I see some spec sheets listing USB 2.0, why not 3.0 ??

Perhaps because not all computers have USB 3.0

I think if a USB3 device is connected to a USB2 computer (or the other way round) it will still work - but at the speed of the lowest device. There's nothing to lose by making something USB3 capable, but there will only be a gain when connected to another USB3 device.

(Edited)

I couldn't find anything that specified which version of USB will be in the camera. Is there a link to official info on that?

It is correct that USB3 is backward compatible. I do hope they go with USB3. IMO, if they would go with USB2 it would be an unfortunate design choice for a top-of-the-line camera. I've become totally spoiled by being able to dump a card full of files from CF card to computer in just a matter of seconds using USB3, rather than many minutes. If you don't have a USB3 capable computer, then you'll just downgrade to USB2 speed. From the buyer point of view, no reason not to have the much faster industry standard interface on the camera.

BUT, since it has gigabit ethernet, I could certainly overlook the USB thing!

Till then it is wild speculation about the reason for dropping a feature, unless Canon has clarified it.

A flip-out LCD has never been a feature of the 1-series body. Therefore Canon has not "dropped a feature." They have chosen not to bring it over from their prosumer EOS 60D or their consumer Rebel T3i, just as they have not brought over, say, EF-S lens compatibility. There are perfectly valid reasons for these decisions. It is not "wild speculation" to explain why a certain feature has not been added to the 1-series.

Canon has indeed dropped some features from the EOS-1D X, such as SDHC / SDXC card compatibility and a few other things.However, a flip-out LCD has not been dropped since it was never there on the 1-series to begin with.

When you say "..you have to think beyond what *you* want ..." that means half of the people can't express their views here? Communicating in forums like this where we don't have the benefit of watching the gestures of others, sentences like these can always be interpreted in a negative manner. When a person makes a post here saying "feature X should be on camera Y," they need to be prepared for honest answers that might not have been what they wanted to see. My reply suggesting an alternative point of view to consider the bigger picture regarding feature sets on a certain product is just that -- a suggestion.

On this site it is a very firm policy to *always* assume the good faith and good intentions of your fellow members here. That's not a suggestion, it's a rule. Hope this helps,

One more comment about the flip-out LCD question. Just to get this issue settled and to put an end to any guessing or speculation, I spoke with Erik Allin of CUSA this morning and asked him if adding a flip-out LCD feature was ever under consideration for the EOS-1D X. He said thatthey had thought about it, but ultimately Canon did not have a practical way at this time to insure the weather-tight integrity of the 1D X at the LCD hinge points, nor were they confident about its durability in extreme environments, therefore the flip-out feature was purposefully not introduced to the 1D X. Which pretty much confirms what I had been saying all along.

Above all other feature sets including video, the 1-series bodies are first and foremost weather-tight and able to withstand ten inches of rain per hour. Canon refuses to compromise that primary 1-series feature. Hope this helps,

The 1DX is the perfect PJ DSLR. Actually, it's a Nikon D3s clone with a few more pixels, but that's fine for me. What I don't like is that it's €2,000 more than the D3s, I hope the street price will finally be close to the €4.5k mark.

As for video, this 1DX could have been THE game changer, if only had implemented a very simple thing.

Let's be honest, no DSLR will make a video/film camera ever: Video codecs are never good enough, no XLRs, no 48v, no good preamps, no tiltable TFT or EVFs, no SMPTE I/O, they require external audio recorder and somewhat laborious post sync, etc, etc.

But ALL of the above could have been solved with a very simple move: a clean 422 10bit HDMI out (preferably SDI due to its locking connector).

The 1DX with a clean video out would have been "disruptive technology". THE perfect PJ DSLR and THE perfect small FF film cam, all in one.


If only Canon was Apple. What a missed opportunity. Yeah, there's 3rd November with S35 videocam and all that, but still, a missed opportunity.


Hopefully Nikon understands this better with the upcoming D4. They've already set the trend in DSLR with the D3s, which Canon has finally cloned (dismissing his very own APS-H 1.3 crop and Megapixel race, and caring for high ISOs instead)

I'm a fan if a lot of cameras, especially the old 4x5's. But I have to disagree about the D3S clone if for no other reason than an extra 6mp of space for cropping. I know there is a pixel peeper ananolgy but 12.1 in this day and age? 720 video, 5 minute limit. Not to mention we have not seen the continual increase in image quality and noise reduction. I am sure that the Nikon is excellent, but I would not consider them equal until we see what Canon has produced.

D3s
Product Highlights
12.1 Mp FX (36x23.9mm) CMOS Sensor
RAW/JPEGs & 720p HD Video @ 24fps
ISO Sensitivity Up To ISO 102,400
Built Tough, Fully Weathersealed
3" 920,000-Dot LCD with Live View
Buffers Up to 48 RAW or 130 large JPEGs
In-Camera RAW Processing
Compatible With Most Nikkor Optics
Dual CF Memory Card Slots
Up to 4200 Exposures per Battery Charge

Well, to me and to many others, the 1Dx certifies that "Nikon was right", therefore my "D3s clone" wording.

With the 1D3 and 1D4 Canon was bleeding pros to Nikon with the D3/s. Why? Because Pro PJs found out they didn't want a strange crop that transformed all they focals, they didn't care for the MPx race but they did care very much about being able to shoot at high ISOs without any noise. To top it all, they wanted a simple to use but effective and fast AF.

ALL the above is what Canon has copied/assimilated.

Many years ago Canon redefined DSLRs and Nikon was totally lost with several dull cameras. Canon has been sleeping ever since (except for the surprising 5D2 movie-phenomenon), while Nikon truly got to work.

In the end, competition makes us the winners.

...Pro PJs found out they didn't want a strange crop that transformed all they focals, they didn't care for the MPx race but they did care very much about being able to shoot at high ISOs without any noise. To top it all, they wanted a simple to use but effective and fast AF.

I disagree that the 1D X is a D3/s clone.

I agree that Nikon was winning the noise reduction and AF battles and that Canon improved the 1D X in these areas. I wrote long ago (regarding the 5D3) that the only certainties about the next generation cam is better NR and AF, since those are two photo-oriented features where Canon was behind. (Nine points for the 5D2? Really?)

I don't see it as a clone, copied, or assimilated. It's a classic horsepower war. When Intel makes a faster CPU, AMD needs to respond. For some time, point and shoots fought a megapixel war. Nikon raced ahead in the AF point war and Canon has had to respond.

Hopefully, the NR and AF features aren't a mere copy but raise the bar.

And hopefully, Nikon will take the video feature battle seriously and do some leapfrogging of their own. :)

Above all other feature sets including video, the 1-series bodies are first and foremost weather-tight and able to withstand ten inches of rain per hour. Canon refuses to compromise that primary 1-series feature. Hope this helps,

No one who hasn't shot a 1D camera will ever get why it is a "pro" camera and nothing else in Canon's line up is. I miss mine... :(

On another note... 12fps means you could just shoot strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense...

On another note... 12fps means you could just shoot strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense...

LOL!

"What did that character just say?"

"I'm not sure, all I heard was 'clack clack clack clack clack' the whole time." ;)

No one who hasn't shot a 1D camera will ever get why it is a "pro" camera and nothing else in Canon's line up is. I miss mine... :(

On another note... 12fps means you could just shoot strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense...

Nothing new hey? Maybe you will remember having seen this movie Dylan, I think it was posted here.

Between You and Me - dir. by Patryk Rebisz - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5cJse8_Zk&search=%22Between%20You%20and%20Me%22)

Shot on a Canon 20D. Perhaps the first DSLR movie ever, years before Vince Laforet's Reverie!

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride was shot with a pile of Canon EOS-1Ds MARK II cameras (with Nikon lenses) and released in 2005 (shot in 2004, I presume). Also, edited on Final Cut Pro, fwiw. Years before "Reverie".

You are right Ryan, I stand corrected. But the example I linked was shot in real time, like a live action movie, using the continuous shooting mode of the 20D (5fps). This is not the same thing as stop motion animation.

I should have said first live action movie.

Nothing new hey? Maybe you will remember having seen this movie Dylan, I think i was posted here.

Between You and Me - dir. by Patryk Rebisz - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-5cJse8_Zk&search=%22Between%20You%20and%20Me%22)

Shot on a Canon 20D. Perhaps the first DSLR movie ever, years before Vince Laforet's Reverie!

I know it. They beat me to the punch by a year. In 2006 I shot a film called Postcards on a 1DmkII at 8fps, so I'll claim the 2nd live action film shot on a DSLR. :) I don't have it online, but it ran through the festival circuit. At 8fps you start to forget it is still photos.

The 1DX is the perfect PJ DSLR. Actually, it's a Nikon D3s clone with a few more pixels, but that's fine for me. What I don't like is that it's €2,000 more than the D3s, I hope the street price will finally be close to the €4.5k mark.

As for video, this 1DX could have been THE game changer, if only had implemented a very simple thing.

Let's be honest, no DSLR will make a video/film camera ever: Video codecs are never good enough, no XLRs, no 48v, no good preamps, no tiltable TFT or EVFs, no SMPTE I/O, they require external audio recorder and somewhat laborious post sync, etc, etc.

But ALL of the above could have been solved with a very simple move: a clean 422 10bit HDMI out (preferably SDI due to its locking connector).

The 1DX with a clean video out would have been "disruptive technology". THE perfect PJ DSLR and THE perfect small FF film cam, all in one.


If only Canon was Apple. What a missed opportunity. Yeah, there's 3rd November with S35 videocam and all that, but still, a missed opportunity.


Hopefully Nikon understands this better with the upcoming D4. They've already set the trend in DSLR with the D3s, which Canon has finally cloned (dismissing his very own APS-H 1.3 crop and Megapixel race, and caring for high ISOs instead)

If the quoted 350+ megabit bitrate is confirm, I don't think that external hdmi recording is that necessary. Most external recorders are compressing to proress HQ 220 mbit. Apart from the uncompressed recorder, which need ssd and an insane amount of memory (about 660 megabyte per hour) if the All-I is 10 bit and 4.2.2 then it makes external recorders a surplus.

H264 is 8bit 420 so do not get your hopes up. Only the AVC-Intra by Panasonic and HDCAM SR by Sony are 422-444 10bit-12bit which use AVC encoding. H264 is just one encoding scheme that comes from AVC and the only H264 scheme is 8bit 420. Canon states that the 1DX uses H264 and will be easily imported and edited by current NLEs but none support HDCAM and only a few support AVC-Intra natively. Canon would have had to make a new AVC coding scheme in order to get 422 & 10bit and nothing stated anywhere hints at new AVC encoding by Canon.

I'll add one thing... IMHO no clean HDMI out was an oversight on this camera. Everything else is cherry.

12fps means you could just shoot strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense...

Sounds like me! But....
? number of shutter movements divided by (12 x 60 x 60) = hours of video per shutter replacement, or camera(?) Please someone, the economics?

Don't get me wrong, I think the specs are nice. But without MAJOR tech changes like RAW video or some other vastly improved codec (that split one isn't doing it for me), I don't see why people are talking about trading in their 7D's and 5D mkII's and adding money for this. I've recorded well past 12 minutes before on my 550d/T2i. So I'm not sold on it yet especially with that $6,000 price tag. To even the trained eye, we wont see that much of an improvement in video quality. Yes the full frame is nice, but I'm always skeptical of that angle. Not to be a Debbie Downer, but it seems like Canon is becoming like Apple by releasing new gear EVERY year that is just a tad bit of a step up from the previous and they act like the Messiah arrived.

__________________
James Davis - Proud owner of a 7D and 550D.

Look here H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) H.264 has many specification starting from 8 bit 4.2.0 to 14 bit 4.4.4 so there are much more variation than you think. As Canon don't want to say what it is exactly, we can think that they have not decided on it yet. Perhaps it is time for people to start to lobby Canon for at least 4.2.2 and 10 bit.

If the quoted 350+ megabit bitrate is confirm, I don't think that external hdmi recording is that necessary. Most external recorders are compressing to proress HQ 220 mbit. Apart from the uncompressed recorder, which need ssd and an insane amount of memory (about 660 megabyte per hour) if the All-I is 10 bit and 4.2.2 then it makes external recorders a surplus.
I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. Clean 10 bit 422 out means you can plug the DSLR to a PIX240 or similar device, then all the issues as a mediocre videocam are solved. You then would get professional preamps, XLR, 48v, audio monitoring, video loop and conections for an EVF and 17" with zebras, focus assist, waveforms... etc, along with the chance to record the video signal into whatever codec you might prefer.

Look here H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) H.264 has many specification starting from 8 bit 4.2.0 to 14 bit 4.4.4 so there are much more variation than you think. As Canon don't want to say what it is exactly, we can think that they have not decided on it yet. Perhaps it is time for people to start to lobby Canon for at least 4.2.2 and 10 bit.

If you want any NLE to be able to edit the footage, it must be a currently used H264 scheme which means that it will NOT be anything new such as 10bit 422 which only exists with Panasonic and they aren't sharing their tech with anyone.

If you want any NLE to be able to edit the footage, it must be a currently used H264 scheme which means that it will NOT be anything new such as 10bit 422 which only exists with Panasonic and they aren't sharing their tech with anyone.

NLE's can't update? It is ~5 month to release, we (atleast I) don't know if Canon have send file protocol to NLE's company already.

After a fascinating couple of years with the 1DMKIV, including shooting three network scripted pilots with the camera, I find myself only mildly interested in reading about the capabilities of the 1D X. The uber-low light capacity is wild indeed, and I'm glad to hear the moire issue is improved (the must punishing artifact of this generation of cameras). However I'm incredibly ready to move on from the form factor of DSLR for film-style shooting with all of the compromise therein. The physical requirements of still shooting vs motion picture are so different, it's hard to imagine a camera that can nail both, so for me I'd rather keep them separate. The day will soon come where I sell my 1DMKIV and may be a slightly misty event, but I look forward to what is forthcoming and having the 1D join the A1, DVX and XL1 in the tail lights.

Well put, lead on Charles.

Cheers.

But without MAJOR tech changes like RAW video or some other vastly improved codec (that split one isn't doing it for me), I don't see why people are talking about trading in their 7D's and 5D mkII's and adding money for this.

I would have to say that the major reasons to upgrade from the 7D or 5D Mk. II are for the photographic
improvements more than anything else, plus the big differences in the 1-series body compared to those
smaller cameras. The main step-ups of the 1-series body are the all-weather housing (it can withstand
ten inches of rain per hour), the battery, the larger optical viewfinder, the longer operational life, etc.

As far as the video is concerned, if all you're interested in is the HD video recording capability and you're
not otherwise interested in graduating to a 1-series body, then I would recommend that you wait for the
possibility of the video improvements to trickle down to the next iterations of the smaller 5D and 7D
cameras (and hopefully the next generations of the 60D and Rebel series).

The price-over-durability factor puts the $6800 price of the 1D X at less than twice the cost of the $1600
7D (in photographic terms, that is). If you divide the MSRP by the guaranteed shutter life, here's what
you get for the 7D vs. the 1D X:

7D cost to durability: $1,600 / 150,000 shutter actuations = just over one cent per click
1D X cost to durability: $6,800 / 400,000 shutter actuations = just under two cents per click

So that's probably a major consideration for some folks, the fact that they can move up to the flagship,
top-of-the-line camera for less than twice the overall cost.

I've recorded well past 12 minutes before on my 550d/T2i.
There is no such thing as a 12-minute limit on any of these cameras including the Rebel. Instead there
is a 4GB clip size limit. Sometimes that can manifest itself as less than 12 minutes, and sometimes you
can record for a lot longer than 12 minutes, it all depends on what the camera is pointed at when
it's recording video.

So I'm not sold on it yet especially with that $6,000 price tag.
It's important to realize that this full-frame 1-series camera is actually *less expensive* than the full-frame
1-series model it replaces, which was the 1Ds Mk. III. You have to compare like with like. Not everyone
can justify the upgrade to a 1-series camera... I know I can't. I just don't do enough photography, and
I'm certainly not a professional photographer anyway.

To even the trained eye, we wont see that much of an improvement in video quality.
Of the two major improvements in the video quality, only one is a visual thing that you can see, which is a
greatly reduced incidence of moire compared to the 5D Mk. II. The other major improvement in video has to
do with the way it is encoded, where the difference is important to the ease of editing (by the addition of
intra-frame compression).

Yes the full frame is nice, but I'm always skeptical of that angle.
Sorry but I don't know what you mean by that...

... it seems like Canon is becoming like Apple by releasing new gear EVERY year that is just a tad bit of a step up from the previous and they act like the Messiah arrived.
I don't understand this remark at all. You have to realize that it's been *more than four years* since Canon
announced a full-frame Digital SLR in a 1-series body (the most recent one being the 1Ds Mk. III way back
in August of 2007).

They haven't done anything like this in more than four years. Most folks I know who shoot with 1-series
cameras would say that four years for a new full-frame camera makes the 1D X long overdue. And compared
to the 1Ds Mk. III that it's replacing, or even the 1D Mk. IV for that matter, the improvements in the 1D X are
far, far beyond being a "tad bit of a step up." Earlier this week when I talked to Erik Allin about the 1D X, he
said they had kept only two parts from the 1Ds Mk. III for the new camera: the body cap that covers the lens
mount, and the viewfinder housing. It's a completely different machine than the previous 1D / 1Ds models.

Seems like camera features and quality on many levels are in a state of great change and improvement. A good/bad time to buy? I'm waiting because with new cameras coming to market that are geared more for video I don't think I want to deal with dslr's. I think in the near future they will be losing their position and popularity. Granted their cheaper price may prove me wrong.

I want a video camera again, but I love the lens options dslr's brought to the table.

Someone said in another post, "this is a great time to be a film maker". They also said if we spent as much time on scripts as we do on cameras our films would improve greatly.

Monty

Same thing happened to me. I also hope the 5dIII has most or all of the new video capabilities.

Pat

It can't. The 1DX can read two vertical pixels simultaneously. A non 1 series won't have two processors to do that function.

Canon has stated that this camera will have the best video of their DSLRs. But this is the end of DSLR purchased for just video, so it doesn't matter. The strange time of shooting commercial high def with a DSLR is coming to an end in the next few weeks. Will make good future stories for the grandkids.

A non 1 series won't have two processors to do that function.

Well, the EOS 7D is a non-1-series body that has two processors, but it doesn't do *that* function, no.

On another note... 12fps means you could just shoot strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense...

Smart thinking: 18K RAW future-proofing!

LOL!

"What did that character just say?"

"I'm not sure, all I heard was 'clack clack clack clack clack' the whole time." ;)


The main step-ups of the 1-series body are the all-weather housing (it can withstand ten inches of rain per hour),....

You aint going to hear any 'clack clack clack at 10 inches of rain per hour. Though you could have silent movie or voice-over. What concerns me is the combination of rolling shutter plus lens wiper effect.

The price-over-durability factor puts the $6800 price of the 1D X at less than twice the cost of the $1600
7D (in photographic terms, that is). If you divide the MSRP by the guaranteed shutter life, here's what
you get for the 7D vs. the 1D X:

7D cost to durability: $1,600 / 150,000 shutter actuations = just over one cent per click
1D X cost to durability: $6,800 / 400,000 shutter actuations = just under two cents per
click.

The following link sheds some light on shutter life:
TikiRobot!, Mai Tais and Blinky Lights, Ahoy! Real-World Average Shutter Life for Canon 5D and 1Ds mkII (http://www.tikirobot.net/wp/2008/01/18/real-world-average-shutter-life-for-canon-5d-and-1ds-mkii/)

With stop-motion at 12 fps, rated shutter life should give 9 hours of shooting; and average shutter life 18 hours. Shutter replacement might cost $300 to $400. Cost per click being much much much cheaper than Chris suggests. That means I can afford to include a crate of shutters when I buy the camera.

I have to agree with Chris. I would even go further: The 1D X beats the lower price lower spec Canon DSLRs on cost of ownership; robustness; and quality of output.

Judging cost by the click is mileading, especially if your primary interest is video. First if you going to shoot 12p video, with 1DX, it's better to opt for 14p who doesn't wear the shutter at all. Second, a pro photographer, even with digital cameras, on average, doesn't exceed 100 shots per day. Meaning around 30-40000 clicks per year. Thus even the shutter of a 7d, will outlast the product circle of the camera. For video oriented users the shutter life is irrelevant.
Regarding the 1DX, I think Canon's move to end the pixel war, has to do with the recent affordability of medium format cameras. It has tailored the new model more as an action camera so maybe will enter the studio market with a larger format zillion pixel sensor.
The video capabilities are optimised for the video journalist and event videographer. With such high iso, they can stop down and achieve DOF comparable with a 2/3 camera, if they want. They will also benefit substantially with new multicam features.
I believe 1DX biggest asset, is the quality of the photographs it takes. Something we have to wait 5 months to affirm.

Second, a pro photographer, even with digital cameras, on average, doesn't exceed 100 shots per day.

Sorry but that's way, way off by a factor of ten. A photojournalist can *easily* shoot 1,000 images
per day... easily. I'm not a photojournalist and I'm certainly not a pro, but I just shot an airshow
(requiring high-speed burst mode) two weekends ago... I wound up with more than 1,000 clicks
on Saturday and over 1,750 on Sunday, and I thought I was being conservative.

I wound up with more than 1,000 clicks
on Saturday and over 1,750 on Sunday, and I thought I was being conservative.

Some people were born for video :)

Chris, what was the shutter speed on the 2 that are belly to belly ?? I don't have my CS4 installed so I cant get EXIF

Some people were born for video :)Baaah

Chris, what was the shutter speed on the 2 that are belly to belly ?? I don't have my CS4 installed so I cant get EXIFDon, you mean the one where they're canopy to canopy? That was 1/5000 at f/8. Which is not the correct combination, by the way (told you I'm not a photographer).

Chris, I have written "on average", implying on a yearly base and taking into account all possible photo assignments. You don't shoot everyday 1000 pics all year long. Furthermore not all photographers are photo journalists. Not to forget that nowadays most pros have more than one body, because with digital, changing lenses can be risky, due to dust accumulation on the sensor. I believe my number is valid.

I didn't fully explain myself as to why I think your numbers are so far off, Emmanuel. Prior to the 1D X, there was the 1D line and the 1Ds line. The photographer who bought the 1D (not 1Ds) series camera chose it primarily for its frame rate -- its 10fps burst mode. The other big selling point is its all-weather body, but the frame rate is a primary feature. The 1D camera (and its Nikon equivalent) is selected by sports photographers and photojournalists precisely because of its burst mode. I'll bet that you have no more hard data than I do, but I stand by my assertion that any photographer working in news or sports commonly finds himself or herself easily shooting 1,000+ frames on a single day's assignment on a fairly regular basis.

I have known for many years a pro photographer in my town who is contracted to shoot local school events at a nearby university and a local boarding school. I've seen his wall comps, where he shows in the school hall several easels worth of index prints from which to order copies... an event such as a graduation ceremony that lasted a few hours yields close to 1,000 images if not more.

I can live with the assumption that a studio photographer using a 1Ds may not shoot more than 100 photos per session, but I'm pretty sure there are more 1D bodies getting a regular workout than there are 1Ds bodies used only on occasion.

Also, with regard to the 1D X for "video only," I have said before in this thread that anyone who is interested only in shooting video, and not taking photographs, should avoid the 1D X since in all probability the new video features of the 1D X will most likely find their way into the next generations of the smaller and considerably less expensive 5D and 7D bodies (and hopefully even the Rebel as well)... even though the difference in the cost-per-click ratio is not very great.

The 1D X is first and foremost a photographer's camera. Therefore cost-per-click is indeed the correct way to look at price vs. durability.

Regarding the 1DX, I think Canon's move to end the pixel war, has to do with the recent affordability of medium format cameras. It has tailored the new model more as an action camera so maybe will enter the studio market with a larger format zillion pixel sensor.


I think the 1D line is only merged temporarily. For 2011 Canon had to chose between making a high speed/ med res or a med. speed/ high res camera. They chose the 1Dx to hold onto an important group of pro shooters. The specs of the 1Dx kill the 1DsIII.
I don't think merging the "1" line is so much an overriding strategy as where they've ended up at this point in time.
They probably have a heck of a lot in design and production right now. As a result perhaps we are not seeing an ideal product release strategy on high-end still photography. We'll see what they've been up to in the next few weeks. It's likely the very early 1Dx announcement is to pacify pro still shooters ahead of the pro video targeted product about to arrive.

I think the 1Ds line is definetely dead and for a reason.

Pro PJs/Sports shooters need a very rugged, weather-resistant, dual-card, good at high ISOs and very fast camera, with just as many pixels to cover a double page/A3 but not more.

On the other hand, those that need a lot of resolution for higher-end advertising or HQ prints, shoot in MUCH more controlled environments and are often limited to the speed of their strobes, being therefore wasting all the features of a 1D body.

Canon might have experienced this first hand. As the 5D2 came out, mostly everybody stop buying the 1Ds, as they didn't need all those features, just a decent, high MPx FF camera.

Hasselblads are neither weather proof nor fast.

Next high-res Canon will be a 5D/3D, with more or less video features.

During my briefing of the 1D X, Canon USA said themselves that the 1Ds is indeed no more. It's
gone, permanently (except for whatever unsold stock remains in retail inventory). Meanwhile the
1D Mk. IV will continue to be made in small batches for the next several months until the 1D X
finally ships next year. This leaves the 5D Mk. II as temporarily the only full-frame body in the
current EOS line, until the 1D X starts shipping.

Canon USA told me that up to this point, they could produce *either* a full-frame 1-series
body (the 1Ds), *or* a fast-frame-rate 1-series body (the 1D). Those days of "either - or" are
gone forever from the 1-series line, as the 1D X -- and whatever models follow in the next
generations -- offers *both* full-frame and fast-frame-rate capability. Best of both worlds,
in other words. I would look to Nikon to follow very soon in this manner as well.

Part of Canon's marketing message is that the "X" stands for (among other
things) crossover, merging the 1Ds and the 1D together into one camera body.

All I'm sure about is that the "s" name will not continue, and that they likely will only have one camera named "1D".

A 1DXs would be just a sensor swap and flipping a few firmware switches. They don't even have to change the mirror mechanism anymore.

I believe the marketing people were clearly instructed to eliminate any expectation of a 1DXs as Canon has an increasingly long "to do" list. And in fact there may very well be no set commitment internally to make a 1DXs like camera yet. They may not have the fab capacity in the next year or more to make another high end sensor.

But if Canon is giving up the prestige of a high mp pro DSLR, with what are they replacing that high status position? They've come out with a brand new line of superteles, yet they don't plan on a top-end camera with pixel density to exploit all the new lenses?

A possibility is that the 1DX will move up in mp to match Nikon and Sony, and they'll introduce a 3 series as the "number 2" camera. But that's mostly semantics.

The performance and price gap between the 1DX and the 5DII is too big. Canon's always been careful in hitting important price points. Giving up the high price point (was the "s") after working years to be competitive at the top isn't likely.

Should be interesting. Are we at the beginning of significant new pro imaging product line, or is Canon in decline?

Don hit on some good points.

Sony and Nikon will release 36MP cameras next year (D800 and A9x) in addition to Sony releasing 2 more FF cameras including one to compete with the 1D. However, all future FF Sony cameras will be SLT (translucent) with OLED VF.

2) If you are NOT a Pro Photographer, why would you spend $6800 on this camera when you can get REAL video cameras for LESS money such as the AF100 and FS100? When you add in the cost of extra accessories to make this 1D feel like a real video camera, you are getting close to F3 territory. Or you could buy a fully-equipped FS100.


Well said. End of story.

I still stand by the fact that most of the video I shoot has audio. When I don't care about the audio, my Canon 7D makes some amazing photos, but the rest of the time I want a camera that has real video & audio features. The AF100 / FS100 / F3 all have real audio features like XLR inputs, P48 power, mic / line switches. If you're a still shooter, get a DSLR. But if you're going to spend over $5k on a large sensor camera to do video, get the AF100, FS100 or F3.

Doing video on a DSLR is like going to Home Depot in a Prius. You're going to have a lot of stuff hanging off the roof, trunk & windows to bring home all the materials.

If you take a pickup, van or SUV to Home Depot & you won't spend an hour in the parking lot trying to figure out how to get your purchases home.

I do think we're in agreement that the era of DSLR as video camera is ending. I got my hands on a 5DII in Dec. 2008. That's a long time ago.

But I'm sad when I look at how Sony has apparently crippled the VG20. Without true competition among equipment makers the natural free fall of price/performance in electronics doesn't happen. Without Red in the low cost space Sony is going to make sure we can't fully exploit the prosumer hardware they sell us.

Well said. End of story.

I still stand by the fact that most of the video I shoot has audio. When I don't care about the audio, my Canon 7D makes some amazing photos, but the rest of the time I want a camera that has real video & audio features. The AF100 / FS100 / F3 all have real audio features like XLR inputs, P48 power, mic / line switches. If you're a still shooter, get a DSLR. But if you're going to spend over $5k on a large sensor camera to do video, get the AF100, FS100 or F3.

Doing video on a DSLR is like going to Home Depot in a Prius. You're going to have a lot of stuff hanging off the roof, trunk & windows to bring home all the materials.

If you take a pickup, van or SUV to Home Depot & you won't spend an hour in the parking lot trying to figure out how to get your purchases home.

Ding ding ding!

Doing video on a DSLR is like going to Home Depot in a Prius. You're going to have a lot of stuff hanging off the roof, trunk & windows to bring home all the materials.

If you take a pickup, van or SUV to Home Depot & you won't spend an hour in the parking lot trying to figure out how to get your purchases home.

This depends on if you are an event shooter, or narrative shooter, etc. You cannot judge everyones needs on what your needs are.

In one recent thread, in a post by Charles Papert, we saw how he rigged a Sony F3 for a shoot. That camera had more stuff hanging off of it than you or I have ever had hanging off my 5D. And I am betting, but don't know, that they also were shooting double system sound. And of course, with modular design seeming to be the future of video cameras, in the narrative setting at least, it is actually a better practice, to separate your sound capture from your video capture for synching later. That way you don't run the risk of the camera contributing a problem to your sound capture, and you are limited to whatever sound limitations are on the camera.

Dylan Couper's enthusiasm for shooting "strings of stills and then double them to make clean 24fps and skip all this "video" nonsense..." may need to be tempered by this statement by Angela Nicholson at Hands on: Canon EOS-1DX review | News | TechRadar UK (http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/hands-on-canon-eos-1dx-review-1036453?src=rss&attr=all&artc_pg=2)
"We weren't able to accurately time the maximum continuous shooting duration of the sample model, it varied a bit, but was somewhere approaching 10 sec."

Damn!
Dylan's idea seemed pure genius.

Pft, when I shot my short film on the 1D mkII, I only had about 6 seconds per clip. Loads of time. :)