of it's capabilities* in live view.

*Meaning faster burst rate, noticeably better autofocus, and also it's the only way to shoot video on a DSLR.

people must have not read your review... use the 1dxmk3 as a dslr, you'll get worse af.

holding this porky dslr out at arms length for liveview is not realistic.

Carey, wouldn't you still be using a larger lens anyway? And isn't that extra grip more helpful?
I see your point with some lenses, but not with the lenses that will be used in the situations this camera is meant for.

Id love to have all this capabilkty in an imaging device, but I will never buy the 1DXiii because of the weight and size. So I think it is a valid con for some customers.

@mermaidkiller and @DaddyG: the Canon R5 and R6 are for you, then!

You'll have the same LV AF and video capabilities, and in some cases even more capabilities, but with EVF and in smaller body, and being able to take RF lenses.

@Sarman, For sports, sure, and of course the extra grip is handy there. But photojournalists that use these cameras aren't just shooting sports. They'll use them for literally everything. To that end, I really enjoyed having eye detect focus in live view using an 85mm F1.4, 35mm F2, 50mm F1.4, and so on. It's simply more repeatably accurate than the OVF, even though the OVF system is pretty solid. And if you're shooting video, odds are you'll be using a more compact wide-angle lens for run-and-gun stuff, which this camera excels at.

Nobody holds a camera out at arms length. that is a silly comment.
Even in the days of the NEX 3 and 5 when Sony fans said an EVF was unnecessary, none of them ever said you have to hold a camera at arms length. They'd put them on their hip and flip the LCD. They'd brace one elbow close to their bodies,
Plus most know if your shooting video with this you are going to be using a tripod with a fluid head or gimbal. Geez. I know Jordan didn't use a tripod in his last video and went with the Olympus because of it, but he too often uses a tripod,

Carey, I do get what you are saying. I just do think it is a "con" 100% of the time and can be a "pro". That's all.

@Sarman 2525 - "Nobody holds a camera out at arms length. that is a silly comment... Plus even a 10 year old would know if your shooting video you are going to be using a tripod with a fluid head or gimbal"

what did carey just post: "*Meaning faster burst rate, noticeably better autofocus"

"burst rate" doesn't apply to video :-0 it applies to shooting stills, in liveview mode with the 1dxmk3.

jared polin used a Hoodman Loupe on the rear lcd, to shoot with liveview on the 1dxmk3: "...try handholding that out in front of you, it just doesn't work too well" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaYQ5yphhsE

he figured out early on that the 1dxmk3 had weak af in dslr mode, that's why he used it with liveview.

why would anyone want to pay $6500 for a dslr, that works better in liveview mode???

Yeah, @Sarman, I can see what you're saying too. But I take issue with you saying that holding it out at arm's length is a 'silly comment' when you literally have to do so for shooting video, and you also have to do so for the fastest burst speeds and the best autofocus performance. How is it silly to be wanting the best performance out of it if the situation demands it?

I'll just amend the cons list so make this clearer, since it seems to be something that many folks are latching on to.

Carey Rose
Word of advice. Never list something that is subjective, an opinion, as either a con or a Pro or conversely list it as both a con and a pro. I say this because there will always be a significant number of people who will disagree with you. I would recommend a third list that simply gives facts like in this case "the camera is larger and heavier than most other full frame cameras". That is something no reasonable person can disagree with. That leaves the decision whether it's a pro or a con up to the potential buyer.

So big and heavy is a PRO? If we can get enough people to communicate that to Canon we can all save a bundle when they make the next body out of steel instead of magnesium. Next we can take all of the plastic out of cameras and lenses and make them tougher, too. I think we may be on to something here(not).

it tends to happen as you make feature rich cameras. Yes, Sony made feature rich much for sometime, now Canon users are dealing with that too with mirrorrless-like cameras.

But it is true. There have been improvements in those areas. Canon and I think Panasonic introduced little servo motors for mirror and shutter mechanisms to reduce vibrations and it shows in the last 2-3 generations.
1DX III can AF at -6 AF in live view mode which is also an improvement.

Of course it's big and heavy...but everyone who buys it knows that. It's not like someone buys it and says, whoa, this is too big for me!

But the size can also be an advantage. Many who use this type of camera actually prefer the size. It balances better on the long super tele lenses that one is likely to use with this model. In fact, if one holds it you realize that yes, it's heavy but the engineers have made it balance very well in the hand and has a really nice grip. So it doesn't feel that heavy.

And of course this body is tank. Users of this camera do not pamper it. It gets use and abuse in its type of work. And it will survive what is thrown at it.

So the size/weight is not necessarily always a bad thing, esp. for the users of this type of camera.

Well Canon users can't accuse DPR of Sony bias anymore.

first hand experience or just another trolling?

It's obvious that m224nu agrees with you. He was mocking DPR for listing it as a con. Why doesn't DPR ever list too small and light as a con because I, like you, prefer a camera with some size and heft.

dpreview is complaining.

For me, 'big and heavy' is a con when the camera performs at its best in live view. Otherwise, sure, it comes with the territory. And while I don't think we've criticized cameras as being too small or light, we have criticized cameras that have cramped or fiddly controls, which comes with that territory.

Except, many lenses paired with this camera will exceed the weight of the body.. even by multiples. Disagree that it's a con to anybody who /needs/ this camera.

How how does that live view work out for when you have to shoot outdoors in the Sun. Camera in one hand and the Hoodman in the other ?

FlixCigars:

//Except, many lenses paired with this camera will exceed the weight of the body.. even by multiples. Disagree that it's a con to anybody who /needs/ this camera.//

Well, yeah, that's true if you're shooting sports. That's also true if you put a huge lens on any camera, from a Rebel to an a9 (with the distinction that the a9 is identically capable in its EVF and on the rear screen, which is not the case here).

With the 1D, photojournalists (as an example) are a target market for this camera, and they'll be shooting anything and everything on it, not just sports. An 85mm F1.4 for a headshot or a 35mm F2 for an environmental portrait or a 16-35mm for some run and gun video aren't going to exceed the weight of the body. And having eye detect focus in live view for both stills and video was really handy for these types of uses, and it's not available through the OVF. And this is a big, heavy camera to hold at arm's length for live view shooting. That's all that was meant.

Anyway, I've just gone through and clarified the 'con' so hopefully that takes care of it.

@Sharlin, most users buy this for Sports and Wild life. Sports and Wild life shooters care a lot about AF.

@DeathArrow and this thing’s AF is much improved compared to the Mark II which was already by far the most popular pro sports/wildlife body despite the arguable superiority of Sony/Nikon tracking AF. So clearly other factors far outweigh minor differences in AF performance.

Most sports/wildlife pro's use Canon...so the AF is great.

All of the action flagships have great AF: Canon, Nikon, Sony. Any differences are minor.

If you can't get the shot with this camera, the problem is not with the camera.

It's pretty impressive how Sony went from 'at least it hits focus most of the time' to 'the new Canon flagship almost matches it'.

Anyway, even as a Sony shooter I would still choose a Canon or Nikon if I had to shoot sports or wildlife for a living just because of their rugged bodies and the Pro-Support.

The 5 series and the 1 series traditional got the same autofocus system (with small differences). The rumours are saying the R5 will be similar to the 1DXIII, though I would expect some small improvements when it comes to facial/object recognition :-)

But no one wants that Oly. There is a lot of difference...what is the point of this comment? To make yourself feel better of your own purchase decision?

+ Oly is out of business. Whats next, a pentax comparison?

@EDWARD ARTISTE:

Comparison to Oly is valid. I've long thought that MFT makes a lot of sense for news use, and in many ways, much of sports use is just a specialized subset of that. I'm admitedly not a sports photographer, and use Sony, not Oly, but I've handled it, and from what I can tell, the better Oly equipment is more than capable enough.

That Oly never made adequate inroads may have been more due to pros and newsrooms existing investments in Canon or Nikon equipment, and Canikon's professional support structures. Even when a lot of photography went freelance rather than salaried (so choose whatever equipment you want), force of habit, the used market, rental availability, and pro support meant that Canikon had the advantage. And unfortunately, it still takes a certain minimum number of cameras and lenses sold over which to amortize development costs, and Oly is/was a small player in a declining market.

There's the usual 2 stop difference between m4/3 and FF of roughly the same MP count of the same generation. It's always been that way. You can't change physics. You being o.k with 2 stop difference isn't the same as there not being a 2 stop difference.

For some people it matters. For some it doesn't.

EDWARD ARTISTE . For me it's weight and size. Were it not those, I wouldn't have bought my Olympus System. I went for a five mile walk this morning with M1X with 300mm f4 on a Peak strap and never once noticed the weight. Had I done the same with my 1Dx and a 600mm lens I'd still be out there. It matters not a whit to me what others want. Does it to you?

Take a look any news article, about 80-90% of the attached pictures were taken with the 1DX II, I guess a 'niche' market does not necessarily mean 'small'

@padam19
....and shrinking... very fast. Look, I have friends with 1DXII for sale for months. Realistically, who wants one unless seriously underpriced? If I was a 1DXII owner I would keep that and pick up an R5 to go with it. Save a tonne of money, if you need to use a mirrorless, you have a proper one, while if you are shooting DSLR.... seriously what is the difference between the II and III in practical terms? Shooting fancy jpg? 2 fps? And you are spending how much on a dead-ended system? If the 1DXII is depreciating so fast, the 1DXIII will be even worse.

@Armindo
Sports oriented cameras like this are niche products. That goes for the A9ii and D5/6 as well.

@KZ7
Thank you for your comment, as sport photographer myself I think I do have a pretty good sense of that.
My point is that the market is getting even smaller and fast. I would not invest in a 1DXIII myself now. It is a very expensive dead-ended transitional camera. If I was in need to buy a canon sport body, I would get a used 1DXII for a fraction of the money. Canon will release a pro sport mirrorless soon, wait and see is more sensical financially. COVID is making things even worse.

@armadino "COVID is making things even worse." I agree, Canon released their 1D-X Mk III for Olympics 2020, and nobody could foresee during the development process and when it came out in January, that a pandemics would almost kill this market this year. It is definitely a tragedy for the industry, not only for Canon, and Olympus will not be the last company abandoning the camera market, I guess.

Why would anyone want to switch systems when they use this kind of camera? You know what the difference between the systems is when it comes to the ability to get the shot and produce good looking images? Nothing at all. You know what the difference is between the systems when it comes flexibility? There are hundreds of thousands more (and more varied) lenses out there in circulation that were made for the kind of work the 1DXIII was designed for, and work best with DSLRs.
Mirrorless systems have a long, long way to go before they match or exceeds where the DSLR systems are at right now for sports. There aren't even any native ML 500mm f/4 or 300 f/2.8 lenses out there, for crying out loud. Or 200 f/2, or 200-400 f/4, or 800 f/5.6, or 120-300 f/2.8, or lightweight 500 f/5.6 or 400 f/4. I would rather have a DSLR with those lenses, than a ML camera without.

but the Dinos are still here: if you look out of your window you just may see one feathered Dino flying around or sitting in a tree... ;)

@Kandid Birds are *literally* dinosaurs, ask any biologist worth their salt. Dinosauria is a clade which means that any organisms descended from the ”OG dinosaurs” are also dinosaurs.

@ Kandid: today it is scientifically no longer seriously debated that birds belong to the clade of Theropoda, so they are relatives of T. rex ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theropoda

My point is that it is just amazing how the auto focus technology of dslrs and mirrorless trickled down to smartphones in a short amount of time. Who wouldn't like to take out a pocket rocket with you all the time to shoot something interesting in action on your leisure time without worrying to carry such bulky and heavy equipment?

And that awesome Xperia loses to Huawei and pretty much any modern flagship phone in photo department.

what you tell here, Lightright, is, that you really don't know anything about smartphone camera systems. Complete different technology: plastic lenses produced on the Cents per unit level, almost all of them aspherical but small, small sensors, low DR etc., extensive use of multi-shot modes and multi-cameras to overcome the limitations of extremely small pixels and sensors, including massive further post-processing to tweak the images so they look "nice" to most users. In short: it is simply a completely different technology than cameras with big sensors and lenses.

Sony still makes phones?! Who knew!

On the page 8, Dpreview wrote: "For those professionals that largely prefer to use a single point or zone and follow the action themselves, the EOS-1D X III will reward them with an extremely high hit rate whether using the optical viewfinder or live view – but we find this to be true across a wide variety of cameras on the market today. We heavily weight our assessments here on subject tracking because it remains a key differentiator among various cameras."