CANON EOS-1D X MARK II

[goodguy]

To all Canon fans rejoice the new king is coming to town

Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Full Specifications

 

[Rgollar]

I am a canon 1dx fan all the way. But im not sure this has the d5 beat. I have the 1dx and I dont think they improve it that much to upgrade. But I will have to wait to make final judgement.

 

[goodguy]

I am a canon 1dx fan all the way. But im not sure this has the d5 beat. I have the 1dx and I dont think they improve it that much to upgrade. But I will have to wait to make final judgement.

I am actually a bit surprised there isnt a big Hurra in this forum over the arrival of this camera.

 

[Rgollar]

I really am disappointed with the how little it improved. I was not expecting much in the way of shutter speed as I think they have pretty much topped out for mirror. And the 20 megapixels was about what I expected to keep the shutter speed up. I do like the cfast cards they added and the added buffer. The focus points I am ok with as I think much more is just over the top really. The real question is going to be the dynamic range it offers? I know the price is pretty good considering. But until I see it in action, on paper it does not impress me alot more then the 1dx. I was really hoping to upgrade to the 1dxm2 but I can see a 500mm lens is my next upgrade.

 

[coastalconn]

I am a canon 1dx fan all the way. But im not sure this has the d5 beat. I have the 1dx and I dont think they improve it that much to upgrade. But I will have to wait to make final judgement.

I am actually a bit surprised there isnt a big Hurra in this forum over the arrival of this camera.

I saw the announcement this morning. Too early to tell much really. I don't see any compelling reasons to upgrade from a 1Dx unless you really want 4K 60 FPS video. Maybe the sensor will be much improved to match the D5 in DR, but doubtful. I was personally hoping to see a new sensor tech that would level the playing field. The 5D4 and 80D might be more interesting announcements later this year.. @Rgollar, maybe if the Nikon bug bites me I'll sell my 500 But hopefully after the 7dm2 comes back I will finally be happy with the IQ, if not the 1D4 really delivers the goods...

 

[imagemaker46]

I won't be rushing out to buy one, at $6000 US, that will come in close to $9000 Canadian. All the changes won't make any difference how I shoot, or what I shoot. Being able to shoot 16fps is overkill, even for shooting sports, another feature for those "blaster" photographers, that shoot without looking. Low light capabilities has improved, but more and more venues are also improving their lights. I shoot stills, so any video changes don't interest me. If people have the money they will buy this camera just to have the newest toy.

 

[ronlane]

I can see Scott's point. If you already have a flagship (1Dx), I don't think this is the upgrade to make you run out and switch. But for me personally, I would love to upgrade to it. (Well, okay add one to my stable and keep my 7D mk ii). I think that the price point under $6K USD is the enticement for people in my situation.

 

[Braineack]

I am a canon 1dx fan all the way. But im not sure this has the d5 beat. I have the 1dx and I dont think they improve it that much to upgrade. But I will have to wait to make final judgement.

It's a joke compared to the D5. It doesnt even seem that improved over the 1Dx. But it was nice of them to create a bulky $600 wireless device to tranfer files with...

 

[runnah]

My shorts remain unlit.

 

[runnah]

I don't see any compelling reasons to upgrade from a 1Dx unless you really want 4K 60 FPS video.

What really sucks is the they don't allow you to shoot in C-log (basically raw video) with this camera. They instead want you to buy their "cinema" series cameras of which only the $16k C300 can do 4k BUT not at 60fps, for that you have to buy the C500 which does 4k @ 60fps and is also $16k but that doesn't shoot c-log either!

So frankly I have given up on Canon for a primary video camera because they don't seem to know what they are doing and purposely hobble their cameras to fit into a silly product line.

 

[Rgollar]

It's a joke compared to the D5. It doesnt even seem that improved over the 1Dx. But it was nice of them to create a bulky $600 wireless device to tranfer files with...

I would not say its a joke compared to the D5. The 1dx mark II still does better video considering the D5 only does 3 minute video clips. It does not have a better shutter speed. And who know if the dynamic range is better on the d5 vs the 1dx mark II. Yes the D5 has more focus points but come on I think thats a little overkill. The D5 does have a little better buffer but not by much. And lets face it, if that comes into play then you just spraying shots. Lets not forget the D5 cost more for not much more other then possible better dynamic range which we do not know yet. And lets face it just expose properly and the dynamic range is really not that big of a deal. I mean if your pushing your shawdows and lights that much maybe its time to learn to expose properly and learn to post process better. I agree not a huge update for Canon but it is for Nikon. They finally caught up to the 1dx lets be honest. I am not saying the 1dx mark II is better then the D5 I dont know. But what I do know is at this level of camera these two are at right now. It does not matter there both top of there class and either one will do the job. Just my 2 cents and I am sure there will be some who will bash this opinion but it just my opinion.

 

[runnah]

Being able to shoot 16fps is overkill, even for shooting sports, another feature for those "blaster" photographers, that shoot without looking.

Agreed. At some point it becomes a "who can have the highest stats" contest. Take the focus points for example. I myself, and I am willing to bet lots of action photographers, won't need 150 or whatever AF points. Heck I almost exclusively used the center cluster for my sports shots, having a focus point in the very top left of frame doesn't seem useful as that would make for a badly composed photo.

 

[JacaRanda]

Being able to shoot 16fps is overkill, even for shooting sports, another feature for those "blaster" photographers, that shoot without looking.

. Heck I almost exclusively used the center cluster for my sports shots, having a focus point in the very top left of frame doesn't seem useful as that would make for a badly composed photo.

Only when you are tracking every move of the swallow or hummingbird. LOL At some point it gets to be overkill as some have alluded to.
How horrible were pictures made with 1dx and d4's. They truly sucked. You gotta have the new toy. RIGHT.

 

[JacaRanda]

I am a canon 1dx fan all the way. But im not sure this has the d5 beat. I have the 1dx and I dont think they improve it that much to upgrade. But I will have to wait to make final judgement.

I am actually a bit surprised there isnt a big Hurra in this forum over the arrival of this camera.

I am surprised you are surprised. How many of us do you think can afford this? At some point long ago, much of this stuff became WENIS contests.

 

[Braineack]

I would not say its a joke compared to the D5. The 1dx mark II still does better video considering the D5 only does 3 minute video clips.

No, it's really not a joke and will hold its own for sure. I like hyperbole.

And who know if the dynamic range is better on the d5 vs the 1dx mark II ... Lets not forget the D5 cost more for not much more other then possible better dynamic range which we do not know yet. And lets face it just expose properly and the dynamic range is really not that big of a deal. I mean if your pushing your shawdows and lights that much maybe its time to learn to expose properly and learn to post process better.

If it's par for the course for Canon, then yeah It's a big deal.

I recently purchased an A6000 which usings Sony's APS-C 24mp sensor. Right off the bat, even in RAW the images dissapointed in the DR arena -- compared to my "entry-level" D610 -- even shooting at 100 ISO. And the A6000 has much better DR at ISO 100 than the 1DX has (almost 1.5 EV more -- the D610 having 2.5 EV more).

IMHO, DR is a big deal, it was one of the first things I noticed when working on RAW files out of it, that it simply could not do as much with the image as I can with my D610 raw files.

If you havent ever played with any Sony/Nikon FF raw files, I suggest you give it a try. It might change your tune. Even in the most properly exposed image one could ever properly expose in a single capture.

It does not have a better shutter speed. Yes the D5 has more focus points but come on I think thats a little overkill.

I dunno if it's overkill. It's a cream-of-the-crop sports camera used to catch some precious fast-paced moments.

The AF foucs area nearly covers the frame, and all all -3EV (which is the best the 1DXm2 can do at the center) -- pretty much ensuing them to work in fair lighting throughout the frame. 99 are cross type. and then the middle bunch are -4EV.

I dunno, but it seems that the Nikon system will do a much better job of obtaining and maintaining focus in pretty poor lighting.

The D5 does have a little better buffer but not by much. And lets face it, if that comes into play then you just spraying shots.

true. also remember the 16fps on the 1Dxm2 needs the mirror locked up, so youre pretty much spraying and praying at that point

I agree not a huge update for Canon but it is for Nikon. They finally caught up to the 1dx lets be honest. I am not saying the 1dx mark II is better then the D5 I dont know. But what I do know is at this level of camera these two are at right now. It does not matter there both top of there class and either one will do the job. Just my 2 cents and I am sure there will be some who will bash this opinion but it just my opinion.

agreed. The D5 might convert some canon shooter, but it's still probably doubtful. people owning those cameras have too much invested to switch systems.


and jsut fwiw, the Nikon is only 8% more expensive. But it is nice to see a Canon priced a bit more competively for once.