Canon 1DX Mark III

jbregar said:
All two of them.

For an industry where quality definitely sells, I have never encountered a higher percentage of nickel-and-dimers in my life. I'm friends with an agent who pays me to produce good stuff for his higher-end properties, but far more of them will balk at a modest charge for full terrestrial and aerial photos AND walkthrough video for a seven-figure property. The real estate industry is brutal.
Click to expand...

No doubt! I've told this story before but just in case anyone missed it, I'll
leave it here again. I was called by a realtor. She had seen my demo reel
on my website. She gave me some compliments on my work and asked if
I would be willing to make a promo film for her. I said sure. Her next questions
was:

"Great! How much will that cost?"

Now that was a big red flag but it had been slow so I let it slide. I
explained that much like a realtor wouldn't be able to tell a client

'How much does a house cost?'

without more information (like number of bedrooms, bathrooms, is the
property waterfront etc), I too needed some information on what she
wanted. I explained to her about pinning down who your audience is,
making a story for them, (hopefully one that makes them feel something),
and creating a call to action for the end. So she told me that her audience
is 'DIY (Do It Yourself) types. Sure a person COULD sell or buy a home
yourself without a realtor. But she wanted to emphasize the fact that she
was a professional in the area of buying and selling homes. She could help
someone head off all sorts of problems that they wouldn't even realize were
headed towards them. She would know what comparable properties were selling
for. In essence she wanted me to convince them that yes, you would have to pay
her a fee instead of doing it cheaply yourself, but she was worth her fee!
Because she would make sure you had no problems (the whole pain
avoidance benefit), everything was done right, and you would have
no stress or any issues at all because she'd deal with all that for you.
In other words, yes, her services cost money, but they provide MUCH
more value to you than what they cost.

"OK', I said. "I know exactly what type of film you are looking for now.
I would estimate $$xxx for that."

Long silence. Then she said
"Wow! That is MUCH more expensive than I thought it would be.
Never mind. I'll just do the video myself."

I literally couldn't have made something this crazy up.
 
Last edited:
adam777 said:
What happened to the raw video? Bhphotovideo doesn't mention it in the Specs. I'm sure it was there before.... Are Canon being Canon and holding back features?
Click to expand...

The specs are getting updated online, but a lot of the specs are currently wrong and just being copied from the 1DX ii. Currently, the rumor I am seeing is 12bit RAW video at 5.4k but without DPAF.
 
adam777 said:
What happened to the raw video? Bhphotovideo doesn't mention it in the Specs. I'm sure it was there before.... Are Canon being Canon and holding back features?
Click to expand...
B&H doesn't have a full set of detailed specifications for the 1DX Mark III on their website yet, because Canon hasn't announced the full specs for the camera yet. Canon has mostly just announced a teaser so far, highlighting some features the camera will include.

Canon's website does mention RAW video recording here:
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...uct-showcases/cameras-and-lenses/1dx-mark-iii

Once Canon releases pricing and availability information along with more detailed specifications for the camera, I'm sure B&H will update their website accordingly.
 
cpreston said:
The specs are getting updated online, but a lot of the specs are currently wrong and just being copied from the 1DX ii. Currently, the rumor I am seeing is 12bit RAW video at 5.4k but without DPAF.
Click to expand...

...no DPAF ... it's still got to be a 100x better than the Komodo autofocus. I'm guessing we'll see soon enough.
 
Spec sheet released in Korea:

RAW 5472×2886 (59.94p/50.00p) approx. 2,600 Mbps

RAW 5472×2886 (29.97p/25.00p/24.00p/23.98p) approx. 1,800 Mbps

4K DCI (59.94p/50.00p)/ALL-I approx. 940 Mbps

4K DCI (59.94p/50.00p)/IPB approx. 230 Mbps

4K DCI (29.97p/25.00p/24.00p/23.98p)/ALL-I approx. 470 Mbps

4K DCI (29.97p/25.00p/24.00p/23.98p)/IPB approx. 120 Mbps

4K DCI Crop (59.94p/50.00p)/ALL-I approx. 940 Mbps

4K DCI Crop (59.94p/50.00p)/IPB approx. 230 Mbps

4K DCI Crop (29.97p/25.00p/24.00p/23.98p)/ALL-I approx. 470 Mbps

4K DCI Crop (29.97p/25.00p/24.00p/23.98p)/IPB approx. 120 Mbps

4K UHD (59.94p/50.00p)/ALL-I approx. 940 Mbps

4K UHD (59.94p/50.00p)/IPB approx. 230 Mbps

4K UHD (29.97p/25.00p)/ALL-I approx. 470 Mbps

4K UHD (29.97p/25.00p)/IPB approx. 120 Mbps

Full HD (119.9p/100.0p)/ALL-I approx. 360 Mbps

Full HD (59.94p/50.00p)/ALL-I approx. 180 Mbps

Full HD (59.94p/50.00p)/IPB approx. 60 Mbps

Full HD (29.97p/25.00p)/ALL-I approx. 90 Mbps

Full HD (29.97p/25.00p)/IPB approx. 30 Mbps

Full HD (29.97p/25.00p)/IPB (light) approx. 12 Mbps



*Canon Log is available for all recording modes.

*AF is not available when recording RAW or 4K 59.94p/50.00p (NTSC/PAL) movies.

*RAW is encoded using 12bit A/D conversion.

*10bit Canon Log is encoded with H.265/HEVC in YCbCr 4:2:2 and selectable ITU-R BT.709/BT.2020 color matrix.
 
I hope they mean "AF is not available" in only 4K DCI when recording 60p as the 1DX Mark II already does it in UHD.
 
It is like a sick game now. We all focus on what they did to cripple the thing as the price is pretty much the same as a C200. It will never end. Does Canon even offer an XLR module? The GH series XLR has been a huge hit. Would be tough to justify going back to Canon without this tool. I guess they do not care at some level.
 
I think this release is right on the cusp of RF lens mount considerations. The RF lenses are the future for Canon and unless one needs the action side of photography to be at world class levels, spending $6500 to lock into the older mount might be a bit of a concern. It is kind of like - come on Canon, make the switch already :) Should be the best camera they have ever made for photography. Too bad they do not favor the hybrid folks. (although there is a lot to like in the specs). After using the GH 5 for a year, I would not want to go back to any other non-optimized for video camera design like a DSLR.

The lines are drawn between the companies and they do a great job of not crossing them.
 
The pro R body is rumored to be released later this year, and it is likely to use about the same sensor as is on this 1DX III. The EOS R is basically a 5d IV that has been optimized for video so it is possible that the pro R will also be more geared toward hybrid shooters.
 
cpreston said:
The pro R body is rumored to be released later this year, and it is likely to use about the same sensor as is on this 1DX III. The EOS R is basically a 5d IV that has been optimized for video so it is possible that the pro R will also be more geared toward hybrid shooters.
Click to expand...

All the same video capabilities but without paying extra for the build quality would be an extremely interesting camera.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I think this release is right on the cusp of RF lens mount considerations. The RF lenses are the future for Canon and unless one needs the action side of photography to be at world class levels, spending $6500 to lock into the older mount might be a bit of a concern. It is kind of like - come on Canon, make the switch already :) Should be the best camera they have ever made for photography. Too bad they do not favor the hybrid folks. (although there is a lot to like in the specs). After using the GH 5 for a year, I would not want to go back to any other non-optimized for video camera design like a DSLR.

The lines are drawn between the companies and they do a great job of not crossing them.
Click to expand...

for canon to jump right to a pro mirrorless is making the assumption that converting L glass on their mirrorless is 100% equal to their DSLR's using native L. canon doesn't offer any really long tele glass for pro sports yet from what ive seen so it makes sense to put out another 1DX model as most people that are buying that camera are typically making money off of it so going forward without native glass is pretty sketchy to me and i wouldn't do it myself.

david
 
david_p said:
for canon to jump right to a pro mirrorless is making the assumption that converting L glass on their mirrorless is 100% equal to their DSLR's using native L. canon doesn't offer any really long tele glass for pro sports yet from what ive seen so it makes sense to put out another 1DX model as most people that are buying that camera are typically making money off of it so going forward without native glass is pretty sketchy to me and i wouldn't do it myself.

david
Click to expand...

For the very small market that this camera caters to it really doesn't make sense to make it RF yet since: it'd be like buying a new $6K body plus god knows how much more money in lenses. If they come out with a sports camera that is qual to or greater than this one in performance, then people might transition to it while keeping their EF glass and just using it adapted. But my prediction is that this will be a very slow transition because this is the most committed segment since the lens investment is so heavy.
 
I agree. I was mis-labelling the need to mirrorless for the 1 series for the rest of their lineup. Totally agree that somebody with a huge lens investment is not rooting for mirrorless!
 
IanTheM said:
For the very small market that this camera caters to ...
Click to expand...
Of course, Canon could have expanded it they way they did with 1D C - by making it a dual purpose camera. They still could succeed in it but, as Jaime mentioned at the top of this page, this doesn't seem to be a must upgrade from MKII and a lack of auto focus in Raw and 4K60p (the latter yet to be confirmed) will keep other potential users from buying it for video. Personally, I think they should have again made a 1D C (MKII/III) model but they are likely to release that one in RF as C100 MKIII simply because they need to have a sub-$5,000 video model in their lineup.
 
DLD said:
...simply because they need to have a sub-$5,000 video model in their lineup.
Click to expand...

Do they really? To me it seems they're pretty happy having very nice >$5000 cameras for pros, and sub-par cheap-ish DSLR offerings that just work for youtubers.

They launched the 90D last summer and I thought it was five years late for what it offered (it's basically a GH4 competitor). They gave it away to lots of very young vlogger and youtubers (kids under 18) and got exposure for the thing. I still don't know if they'll just keep on using their phones instead of carrying around a DSLR, but in my mind, that's it, that's their strategy: they're going after youtube kids who just want to see their face while they record and files that look good straight out of the camera. I won't be buying such a thing... and they don't care what *I* do.
 
Samuel H said:
Do they really? To me it seems they're pretty happy having very nice >$5000 cameras for pros, and sub-par cheap-ish DSLR offerings that just work for youtubers...
Click to expand...
Hypothetically speaking, anyone can make a RX-100 size camera with a decent zoom for about $500 - it could even be a dual-triple lens/sensor model like any mobile device - but, to me, the entire photo-video industry is looking at itself as doomed to extinction and just trying to squeeze out the last dollar of profit before it goes bust.

A related development will be taking place in your neck of the woods next month - the Mobile World Congress. Judging from the early leaks, smartphones will deliver higher resolution than the medium format cameras. And zoom. And 8K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top