Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: 1DX Mark III

  1. #11
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,565
    Just lurking on this thread enjoying and interested in the overall impressions.

  2. #12
    Senior Member conropl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    Cool. So they are using the color data as I imagined they would use the IR data, to help decide which focus points to use. Unless the IR data is too low res, noisy, or otherwise unsuitable, I'd imagine they're using it too.
    Technically speaking, IR is a color (just in the non-visible wave length). So you could still be correct, and Canon is just being vague on purpose to protect IP.
    5DS R, 1D X, 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 24mm f/1.4L II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 580EX-II
    flickr

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,443
    Quote Originally Posted by conropl View Post
    Technically speaking, IR is a color (just in the non-visible wave length). So you could still be correct, and Canon is just being vague on purpose to protect IP.
    Yup. The thing that got me thinking IR might be too low-res to use as freely as the "color" channels, is that on the IR birding page I linked to, all the standalone IR imaging devices are super low-res. 1) 208x156 @ $250, 2) 80x60 @ $350, and 3) 384x288 @ $1600

    Part of the price on the "high-res" one is going to be because it IS a very niche item, but if resolution was as cheap for IR as it is normal sensors, why wouldn't any of these companies had made higher-res devices? I'm thinking that adding IR pixels isn't as easy as RGB pixels. Canon has likely added just enough to help.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,613
    I have a 5D MKIII that has a modified sensor to detect infrared light with a frequency of 715 nanometers. It retains all the resolution of the original sensor as well.
    I think the infrared light detected by thermal or heat sensors is in a different range of the IR spectrum and perhaps hi res sensors are not as practical for those frequencies?

  5. #15
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Eade View Post
    I have a 5D MKIII that has a modified sensor to detect infrared light with a frequency of 715 nanometers. It retains all the resolution of the original sensor as well.
    I think the infrared light detected by thermal or heat sensors is in a different range of the IR spectrum and perhaps hi res sensors are not as practical for those frequencies?
    So this gets into wave vs photon theory with light, but just pointing out 715 nanometers is 0.715 um and the pixel dimensions of the 1DX III are 6.58 um x 6.58 um, assuming gapless configuration (not a bad assumption with the microlenses). I do not know the depth of pixel "bucket", but my point is that we are not actually that far off in the size of pixels from the wavelengths of light. I could see some interference for longer wavelengths such as IR. This isn't even getting into wave amplitude, which in a quick search I didn't find.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Tounis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by conropl View Post
    Technically speaking, IR is a color (just in the non-visible wave length). So you could still be correct, and Canon is just being vague on purpose to protect IP.
    Nice to see you post again Pat ! It's been a long time.

    And thanks Jonathan for the impressions on the 1DX3, interesting read and pictures.

  7. #17
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,565
    I mean, they are no Jonathan Huyer….but....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTM5X_zazGU


    Not entirely sure if I need to buy the 1DX III or a bird blind in Texas....


    Quote Originally Posted by Tounis View Post
    Nice to see you post again Pat ! It's been a long time.

    And thanks Jonathan for the impressions on the 1DX3, interesting read and pictures.
    +1!!

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,613
    Laguna Seca Ranch is on my list with or without a 1DX III

  9. #19
    Senior Member conropl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Tounis View Post
    Nice to see you post again Pat ! It's been a long time.

    And thanks Jonathan for the impressions on the 1DX3, interesting read and pictures.
    Thanks.
    Work got in the way of life. For about 6 years I would head to the airport on Monday morning and get home Friday - every week. So I had the weekend to get things done around the house and spend time with my wife. I really did not have time to pick up a camera.

    I got sick of that and retired. So I hope to get back to some photography. We'll see how that goes.


    Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk
    5DS R, 1D X, 7D, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, 24mm f/1.4L II, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm Macro f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L, 580EX-II
    flickr

  10. #20
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    I mean, they are no Jonathan Huyer….but....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTM5X_zazGU

    Not entirely sure if I need to buy the 1DX III or a bird blind in Texas....

    +1!!
    That would be a fantastically fun day. But I would barely be able to lift the camera afterwards --- it would be so heavily loaded with images

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •