Canon 1DX Mark III

[DLD]

... there must be a considerable subset of people who fit into that group or Canon wouldn't bother with the nice video features. ...

An argument from that side is that the video portion is mostly software related, as the processing power, the sensor tech, the media, etc. are shared. This isn't much different from a smartphone that will take both stills and video.

So, then the question becomes, how much will the software cost and will there be additional costs attributable to the video section? The higher end models can absorb these extra costs easier. The lower it goes, there are more and more compromises and, of course, lower demands from the eventual consumer.

PS. Of course, had XT-3 not been firmware destructed or had Sony A-series not been crippled with 8-bit, the "compromises" would have been fairly insignificant.

 

[AndreeOnline]

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 look at it this way: as a hybrid shooter you can choose a (1) video centric camera that does proper stills, or a (2) photo centric camera that does proper video.

I have found, for me, that that there is basically not a single viable option in category (1) once you count in compatibility with speedlites and various different shooting modes.

On a trip recently I decided to only bring the Pocket 6K and shoot little clips and sequences here and there and then pull frames (they are the same-ish size as photos from the 1Dx mkII) for any "photo needs". But that doesn't really work.

I think for a manufacturer it's probably much easier to add video to a camera like the 1Dx mkIII, than to bring meaningful still capability to something in the Cinema EOS lineup. And that would be kind or ridiculous anyway. A more realistic alternative might be a new version of the XC.15, but that would never reach the heights of the 1Dx mkIII, so...

For a video specialist it's a no brainer to get a camera that's purpose built. I see myself as more of an allrounder so I enjoy a camera that can do a bit of everything. I also feel it makes more sense financially if I can use the camera in more situations for both private and commercial activities.

 

[NorBro]

Plus the stills hybrids are 1000x more enjoyable and easier to use for many of us.

Also not sure why this product needs any explanation or justification. People are always complaining about Canon not innovating and now I guess they are innovating too much.

Not only is this one of Canon’s best developments ever, but there are far more photographers in the world than videographers, and these kind of cameras sell very well.

This would have been a dream system for me years ago.

 

[puredrifting]

I don't think the product needs any justification, it plainly is selling or Canon wouldn't have bothered. I just suspect that the vast majority of buyers never use the video functions.

For me, I also write for Digital Photo Pro Magazine and my editor, for years now, has been asking me to write about the "Hybrid Photographer", you know, the mythological creature who has made a living at still photography
for decades but now wants to "expand their skillset" and learn video to "make more profits." In actually interviewing, working with and researching this, I have come to the conclusion that while these "hybrid shooters" do
exist, they are pretty rare. For me, my XT-3 has been in use for nine months. I've shot six stills with it so far. Why? Because who the hell wants to shoot stills with a camera with a cage, monitor, microphone, top and side handles
or more useless yet, the same camera rigged up on a gimbal?

I was reviewing some old 5D MKIII footage that I shot a few years ago while on projects in Europe, shooting stock video and stills. I forgot that with that camera, I could be shooting video and then just snap a still,
but the image in the video stream would freeze for about :02 each time, highly annoying for an editor. I can only speak for myself, but when I shoot stills, my camera is almost always wearing
a Pocket Wizard and I am setting 3-4 flashes up with their own Pocket Wizards, if it's a "real" photo shoot. If I am in situations where I can't light, like I was last year out on chase
boats on the ocean, shooting our subjects as they raced, I still had my 80D with the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II on a camera strap slung around my shoulder. I would be shooting CRL on the C200 for a while, put in my drybag,
Switch to the 80D with a completely different lens than the C200 was wearing (shooting video at anything over 120mm focal length on a rolling, pitching boat was pointless, but for still, the EF 100-400mm was great!)
Trying to go from stills to video to stills with one camera is a huge compromise of both the video and the stills as far as I am concerned, it's not a gear issue, it's workflow issue. Lighting stills is totally different than lighting
video, I hate lighting stills with LEDs or hot lights versus just using my trusty old flashes, their output, size and weight make them so much better to use for that than the video lighting.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do, but for me, shooting video and stills on the same camera, at the same time, is either a hassle, a time suck or a technical, lighting and workflow compromise.
If I had only one camera, and I have done this before, we would set up and light for stills, shoot. Then shut all of that off, light for video and shoot. Stills would be at 1/200th shutter with flash,
video would be 1/48th a 23.98 with video lighting. I think the whole hybrid thing for pro work at least, is somewhat of a fantasy that in the real world totally doesn't work most of the time. If you
are traveling and need to save weight and gear, I could see just taking the 1DX MKIII but trying to rapidly switch back and forth, video, then stills, on the same shoot, at the same time, really? Does that work? Not for me.

 

[NorBro]

When you stop thinking about (and explaining) how you work, and consider how millions of others may work, you may understand it a bit better.

 

[Jaime Valles]

Does anyone know if the 1DXmkIII has the same 30 minute video recording limit as all the other Canon DSLRs (aside from the 1DC)?

 

[NorBro]

IDK, but I'd assume probably not since it's so video-oriented.

 

[Tom Roper]

On a trip recently I decided to only bring the Pocket 6K and shoot little clips and sequences here and there and then pull frames (they are the same-ish size as photos from the 1Dx mkII) for any "photo needs". But that doesn't really work.

On the BMD product page, it says you can press a dedicated stills button to shoot 21.2 megapixel stills as uncompressed DNG images. Is it not any good?

 

[Tom Roper]

IDK, but I'd assume probably not since it's so video-oriented.

If it can do all these things at once, 6K, HFR, raw recording, auto focus tracking, lens stabilization, electronic iris, external mic, can you assume it even goes 30 minutes on the battery? That's a lot of current draw it would seem. Does the sensor have cooling or fan? I'd look for confirmation of that before I assumed anything, my $0.02.

 

[NorBro]

If you’re planning on doing all of that at once within 30 minutes then the answer may be no.

But the battery can last longer than that for regular 4K MJPEG recording on the 1DX Mark II.

There’s also a difference between a question about a limit and battery power. Some cinema cameras’ batteries last barely 30 minutes (RED/BM). Too early to know anything. More info should be released in the near future. And if any time limitations exist in certain modes, resolutions, and frame rates.

 

[Run&Gun]

I don't think the product needs any justification, it plainly is selling or Canon wouldn't have bothered. I just suspect that the vast majority of buyers never use the video functions.

Yes. The VAST majority of users of this camera will be professional sports and news still photographers. Regardless of whatever video-centric features(however advanced they may be) may be included in it, the PRIMARY purpose of this camera and reason for it's existence, is for shooting stills.

 

[puredrifting]

When you stop thinking about (and explaining) how you work, and consider how millions of others may work, you may understand it a bit better.

Okay, forget me, how do you realistically work in the hybrid way? I know you're a big DSLR/Mirrorless fan, you've told us. How do you get around the lighting, shutter speed and other issues? Do you actually shoot stills and video work interchangeably of the
same subjects on the same shoots at the same time? Please, convince me I'm wrong, I'd honestly like to hear how you or any other working pro still shooters make that work. Not that DSLRs/mirrorless aren't great video and or still tools, they are.

 

[NorBro]

There are no lighting and shutter speed issues for me. I use them like any other camera. Have been using them for many years so it’s what I choose and like to use. OTOH, I’ve never used a beta cam type camera and wouldn’t even know how to hold/balance one on my shoulder. Extremely unnatural to me. But I understand you have to consider people’s individual experience.

Like with the mirrorless cameras, just because they can be used to shoot stills doesn’t mean people have to shoot them the same second they are capturing video like you describe. Some may dedicate a specific time for stills (during the production) and some may even have just a stills shoot on an entirely different day.

For a man who’s been around the block I’d expect you to understand.

 

[Jaime Valles]

If it can do all these things at once, 6K, HFR, raw recording, auto focus tracking, lens stabilization, electronic iris, external mic, can you assume it even goes 30 minutes on the battery? That's a lot of current draw it would seem. Does the sensor have cooling or fan? I'd look for confirmation of that before I assumed anything, my $0.02.

Well, I haven't heard anything about the 1DXmkIII shooting 6K. All I've seen mentioned from Canon is 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 video and internal RAW video. If 6K is in there as well, then bonus!

That said, I shoot on my 1DXmkII at 4K MJPEG 60p with autofocus tracking, lens stabilization and an external microphone all the time, and routinely get 1.5 hours on one battery with zero overheating issues. And supposedly the Mark III will have even better power savings, according to Canon's press release.

So, yeah, if it can shoot clips longer than 30 minutes (which is an artificial limit to keep it from getting classified as a video camera for financial reasons) then I will gladly sell my 1DX Mark II and C100s and buy two of these right away.

 

[Tom Roper]

Well, I haven't heard anything about the 1DXmkIII shooting 6K. All I've seen mentioned from Canon is 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 video and internal RAW video. If 6K is in there as well, then bonus!

If it doesn't it should because @28.1 megapixel 4:3 is 6120x4591, i.e. 6K wide sensor, but sorry for the misinformation anyway.

 

[AndreeOnline]

I'm not saying it's impossible to do, but for me, shooting video and stills on the same camera, at the same time, is either a hassle, a time suck or a technical, lighting and workflow compromise.

You're 100% correct and the struggle is real.

First off [feasibility]: if you want to be able to capture the same fleeting moment with both stills and video, you're better off using two teams (one for photo and one for video). Take your boat race as an example. Even if it would be acceptable to capture photos of one boat and videos of another, it's a bit of management to constantly switch from one to another. If you want to cover the exact same moment in both formats it's a question of frame grabbing and compromising on shutter speed.

/*
That said, I don't know of a system that can make the switch faster than a 1Dx mkII/mkIII. I have my camera setup the way I like via the custom functions (C1-3) and by 'flipping a switch' I can reconfigure shooting mode without taking the camera from my eyes in a second. So changing from single shot/AF photo to high fps photo with server tracking (with the exact specified AF mode and configuration) to 25 fps video with appropriate shutter to 50 fps to 100 fps... it's instant. Video monitoring is solved by using a LCDVF that replaces the normal viewfinder for video and adds a point of contact. No other rigging (microphone in hotshoe though). I have used a Lee filter system for years that is very quick to add/remove and move from lens to lens given the adapter is in place. But I find NDs are truly part of the struggle with DSLR or Pocket camera systems.
*/

A more realistic scenario is something more corporate/business/editorial in nature. You spend a day on a vineyard and when you get home you need to have maybe an interview, some B-roll and some good, print quality photos of the facilities including lit portraits. In this case you don't need to constantly switch from one format to the other.


Second [practicality]: In the slower pace scenario above where I feel it could work to just use one camera, it might still be a better choice to just pack a smaller DSLR together with a C200/C500 mkII. I think it simply comes down to how much gear you are prepared to travel with and, of course, costs.

I'm guessing for lots of people here, the cost of the 1Dx mkIII alone is a stretch. So investing in two cameras, including appropriate lighting might not be possible.

 

[AndreeOnline]

On the BMD product page, it says you can press a dedicated stills button to shoot 21.2 megapixel stills as uncompressed DNG images. Is it not any good?

In this case it was more a question I asked myself, if on certain projects, I could just shoot short clips (often at slightly bumped shutter speed of 1/80 to 1/100) and then use them both for video and pulling 'photos'.

Going straight for the DNG photos –and a photo workflow afterwards, I would much prefer to use my 1Dx mkII and stay in Lightroom. The Pocket 6K is way too clunky shooting stills (monitoring/AF/responsiveness), that I wouldn't bother.

If it doesn't it should because @28.1 megapixel 4:3 is 6120x4591, i.e. 6K wide sensor, but sorry for the misinformation anyway.

Have you seen that resolution stated as fact? I'm guessing 24-28 MP myself. But there is nothing saying the 1Dx mkIII will shoot full frame, and I wouldn't expect that. For Canon Raw Light it's a given that it won't, and even for non raw recording I think Canon sticks to 1:1 pixel readout. It's been of good quality, but comes with a crop.

The saving grace for the 1Dc and 1Dx mkII has been that they are fairly 'low resolution' bodies which means that a 4K DCI crop isn't so severe. But if Canon bumps resolution of the mkIII to closer to 30MP the crop will sting more.

We would all CERTAINLY welcome a full frame readout in around 6K downscaled to 4K internally. But I'm not feeling it.

 

[cpreston]

When the 1DC was released, one of Canon's marketing schemes was for people to use the 4K video to pull stills. Canon may still think there is a market for this. When you are looking for that specific "moment", it is easier to skim a video timeline that to click through each photo of a burst. You also don't have the potential problem of the clacking of the shutter. I would guess that Canon may be working on a RAW video format that uses the full frame in a burst mode. Basically, silent shooting in a CRL video file. In any case, I think Canon will only be adding video features that they think photographers might find useful. The pro RF mount camera might be a different story.

The primary advantage of the 1D versus a video camera is that it is built like a tank. If I was worried about weather or camera damage, I would actually consider the 1D for video.

 

[indiawilds]

While shooting stills we have the optical viewfinder of the 1DXII and (also in the 1DXIII). In wildlife situations, without switching on the system I can monitor using the optical viewfinder. When I see that there is something interesting going to happen, immediately you can shift the switch to video and the camera will spring to life and you can start shooting. There would be slight adjustments to framing though. If you monitor the same scene in a cinema camera then you drain your batteries as you have to keep the camera on. For me that is a big trouble. If you are a big production house then you can carry large amount of batteries to the field. I can't do that.

I have pulled frames from cinema cameras in some situations. From C300 Mark II, the pulled frame worked. I was shooting in 1/50 on a tripod. There are situations where you can get away at that shutter speed due to lack of subject movement. In stills I do handheld at low shutter speeds as well. However, when I am filming athletics, grabbing a frame from the video is crazy because you need higher shutter speeds to freeze the motion.

A lot of corporate work I get is to shoot interviews and b-roll. Many of these senior execs need to be coached and it takes a lot of time and many takes. So I ask my colleague to take the person elsewhere and get some portraits or some casual b-roll of the person doing something. When two of us do video and still simultaneously then the work is peacefully done even when there are 3-4 interviews in a day. Else, it becomes a bit rushed. Apart from the 1DXMarkII, I also have a 80D as backup. Once a producer commented "ohh you are shooting in an 80D?" He told me that he too has an 80D and thought professionals use better cameras. I smiled and showed him the 1DXII as well and then told that the IQ one inch behind the camera when a shutter is clicked is very important. For a moment he didn't understand. Then he laughed and told me that he started photography six months ago. I digress.

So some of these corporate stuff can still be done with one 1DX III (now that it has two CFExpress slots so that I won't be jittery) and one 1DXII/80D. I am eyeing a C500 II though. However, investing on both C500 II and a 1DXIII will be a bit stretched for me. Then I will have to definitely sell the 1DXII which I love a lot. Anyway, I am not expecting the 1DXIII before march.

1DX was launched at 6800 US Dollars. 1DX II was launched at $5999 US dollars. Hoping the 1DX III to be priced at $5000 US Dollars. :love4:

 

[Jaime Valles]

1DX was launched at 6800 US Dollars. 1DX II was launched at $5999 US dollars. Hoping the 1DX III to be priced at $5000 US Dollars. :love4:

From your lips to the Canon gods' ears!