Canon 1DX Mark III

stoneinapond said:
So you take a marketing ploy as fact on an unreleased camera. Interesting.....
Click to expand...

I've been posting those badge screenshots for about 5 years. lol

All of the hot cameras receive them (whether they are $1295 or $6499) at one point or another, but I guess this particular marketing ploy you speak of is extra brilliant...it's over my head.
 
This is like an opening weekend at the box office - it pulls a lot of sales into a very short time frame. Then it drops back into its average after a month or so out (there's no need to occupy a given theater here, it's all done over the phone to an unlimited capacity).

I posted car sales for reference. The outgoing Corvette C7 numbers have been so dormant, the dealers accumulated about five months worth of inventory on their lots. The total units moved hit the high of 34,839 in 2014 when C7 was introduced and dropped by about a half in 2019, when C8 was announced. But C8 itself almost sold out its 2020 allotment of ~ 30,000 already.
 
Just had a quick play with it at Canon in Osaka. The new AF-ON button is fantastic and AF in 1080P120 is a bizarrely unique selling point.

I just need to find that 800,000yen I left somewhere
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
I've been posting those badge screenshots for about 5 years. lol

All of the hot cameras receive them (whether they are $1295 or $6499) at one point or another, but I guess this particular marketing ploy you speak of is extra brilliant...it's over my head.
Click to expand...


Preorders are a thing... it’s probably all automated scripts rather than some marketing technique
 
JanusCC said:
Preorders are a thing... it’s probably all automated scripts rather than some marketing technique
Click to expand...

No doubt. And whether they adjust for cancellations, we don't know.

But the brain trust at B&H isn't relying on this practice to move products. I'm sure it's a nice little validation for some people, but all of the popular cameras receive the badges in the first few days (a7III, X-T3, GH5/s, EOS R, etc.) and then they disappear as the orders slow down.

Rare cameras like the Pocket 4K hold the #1 seller badge for years (more because of its price than anything else).
 
While the 1DX III rolling shutter looks heavier than the 1DX II (from handheld examples seen on YT), the 1DX III has an option for the same ~1.3x crop. Perhaps in crop mode the RS is the same or better than the 1DX II.

The only real selling point for me and the 1DX III is smaller 4K video files, e.g. 170Mbps H.265 vs 500Mbps MJPEG (my 4K PC box can handle 4K H.265 in real-time without transcoding). The 1DX II 4K is OK for YT, I'd expect the 1DX III's 4K in FF to be decently oversampled to have more detail with less aliasing/moire (the 1DX II does alias, however in my experience has been much higher frequency/finer vs. aliasing on e.g. the C300 II). 1DX II 4K 422 MJPEG is much better than EOS R 4K 420 H.264 (including 400Mbps ALL-I). This appears to be due to Canon intentionally dropping data/bits to reduce quality vs. any technical reasons, since H.264 ALL-I is a much more modern and efficient codec vs. MJPEG (it's also not 422 vs. 420 making the difference: luminance data/detail/texture has been reduced).

Canon's digital IS on the EOS R works pretty well for YT/IG level production (higher level you'd want a gimbal); expect same kind of quality on 1DX III. Sure it's a bit softer however YTubers seem to forget about post sharpening (which easily makes up for the IS softening (best to keep internal sharpening off or near zero)). In comparison, Sony's FF IBIS is pretty useless. Panasonic's FF IBIS is better, however does the warpy thing with wide angles. Digital IS should also be able to correct RS.

I much prefer my custom (Filmic Skin) profile vs. CLog: unfortunate that it doesn't appear possible to use log luminance with custom picture styles. That said, on the EOS R CLog doesn't provide much more detail in the highlights vs. my custom profile (zero advantage in terms of white clip; slight edge in color retention before going white. When skin tones matter the choice is obvious: don't use CLog).

Checking ebay for sold items, the 1DX II is going for ~$3500 (good) to ~$4200 (mint) used (I'd sell mine somewhere in the middle).
 
jcs said:
While the 1DX III rolling shutter looks heavier than the 1DX II (from handheld examples seen on YT), the 1DX III has an option for the same ~1.3x crop. Perhaps in crop mode the RS is the same or better than the 1DX II.

The only real selling point for me and the 1DX III is smaller 4K video files, e.g. 170Mbps H.265 vs 500Mbps MJPEG (my 4K PC box can handle 4K H.265 in real-time without transcoding). The 1DX II 4K is OK for YT, I'd expect the 1DX III's 4K in FF to be decently oversampled to have more detail with less aliasing/moire (the 1DX II does alias, however in my experience has been much higher frequency/finer vs. aliasing on e.g. the C300 II). 1DX II 4K 422 MJPEG is much better than EOS R 4K 420 H.264 (including 400Mbps ALL-I). This appears to be due to Canon intentionally dropping data/bits to reduce quality vs. any technical reasons, since H.264 ALL-I is a much more modern and efficient codec vs. MJPEG (it's also not 422 vs. 420 making the difference: luminance data/detail/texture has been reduced).

Canon's digital IS on the EOS R works pretty well for YT/IG level production (higher level you'd want a gimbal); expect same kind of quality on 1DX III. Sure it's a bit softer however YTubers seem to forget about post sharpening (which easily makes up for the IS softening (best to keep internal sharpening off or near zero)). In comparison, Sony's FF IBIS is pretty useless. Panasonic's FF IBIS is better, however does the warpy thing with wide angles. Digital IS should also be able to correct RS.

I much prefer my custom (Filmic Skin) profile vs. CLog: unfortunate that it doesn't appear possible to use log luminance with custom picture styles. That said, on the EOS R CLog doesn't provide much more detail in the highlights vs. my custom profile (zero advantage in terms of white clip; slight edge in color retention before going white. When skin tones matter the choice is obvious: don't use CLog).

Checking ebay for sold items, the 1DX II is going for ~$3500 (good) to ~$4200 (mint) used (I'd sell mine somewhere in the middle).
Click to expand...


so what ur basically saying is, if you make the 1dx III your new A-cam, there are no real clear easy winners in the canon line up for a B/C cam for recording 4k. EOS-R has a crazy crop in 4k, and the footage is ugly with a HIGHER bit rate than the mIII. Two used 1dxmkii's still have a crop but then ur stuck with the giant bitrate again...
 
Silenkiller said:
so what ur basically saying is, if you make the 1dx III your new A-cam, there are no real clear easy winners in the canon line up for a B/C cam for recording 4k. EOS-R has a crazy crop in 4k, and the footage is ugly with a HIGHER bit rate than the mIII. Two used 1dxmkii's still have a crop but then ur stuck with the giant bitrate again...
Click to expand...

Since I'm using the 1DX II mostly in the studio now (for video; still use it as my A cam for stills), the EOS R has proven to be good enough in 4K, and even 1080p is fine for close/mid shots (wider angle / shallower DOF; a little post sharpen after upscale to 4K and it's OK). I haven't mixed 1DX II with EOS R, however while the 1DX II is clearly better, for YT or IG delivery the cameras could be used together as A/B just fine. The 16-35 F2.8 II works well on the EOS R in 4K, and if wider is needed, I picked up the 10-18 for $199 (deep DOF lens). For folks going for Netflix/AppleTV/Amazon/Cable/Theatrical, two 1DX II's would indeed be better if there's a budget for it.

At this point if we didn't need decent AF, the only cameras that interest me are FF Alexas and maybe the Sony Venice. C500 II is too big- even the 1DX III is pushing it; prefer EOS R size at this point. It's technically possible to make an EOS R sized camera without a fan with killer battery life and very high quality 6K => 4K resampling if camera manufacturers would step up and use e.g. 7nm chips (e.g. as used by iPhones). They continue to give us old clunky tech at high prices while phones continue to get more powerful and ultimately cheaper. The 1DX III is using smaller process chips than before- stated 300x more powerful and using less battery, so that's a step in the right direction.

The Sony A7S III still hasn't been announced... the 1DX III looks to be the least bad option for the near future, especially for those with lots of EF lenses. If the Red Komodo has decent DPAF/PDAF , that might be interesting (RF mount). Otherwise perhaps Z Cam will get some form of phase detect AF in a future FF camera. What remains to be seen is 1DX II vs. 1DX III reviews so we can compare resolution/detail, aliasing, DR, RS, noise etc. When shooting for in-camera color and within the camera's DR, the 1DX III doesn't have much advantage over the 1DX II (which is most of our current shoots). Smaller files for the 1DX III is very appealing though.
 
Agreed. Smaller 4K files from the 1DX Mark III, better low light performance and better DPAF are all very tempting.

If it wasn't for the 30-minute video recording limit I would have already pre-ordered two of them. As it is now, I have to give this a lot of thought. For long-form events, I would have to use external recorders, which I dislike as I prefer to keep the camera setup as compact and uncluttered as possible. But if the image quality is significantly higher than what I'm currently getting with the Mark II, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Patiently waiting for reviews...
 
1DX II 4K example shot within the DR of the camera (Filmic Skin picture style maximizes usable DR around skin tones). Other than smaller file sizes, it's not clear if the 1DX III can do better for this kind of shot: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ssions&p=1986813233&viewfull=1#post1986813233 .

EOS R 4K shot with RF 24-105 F4L and level 1 digital IS: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ssions&p=1986813238&viewfull=1#post1986813238 .

Perhaps a wide landscape shot where 5.5K => 4K resampling could show better real detail and less chance of aliasing of the 1DX III vs. the 1DX II. For alias-free 4K and full detail, we need 4096*1.5 = 6.1K, however 5.5K with proper OLPF (which Canon states is all new + designed to provide more detail) should still provide nice 4K, with more usable detail vs. the 1DX II (and hopefully less aliasing on fine at-the-limit detail).
 
Last edited:
the real draw for me to the canon eco system with the 1dx mk3 is 1. 4k60p finally on FF, 2. the smaller file sizes.. i usually have a lot of 1 hour events so 500 mb/s is just insane for something like that. 3. canon color science.. id like to simplify my workflow a bit and be able to cc faster with less work than say BRAW that im currently using.
 
i did a side by side comparison with my blackmagic 4k vs a panny s1h and its close but in the highlights/whites/skin something is just missing.. the panny makes stuff look almost like plastic. its like there are no details in the fabric and stuff.. its weird
 
Silenkiller said:
i did a side by side comparison with my blackmagic 4k vs a panny s1h and its close but in the highlights/whites/skin something is just missing.. the panny makes stuff look almost like plastic. its like there are no details in the fabric and stuff.. its weird
Click to expand...

That is not a very good endorsement of the S1H and not the only one I've read. It's not a bad image at all but it does seem to be missing something. Maybe the NR is not calibrated to make skin look better?
 
All cameras have their strengths and weaknesses.

We can't properly evaluate your screenshot without having much more information about everything (not that you're asking), but your concern appears to be related to overexposure and/or dynamic range (besides detail).
 
Silenkiller said:
...id like to simplify my workflow a bit and be able to cc faster with less work than say BRAW that im currently using.
Click to expand...

Make sure you have the right hardware.

For me, with a 12 core Cheesegrater Mac Pro and a Vega Frontier Edition 16GB, going to 10bit HEVC would increase the burdon of my post workflow many times compared to 6K .braw.

You need pretty current hardware to be able to accelerate 10bit HEVC.

I have a hard time imagining a better codec than braw, currently.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Make sure you have the right hardware.

For me, with a 12 core Cheesegrater Mac Pro and a Vega Frontier Edition 16GB, going to 10bit HEVC would increase the burdon of my post workflow many times compared to 6K .braw.

You need pretty current hardware to be able to accelerate 10bit HEVC.

I have a hard time imagining a better codec than braw, currently.
Click to expand...

What would make braw better than red or arri, or even canon raw?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top