I do not understand what Canon is thinking.

[Colin Knight]

I see randomness when I compare the AF capabilities of the 7D, 1D IV, and 1Dx. Why are all of my AF points cross type sensative at f/5.6 and none of the 1D IV are at that aperture? Why do I have spot focus all the time on the 7D but not on the 1D IV? I don't want to move up to the Mark IV unless it matches the 7D at every level and then some. So then the 1Dx comes along. I am sold, I can't wait until March. Then I hear from Canon that it has no capability to autofocus at f/8, a function not carried over from the Mark IV and disabled on the 7D. I want to compensate for the lower pixel density and add my razor sharp 2.0x III to the 500mm and autofocus, and should be able to with a $6800 camera! Apparently Canon doesn't think so. This is a deal breaker for me. Not that is really matters to them. I just wonder why they are so inconsistent?

Additionally, it's a hardware issue- something about the AF mirror. So we can't hope for a software update to fix it. Rant over I guess.

[Ronald Zigler]

I actually appreciated your observations.

[Doug Brown]

I agree with you on a number of points Colin. But I think that regardless of tech specs on cross-type AF points, the Mark IV focuses better than the 7D. My feeling regarding the 2x is that I don't use one all that often, so if they really make significant advances in AF performance with the 1D x, I'll gladly trade f/8 AF for improved AF. What would have made me really happy would have been a 1D x with the same pixel density as the current Mark IV. For me that would eliminate almost entirely the need for a 2x. The problem is that the 1D x, when cropped to 1.3 sensor size, leaves you with Mark III pixels rather than Mark IV pixels.

[Roger Clark]

I think they are thinking marketing and how to maximize sales. Leave one feature off one camera, and a different one one another, so to get both features one has to buy two cameras. The technology is quite mature in all the cameras, and a lot of performance (e.g. f/8 focusing) is software. So there should be no reason why, for example, one couldn't have f/8 focusing on a 7D. Sure the AF sensors may be less sensitive, but why not simply call it f/8-AF expansion that one enables with a custom function and let the user beware? Why, because then there would be less incentive to buy a 1D series. But the 1DX breaks that. Weird. Also weird: the $7K price of the 1DX. Full frame sensor DSLR prices years ago ware due to the high cost of large sensors. The 5DII changed that development, so the 1DX should be no more expensive than a 1DIV. Canon (and others) recent price increases on high end lenses and cameras in a bad economy seems even more bizarre (40% increases!). So is someone new in charge of marketing?

Roger

[Colin Knight]

What would have made me really happy would have been a 1D x with the same pixel density as the current Mark IV. For me that would eliminate almost entirely the need for a 2x. The problem is that the 1D x, when cropped to 1.3 sensor size, leaves you with Mark III pixels rather than Mark IV pixels.

Exactly! I had some hopes for the full frame sensor in wildlife applications thinking that pixel density of the 1Dx would be sufficient....then I saw the numbers. I don't see any reason they couldn't have kept the Mark IV pixel density and moved that to a full frame chip either. Doesn't sound like there is large enough improvement in noise to warrant this.

The f/8 issue and pixel density are two big factors that will make me hesitant in March.


By the way Doug, have you experience the low light AF hunting on the Mark IV?

[Colin Knight]

I think they are thinking marketing and how to maximize sales. Leave one feature off one camera, and a different one one another, so to get both features one has to buy two cameras. The technology is quite mature in all the cameras, and a lot of performance (e.g. f/8 focusing) is software. So there should be no reason why, for example, one couldn't have f/8 focusing on a 7D.

I have ranted about that many times....I believe a simple software tweak could enable AF at f/8 with the 7D. Glad someone smarter than I agrees. I feel validated. haha

Also weird: the $7K price of the 1DX. Full frame sensor DSLR prices years ago ware due to the high cost of large sensors. The 5DII changed that development

I was not aware of this. Roger, can you explain how the 5DII changed the cost of full frame sensors?

[Roger Clark]

I was not aware of this. Roger, can you explain how the 5DII changed the cost of full frame sensors?

Hi Colin,

Canon made a big deal about the 5DII and said (either it was a press release or white paper or something like that) how they improved the manufacturing process to get the yield up. A bunch of electronic chips (whether cpus, memory, or imaging sensors) are made on a silicon wafer of a given size (e.g. 8 to 12 inches in diameter. Say a wafer run cost $10,000 (that used to be a cited cost a few years ago; not sure what it is today), and one can fit only so many chips on a given wafer size. Then some number of chips will have defects and can not be used. So full frame sensors had a low yield because the chance of a defect was higher due to few chips per wafer. Canon refined their process so they had fewer defects and was able to significantly reduce the cost of a full frame sensor. Other manufacturers have also improved their technology and full frame sensors have dropped in price (and become more common) in the last 4 years or so.

Roger

[Colin Knight]

I was aware of the higher cost of full frame sensors due to defects, but unaware of Canon stating they have refined their process since the Mark II. Thanks for clarifying and sharing your expertise. As you said above, this "refining" by Canon does not seem to influence the cost of the 1Dx.

[DickLudwig]

I think one thing many are over looking in the AF @ f/8 not being available on the 1Dx, is the major problem Canon had with the 1D MK III. Canon suffered major losses in sales and confidence in the brand as a result of its poor AF performance (not all cameras but enough to be a major problem). As a result they are leaning backwards in the other direction i.e. not willing to say the 1Dx will AF @ f/8 if it does do it all the time every time. In some way I can't blame them as many photographers switched to Nikon as a result of Canon's unwillingness to admit there was a problem and then once they acknowledged the problem the many poor fixes before they got it anywhere near right.

[Colin Knight]

As a result they are leaning backwards in the other direction i.e. not willing to say the 1Dx will AF @ f/8 if it does do it all the time every time.

This doesn't seem to be what Canon is saying at all though- not that it won't focus at f/8 some of the time, but that the 1Dx hardware precludes it entirely. It's as if their engineers couldn't figure out how to make it jibe with the 1Dx's new AF system.

[DickLudwig]

This doesn't seem to be what Canon is saying at all though- not that it won't focus at f/8 some of the time, but that the 1Dx hardware precludes it entirely. It's as if their engineers couldn't figure out how to make it jibe with the 1Dx's new AF system.

I've seen remarks to that effect also but I think that it is Canon speak for AF @ f/8 is problematical and it is easier to say the hardware can't do it because it is so new and advanced rather than deal with customers who are unhappy with the new AF @ f/8. But Roger (and he's not the only one) seems to think that it is easy to fix via a software enable if they were so inclined.

[Don Lacy]

While nikon has not disable their cameras from shooting at f/8 its reliability is so poor they make no official mention of it Canon on the other hand does not want any bad press on their new AF system and decided to eliminate it completely. In order to compete with Nikon they redesign their AF in order to get the precision they wanted that design hindered its ability to AF at f/8 the same as Nikon what choice would you have made.

[Roger Clark]

I've seen remarks to that effect also but I think that it is Canon speak for AF @ f/8 is problematical and it is easier to say the hardware can't do it because it is so new and advanced rather than deal with customers who are unhappy with the new AF @ f/8. But Roger (and he's not the only one) seems to think that it is easy to fix via a software enable if they were so inclined.

While one can't say for sure that there is no hardware issue that prevents the 1DX AF system from working at f/8, it is hard to conceive of an AF module that works well (and reportedly better than previous models) from f/1.2 (or less) to f/5.6 and magically can't at f/8. The 1DII and 1DIV not only AF at f/8, but do quite well at f/11 and I've even had success when there is good contrast at f/16 (2 stacked 2x TCs). Thus, these facts make it harder to see how even a new AF system magically works at f/5.6 and some hardware limitation prevents it at f/8. It would actually be quite a trick to achieve that (and I've been involved in some pretty wild optical designs, and designed some of my own).

Regarding the 1DIII AF issues, it was not an f/8 issue, but a failure at all f/ratios, and if I remember correctly due to temperature effects (which microadjustment on site could mitigate).

Roger