EOS 1D X announced!

[bob williams]

This is why I went with Canon:

HD, I feel your pain. In 1980 I boughtthe Nikonos underwater camera complete with doublestrobes etc. After my first 30 foot dive with it (within one month of purchase) it died. Took it to the "camera shop and they discovered the shutter had rusted from an "undetectable leak". Yes, I followed all of the instructions to the tee. Nikon refused to honor thier warranty and a replacement shutter would cost more than the camera----so, $500+ flushed down the drain. Luckily, the strobes continued to work so I attached them to a Canon AE1 in a Ikelite housing---30 or more dives, but no leaks. So, no more Nikon for Bob, not ever, never, never, never again. I could tell you how I really feel, but you get the point.

[clemmb]

I mainly chose canon because of glass. While Nikon has some great lenses I feel Canon glass on average is better and the glass is more important to IQ than MPIX in my book. The options found on the new bodies would be great and if I were in the market for a body with $$s to spend I would buy the 1DX. For now I am happy with my 2005 version 5D and 1DmkIIN. Both have great IQ and the newest bodies, Canon & Nikon, are only a little bit better IQ. Not big $$s better.


My 2 cents worth.


Mark

[neuroanatomist]

In late 2009, I discussed my upcoming 'birthday present' with my wife. With our daughter close to 18 months old and running around at that point, we had had enough of the P&S (an Olympus 765UZ 4 MP, 10x superzoom) with its inability to focus and shoot fast enough to keep up with her. Having shot film SLRs from high school through grad school, I knew that a dSLR was the way to go. A very small amount of research led me to the conclusion that it really came down to a choice between Canon and Nikon, and we agreed on a budget of $3000. We had discussed this as a plan for me to test the waters, and see if I still had a passion for photography, in which case upgrades were on the table. From my film SLR days, I knew the glass-before-body maxim, and so I had pretty much decided on an f/2.8 general purpose zoom, a fast short tele prime for portraits, an external flash, and a decent tripod.


Stacking up Canon vs. Nikon, both camps had fair entry-level bodies (T1i/500D vs. D3000), both had 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom lenses, 85mm f/1.8 primes, and similar flashes. Subtracting $400 for a tripod and head, either Nikon or Canon would fit in my budget. However, the Canon choices in that range out-spec'd the Nikon equivalents - the T1i had a faster frame rate, higher ISOs, self-cleaning sensor, the 17-55mm f/2.8 from Canon had IS while the Nikon version lacked VR, etc. But to be honest, Bryan's reviews played a significant part in my decision. in looking for easy-to-read, comprehensive reviews of gear, Canon had Bryan and TDP...and Nikon had KR - who even at the time and given my limited knowledge sounded like an... (this is a family friendly forum, so I'll just stop there).


In hindsight, would I have made the same decision now, knowning what I know? Currently, I find that the ISO performance and AF performance of my current cameras are frequently limiting factors - and those are areas where in some ways, Nikon is superior. I do often crop images, and I make large prints, but in general, ISO and AF are more important to me than MP. But overall, and for my needs and uses, Canon offers better lenses. The 100-400mm, 24mm TS-E, 85mm f/1.2, etc., are all substantially better than their Nikon equivalents, and there isn't an equivalent to the MP-E 65mm. In keeping with the glass before body school of thought,here I agree with Mark - better lenses make for better pictures.


For those reasons, I'm excited by the 1D X (although I'm still not sure whether I'll get one) - better ISO performance and better AF (although compared to my 5DII, that's a pretty low bar), coupled with excellent lenses - that's something to look forward to!

[clemmb]

We had discussed this as a plan for me to test the waters, and see if I still had a passion for photography,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Based on your shots you have posted here, I would say the passion is still there.


Mark

[Alan]

Nikon sells cameras??

[HDNitehawk]

Currently, I find that the ISO performance and AF performance of my current cameras are frequently limiting factors - and those are areas where in some ways, Nikon is superior.

Just my opinion, but the AF on the 1D bodies will take away AF being a limiting factor. Unless you figure in the time you loose sorting through all the additional pictures that are non keepersbut yet they are in focus and sharp but lack in composition and have to be reviewed. Keeping in mind that at10, 12 or 14 fps there will be many.


John, late 2009? I thought it was a year before that you got your dslr. Late 2009 I bought my 500mm, and I thought at that time you had been posting on the boards for some time. I bought my 50D at the end of 2008.


I started coming to this site in early 2009 to review lenses. Once I bought a lens or two, I always found Bryan's reviews to be very accurate compared to the lens I recieved. In the internet world it is hard to find accurate unbiased opinions.

[HDNitehawk]

Nikon sells cameras??

I am not sure I can respond to this without flaming Nikon


But...for a simple answer I think they sell some type of imaging equipment.

[Jon Ruyle]

Didn't mean to start a Nikon flame fest. But... well, I, too, prefer Canon lenses. It is my impression that my most used lenses (70-200 f/2.8 IS II and 85 f/1.2) are slightly superior to their Nikon counterparts (based on second hand info... I've never used the Nikons). And, of course, Nikon has no MP-E 65 counterpart, or anything close.


But I still think it rocks that Nikon has an inexpensive FF camera with a good autofocus, and I wish Canon would do the same. While II have no idea what is coming next down the FF pipeline for Canon, here is my worry: it seems reasonable to assume that an inexpensive ff camera would have a low frame rate, and thus no excuse for a low pixel count. But if it has a high pixel count, Canon will probably give it a lousy autofocus to protect 1DX sales. (Then again, I'm almost always wrong when I try to use such reasoning to predict the future, so may maybe my conclusion is cause for optimism )

[HDNitehawk]

But if it has a high pixel count, Canon will probably give it a lousy autofocus to protect 1DX sales.

Didn't they do this with the 5D II and it didn't protect the 1Ds III. Personally I wouldn't care if they released a cheap FF that had no AF system on it at all and made it with the best sensor and highest IQ available any where, since I would just be using it for landscape, macro and things that I use live view or MF to focuswith now. I wouldn't even care if it only shot 3fps. Cheap and the Best Possible IQ...I am onboard.


I am not sure Canon would care if the 1D X sales were cannibalized. I doubt the 1D series bodies are big money makers any way. They are the flag ship camera, the best of the best. There not intended for the masses, they are intended for pro's. The advertising value of all the pro's using Canon bodies is far more valuable than any profit they make off the 1D bodies. Pro's use 1D's, amateurs see this and go buy rebels...and that is where the profit comes form.


I think there is a hole now to be filled. The 1D IV is gone, the 1D X is $6,800. The closest remaining body is the 5D II at $2,500. I would speculate we see 1 or possibly 2 bodies in the $4,000 range introduced shortly.


How about a crop body, with a 1D type AF system, a sensor that is extremely high quality, ISO fully automatic and adjustable, presets for the supertele's like the 1D IV has..8fps...in the $4k range...a 1D type body with a crop sensor.......and all the birders stand up and cheer.....

[Jon Ruyle]

But if it has a high pixel count, Canon will probably give it a lousy autofocus to protect 1DX sales.

Didn't they do this with the 5D II and it didn't protect the 1Ds III.

True enough.

I am not sure Canon would care if the 1D X sales were cannibalized. I doubt the 1D series bodies are big money makers any way.

I hope you're right. Then maybe they'll put a higher end (7D-like) af in the next inexpensive (well, relatively...) full frame camera.