Canon 1DX Mark III

Everything looks great and exciting except for no IBIS, and what the crops are in 4K 60p, making the S1/S1H possibly worth keeping if you have one.
 
Well, looks like my next camera.

But I do feel the pull of the RF mount. I half expected my next camera to have that mount so that I could start the transition. The future in inevitably RF.

Imagine this camera 1.5 years ago, with the little red 'C' and the name Canon 1Dc mkII. Anyway... still glad it's coming. Curious about sensor resolution. Somewhere between 21-28 MP or so. The video crop factor will be dependent on that since Canon typically just use a 1:1 pixel readout for video.

Anything above 25MP and the crop goes past 1.5x horizontally.
 
My 1DXII shoots 4K at 1.3 crop ie from APS-H size sensor which is bigger than S35. Given the advancements Canon talks about in terms of processor and sensor, I guess full frame 4K is possible. May be in the raw video mode. Anyway I like the files.

The only reason the 1DXII didn't get Clog is to protect the C300 II. Now that C200 with internal raw is available at similar price to the 1DXII, I guess Canon decided it has to include the goodies. I am expecting the price will be lower than the 1DXII price.
 
What's interesting is that the camera is including support for the HEIF format for stills. I think it's the first camera I've seen to include this format (although it has been added to some iOS and Android devices).

HEIF is based on HEVC (H.265), it's essentially the same compression as you'd have in an HEVC intra frame, applied to photos. It's supposed to be about twice as efficient in terms of compression as JPEG and also allows for higher color depths (10-bit as opposed to 8-bit that is typically used for JPEGs).

But I'm guessing this means that for video the camera will probably record in HEVC/H.265 for some of the 10-bit internal recording formats since there's clearly an HEVC encoding engine on-board.
 
Cool looking camera but the form factor, no internal NDs, no XLRs will still suck for shooting video. Maybe a good, albeit heavy as hell gimbal camera?
For a second camera, why would I buy theis over another C200?
 
puredrifting said:
For a second camera, why would I buy theis over another C200?
Click to expand...

Newer technology, better AF, built-in screen, better form factor for travelers/pick-up-and-go shooters, great for one-handed gimbals (and NOT heavy) in which you can see the screen in the back...possibly other specs that may be interesting/sought after (like full-frame recording), and possibly $1,000 cheaper if not more.

And the obvious of dual CFexpress card slots and 4K 10-bit 4:2:2.

Sounds loaded and everything the 1DX Mark II should have been (but the time wasn't right).
 
I always prefer dual card recording. In my first shoot a few days after the 1DXII was launched, I had a CFast 2.0 card and a CF card in the camera. A colleague had fiddled with the camera and the recording had changed to CF. I didn't notice it. It was a 2 camera shoot with a C300 and the 1DXII. The 1DX II just didn't record beyond a couple of seconds. Since then I always keep the CF card slot vacant in the 1DXII. And am a bit jittery not recording to two cards. So the 1DXIII with two CFExpress cards is a good move by Canon. Gone is the hesitation about how the photographers will receive the camera with CFast cards.

The 4K footage of the 1DXII held very well for an interview that I did even with cropping.

The 1DX series is well built. If someone tries to mug you, then just hit the guy in head with the 1DXII/III and the fellow will be smoothened. Nothing will happen to the camera.

You can use a Wooden Camera A Box so that you can plug in XLR microphones. I wish a similar thing which can be mounted on top where the flash is supposed to be mounted.
 
puredrifting said:
Cool looking camera but the form factor, no internal NDs, no XLRs will still suck for shooting video. Maybe a good, albeit heavy as hell gimbal camera?
For a second camera, why would I buy theis over another C200?
Click to expand...

That’s hilarious. Some guy on the Newshooter article asked why someone would buy a C200 over a 1DXmkIII. I guess no one cares about VF’s/Screens, HDSDI output, audio(XLR) input, built-in ND’s, ergonomics, rigging(not having to add three pounds of metal to attach one accessory), etc.
 
indiawilds said:
I wish a similar thing which can be mounted on top where the flash is supposed to be mounted.
Click to expand...

I use the DXA-Micro-Pro on top of the camera like that, but it only has 1 XLR input.

Most people probably put the camera on top of it, but it includes a shoe that can be mounted to it and go on top of the camera:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...cro_pro_dxa_micro_pro_active_xlr_compact.html

(If you click the photos provided by customers section, you'll see an example.)
 
Run&Gun said:
That’s hilarious. Some guy on the Newshooter article asked why someone would buy a C200 over a 1DXmkIII. I guess no one cares about VF’s/Screens, HDSDI output, audio(XLR) input, built-in ND’s, ergonomics, rigging(not having to add three pounds of metal to attach one accessory), etc.
Click to expand...

Right? I have a mirrorless and like mirrorless/DSLRs. But as my sole camera, no thanks, always will want a video camera for these reasons. The 1DX MKIII will be a great camera but as a C200 owner, I'd just buy a C200B over it as a B camera. Dual slot recording is better, for sure, but so far, the CFast recording on the C200 has been flawless for two years.
I may get stung, but so far, the only thing I have go bad was an SD card and I was dual slot recording. The CFast seems a lot more reliable than SD cards. As far as heavy for single hand gimbal, the XT-3/GH5 are the right size and weight for me. Putting a 1DX MKIII and a rather heavy big lens on a one handed gimbal? No thanks.
Can be done but why haul the extra weight and bulk for that application? I'm sure this camera will appeal to some people and it will technically be great but that form factor, ughh. When the XT-3 isn't on the gimbal, it's OK as a handheld rig, but on tripod, give me a video camera anyday.

To me, FF recording would almost always be a negative. If I ever bought the C500 MKII, it would never get switched out of S35 mode, I dislike almost everything about FF for cinema/video, the FOV, the larger, heavier lenses, pass. Maybe once in a blue moon, perhaps the greater low light capability?
 
This looks like a fantastic upgrade to the Mark II. Improved AF, internal RAW, better low light... I may have to get it.

As for why this instead of another C200? Well, if you need it to also shoot photos, then the C200 won't do. If it's just for shooting video, the C200 is definitely better.

I need a camera that shoots both photos and video, which is why I love my 1DX II. I'll be paying close attention to this one.
 
Jaime Valles said:
This looks like a fantastic upgrade to the Mark II. Improved AF, internal RAW, better low light... I may have to get it.

As for why this instead of another C200? Well, if you need it to also shoot photos, then the C200 won't do. If it's just for shooting video, the C200 is definitely better.

I need a camera that shoots both photos and video, which is why I love my 1DX II. I'll be paying close attention to this one.
Click to expand...

I'm just old fashioned I guess, tried that with the 5D MKII, 5D MKIII, even my XT-3, it has taken exactly six stills in the 9 months I've owned it. The whole "hybrid camera" doesn't make any sense to me. Why would I want to shoot stills with a camera I have rigged up in a cage or on a gimbal with a monitor, microphone, etc.?
That's what a still camera is for, taking stills, I am still slinging my 80D around on any shoots that need stills. Different lenses, filtration, I light with Pocket Wizards and three or four flashes. The whole hybrid thing to me just spells compromise, it's not the gear, it's the workflow. The 1DXIII will obviously be great at both stills
and video, just for me, not at the same time in most cases. But different strokes. I've written about the whole hybrid camera thing for years for Digital Photo Pro and to me, trying to make it work just makes me gnash my teeth. Still camera (rigged for stills) for stills, still camera or Digital cinema camera for video.
 
In this day and age video people can still get excited by announcements of expensive photo cameras which do some video? I get it about the GH5, Fuji etc as they are dirty cheap. But it's not 2010 anymore. I don't get it paying $5-$7K on a photo camera to do video.
 
Sttratos said:
I don't get it paying $5-$7K on a photo camera to do video.
Click to expand...

TL;DR: If you don't need a photo camera that does video that costs $5-7K, then don't buy one.

For a longer, more in depth explanation, that is more of a commitment to read:

There are people who feel that the features offered in a photo centric "pro" camera body are worth a "pro" price of $6000, for their photo needs alone.
A subset of those users are additionally interested in being able to capture video in a quality appropriate for professional use (standards vary between ENG-Doc-Film).
A subset of the previous subset prefer to use only one camera and can live with the shortcomings associated with not using a dedicated video camera—like lack of NDs or audio features. Especially if some of the shortcomings are compensated by other, rare features that ARE included, that will ASSIST a single camera operator: auto focusing, keeping all footage internal and backed-up, weather proofing and build quality, relative size and good configurability of menus and presets.

And breaking out of our subsets and starting from zero, there are users who consider the combination of the above mentioned rare features alone are worth $6000, even if there is little to no interest in the photographic features of the camera.

I hope this helps in "getting it".
 
It is a compromise but..

There are some jobs (travel) where stills and motion is needed and you want to minimise mass while doing both jobs.

---

Video cameras are often rubbish.. poor menues and really unresponsive - not what you need under pressure - canon 1 series are not that.

This is actually one of the smallest (?) raw cameras. Period. Perfect for rigging on features (or other jobs where $6k doesnt matter cos theyve got 5 alexas)
 
AndreeOnline said:
TL;DR: If you don't need a photo camera that does video that costs $5-7K, then don't buy one.

For a longer, more in depth explanation, that is more of a commitment to read:

There are people who feel that the features offered in a photo centric "pro" camera body are worth a "pro" price of $6000, for their photo needs alone.
A subset of those users are additionally interested in being able to capture video in a quality appropriate for professional use (standards vary between ENG-Doc-Film).
A subset of the previous subset prefer to use only one camera and can live with the shortcomings associated with not using a dedicated video camera—like lack of NDs or audio features. Especially if some of the shortcomings are compensated by other, rare features that ARE included, that will ASSIST a single camera operator: auto focusing, keeping all footage internal and backed-up, weather proofing and build quality, relative size and good configurability of menus and presets.

And breaking out of our subsets and starting from zero, there are users who consider the combination of the above mentioned rare features alone are worth $6000, even if there is little to no interest in the photographic features of the camera.

I hope this helps in "getting it".
Click to expand...

Got it. So in your final subset, there are 23 people, worlwide. ;-)

JK, but seriously, there must be a considerable subset of people who fit into that group or Canon wouldn't bother with the nice video features.
I'd love to see their buyer demographic data on who purchases this camera besides pro still people who obviously just buy it because its a great still camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top