NatureScapes.net Forums

EOS-1D X Mark III EOS-1D X Mark III EOS-1D X Mark III EOS-1D X Mark III EOS-1D X Mark III Get Product Support Register Your Product EOS-1D X Mark III

Canon EOS-1D X Mark III initial review: An exceptional stills and video hybrid for pros


Canon's EOS-1D X Mark III brings a new sensor, Dual Pixel AF and 5.5K Raw video



Jared Polin:

OFFICIAL Canon 1DX Mark III PREVIEW | WATCH OUT SONY!!!


Dpreview TV:

DPReview TV: Canon EOS 1DX Mark III Preview

Main features:
Updated 20.1MP CMOS sensor with Dual Pixel AF
Digic X processor
HEIF 10-bit recording (supports HDR display at smaller-than-JPEG sizes)
16fps bursts (viewfinder), 20fps bursts (Live View) with autofocus
All-new mirror mechanism to reduce vibration and blackout
191-pt viewfinder AF system with new 'square pixel' design, 155 cross-type points, Face + head detection, sensitivity to -4 EV, all points support F8 shooting
Live View AF system is now 90% horiz / 100% vertical coverage with enhanced eye detection, sensitivity down to -6 EV, supports F11 shooting
New AF 'Smart Controller' built into the AF-ON buttons
5.5K/60p 12-bit Raw video recording, 4K/60p 4:2:2 10-bit H.265/HEVC recording
Dual CFExpress card slots for virtually unlimited buffer in most situations
CIPA rated to 2850 shots with the viewfinder, 610 with Live View using LP-E19 battery
Shutter rated to 500k shots
Weighs 1440g

Ships with one CFexpress card and a card reader.

E.J. Peiker wrote:Main features:
Updated 20.1MP CMOS sensor with Dual Pixel AF
Digic X processor
HEIF 10-bit recording (supports HDR display at smaller-than-JPEG sizes)
16fps bursts (viewfinder), 20fps bursts (Live View) with autofocus
All-new mirror mechanism to reduce vibration and blackout
191-pt viewfinder AF system with new 'square pixel' design, 155 cross-type points, Face + head detection, sensitivity to -4 EV, all points support F8 shooting
Live View AF system is now 90% horiz / 100% vertical coverage with enhanced eye detection, sensitivity down to -6 EV, supports F11 shooting
New AF 'Smart Controller' built into the AF-ON buttons
5.5K/60p 12-bit Raw video recording, 4K/60p 4:2:2 10-bit H.265/HEVC recording
Dual CFExpress card slots for virtually unlimited buffer in most situations
CIPA rated to 2850 shots with the viewfinder, 610 with Live View using LP-E19 battery
Shutter rated to 500k shots
Weighs 1440g

Ships with one CFexpress card and a card reader.

"virtually unlimited buffer." I haven't been following the latest camera developments that closely lately. Is that a breakthrough or something that others have? Sounds amazing.

I do wonder why Canon have not, again, gone over the 20MP mark? Could be to do with 4K / 5.5K recording but every other manufacturer seems to handle full frame 4K with a load more pixels.

DOglesby wrote: "virtually unlimited buffer." I haven't been following the latest camera developments that closely lately. Is that a breakthrough or something that others have? Sounds amazing.

It's because of the switch to CFexpress which can keep up with the data rate of camera like this so it never buffers out.  Expect this from pretty much any camera that uses CFexpress natively but not necessarily XQD cameras that have a firmware upgrade to accept CFexpress.  It's the one flaw in the Sony a9 II; by not going to CFexpress, it leaves them in the dust by the 1Dx3 and the upcoming D6, which will also use CFexpress, for buffer.  Whether or not it matters is a different question, do you really need to shoot 250 RAW shots in a single burst - not many scenarios that require that.

Neilyb wrote:I do wonder why Canon have not, again, gone over the 20MP mark? Could be to do with 4K / 5.5K recording but every other manufacturer seems to handle full frame 4K with a load more pixels.

Pretty simple in my mind, the target for this camera doesn't need it or want it.  This is a press/sports camera, nothing less, nothing more.  One of the biggest deals for this community is to get the images from the camera to the news service as quickly as possible.  More megapixels equals more time to transmit the images.  Plus, the target for those photos need maybe 4 to 8 megapixels for virtually any use so there is no point in going to high megapixels.  If you want high megapixels, hang on as there will soon be a very high megapixel EOS R.  Simply scaling the very good EOS 90D sensor to full frame gets you into the 70 plus megapixel range.  This is basically what canon did to come up with the EOS 5DS/5DSR - they scaled the EOS 7D Mk II sensor to full frame.

Another review, http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2 ... k-iii.html
It doesn't seem like it brings much to the table for a bird/nature photog as EJ mentions.

Neilyb wrote:I do wonder why Canon have not, again, gone over the 20MP mark? Could be to do with 4K / 5.5K recording but every other manufacturer seems to handle full frame 4K with a load more pixels.

Yes, that's pretty disappointing for wildlife photogs and has been widely discussed after the specs had become evident. Probably the target market of sportshooters and photojournalists doesn't need more Megapixels and gave the priority to other features such as speed and file transfer without any delay. The group of wildlife shooters is too small by comparison. On the other hand, 24 MP vs 20 MP probably would not have made a big difference for speed. 28 MP would have offered a bit more room for cropping while 24 MP is not a big gain over 20 MP offered now and by the 1Dx2, too. Sony didn't upgrade the MP in the A9 II either and rumours are that Nikon will stay about the same in the upcoming D6, too. So all 3 players seem to sit in the same boat here. Another reason for staying with 20 MP in fact could be in the handling of 4K/5.5 K vs 4K/6 for video recording.
Apart from the disappointing 20 MP, the previews and preliminary impressions of the Mk III look pretty good. But it will come down to the question if the AF improvement over the 1Dx2 and Hi Iso noise is worth the 6500 $ upgrade for still shooters who are not yet ready to jump on the mirrorless train. For video the 1 DX III certainly is a good step up over the 1 Dx II. Some probably will wait for the future ML option - or jump ship. If they had offered 28 MP I probably would have considered an upgrade of my 1Dx2. But now I really don't know and will wait for the real world tests, at least -or save the money for the upcoming HIRes ML option replacing the 5DsR.

Wolfgang

Sorry, the writing of my comment was overlapping with E.J.'s pretty identical post

Scott Fairbairn wrote:It doesn't seem like it brings much to the table for a bird/nature photog as EJ mentions.

Well I didn't exactly say that, the new AF might stem the tide of people switching to Nikon for better AF, that remains to be seen.  But since you bring it up, for me, the Canon and Nikon flagships haven't made sense for Nature Photography for about 10 years, but that's just my opinion.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Neilyb wrote:I do wonder why Canon have not, again, gone over the 20MP mark? Could be to do with 4K / 5.5K recording but every other manufacturer seems to handle full frame 4K with a load more pixels.

Pretty simple in my mind, the target for this camera doesn't need it or want it.  This is a press/sports camera, nothing less, nothing more.  One of the biggest deals for this community is to get the images from the camera to the news service as quickly as possible.  More megapixels equals more time to transmit the images.  

That, pretty well sums up both Nikon and Canon's flagships over the last 10 years.  Nature photographers do not compete for the same level of attention to the manufacturers so we have to get by with compromises.  Having said that, we are pretty well spoilt now compared with 10, 15 and 20 years ago.  

E.J. Peiker wrote:

[snip]  But since you bring it up, for me, the Canon and Nikon flagships haven't made sense for Nature Photography for about 10 years, but that's just my opinion.

Nikon D3s with 12 megapixels was announced in Oct 2009. In the same month Canon announced 1Dx Mk IV with 16 megapixels. Are they cameras that make sense for Nature Photography? If not, does it mean that, as of today, there has yet to be a camera that make sense for Nature Photography, E.J. ?

How about sharing with us your specs of a Nature Photography camera?

DChan wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

[snip]  But since you bring it up, for me, the Canon and Nikon flagships haven't made sense for Nature Photography for about 10 years, but that's just my opinion.

Nikon D3s with 12 megapixels was announced in Oct 2009. In the same month Canon announced 1Dx Mk IV with 16 megapixels. Are they cameras that make sense for Nature Photography? If not, does it mean that, as of today, there has yet to be a camera that make sense for Nature Photography, E.J. ?

How about sharing with us your specs of a Nature Photography camera?

To me the D850, a7R III, a7R IV  all offer both offer high megapixels with excellent dynamic range in full frame mode and an excellent cropped frame mode if you need more reach and have as much or more megapixels than the "flagships".  They all offer AF performance that can easily keep up with wildlife and plenty of FPS for same.  All are significantly lighter in weight, easier to travel with, and will record more subject detail.  That makes any of these better "nature photography" cameras than the "flagships".  Like I said, that's my opinion, yours could vary and that's perfectly fine.  There are a lot of photographers creating great photos with the flagship cameras, I just think there are better and more versatile tools, at least for me.

Oh, and also the lack of USB charging on these "flagships" makes them much harder to travel with and charge on the road.

Fairly comprehensive video about the camera although it is a bit bizarre using a D5 as a stand-in for an EOS 1Dx III
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_1CwHQQYZk

E.J. Peiker wrote:

DChan wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

[snip]  But since you bring it up, for me, the Canon and Nikon flagships haven't made sense for Nature Photography for about 10 years, but that's just my opinion.

Nikon D3s with 12 megapixels was announced in Oct 2009. In the same month Canon announced 1Dx Mk IV with 16 megapixels. Are they cameras that make sense for Nature Photography? If not, does it mean that, as of today, there has yet to be a camera that make sense for Nature Photography, E.J. ?

How about sharing with us your specs of a Nature Photography camera?

To me the D850, a7R III, a7R IV  all offer both offer high megapixels with excellent dynamic range in full frame mode and an excellent cropped frame mode if you need more reach and have as much or more megapixels than the "flagships".  They all offer AF performance that can easily keep up with wildlife and plenty of FPS for same.  All are significantly lighter in weight, easier to travel with, and will record more subject detail.  That makes any of these better "nature photography" cameras than the "flagships".  Like I said, that's my opinion, yours could vary and that's perfectly fine.  There are a lot of photographers creating great photos with the flagship cameras, I just think there are better and more versatile tools, at least for me.

Oh, and also the lack of USB charging on these "flagships" makes them much harder to travel with and charge on the road.

Though being a Canon shooter, I think the Nikon D850 still is the best overall and most versatile camera for nature photography, IMO. As for IQ, the Sonys certainly are equal (or maybe even a step up as for the a7R IV) but I still find the complexity and layout of the menu and buttons confusing and way less intuitive compared to the Canon or even Nikon approach. Maybe that's because I'm not that experienced and familiar with it. Beyond that, I still don't have too much trust in Sony's service and support compared to the proven CPS and NPS (remember your own experiences posted here a while back). Maybe they have improved and it's a prejustice in the meantime but I have been considering Sony more as an electronic giant into fighting for market share but not so much investing in service and support for photogs. It's no question that they are extremely innovative, see i.e. their animal eye tracking. Their sensor technology is leading and they have also vastly improved their lens offerings, including the excellent 400G, 600G and Telezoom now. But they certainly MUST put effort in their support and service, too, if they want to compete with the two gorillas at the Olympics and at other major events -not to mention the serious enthusiast and consumer base in the consequence. That isn't primarily connected to the question for the "best" camera for nature photography. But investing thousands of Euros for travelling worldwide for photography, the reliability of the tools and good and quick service and support is an important point, at least for me.

As for the flagships, my 1Dx2 has offered the best AF of my Canon bodies so far (i.e. 7d2, 5D IV, 5dsR) for tracking fast moving wildlife or BIF though the consistency still has not always been perfect and certainly not quite on the level of the Nikons in complex scenarios (D5 or maybe the D 850 too, I don't know). If the 1Dx III in fact is further  and considerably improved here it would be great for Canon shooters apart from many other improvements the 1Dx III seems to offer. But as said, the resolution is disappointing for wildlife photographers and targeted for the press and sportsshooters' requirements. That they didn't include animal eye tracking in their upgraded face and eye detection further indicates that wildlife shooters are not their primary concern. You're also right with the weight and bulk considerations of the CaNikon flagships, of course, though I still doubt that the a7 or a9 series are in the same league in rough enviroments.

In the end, the price is the final stopper for me. In Germany, they charge EUR 7300 for the new flagship. That's EUR 1000 more than the price for the 1 Dx II at launch. And since the erosion of the prices on the used market is going to become absurd you perhaps could get around Eur 3300 selling a 1Dx II in good condition with less than 30000 clicks. Though the 1 Dx III may well be the best Canon flagship camera ever made, the improvements over the 1 Dx II are not worth the investments of € 4000. The opinions of others may vary. There's not much hope that the proclaimed AF improvements of the 1 DxIII and the sensor of the 90D trickle down into a 7D III. So as for me (and maybe others in a comparable situation), the best option might be to wait for the upcoming ML pro models and keep the 1Dx2 for now - unless I get an unexpectedly first-rate offer or a lottery win

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de

Maybe also a point to consider :

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news ... demands-it

Wolfgang

Canon releases white paper detailing EOS 1DX Mark III:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/662549806 ... x-mark-iii

signgrap wrote:Canon releases white paper detailing EOS 1DX Mark III:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/662549806 ... x-mark-iii

Available here under “resources”.

Joe

EOS 1Dx III does birds at Laguna Seca Ranch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTM5X_zazGU

Thanks EJ! So nice to see areview of this camera being used for bird photography and not sports. Mine arrives on Friday!

Looks like battleship Canon has turned. Sony better quit resting on their laurels by the looks of things.
https://youtu.be/VaYQ5yphhsE