Canon USA Introduces EOS-1D X Digital SLR Camera

[Charles Papert]

After a fascinating couple of years with the 1DMKIV, including shooting three network scripted pilots with the camera, I find myself only mildly interested in reading about the capabilities of the 1D X. The uber-low light capacity is wild indeed, and I'm glad to hear the moire issue is improved (the must punishing artifact of this generation of cameras). However I'm incredibly ready to move on from the form factor of DSLR for film-style shooting with all of the compromise therein. The physical requirements of still shooting vs motion picture are so different, it's hard to imagine a camera that can nail both, so for me I'd rather keep them separate. The day will soon come where I sell my 1DMKIV and may be a slightly misty event, but I look forward to what is forthcoming and having the 1D join the A1, DVX and XL1 in the tail lights.

[Allan Black]

Well put, lead on Charles.

Cheers.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by James Davis

But without MAJOR tech changes like RAW video or some other vastly improved codec (that split one isn't doing it for me), I don't see why people are talking about trading in their 7D's and 5D mkII's and adding money for this.

I would have to say that the major reasons to upgrade from the 7D or 5D Mk. II are for the photographic
improvements more than anything else, plus the big differences in the 1-series body compared to those
smaller cameras. The main step-ups of the 1-series body are the all-weather housing (it can withstand
ten inches of rain per hour), the battery, the larger optical viewfinder, the longer operational life, etc.

As far as the video is concerned, if all you're interested in is the HD video recording capability and you're
not otherwise interested in graduating to a 1-series body, then I would recommend that you wait for the
possibility of the video improvements to trickle down to the next iterations of the smaller 5D and 7D
cameras (and hopefully the next generations of the 60D and Rebel series).

The price-over-durability factor puts the $6800 price of the 1D X at less than twice the cost of the $1600
7D (in photographic terms, that is). If you divide the MSRP by the guaranteed shutter life, here's what
you get for the 7D vs. the 1D X:

7D cost to durability: $1,600 / 150,000 shutter actuations = just over one cent per click
1D X cost to durability: $6,800 / 400,000 shutter actuations = just under two cents per click

So that's probably a major consideration for some folks, the fact that they can move up to the flagship,
top-of-the-line camera for less than twice the overall cost.

I've recorded well past 12 minutes before on my 550d/T2i.

There is no such thing as a 12-minute limit on any of these cameras including the Rebel. Instead there
is a 4GB clip size limit. Sometimes that can manifest itself as less than 12 minutes, and sometimes you
can record for a lot longer than 12 minutes, it all depends on what the camera is pointed at when
it's recording video.

So I'm not sold on it yet especially with that $6,000 price tag.

It's important to realize that this full-frame 1-series camera is actually *less expensive* than the full-frame
1-series model it replaces, which was the 1Ds Mk. III. You have to compare like with like. Not everyone
can justify the upgrade to a 1-series camera... I know I can't. I just don't do enough photography, and
I'm certainly not a professional photographer anyway.

To even the trained eye, we wont see that much of an improvement in video quality.

Of the two major improvements in the video quality, only one is a visual thing that you can see, which is a
greatly reduced incidence of moire compared to the 5D Mk. II. The other major improvement in video has to
do with the way it is encoded, where the difference is important to the ease of editing (by the addition of
intra-frame compression).

Yes the full frame is nice, but I'm always skeptical of that angle.

Sorry but I don't know what you mean by that...

... it seems like Canon is becoming like Apple by releasing new gear EVERY year that is just a tad bit of a step up from the previous and they act like the Messiah arrived.

I don't understand this remark at all. You have to realize that it's been *more than four years* since Canon
announced a full-frame Digital SLR in a 1-series body (the most recent one being the 1Ds Mk. III way back
in August of 2007).

They haven't done anything like this in more than four years. Most folks I know who shoot with 1-series
cameras would say that four years for a new full-frame camera makes the 1D X long overdue. And compared
to the 1Ds Mk. III that it's replacing, or even the 1D Mk. IV for that matter, the improvements in the 1D X are
far, far beyond being a "tad bit of a step up." Earlier this week when I talked to Erik Allin about the 1D X, he
said they had kept only two parts from the 1Ds Mk. III for the new camera: the body cap that covers the lens
mount, and the viewfinder housing. It's a completely different machine than the previous 1D / 1Ds models.

[Monty Wentzel]

Seems like camera features and quality on many levels are in a state of great change and improvement. A good/bad time to buy? I'm waiting because with new cameras coming to market that are geared more for video I don't think I want to deal with dslr's. I think in the near future they will be losing their position and popularity. Granted their cheaper price may prove me wrong.

I want a video camera again, but I love the lens options dslr's brought to the table.

Someone said in another post, "this is a great time to be a film maker". They also said if we spent as much time on scripts as we do on cameras our films would improve greatly.

Monty

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Pat Reddy

Same thing happened to me. I also hope the 5dIII has most or all of the new video capabilities.

Pat

It can't. The 1DX can read two vertical pixels simultaneously. A non 1 series won't have two processors to do that function.

Canon has stated that this camera will have the best video of their DSLRs. But this is the end of DSLR purchased for just video, so it doesn't matter. The strange time of shooting commercial high def with a DSLR is coming to an end in the next few weeks. Will make good future stories for the grandkids.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

A non 1 series won't have two processors to do that function.

Well, the EOS 7D is a non-1-series body that has two processors, but it doesn't do *that* function, no.

[Shem Kerr]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

On another note... 12fps means you could just shoot strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense...

Smart thinking: 18K RAW future-proofing!

Originally Posted by Robert Sanders

LOL!

"What did that character just say?"

"I'm not sure, all I heard was 'clack clack clack clack clack' the whole time." ;)

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The main step-ups of the 1-series body are the all-weather housing (it can withstand ten inches of rain per hour),....

You aint going to hear any 'clack clack clack at 10 inches of rain per hour. Though you could have silent movie or voice-over. What concerns me is the combination of rolling shutter plus lens wiper effect.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

The price-over-durability factor puts the $6800 price of the 1D X at less than twice the cost of the $1600
7D (in photographic terms, that is). If you divide the MSRP by the guaranteed shutter life, here's what
you get for the 7D vs. the 1D X:

7D cost to durability: $1,600 / 150,000 shutter actuations = just over one cent per click
1D X cost to durability: $6,800 / 400,000 shutter actuations = just under two cents per
click.

The following link sheds some light on shutter life:
TikiRobot!, Mai Tais and Blinky Lights, Ahoy! Real-World Average Shutter Life for Canon 5D and 1Ds mkII

With stop-motion at 12 fps, rated shutter life should give 9 hours of shooting; and average shutter life 18 hours. Shutter replacement might cost $300 to $400. Cost per click being much much much cheaper than Chris suggests. That means I can afford to include a crate of shutters when I buy the camera.

I have to agree with Chris. I would even go further: The 1D X beats the lower price lower spec Canon DSLRs on cost of ownership; robustness; and quality of output.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Judging cost by the click is mileading, especially if your primary interest is video. First if you going to shoot 12p video, with 1DX, it's better to opt for 14p who doesn't wear the shutter at all. Second, a pro photographer, even with digital cameras, on average, doesn't exceed 100 shots per day. Meaning around 30-40000 clicks per year. Thus even the shutter of a 7d, will outlast the product circle of the camera. For video oriented users the shutter life is irrelevant.
Regarding the 1DX, I think Canon's move to end the pixel war, has to do with the recent affordability of medium format cameras. It has tailored the new model more as an action camera so maybe will enter the studio market with a larger format zillion pixel sensor.
The video capabilities are optimised for the video journalist and event videographer. With such high iso, they can stop down and achieve DOF comparable with a 2/3 camera, if they want. They will also benefit substantially with new multicam features.
I believe 1DX biggest asset, is the quality of the photographs it takes. Something we have to wait 5 months to affirm.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis

Second, a pro photographer, even with digital cameras, on average, doesn't exceed 100 shots per day.

Sorry but that's way, way off by a factor of ten. A photojournalist can *easily* shoot 1,000 images
per day... easily. I'm not a photojournalist and I'm certainly not a pro, but I just shot an airshow
(requiring high-speed burst mode) two weekends ago... I wound up with more than 1,000 clicks
on Saturday and over 1,750 on Sunday, and I thought I was being conservative.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

I wound up with more than 1,000 clicks
on Saturday and over 1,750 on Sunday, and I thought I was being conservative.

Some people were born for video :)

[Don Parrish]

Chris, what was the shutter speed on the 2 that are belly to belly ?? I don't have my CS4 installed so I cant get EXIF

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Some people were born for video :)

Baaah

Originally Posted by Don Parrish

Chris, what was the shutter speed on the 2 that are belly to belly ?? I don't have my CS4 installed so I cant get EXIF

Don, you mean the one where they're canopy to canopy? That was 1/5000 at f/8. Which is not the correct combination, by the way (told you I'm not a photographer).

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Chris, I have written "on average", implying on a yearly base and taking into account all possible photo assignments. You don't shoot everyday 1000 pics all year long. Furthermore not all photographers are photo journalists. Not to forget that nowadays most pros have more than one body, because with digital, changing lenses can be risky, due to dust accumulation on the sensor. I believe my number is valid.

[Chris Hurd]

I didn't fully explain myself as to why I think your numbers are so far off, Emmanuel. Prior to the 1D X, there was the 1D line and the 1Ds line. The photographer who bought the 1D (not 1Ds) series camera chose it primarily for its frame rate -- its 10fps burst mode. The other big selling point is its all-weather body, but the frame rate is a primary feature. The 1D camera (and its Nikon equivalent) is selected by sports photographers and photojournalists precisely because of its burst mode. I'll bet that you have no more hard data than I do, but I stand by my assertion that any photographer working in news or sports commonly finds himself or herself easily shooting 1,000+ frames on a single day's assignment on a fairly regular basis.

I have known for many years a pro photographer in my town who is contracted to shoot local school events at a nearby university and a local boarding school. I've seen his wall comps, where he shows in the school hall several easels worth of index prints from which to order copies... an event such as a graduation ceremony that lasted a few hours yields close to 1,000 images if not more.

I can live with the assumption that a studio photographer using a 1Ds may not shoot more than 100 photos per session, but I'm pretty sure there are more 1D bodies getting a regular workout than there are 1Ds bodies used only on occasion.

Also, with regard to the 1D X for "video only," I have said before in this thread that anyone who is interested only in shooting video, and not taking photographs, should avoid the 1D X since in all probability the new video features of the 1D X will most likely find their way into the next generations of the smaller and considerably less expensive 5D and 7D bodies (and hopefully even the Rebel as well)... even though the difference in the cost-per-click ratio is not very great.

The 1D X is first and foremost a photographer's camera. Therefore cost-per-click is indeed the correct way to look at price vs. durability.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis

Regarding the 1DX, I think Canon's move to end the pixel war, has to do with the recent affordability of medium format cameras. It has tailored the new model more as an action camera so maybe will enter the studio market with a larger format zillion pixel sensor.

I think the 1D line is only merged temporarily. For 2011 Canon had to chose between making a high speed/ med res or a med. speed/ high res camera. They chose the 1Dx to hold onto an important group of pro shooters. The specs of the 1Dx kill the 1DsIII.
I don't think merging the "1" line is so much an overriding strategy as where they've ended up at this point in time.
They probably have a heck of a lot in design and production right now. As a result perhaps we are not seeing an ideal product release strategy on high-end still photography. We'll see what they've been up to in the next few weeks. It's likely the very early 1Dx announcement is to pacify pro still shooters ahead of the pro video targeted product about to arrive.