Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Canon 1D X, specs and review

Discussion in 'Non-Bikes' at netrider.net.au started by Morbo28, Oct 19, 2011.

  1. The specs of the 1D X have officially been released.
    eg: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101810canoneos1dx.asp

    Everyone is putting their two bob in. They are pretty impressive stats.

    Check out the initial impression from Burrard-Lucas (wildlife photographers).


    If someone plays with one, whack up a thread, huh.... :)
  2. Ugh "it's been extensively reworked (it includes more professional video features than any other Canon DSLR"

    Here is a tip canon. I buy cameras to take photos, not to shoot movies. If i wanted to shoot a movie, i would buy a video camera, that is why both of these products exist.

    Honestly its ****ing stupid, i would much rather see the R&D work go into making the camera take better photos, because it is at the end of the day a camera.

    Think about where we could be now if canon had not spent the last few years developing video mode and instead developed better cameras. ****ing waste of time.
  3. Yeah I agree to some extent - I want a high quality camera first and foremost.

    The sheer size of the 1 series means the 5 series continues to be a better option for me...not to mention the price.
  4. You do realise they are shooting more tv series and some movies using those same cameras you are shitcanning.
  5. Yeah my mate had her film clip done on a 5D...looks amazing!
  6. "Some sample photos I saw from a pre-production model that were shot at ISO 25,600 were ridiculously, ridiculously clean."
  7. Im very aware that lots of indi film makers use them to make movies because they dont give the film a 'handy cam' look.

    But still, this is canons top photograpic offering for ultra professional photographers. Its beyond the reach of most indi film makers etc and canon already produce the 60D which is very much geared towards film making with its flipy out lcd screen and such.

    The extra R&D budget freed up by the lack of a video mode which most will never use on the 1D could have been used to improve the features that matter the most to the majority of the customers of the 1Dx.
  8. I spotted some corporate guys using canon DSLR's for filming a few months back.

    Estimated price is USD$6800, not quite as expensive as I though it would be.
  9. Indi filmakers?????
    House is filmed now using 5d mark 2's as are some other major tv series as well as some major hollywood movies in parts.
    As for features the "majority of customers" want what would they be?
    Not bagging you I'm just wondering why.
  10. Every dollar spent developing video mode is a dollar taken away from developing Photo mode. Thats what i mean, i do not work in canon R&D and hence cannot come up with interesting new features for the camera, thats not really what i was trying to say.
  11. Well what are you trying to say?
    It's a damned good camera that seems to do EVERYTHING well.
  12. A phone was just a phone once, wait till u start making phone calls from your 1D :)
  13. Smee ias right.

    I originally bought a 7D just for filming. It takes full resolution video at a fraction of the cost of a decent video camera.

    Heck, they use them for stuff like http://t.co/4mYPPA3w (shot by a friend on a 5DMKII). Canon has this market now and they're doing the right thing by supporting it.

    Altho, I don't get why you'd need an ISO that high.
  14. Plenty of reasons - low light shooting, ability to shoot at much migher shutter speeds. The fact that the sensor itself has a wider range of sensitivities utilise.

    The main thing I want from the camera is a great DSLR. But the video is deifnitiely a bonus. And if that brings in extra sales which mean extra $$ which means extra R&D then it's no bad thing, as long as it doesn't turn into a 'jack of all trades, master of none' typoe deal.

    As long as the video features dont compromise the still photography ability it's all good IMO.
  15. That's true but video and still photography have differing requirements and I strongly suspect that no matter how good the still abilities are that they are at least slightly compromised by the video abilities.

    For example the new 1D X has reduced the number of pixels and maintained (or slightly improved) the low light performance compared to earlier full frame Canons, they could have chosen to improve the low ISO performance whilst keeping the pixel count similar to the earlier model by implementing the new technology but they went further and reduced the pixel count.

    One has to wonder how much of this choice was driven by the requirements of those using such cameras primarily for video rather than still photography.
  16. All fair points. Though in the low-light example, it doesn't look like the low light performance has suffered:

  17. I suppose I would need to see a photo or footage shot at such a high iso to believe how clean they are. Heck, my camera doesnt go above 640.
  18. Increasing pixel size, means that the pixel is more sensitive and can pick up more light, hence improving low light sensitivity. It has nothing to do with video capabilities of the camera what so ever. I would guess the requirement has been driven by those whanting better ISO performance, combined with high frame rate from a full frame rate sensor. Great for sports photogrpahers and people shooting with large telephoto lenses in low light. If you want high pixel counts then consider a medium format camera.

    The camera is a still camera, however because of the design it can also be used as video camera without compromising the still features. All it requires is a little more code in the firmware to route data from the CCD to the flash card. I dont understand how people think this can affect the still performance.

    If you seriously think that canon is going to compromise the performance of its top end DSLR still performance you are clearly delusional.
  19. Really? i have a 7D as well and i find that its more then fine up to 1000 and even higher with a bit of post processing. Sure at 100% you will notice the noise at 1000, but how often do you show 18mp photos at 100% to people?