Official specs: Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17891190
which offrs better UI interaction?

Touch screen is not a gimmick

Far quicker then a D-PAD

My wife just bought me a "new" Logitech Harmony 880 remote for my birthday. This model has been discontinued for years and she had to look far and wide to find it.

Why did she get it?

Because both of us HATE the newer Logitech all-in-ones with the touch screen controls and we've been suffering with one for way too long.

When we watch TV we don't want to have to look down at the remote to find the FF or RW or other controls. We want buttons that we can differentiate from each other and that have tactile feedback. We're willing to deal with outdated tech for a better user experience.

Probably why I'm typing this on a 1988 vintage IBM Model M keyboard...

When I shoot I look through the viewfinder and know where to put my fingers to control my camera - without looking away from the scene I'm shooting. With a touch screen I'd have to refocus my attention. It would actually be a distraction during real-world shooting.

Sure a touch screen might be nice to have for playing with the menus and photo review, but not much more.

But the 1DXII doesn't allow you to use the touchscreen even where a majority of people are agreeing it would be useful, yet it is offered in lower models. So basically the touchscreen feature of the 1DXII matters little except during video and AF selection. They have turned off the use for other areas of the camera.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17891190
missing loads. ever used iphone vs a old nokia device with a keypad.

which offrs better UI interaction?

Touch screen is not a gimmick

Far quicker then a D-PAD

Here's my problem with touchscreens.
// caveat, I am not saying I don't like them or want them, just pointing out there limitations!)

It was your comparison to the old cell phones with buttons that drew my thoughts to this REAL PROBLEM with touchscreens.

1- This is the biggest issue. Touch screens absolutely require you to be looking at them.
EG Ipod vs. Ipod touch.

In the case of the old Ipod, the controls were truly a genius level design. If you had never seen or heard of an Ipod before you got one in your hands, the first day you had one you could control it while it was safely in your pants packet without any need to remove and look at it. It works by feel. The controls are that perfectly intuitive. (this was in fact exactly how I used my Ipod the first day I got one in 2003 walking around downtown Providence, it was in my pocket the whole afternoon) Ipod "touch" ruins all of the amazing ease of control that the Ipod had built in, and unlike it's name, it can NOT be used by touch alone.

EG: Old school Car stereo vs. modern LCD touch screen.

My old Yamaha cassette deck had controls that I could reach for at night while driving and never take my eyes off the road. I could jump stations, fast forward cassette, adjust volume, bass, and treble, and even switch to aux input by feel.
Modern touch screen LCD do away with mechanical controls, and leave you forced to take your eyes off the road to use them.

Back to cameras.
The only time you can use an LCD touch screen is if you stop shooting.
when i am shooting 9and I realize this is me, not everyone) the viewfinder must be up to my face, and I must be able to control everything with my eye to the viewfinder. Canon interface continues to improve this situation, with the 7D2 as the latest improvement adding MANY control features that you can adjust without removing your view of the viewfinder. Controls that previous models would have required a menu look up.

I am a big fan of analog controls over LCD touch screen foe the reasons and examples listed above.
I have an SL1 and yes the touchscreen is superior to most Canon touchscreens, however it's control layout is the worst, and this forces me to use the touchscreen, forces me to remove my eye form the viewfinder and lose shots. 1D4, 7D2 and 5D3 do not.

Again, I am not knocking the usefulness of touchscreens when you are not shooting but I feel the above lays out good reasons why the topical emphasis on touchscreen (or lack there of) on the 1Dx2 is a bit misplaced. Any time I have to go to the touchscreen I am risking losing the shot. the 1Dx2 9and 1Dx before it) have the most comprehensive set of analog controls in the industry. This is what 1D shooters are looking for.

The beauty of touchscreens at least on the rebel lines is that you can use the touch screen, or not use it. It isn't a one or the other. So it is left up to you to find the comfort level for how you use the camera.

It is just a shame that they turned off some pretty nice touch features like during picture review.

I think that if the crippling of the touchscreen LCD is the biggest gripe against this camera, then Canon's done a remarkable job with the 1DX2, for stills and for videos. This is not as good of a camera as a Rebel is for chimping.

Now we can all just keep our fingers crossed and hope that the DR at low iso is better than previous Canon sensor technology.

more pictures from Canon Rumours user

http://www.canonrumors​.com/forum/index.php?t​opic=29038.0

Wow.

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17891578
more pictures from Canon Rumours user

http://www.canonrumors​.com/forum/index.php?t​opic=29038.0

awesome dude. Thanks for posting......Mmmmmmmm.​.. look at the 128000-25000 shots....game on

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17891578
more pictures from Canon Rumours user

http://www.canonrumors​.com/forum/index.php?t​opic=29038.0

I like this guy. Its a well exposed file and it shows you exactly how the ISO is going to look and perform on a properly exposed file....This looks great

Im not interested in seeing what a 3 stop under exposed file will do. Nice to have the back up capabilities but I would rather shoot it right.

Agree with team speed. When i look into files at 100% the detail is there and it doesn't break down. 1Dx1 files at 16000 broke down badly. Fell apart on the model that I used. Im looking at the 32000 shots and it looked as good or a tad better than the 1Dx1 shots in similar testing situation.

I see at least a full stop ISO performance and much better dark shadow retention and detail. Zoom in and you can read labels. I could not see that with the 1Dx1

These files should change some minds in my opinion

Looks like a winner to me and a game changer for canon shooters

i download the pictures and brought them into LR

putting helmet on

ducking

my 5DSR, processed with NR, looks better at 12,800 than the 1Dx II picture at 12,800

(obviously not a fair comparison given the very dull images posted but ?)


i still have a 1Dx II on order

(this was a 12,800 5DSR picture I posted a while ago here)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uGq2​cY

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17891451
Here's my problem with touchscreens.
// caveat, I am not saying I don't like them or want them, just pointing out there limitations!)

It was your comparison to the old cell phones with buttons that drew my thoughts to this REAL PROBLEM with touchscreens.

1- This is the biggest issue. Touch screens absolutely require you to be looking at them.
EG Ipod vs. Ipod touch.

In the case of the old Ipod, the controls were truly a genius level design. If you had never seen or heard of an Ipod before you got one in your hands, the first day you had one you could control it while it was safely in your pants packet without any need to remove and look at it. It works by feel. The controls are that perfectly intuitive. (this was in fact exactly how I used my Ipod the first day I got one in 2003 walking around downtown Providence, it was in my pocket the whole afternoon) Ipod "touch" ruins all of the amazing ease of control that the Ipod had built in, and unlike it's name, it can NOT be used by touch alone.

EG: Old school Car stereo vs. modern LCD touch screen.

My old Yamaha cassette deck had controls that I could reach for at night while driving and never take my eyes off the road. I could jump stations, fast forward cassette, adjust volume, bass, and treble, and even switch to aux input by feel.
Modern touch screen LCD do away with mechanical controls, and leave you forced to take your eyes off the road to use them.

Back to cameras.
The only time you can use an LCD touch screen is if you stop shooting.
when i am shooting 9and I realize this is me, not everyone) the viewfinder must be up to my face, and I must be able to control everything with my eye to the viewfinder. Canon interface continues to improve this situation, with the 7D2 as the latest improvement adding MANY control features that you can adjust without removing your view of the viewfinder. Controls that previous models would have required a menu look up.

I am a big fan of analog controls over LCD touch screen foe the reasons and examples listed above.
I have an SL1 and yes the touchscreen is superior to most Canon touchscreens, however it's control layout is the worst, and this forces me to use the touchscreen, forces me to remove my eye form the viewfinder and lose shots. 1D4, 7D2 and 5D3 do not.

Again, I am not knocking the usefulness of touchscreens when you are not shooting but I feel the above lays out good reasons why the topical emphasis on touchscreen (or lack there of) on the 1Dx2 is a bit misplaced. Any time I have to go to the touchscreen I am risking losing the shot. the 1Dx2 9and 1Dx before it) have the most comprehensive set of analog controls in the industry. This is what 1D shooters are looking for.

your analogy is highly flawed. Touch screen does not imply the exclusion of all buttons, in fact even iphones still have volume buttons, and a silent toggle for times that looking at your screen is not necessary. Same deal with fingerprint tech and gyroscopes. Your car stereo analogy cant hold water, I have a touch screen radio.... it functions with BOTH touch and physical button control. The passenger can use the touch seemlessly, and me as driver, I have my physical controls on the steering wheel.

The EOS-M has a touch screen and controls as well. The reason why physical controls are lacking on smaller devices is because they lack the physical space, where the 1Dx has ample physical space. The screen size literally does not have to change and offer full touch screen ability. That would do nothing to your physical controls, they still function the same. If you happen to shoot in live view or use the Q menu, touch screen could be super handy in those scenarios.

Charlie wrote in post #17891670
your analogy is highly flawed. Touch screen does not imply the exclusion of all buttons, in fact even iphones still have volume buttons, and a silent toggle for times that looking at your screen is not necessary. Same deal with fingerprint tech and gyroscopes. Your car stereo analogy cant hold water, I have a touch screen radio.... it functions with BOTH touch and physical button control. The passenger can use the touch seemlessly, and me as driver, I have my physical controls on the steering wheel.

The EOS-M has a touch screen and controls as well. The reason why physical controls are lacking on smaller devices is because they lack the physical space, where the 1Dx has ample physical space. The screen size literally does not have to change and offer full touch screen ability. That would do nothing to your physical controls, they still function the same. If you happen to shoot in live view or use the Q menu, touch screen could be super handy in those scenarios.

i dunno.... i think cyber's analogies are pretty on point. ipod's original interface was definitely far better than the current mess. standard car radios are definitely far easier to use than new lcd's, both while not looking at them and also while looking. (yes, i driven numerous cars with touch screens, and of course, many without. i'm happy your car's implementation is good for you though.) and as he stated, lcd UI's are getting better and better, but i've never seen one that can be used while shooting, unlike the button layout of canon's SLRs. pretty much agree on all points.

the very best production car (obtainable) dash i have ever seen was in the last generation's viper--all big dials. nothing else. purity made for one single thing--to go fast.

anyway, i welcome advancement in the touch screens and would love to have one to play with, but they do have lots to work on.

Its not the biggest gripe, however it seems many are voicing disapproval for such a feature, but haven't really had time to try it on a fully working implementation that Canon has out already. This started when we were talking about how Canon has features developed, but cherry-picks which are on or off by model or by release. This was one of the most obvious features.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17891684
i dunno.... i think cyber's analogies are pretty on point. ipod's original interface was definitely far better than the current mess. standard car radios are definitely far easier to use than new lcd's, both while not looking at them and also while looking. and as he stated, lcd UI's are getting better and better, but i've never seen one that can be used while shooting, unlike the button layout of canon's SLRs. pretty much agree on all points.

the very best production car (obtainable) dash i have ever seen was in the last generation's viper--all big dials. nothing else. purity made for one single thing--to go fast.

anyway, i welcome advancement in the touch screens, but they do need to work out those issues.

Sorry, I dont know of this ipod device

the ipod is an exception to the rule. It morphed into a totally different product. Touchscreen radios function fine, and you DONT need to take your eyes off the road with steering wheel controls. Having a good touch screen does NOT exempt good physical control, while there will be times when the touch function is super useful like image review! I'm not big on image review, since I dont have much choice with the sony system, but having a touch screen for review purposes is awesome. The 1Dxii offers a touch screen, and a hobbled one, that's what would kill me. Half a$$ed implementation that would take a developer little effort to create, considering canon already has multiple cameras with touch screen...

Charlie wrote in post #17891758
Sorry, I dont know of this ipod device

the ipod is an exception to the rule. It morphed into a totally different product. Touchscreen radios function fine, and you DONT need to take your eyes off the road with steering wheel controls. Having a good touch screen does NOT exempt good physical control, while there will be times when the touch function is super useful like image review! I'm not big on image review, since I dont have much choice with the sony system, but having a touch screen for review purposes is awesome. The 1Dxii offers a touch screen, and a hobbled one, that's what would kill me. Half ased implementation that would take a developer little effort to create, considering canon already has multiple cameras with touch screen...

alright man..... since you mentioned it twice :

not all cars have steering wheel controls for the touch screen radio (one of mine doesn't.) k? and like screen UIs, some cars are better designed than others. in fact, the very worst touch screen implementation i have ever seen was in a mercedes E-series--and there were TONS of ways to interact via the steering wheel. so many ways in fact that no one could figure out how to use it, and thus did not. and as for my other cars with screens, i only use the wheel for volume control--the channel buttons are useless. so, and again, as i have said, i am happy yours is good for you.

but it is certainly the very nature of a dynamic screen UI to force you to look at it to control it. that's kinda the whole point--to take away tactile buttons in favor of better visual effect and dynamic controls. that is a screen's primary strength and its ultimate criticism.

until the day they build a morphing tactile contraption that has the strengths of a touchscreen without its deficiencies, you will never be able to replace real buttons.

again, that said, i think touchscreen is better than screen without touch. so i still welcome the change. i don't think it's the goal to replace buttons with the screen anyway. so i guess whatever i just said is a moot point. (though it does seem that it certainly is the goal to replace reality with non-reality. definitely do not want that.)