Looks like shit

>>2757837

Looks better than the D5, those 3 front function buttons piss me off everytime I look at the piece of shit.

If you need more than 2 do it like Canon has done it.

>wew GPS
>wew dual pixel AF
>same FPS limits
>same AF sensor
>reworked algorithms
>muh touchscreen AF for video
Fucking dead on arrival m8, literally brings nothing new for 1Dx users.

>>2757843
>14 fps / 16 fps in liveview
>touchscreen
>4k video
>"nothing new"

>>2757837
>14 fps RAW with 170 RAW frame buffer
>CFast 2.0
>4K at 60fps
>1080p at 120fps
>AF sensitive to -3 EV
>1.6+ million dot display
>802.11 AC support
>nothing new

>>2757837
why would it look any different?

>>2757883
I hope OP is referring to the shit being the look and not the specs.
Although the looks shouldn't really matter I would rather he thought it looked shit than the full autismo of thinking the specs look shit like >>2757843

>>2757870
>14 fps / 16 fps in liveview
It was already doing 14 fps before. Don't think that it's doing 14 fps with AF and metering. 16 fps in live view doesn't have the mirror interfering.
>touchscreen
wew
>4k
more pickles wow that was hard
>>2757881
>14 fps RAW with 170 RAW frame buffer
I had to look it up, and I found the 1Dx had a 30~ frame RAW buffer. About fucking time they soldered some more memory on the board.
>CFast 2.0
at least nikon users had time to buy XQD cards
>AF sensitive to -3 EV
how many years has it been since Nikon and Pentax have had this?
>1.6+ million dot display
so we're approaching usable levels of resolution now?
>802.11 AC support
external dongle with modern bits

>>2757894
Actually I think with the specs it's supposed to be replacing both the 1DX and the 1DC, 4k@60fps is actually pretty good, considering it's usually only available on those gigantic cinema cameras like the Arris and Red, not to mention CFast is more widely available than XQD, which is proprietary and only used by Sony and Nikon

>>2757881
Brandfags still trying to say "but muh D5" even though that has only 4k@30fps for 3 minutes, because they still haven't released the new firmware

This is amazing piece of equipment for professionals, IMHO.

>>2757894
>so we're approaching usable levels of resolution now?
lol yes, i still cant believe how long its taken canon to update from the res of the 550D

>>2757905
550d was crop, this thing's full frame, it's taken about 5 years instead of 6 or 7

>>2757901
>4k@60fps is actually pretty good, considering it's usually only available on those gigantic cinema cameras like the Arris and Red
>what is the Sony a7s II

>>2757910
Sorry, was referring to screen not megapickles

>>2757870
it's mirrorless now

>>2757914
a7sII only does 4k@30fps, if you want 4k at 60fps with them you're gonna have to fork out a literal shitload for an f-series cinema camera

>>2757918
>DSLR
>Has mirror
>mirrorless
>pick one

>>2757933
>they're pushing the liveview performance.
they're going full mirrorless soon.
fool frame eos m.

>>2757936
Apparently a full frame mirrorless is going to be one of the things they're announcing at CP+

>>2757914
>what is the Sony a7s II
>canon 4k@60fps

What is specs

>>2757881
The question is- Does it have any improvements regarding dynamic range?

>inb4 still the same 11.x stop sensor tech

>>2757951
This is Canon we're talking about here... So don't bet your britches.

>>2757951
probably still manufactured on 500nm.

i saw this camera in house of cards

that photographer dude was a douche

i would buy this in a heartbeat if i didn't already own the 1dx. recently got into film making and 4k is very attractive.

>>2757952
>>2757959
True.

Also, that GPS bump is fucking inconvinient as hell. Bet it's made out of some polycarbonate composite that'll break really quick. They could've done way better than this.

>"At Canon, we see the impossible"
>only minor changes in years
>same old sensor technology
>"Our sensors are superior"
>even more FPS instead of dynamic range

Oh well.

>>2757996
Their market is likely for people who don't do a lot of pulling or pushing with exposure in post, so they haven't bothered to upgrade DR

>>2757996
When you think of "the impossible" you think "amazing new technology" but the impossible that they're seeing is that they can make no improvement whatsoever, in the face of dramatic jumps in tech from other companies, while still maintaining the market dominance.
It SEEMS impossible, and yet they're doing it!

>>2758016
exactly. for sports and journalism, most photographers shoot in jpg which goes directly to editors and then on to the wire services in a matter of minutes. there is simply no time to make radical edits.

welp. gonna need some stupid expensive cards to record longer than 3 minutes with 4K.

>>2757837
>4K 60FPS
This info alone makes me seriously doubt the validity of the leaks.

>>2758428
Well the announcement is only 2 days away, and usually when leaks are this close they tend to be very accurate.

See

>Olympus Pen F
>Fuji X-pro2
>Samsung NX1
>Panasonic G7
>Nikon D5

>>2758428
It's true, the 4k60p is quite nice in fact.

>>2758562
well shit you're fucking right.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2291500142/canon-announces-flagship-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-full-frame-digital-slr
wanna see how the video quality is, because this could destroy Canon's whole Cinema line.

>>2758597
well actually cross that, since no log profile, so Cinema line should still win. might be possible if someone ports ML to it though?

>>2758562
>4k60p is quite nice
vid where?

>>2757870
>touchscreen
absolutely trash gimmick
>4k video
a gimmick unless it can do raw video
anyone with a brain would prefer 1080p raw but no
>protect muh shitty over priced cinema line

>>2758608
I've been bashing Canon for years but 4K 60FPS is pretty impressive, raw or not (as long as it's actually FF video and binned rather than line skip). Dual pixel AF is pretty good for video as well. I say that they at least beat out the D5 this year. Only thing I'm worried about is DR (really hope they improved that sensor) and that they didn't cut corners with video.

>>2757894
>really sad attempt at trying to belittle the specs

this makes me sad, please stop billy, your family misses you

>>2758562
>>2758607
>>2758608
>>2758616
Looked at the 4k video option, it's got the same issue as the 1DC, that issue being that the 4k footage is shot in motion jpeg, so prepare for xbox hueg file sizes

>>2758630
Yea the 4K 60FPS option looks to be rated up to 800Mbps. Looks like Sony still has a massive advantage since their XAVC-S 4K 30FPS with log profile only needs 100Mbps.So Canon files will be roughly 4x larger for same framerates.

>>2758616
>I say that they at least beat out the D5 this year.
At what? Video? That much is obvious. Anything is better than Nikon video.

>14 fps with AF
Using the new battery
>touchscreen only for touch to focus in LV
at least nikon put some other functions in
>EV -3 AF
welcome to years ago
>only at center point in one shot
TOP FUCKING KEK
>AF point will light up in red
how is this not standard

The only thing Canon has in its hat is video, and as of yet unknown improvements in sensor DR/noise handling.

>still making cameras this fucking huge

into the bin tbqh

>>2758616
>>2758630
>>2758645
More important is the actual video quality IMO. I don't know about high end, but 1080 on 5D and below is closer to 720 in terms of actual resolution. If you put it next to actually sharp 1080 (e.g. downscaled 4K from GH4), the difference is staggering.

>>2757837
Looks almost identical to my Eos 1n from fucking 1990 or whatever but just with a shit ton more buttons.

I mean who gives a shit at this point, the technical improvements are getting smaller and smaller with each new generation of gear.

>>2757883
I lost interest in the DSLR tech-wars like 10 years ago.

ITT, and probably on forums and camera blogs everywhere, lots of faggots butt hurt because Canon neglected to consult them on their particular wants and needs before launching their new, highly specialised, top of the line camera.

I'm sure they did, however, listen to some of the seasoned pros who take these cameras, week-in, week-out to football, basketball and baseball games, tennis and golf tournaments, horse and motor racing and so on. They probably also listed to some of the naturalists who take it to remote and inhospitable parts of the world in the hope of snagging images of rare and elusive species.

Why?

Because these are members of the Canon Professional Services Program, the people that pay six grand a pop for a fucking camera. Not idiots sat behind their computers taking pictures of their dicks, the cat and the lamp post outside.

TL&DR

Canon don't give a flying fuck what you think

>>2758597
>>2758607
>>2758630
The AF was pretty good on the Mark II, it held up during 16fps burst mode, I can say that much.

>>2758692
>Looks almost identical to my Eos 1n from fucking 1990
That's boring, but actually a good thing, since those ergonomics were and still are great for still photography. (For video, it's pretty awful, but you have to be pretty stupid to buy this camera primarily for video use)

>>2758737
You're both right and wrong. Listening to CPS members is great, but that's somewhat of an echo chamber, as these people already are Canon users. Now, if they also listened to users of *other* systems...

Remind me, does Canon spot meter on the chosen AF point?

>>2758737
I agree with you, ita a camera only for sports and maybe some wildlife photographers - should Canon work on the dynamic range? Yes they should but I think, that people who buy this camera value higher fps, lower noise and fast AF over higher DR. In addition to that I think the 4k video (or video on DSLRs in general) is not a gimmick, if you are a freelance or you cover an event as single person you often have to take the photos, write the article and produce a small clip for the website/newspaper and if you can do that with one camera and the same lenses it saves you a lot of time and money.

For those who think you should buy a mirrorless: In DSLRs the AF sensor is separate from the image sensor and the mirror is reflecting the light only to one of them, so we wont see faster AF on mirrorless since they have to integrate the AF in the image sensor or use contrast only. If you have to carry 5 lenses a few cards and batteries the smaller body doesnt help anyway.

>>2757904
>amazing piece of equipment for professionals
This is what forum dwelling faggots do not realize, Canon specifically caters to their professional customers for their flagship products and as such focus on what they want, not what a bunch pixel peepers who will likely never own the camera let alone utilize all it has to offer.

File: EOS-1NRS_frontlens.jpg (42KB, 432x430px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 432x430px

>>2758890
It doesn't really look like an EOS 1n to me, the prism hump isn't nearly as curvy, it's too swept back and flat from the front to be like a 1n

Pictured here is a 1n-rs

>>2758893
Only the 1d series does this. All other models only spot meter on the center point.

>No XQD PCIe based for fastest write and read
>Not even going dual CFast 2.0 slots, still stuck catering for MUH CF plebs

>>2758597
>because this could destroy Canon's whole Cinema line.

They'll bump the cinema line up to 8k.
They were all due for an upgrade anyway.

>>2758608
>absolutely trash gimmick

So Phase One and Leaf are trash?

>>2759719
>Their cinema bodies have to switch to actual SSDs due to 8k footage having such massive file sizes

>>2759730
Sd cards go up to 256gb and 512gb nowadays. SSDs are only 1-2TB max. SD still has better density, but speed is likely not fast enough even with UHS-2

>>2761794
>only 1-2tb
>There are SSDs that go up to 16tb
>tb being less than gb even though 1tb=1000gb
>being this bad at math

>>2761794
At these capacities, SSDs are also cheaper, and likely more reliable since they can use lower-density chips and better wear leveling.

The problem is that 2.5"/SATA drives are hueg and being phased out, and M.2/NVMe needs some kind of proprietary enclosure to be swappable in the field.