Why the 1D X

Can anyone explain why Canon chose to develop the relatively low MP 1D X, as great as the high ISO/AF/frame rate abilities are reputed to be, as opposed to a high MP beast that was on my to-buy list?
Is it simply the fact that they were unable to configure the sensor/chip with high MP included to accomplish their goals?

Probably so they could combine the 10-12 FPS with a FF sensor and all the CFs a human could use in one pro body.

The 5D III will probably have 34-38MP FF to compete with Nikons D800 that is supposed to be out later.

Because months and months (if not years) of engineering directed them in this direction for best results.

Mainly, FF with 12FPS... Along with amazing ISO performance and other goodies.

I really hope the next 5D does not go beyond 30MP... But I have a feeling it will, sadly. 24 or 28MP would be perfect, IMO.

I'd imagine they did it so that people on camera forums would ask why. I'm sure there is a sadistic engineer out there somewhere who is excited that some people are sitting nervously, thinking deeply about why something isn't this or that.

Well, no one has any experience with 1DX yet (well, there are probably some Beta testers), so it remains to be seen...

But Canon says that new sensor technology and Digic 5+ processors makes the 18MP of the camera equivalent in quality to much higher resolution cameras.

We'll just have to wait and see if that's true.

But I'm sure that they had to limit the size of the image files to coax the ultra high frame rate out of a FF. I bet it was a considerable challenge getting a FF-size shutter and mirror mechanism to operate at those speeds, too.

Wouldn't be surprised to see another FF 1D model with a huge MP count, but slower frame rate... and then a 5D Mark III based upon similar/same sensor but with "scaled down" focus and frame rate performance.

amfoto1 wrote in post #13605236
But I'm sure that they had to limit the size of the image files to coax the ultra high frame rate out of a FF. I bet it was a considerable challenge getting a FF-size shutter and mirror mechanism to operate at those speeds, too.

I agree with the limiting image files part, but I doubt they had a challenge with getting the shutter and mirror to work at 12fps. They did it first back in 1984 with the (35mm film) F-1, fitted with the optional high speed motordrive pack. In fact, that managed to do 14fps and had to advance the film between shots as well.

So, I can't imagine that they have any problems now, with another 27 years worth of technological advances to fall back on.

I cannot imagine Canon will make a 5DIII that will have anything like 28-30Mp's, mega AF capabilities and massive ISO ability and then sell it for a couple of thousand quid. Historically, the 1 series has always been the flagship model and the 5 series the nearest thing down. The 1 series has always been more expensive too. As they have decided the price of the 1Dx already I can't see Canon creating an 18Mp FF chip for the 1Dx and then a 30Mp chip for the 5D3 and making it cheaper. That is not good business sense for anyone. If they announce a 5D3 before next christmas it would cut sales of the 1Dx to almost zero and they're hardly likely to do that.
If Canon's research has led them to a FF 18Mp chip for the 1Dx I suspect the same chip may be used for the 5DIII, with the AF and ISO of the 7D. That way the 1 series would stay Canons flagship model with the 5 series the next best thing.
If Canon had a 30Mp FF chip and they could get it to work well with the 1Dx they have already announced they probably would of used it to blow away the competition, but they have probably decided against another Mp war and gone for quality rather than quantity. Maybe that holy grail of 30Mp FF chip will be reserved for the 1Dx1....

I'd laugh my a$$ off if Canon either discontinued the 5D line, or if they do release a 5D Mk III, it only has 14-16 MP. That would be both AWESOME, and HILARIOUS!!

I still don't understand why there's such a demand for high MP... and how up to now, everyone's done fine without it.

I see it as a car with more horsepower... sure, in and of itself it's fun to think about, but is the car properly tuned (chassis, etc.) to put that power to the ground or is it just a straight-line muscle car that lacks sophistication and true usefulness (MOAR POWAH!).

It just seems to me that people are demanding medium-format-like DSLRs for... no apparent reason other than wanting more and more.

chauncey wrote in post #13605093
Can anyone explain why Canon chose to develop the relatively low MP 1D X, as great as the high ISO/AF/frame rate abilities are reputed to be, as opposed to a high MP beast that was on my to-buy list?
Is it simply the fact that they were unable to configure the sensor/chip with high MP included to accomplish their goals?

I think the resolution is both a matter of having the horsepower to put 12 frames a second through the processors and the fact that 99% of the possible users of this camera won't ever need higher resolution.

Even studio shooters will only be losing 3 MP over the current high-res units (1DS3 and 5D2) and probably won't notice a difference under most circumstances. They should see improved IQ while enjoying some of the other features (in-camera lense corrections, etc.)

I'm curious to see what the 5D3 will look like. Having played with the 1D4 for a couple of weeks I pre-ordered the 1DX but I'll certainly consider a 5D upgrade if the specs are compelling.

The autofocus upgrades (relative to the 5D2) and improved ISO for stills and video will be worth it, for me, and represent more than enough trade-off for the "lost" resolution even without considering the rest of the benefits of the new camera.

Laouik wrote in post #13605346
I still don't understand why there's such a demand for high MP... and how up to now, everyone's done fine without it.

I see it as a car with more horsepower... sure, in and of itself it's fun to think about, but is the car properly tuned (chassis, etc.) to put that power to the ground or is it just a straight-line muscle car that lacks sophistication and true usefulness (MOAR POWAH!).

It just seems to me that people are demanding medium-format-like DSLRs for... no apparent reason other than wanting more and more.

i wouldn't even put it as "more horsepower" but rather a larger car, now imagine a hummer sized car with a corolla engine.

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #13605391
I think the resolution is a matter of having the horsepower to put 12 frames a second through the processors

This is solely the reason. Anything they say about 18mp being the sweet spot is just marketing drivel.

It's my understanding if you bump up the MP then then ISO suffers.... Apparently Canon is sold on the idea of larger pixels letting in more light equals less noisy shots, and I'd say they are right.

Invertalon wrote in post #13605135
I really hope the next 5D does not go beyond 30MP... But I have a feeling it will, sadly. 24 or 28MP would be perfect, IMO.

For me, the perfect amount of MP is however many it can be without sacrificing image quality. If that's the 21 is has how, fine. If that's 50mp, that's better.

I gotta agree with this...frame rate of 12 fps really holds no interest to me but...what I want, and will buy, is a MF MP size body, that will support canon glass.